PUT THE HEAT
ON CONGRESS! PUT THE HEAT
ON CONGRESS!
Statement
of Purpose Resources Donate
Sign in Join us

Resources For Further Research

"In the battle for justice, knowledge is your sword, truth is your shield"

Research supporting co-parenting

After more than 40 years since the custody wars began, we can now substitute the theoretical and ideological debate with a more concrete and practical approach based on research findings.

Those in favor of co-parenting

Those opposing co-parenting

  • Divorce lawyer lobby groups
  • Michael Strauss, an ISBA attorney opposes the Illinois Equal Parenting Bill in testimony in front of the Illinois Restorative Justice Committee, April 11, 2018. The emphasis of this testimony is on maximizing State funds rather than considering the well-being of children experiencing divorce, who are regarded as mere sources of income for the State. Co-parenting means more working parents and less parents who need child support from the other parent. This in turn, means Illinois will collect less in federal funds (hundreds of millions of dollars) that are supposed to be used to help states collect child support money. Strauss further argues "as well as parents not being eligible for State aid", which also comes about because both parents have equal opportunity to work and support their children and so, less parents need to rely on State aid. Strauss argues against financial independence and for welfare dependency, which we contend is fundamentally flawed and certainly not with for the best interests of the children.
  • State Agencies
    • A State should never be given the choice between the welfare of a child and financial gain: "The child support agency argued that enacting shared parenting would jeopardize federal funds to the state. In a nutshell the state argued that giving children a full relationship with both parents would put North Dakota's child support program out of compliance with federal regulations and cause the state to immediately forfeit several tens of millions of dollars in federal funds over a two year period."
  • Countering Arguments Against Shared Parenting in Family Law
  • If Feminism Is About Equality, Why Do Feminists Oppose Equality? (Janet Bloomfield)
  • Family court judges contradict parenting trends
    • "Family judges are supposed to act in children's best interests, but LW4SP analysis shows them doing the opposite."
  • Do divorce lawyers serve children?

Domestic violence

Casualties of war

Domestic inequality

Law & Constitutionality of Co-parenting

  • TROXEL V. GRANVILLE (99-138) 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
    • "There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents' ability to make the best decisions regarding their children, see, e.g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 304"
  • What are the Legal Rights of Children?
    • "Children are also entitled to due process, which includes notice and a hearing, before any of their basic rights are taken away by the government."
  • Opinion of Troxel v. Granville
    • "the Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a better decision could be made"
  • Common Constitutional Issues in Family Law
    • "Surveys of child custody decisions, including the Nebraska 2002-2012 Custody Court File Research Study, show similar facts often produce vastly different outcomes. Facts that might result in joint legal custody and 50-50 parenting time in Omaha will likely result in sole legal custody and 80-20 parenting time in North Platte. These surveys show case outcomes often depend more on the judge who hears the case than the law or the facts of the case."
  • Hillary Rodham, Children Under the Law (1973)
    • "The best interests standard, initially followed in most state interventions and explicitly used as the standard for adjudicating children's interests in proceedings evaluating parental care, is not properly a standard. Instead, it is a rationalization by decision-makers justifying their judgments about a child's future, like an empty vessel into which adult perceptions and prejudices are poured. It does not offer guidelines for how adult powers should be exercised. Seductively, it implies that there is a best alternative for children deprived of their family. This implication prevents both the decision-maker and those to whom he is accountable from carefully weighing the possible negative impact of any decision."
  • Summary of domestic case law
    • "Parental rights may not be terminated without clear and convincing evidence. SANTOSKY V. KRAMER, 102 S.Ct. 1388 [1982]"
  • Calabretta v. Floyd
    • "The government's interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting children's interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents."
  • Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d
    • "A termination of parental rights is the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case. The parties to such an action must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows."
  • The Constitutional Right to Parent
    • "in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. at 749, 753-54, the Court expressly held that the interest of a parent, who has temporarily lost custody of his child, in avoiding elimination of his rights ever to visit, communicate with, or regain custody of the child is important enough to entitle him to the procedural protections mandated by the Due Process Clause."

Family court injustice & misconduct