Comments a Legislator Can Expect to
Hear
With Counter Arguments and Correct Information
11/18/2020
The following are some of the most common comments that a legislator will hear about current custody law and the changes that should be made. These will come from not only proponents but also opponents. I will explain why these are in many cases invalid arguments that come from those who do not think the problematic flaws through thoroughly.
Over the years I have discussed many of these with legislators to help clarify these statements and the cause and effect of these. I have gone out of my way to explain this to proponents so that these arguments don’t come into the picture and cloud legislators with false information or misleading statements. Far too often common sense leaves the building because of emotion and this comes from all segments.
Opponents of this legislation will also make false claims about the bill and what it does or doesn’t do. Often these are based on failure to read the bill and preconceived notions that come from their opposition.
Some of these we have done position papers on that explain the issue in depth. Those will be noted by an endnote to the link for that White Paper or article.
From the Fathers’ Right Proponents
This section needs to be broken into those that have divorced and those that were never married as both will make statements that are false or suggest that changes be made that cause additional problems.
From the Never-Married Fathers
“We should automatically get rights at birth.”
The ability to give rights automatically is one heard too often from the never-married because they fail to understand the process for establishing themselves as a legal father. Once they have filed, they are subject to the same law that the divorces fall under.
“Every child born to a never-married person should be DNA tested at birth.”
Automatically testing just, the never-married creates a constitutional problem as it falls under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. To pass constitutional muster, parents and children would need to be tested at birth which in turn causes a liberty rights issue.
“The ‘Baby Mama’ rule should be removed from law.”
I was asked by the Ohio Fatherhood Commission to explain what would happen
if this change was made. The ‘Baby Mama’ rule is the section of the Revised
Code that gives all rights to the never-married mother at birth. If this
section were to be removed, the child born to the never-married mother would
become a ward of the state. This question was posed to me by members of the
Ohio Commission on Fatherhood and I explained what would happen in detail for
them.
http://www.ohiofamilyrights.com/Reports/White-Papers/The--Baby-Mama--Rule-/the--baby-mama--rule-.html
“I shouldn’t have to pay child support if she is getting welfare.”
“Fathers have no rights.”
” The state is making money from not awarding equal custody”
Payment of child support when a parent is receiving TANF benefits goes towards the repayment of those benefits and costs to the state. These changes were made by the Federal government around 1992 to recoup those expenses.
Again, the misinterpretation comes from not fully understanding the requirements to establish themselves as a legal father.
This is completely false and it is a statement that has floated around for years. What they are talking about is the federal incentives that allow the state and counties to recoup a portion of their administrative costs of enforcing child support. If all criteria are met, the state and the counties are reimbursed for 57% of their administrative costs only. Spending $100 and receiving back 57 cents is not a profit.
From those that are Divorced or Divorcing
“There needs to be a presumption of equal parenting.”
Ohio already has a presumption of equal custody – ORC 3109.03 and additional places with the Revised Code. See more here.
“Ohio needs shared parenting.”
Ohio has had shared parenting in place and it became law in 1984. The first use of joint custody came in 1981. I do have copies of those bills as well as an LSC analysis of those bills. See more here.
“The law is biased in favor of women.”
“There should never be child support in equal parenting.”
“All parents should automatically get equal custody.”
”The state is making money from not awarding equal custody”
“Get rid of Title IV incentives.”
“Some counties have equal custody as their standard order and others don’t”
From the Judiciary
“This bill takes away judicial discretion.”
“This bill undermines the public confidence in the Courts.”
“This bill will add to an already overburdened caseload for judges.”
“This bill creates cookie-cutter parenting plans”
“This will force everyone into ‘equal’ parenting plans”
Statements made from the bench by judges or magistrates:
“There will be no shared parenting in this case because I don’t believe in shared parenting”
“I am not accepting that Guardian ad litem report because no father is that good”
“If you come back here complaining about not seeing your kids again, I am going to throw you in jail”
“I should charge you rent for being in my courtroom all the time”
“We all know what shared parenting is. It is when dad shows up when he doesn’t have a golf game” – Former Justice Paul Pfeiffer during oral arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court.
From Opponents
From Domestic Violence Advocates
This bill will increase domestic violence.
Men are the only ones that commit domestic violence.
We will need more funding for our shelters.
From Child Support Enforcement
This will cause us more work.