A child’s need for safety should trump any and all other considerations in family law. Child-service agencies cannot be expected to both promote reunification and child protection simultaneously. The author asserts that legislatures need to change the laws such that it is clear to the court that children come first and that safety is paramount. Although visitation between child and parent is considered to be a fundamental right, this right can and should be abrogated when initial evidence shows that such contact poses a risk of danger to the emotional or physical health and safety of the child. A new and specially trained court dealing only with issues of family violence and abuse may need to be considered.You would think that an academic journal would give facts based on objective studies. This just opinion written by some feminist lawyer. Her arguments are to favor the mom, presume the dad is guilty until proven innocent, and end parental rights.
There is court for issues of family violence and abuse. In California, it is called the juvenile dependency court. That is where CPS can prove a parent to be unfit. But she wants some other court where dads will have lost their rights before they walk in the door.
The author, Toby G. Kleinman, runs a Center for Protection of Children with someone named Rachel Kleinman. A sister? Lesbian partner? I don't know.
I post this to show the poor state of academic work in the area of child custody. It is mostly feminist opinion, without social science to back up what they say.
shut up and go make me a sandwich
Post a Comment