Bismarck, North Dakota News

" To RKIDS dad: You wrote "...but the agencies need the cash for welfare." This makes no sense at all. There are no agencies that I'm aware of that get welfare or that use their clients to get welfare. It's just not possible. If this is another reference to domestic violence shelters, where are some hard statistics to back up this kind of statement? You won't find the stats because they don't exist. "

" Lucky Dad. Consider yourself very lucky indeed. In ND the judge would have insisted that lawyers draw up the paperwork and still could have shot it down on a whim. I understand that cooperation is the key, but what happens when both parents cooperate to the fullest extent and the judge still rejects it? Is that in the best intrest of the kids? Where is the recourse for such action? Been there: I know that child support is still imposed in 50/50 custody agreements. I never once said or implied otherwise. It is just that with the 50/50 custody agreement, I would pay about 1/10 the amount that I am paying right now. I still have the kids 50 percent of the time. I still pay 50 percent of the bills. My child support is still 10 times more than what it should be. And in ND it is impossible for either parent to reject the amount of child support being paid to them. The judge sets the amount and doesn't care if it is wanted or needed - one party is going to pay it. That is the best example you can get of why the system needs to be fixed. As far as having the child support based on actual need - a agree 100 percent. Right now it is based on a percentage of the income. A noncustodial parent's liability is unlimited. Common sense has got to come into play here eventually and some caps put on the amount of child support that can be ordered. "

" I have seen many families in custody battles over children begin to use their child as a trump card over the parent, a pawn in a bitter game. One friend had to prove to a court that his ex was unfit to even get visitation because she was using his 1 year old as a tool to hurt him. My aunt also struggled because she was low income and had to pry shared custody with many court battles and a lot of heartache. From what I understand, the act would give 50/50 unless the parents agreed to a different arrangement or one of the parents was unfit. I would rather see both parents given the benefit of the doubt in the beginning than give one parent an unfair advantage and let him or her use their child for revenge or a bargaining chip. I saw my best friend, my cousins, and the sweetest little girl I've ever met fall victim to one parent's selfishness and there are many more out there. When you take away a parent's "right" to use their child to get what they want, it forces them to sit down and act like adults, and maybe a few more parents will get some perspective and a few fewer children will get hurt. And if only a few, it is worth it. "

" The key to a shared parenting agreement is cooperation with the ex. My situation is a shared parenting agreement that the judge imposed. I agree that shared parenting is the goal, but should only be imposed in the best interests of the children. There are many divorcing couples who have a hard time setting aside their differents even to help their kids. Shared custody ONLY works if the parents can communicate and work together. Whether we like it or not, two fit parents can have difficulty achieving this level of cooperation. To then have one declared unfit isn't fair or just. Have any of you looked at the language of this initiative? It's not JUST mandating a 50/50 split in custody. It includes language regarding child support - child support is based upon the actual needs of the child. Great in theory, horrible in practice. What are "actual needs"? Who decides that? I can foresee huge fights about "actual needs" to include fights on a parent purchasing name-brand vs. generic items. It's a wonderful idea in theory, but the implementation as presented leaves a LOT to be desired. PS to MikeR, child support is still paid in 50/50 custody arrangements. They figure child support for each parent as if each parent were noncustodial. Then, whoever would be paying more, pays the difference. We pay child support even when he's living with us! Let's fix what's broken before we try to break it more... "

" I guess I'm lucky my ex and I divorced in Minnesota. I'm also lucky that we hired a paralegal to draw up our papers the way WE wanted the agreement. No lawyers, no child support agencies involved, 50/50 arrangement on custody, no invasion from any outside government idiots. The judge looked at our agreement, signed off, then spent several minutes commending us for putting our children before ourselves and not using them as pawns. THAT is the key to "shared parenting." It's called COOPERATION and being a GROWN-UP instead of piddling away the entire family fortune on lawyers and one-upmanship. Decency cannot be legislated, it must come from within. "

" Some of you must think that you are the only ones in the state who (or have the ability to)care about children? To the man who works with RKIDS - you might want to think twice before you support this group. Your ultimate goal may be joint parenting but this is not the group/imitative that you want to be associated with. They are manipulators who have posed such drastic changes in state law that it will negatively affect kids and parents in this state. The other thing that really bothers me is that whenever this issue comes up in the news people start talking about how judges and lawyers and social workers and child support officials want the system to fail families so they can get some kind of financial windfall from it. That is simply preposterous. That's the same as implying that cops like high crime rates because it's good job security. People like Mryt don't have a personal agenda that they are trying to push. She cares about ND kids and families. She isn't a divorced person who didn't get custody of her kids trying to change the law in her favor (and possible get back at a former spouse). I agree with Donovan - you can't base your entire opinion of a system on your one limited encounter with them. It's unreliable and anecdotal information. "

" To Donovan, Mike may have just had one divorce, but I have heard the story of the court refusing joint custody dozens of times. Myrts agreement with RKIDS at that time was that the best parent is BOTH parents. That is JOINT custody. But the agencies need the cash for welfare "

" To Donovan: Myrt made it sound like the shared parenting agreements were routine and done all the time if requested. Well guess what? My experience proves that is not always the case and therefore there is room for improvement, and that is all the shared parenting initiative hopes to do. I shot a few holes in her theory about how perfectly this system runs just as it is and you blow a gasket about it. What's the matter? Can't your side handle a little dose of the truth? And by the way, if Myrt Armstrong encounters as many divorce situations as you say she does, then I am quite certain that she has seen a few shared parenting agreements rejected for no good reason and just chooses not to include them in her argument. That makes her misinformation intentional - which is even worse than if she was doing it because she was uniformed. I will ask the question again. What is it about change that she is so afraid of? And what is it about someone presenting the other side of the argument that gets Donovan so bent out of shape? "

" To "Mike R": Next time, before you spew that garbage from your mouth, I suggest you first do some research. You had a divorce and one experience with the courts relating to that divorce and you talk as though you are an expert on the issue. Myrt Armstrong encounters more of these issues in one week, than you will ever experience in your whole lifetime. If you would have done your research or a simple phone call, you would have found out that Myrt Armstrong has more experience, care, concern, dedication, and integrity than you could ever imagine. "

" Mike R is right. A joint custody agreement can be drawn up and the judge will scrap it because, and I have personally heard this reason, "The state of North Dakota does not have joint custody, so I cannot in good conscience rule against state law". The child support agencies, women's rights (?) groups and courts NEED to create an enemy. If the so called "no fault" divorce is really no fault, and joint custody is acheived, the courts would be deemed impotent, the child support agencies wouldn't get the child support needed to receive federal funding for welfare, and the women's rights (?) agencies would lose funding. As the former president of the ND chapter of RKIDS (Remembering Kids In Divoce Settlements). I worked with Myrt who was the head of Mental Health Association and felt we had a good working relationship. RKIDS worked hard and long to get joint custody passed in the legislature. We appeared to have overwhelming support during the interim sessions on Human Services. But when it came to support in legislative committee, we could see the agencies and courts effect on the politicians. They folded like a cheap suit. RKIDS is still working on joint custody and other groups have taken it on too. Each one of us, especially affected divorced parents, need to let your representatives know the the joint custody law needs to be passed. GET INVOLVED, CALL YOUR REP! "

" The writer here lives in Never Never land. 9 out of 10 parents figure out the shared parenting by themselves? They can and do excercise that option now? That is the biggest load of Bull I have ever heard. I am not sure what Myrt Armstrong's background is or why she claims to be such an expert, but I have gone through the system as a divorced dad. I know how it works. My ex-wife and I had a shared parenting agreement worked out between ourselves and both of our Attornies signed off on it to be part of the official divorce decree. Then it went to the judge, who rejected it 100 percent. The judge insisted that primary custody would be given to one parent or the other. The judge stated that she did not like shared parenting agreements because she felt they often didn't work out. We both lived in the same county and we were unsuccessful in getting a different judge. In ND, the way things really work is totally up to the judge. Judges assume powers that they should not have and run wild them. Why should any judge object to a shared parenting agreement when both parties and their attornies think it is a good idea? Fact is there is no good reason. The judge in the case objected to the agreement just because she could - no other reason given. So Myrt should not be telling me how the system works, or how these agreements are routinly put in place because I know otherwise. It is easy to say how things work when you really have no idea, but I have been there - Has Mryt Armstrong? And yes, my ex-wife and I have done the shared parenting thing even though it is not in the divorce decree. However, I pay through the nose for child support - just as I would if I was not involved with my kids at all. Every state agency assumes that I must be a dead beat parent just because I don't have primary custody of my kids - which would not be the case if the shared parenting agreement would be in the divorce decree. I see all kinds of reasons why the shared parenting initiative should be put in place. Myrt Armstrong feels very strongly against it. I am wondering if she perhaps works for Child Support or a similar agency helping make sure the system doesn't work? Seems those who work with the system like to pat themselves on the back quite a bit and praise themselves for doing such a great job. They are resistant to change because they believe they are running everything perfect right now. Why not let the voters decide on thier own? Why spread lies about how the system works when she doesn't really know? What is she so afraid of? "