Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Arguing impact of Measure 3

Arguing impact of Measure 3

Nov 02, 2006 - 04:06:38 CST

Associated Press Writer

By DALE WETZELBy DALE WETZEL

Divorced parents on both sides of a ballot measure that would revamp North Dakota's child custody laws used a news conference to argue about the proposal's likely impact. Opponents contended the measure would further disrupt the lives of children of couples who have split up.

Measure 3 is one of three measures on North Dakota's statewide ballot in Tuesday's election. Measure 1 affects the distribution of state trust funds invested by North Dakota's Land Department, while Measure 2 makes it more difficult for the state or local governments to force the sale of private property through a process called eminent domain.

The custody initiative says parents should have joint custody of their children after a divorce, unless one of the parents is judged unfit.

Measure 3 defines joint custody as "equal time sharing by the parents," and requires the parents to draw up a parenting plan for their children, with help from a mediator or judge if necessary. Under current law, a joint custody arrangement usually happens only if both parents agree to it.

The measure says child-support payments cannot exceed the "actual cost" of providing for the "basic needs" of children of the former marriage. It does not define those terms.

If voters endorse the initiative, any changes to it within the next seven years will require a two-thirds vote by both the House and Senate.

Dawn Smith, of Grand Forks, said she and her former husband have shared the job of parenting their 17-year-old daughter. The arrangement requires willing participation by both parents to succeed, and cannot work if it is forced upon a couple that does not want it, said Smith, who spoke at a Bismarck news conference called by opponents of Measure 3.

"Shared parenting will not fix the system, like they say," Smith said. "It won't be two mutual parents, coming together and making a plan for their child. It will be an option, a weapon, a tool for a parent to use against another, with the child being in the middle."

The Rev. Paul Schauer, of Wilton, said the measure could "force children to bounce back and forth between homes and between schools, simply for the sake of an equal time share."

The proposal allows divorced parents who may want to change their custody arrangement to demand a hearing to determine whether their former spouses are fit parents, Schauer said.

"It makes no sense to potentially open thousands of already settled custody situations, and force thousands of our children to once again wonder, 'Where will I sleep tonight?'" Schauer said.

A group of Measure 3 supporters who attended the news conference questioned some of the critics, picking up on statements by Schauer and Sherry Mills Moore, a Bismarck family law attorney, that noncustodial parents often have legitimate complaints about not being able to see their children.

Ryan Dietz, of Bismarck, said the measure's opponents had not offered any alternatives for improving the system.

"There's nobody that protects you if your visitation is being denied. Why did it take this for you guys to stand up and say, 'Well, you know what, the current system isn't working.' Because I didn't see you present anything," Dietz said.

Bill Meyer, of Solen, who opposes the initiative, said he was not aware of problems with North Dakota's child custody laws until he was married in March. His new family situation made him aware of custody issues, he told Dietz.

"Before that, I was the average single guy. This was not something that ever came across my radar, and I think that's probably true of most people that don't go through it," he told Dietz. "You're right. There are a lot of problems. We just don't feel that (Measure 3) is going to solve them.

"In a way, Measure 3 is good," Meyer said. "This is going to bring some action, I think. It's going to energize people."

North Dakota's court system and county governments estimate the measure, if approved, will require new spending for mediators and support personnel to handle the demand for aiding divorced couples in drafting parenting plans.

A formal budget estimate prepared by the state Supreme Court puts the expense at more than $2 million during the 2007-09 budget period, and estimates the cost will rise to $5.7 million in the following biennium.

North Dakota's Department of Human Services says the measure could put $71 million in federal aid to families at risk, because the law could put the state's system of child support enforcement out of compliance with federal law.

Supporters of Measure 3 say the financial impact is grossly exaggerated, and a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administrator has said any money losses will depend on how the North Dakota Legislature responds to the measure, if voters approve it.

News > State

Printer friendly version Arguing impact of Measure 3

Comments

step mom wrote on Aug 11, 2007 9:27 PM:

" I believe these child support laws and visitation need to be change A.SA.P. We are dealing with a case of the mother leaving a child at our door step and not seeing the child for 5 years,. then she kept the youngest child away for 5 months, but sent the middle child for visitaion. We are fighting for custody but probley won't get it because of all her lies. We do have custody of the oldest child. So a mother can keep dening visitation? Something needs to be done. Where do I sign for this bill? It's not fair that a mother can get by with this. Something needs to be done . "

Mike M wrote on Nov 9, 2006 6:13 PM:

" Something that many mothers either don't realize or are unwilling to recognize....Many Fathers (but not all) WANT to be actively involved in raising their children. This isn't the 1950's where the man goes off to work and leaves the women to take care of the house and raise the kids. I have just as much responsibility in raising my son as my former spouse and I take that responsibility seriously. But as far as the court is concerned my function is life is to provide child support and if I get to enjoy some perenting time too, great, but the court is not concernd with that aspect of my life. They want me to write the check and shut-up. "

Mike M wrote on Nov 9, 2006 6:07 PM:

" To A FIT PARENT - You are wrong. The court routinely discrimimates against good parents, specifically fathers. All it takes is one person to say I don't want the other parent to have equal time with the children and the court will refuse to implement an equal time share. make no mistake. The courts are biased. "

A fit parent wrote on Nov 9, 2006 10:52 AM:

" Sometimes one parent has engaged in long term controlling behavior which forces the other parent to become submissive due to the threat of harm. Sometimes he said/she said is the only way the court system has to make a decision and for the most part they are doing what is best for the child. The parent with the behavior issue should have to prove they have changed in order to provide a good environment for the children. It should be a very difficult fight in the court system as it is in life. Life is a fight each and everyday whether you have your child or not and if you haven't realized it yet then you haven't truly experienced how valuable life really is. "

Jim S wrote on Nov 9, 2006 9:03 AM:

" You are right, you hve to prove yourself to the courts. Should be easy right? After all, we all have to prove ourselves every day, should be easy right? Not really as easy in the court system as it should be. Usually the male is guilty until proven innocent. In order to prove yourself, you need to get past the he said she said issues, which still almost go the mothers way. Unless of course you can drag all your family and friends into court to have everyone verify your fitfulness. It should never be this hard. When you are a parent, you, like it or not need to take care of your child and shame on to all those that run, they are true cowards. Once a dad/mom always a dad/mom and each sould always have the first right to raise the child. TOGETGHER!!!!!! It is not the courts place to say but they do and that needs to be taken away from them. "

A fit parent wrote on Nov 9, 2006 8:38 AM:

" Everyone talks about how biased the court is but if you are truly a fit parent and CAN PROVE IT you will be given an equal opportunity to be with your child. IF YOU CAN'T PROVE IT then your time will be limited. Please stop blaming the system for your inability to prove your abilities. "

DU wrote on Nov 9, 2006 6:34 AM:

" There are many legal options available to those families caught in unwanted and unplanned divorce. Some will help them and some will not. However, there is another option that will help and that is a program called "Divorce Care" which is offered by many local churches for both the children and the divorced or divorcing parents. Just another option for these dear families. For more information look at their web site. My heart goes out to these families but all of us have "wake up" calls on our lives! "

Confused wrote on Nov 8, 2006 11:42 PM:

" Exactly, I see my kids everyother weekend and one evening a week. I want to see them more, they want to see me more but the courts think they have the right to say when and me and my kids get hurt in the process. And of course my ex-wife won't let me see them more because she thinks I will use it against her. There has to be a fairer way!!! "

Incredulous wrote on Nov 8, 2006 10:25 PM:

" When the parents won't, or can't, raise their children, it unfortunately falls to the government. However, that is another issue for another day, do not re-frame the issue at hand. Child custody decisions are not about the government "raising" your children, they are about the government making a decision on which parent is best equipped to provide their day-to-day care when parents themselves can't or won't agree. How you raise them is still up to you and, like it or not, your ex-spouse as a joint effort. If you can't agree, then someone has to make the decision. If you don't like the results, you or your ex-spouse (or both of you, in most situations) probably should have sucked it up beforehand and worked out a compromise. And, the results will probably never seem fair to you because you weren't the one that made the decision and it's likely something other than what you would have picked. That being said, though, how your children are raised is still your responsibility. It's up to you to figure out how to best do that with the hand you've been dealt. "

Jim S wrote on Nov 8, 2006 9:43 PM:

" Who do YOU think should be responsible for raising OUR children, the government or the parent? "

Mike M wrote on Nov 8, 2006 9:16 PM:

" The measure garnered almost 44% of the vote. I hope you guys in ND will re-work the measure's language and try again in 2008. "

Mike M wrote on Nov 8, 2006 8:56 PM:

" To VickieH - My son is 8 and has been going back and forth since he was 5. he understand the situation and why he has two homes, two beds, two sets of toys etc. If one parent gets sole custody and the other parent simply gets visitation every other weekend for a few hours, that is not fair to the child nor is it fair to either one of the parents. I agree that equal parenting time will not work in every situation and the law should not mandate that everyone have exactly 50/50. Some parents do not want 50/50 and some cannot handle 50/50. But parents must start out on a level playing field when they go to court and right now they do not. Men are routinely discriminated against in family court. That must and will stop. "

vICKIEH wrote on Nov 8, 2006 8:01 PM:

" WE NEED TO BE THINKING OF THE KIDS. MEASURE THREE DOESN'T. WE DEFINETELY NEED TO CHANGE SOME THINGS BUT THIS ISN'T THE WAY TO DO IT. I AGREE BOTH PARENTS SHOULD SEE THEIR KIDS; BUT SOME PARENTS CHOSE NOT TO, BUT THEY SHOULD STILL HELP SUPPORT THEM!!!! "

VickieH wrote on Nov 8, 2006 7:58 PM:

" Let me tell you all a little something. Yes the custody and child support laws need to change, I agree. But this is supposed to be for the best interest of the children. How stable is it to have a child to go back and forth. It is horrible. Not only that, but this proposal was from a bitter, mad man. Plus, who in the helk is going to calculate the exact cost of each childs basic needs. Who defines what basic needs are? I think they are food, clothing, heat, water, shelter. so, the way child support is now is crap. They don't do enough to make sure we as parents can take care of our children. The other parent can pay ten bucks a month and they say oh, well your getting something. I "

concerned wrote on Nov 8, 2006 10:01 AM:

" I really feel for all the good deserving parents out there but the kids are the true victims. I sure hope that all the mothers and fathers out there really are good to their kids because you are doing drugs, alcohol and then trying to be a parent they dont go together at all. "

Mike M wrote on Nov 8, 2006 9:08 AM:

" Opposition to equality in parenting is well organized and funded...you will need to learn from this experience and use that knowledge next time. BTW..joing legal/physical does not assure equal parenting time. I have both but only have 37% timeshare. Apparently I am not worthy of having more time with my son. "

snipe wrote on Nov 8, 2006 9:00 AM:

" Laughing stock of the nation? B.S. We are one of only 13 states that doesn't have the option of joint physical/shared custody. It's touted on here that we are paving new ground or something. We are behind the curve. Thanks to some pretty hefty scare tactics, though, the opponents of this measure were able to convince everyone that it meant that a child would spend one week with one parent and the other week potentially sharing a jail cell with the other parent or one week here and the next week in Timbuktu. Get real. This measure was meant to assure that a good parent was allowed equal time with their children. "

Mike M wrote on Nov 8, 2006 8:49 AM:

" BTW, including child support modification in this measure may have helped to defeat it. Child support is a hot button issue and should be considered separate from equality in parenting time. "

Mike M wrote on Nov 8, 2006 8:45 AM:

" To singlemother.....measure 3 would not have forced you to change your current time-share with your son. While hat you have works..what about all the parents, mostly fathers, who have been forced in to a situation where they only see there children 2 or 3 times a month because of a vindictive spouse or biased family court? What about all of the "fit" parents out there that deserve to have more time with their children? What about al the children who deserve to have more time with a parent? This measure would have helpd parents and children. "

singlemother wrote on Nov 8, 2006 7:46 AM:

" I'm so happy I cried. My son was equallly as happy as was his father. What we have works. I have him during the week...dad has him weekends. We figured out this ourselves and are rejoicing because we don't have a bunch of lawmakers and supporters of measure 3 (no doubt people who have never been in a single parent situation) telling us how our son should be raised. THANK GOD THIS DIDN'T PASS. "

Incredulous wrote on Nov 7, 2006 11:57 PM:

" Good game, everyone. I hope this motivates people to work harder at finding a better solution for our children and families. "

Measure #3 was defeated!! wrote on Nov 7, 2006 11:07 PM:

" although I am very happy this was defeated, more importantly SO IS MY DAUGHTER!!!!!!! "

Mike wrote on Nov 7, 2006 10:45 PM:

" hey Loser..Are you concluding that every man who has been treated unfairly by the family court system deserved to because he is a deadbeat? I am not a deadbeat. I am an educated (BSB/IS) profesionally employed man who has been employed for 25 years. I do not smoke, drink or do drugs. I live walking distance to my former spouse and my son's school. I have always participated in every aspect of his life. When my wife decided she wanted a divorce, I told the court I wanted equal time with our son. I fought for 2.5 years and $45,000+ and all I could get was 37%. How come the court did not award equal time?ecause my former spouse said she did not want me to have equal time. That is not fair. And it happens day after day in family courts across America, Europe and Ausralia. I hope one day you have to go thru what other fathers have been through. Then you will think differently. "

Re: Mike wrote on Nov 7, 2006 10:29 PM:

" Oh quit your crying and go to bed... dont give me crap saying ALL men are not fairly treated, i am a guy and i have been through this myself and came out on top. Not saying the present system is fair but certainly the new proposed one doesnt do anything other than bringing all these deadbeat fathers who have been running away from responsibility so far "

Incredulous wrote on Nov 7, 2006 10:04 PM:

" Sick of no voters: I understand this proposal perfectly, quite possibly better than you do. And, based on my experience, experties, and logic, I decided it wasn't in the best intersts of the majority of families across this state. Too many flaws in the proposal and vague, ambiguous language that would lead to costly, ridiculously stressful court battles to resolve. It was an ill-conceived idea and , even worse, I don't believe the intentions behind it were true. But thanks for summing up your point by simply calling me an idiot. Very persuasive. "

Mike wrote on Nov 7, 2006 8:33 PM:

" Any man who voted no on measure 3 is an IDIOT. Any man who has been through the family court system knows that men are not treated fairly. Mothers are always given preference in child custody and a man practically has to beg to see his children. If you have not been through it, you may not understand what I say. If you have been through it, you know what I mean. "

sick of no voters wrote on Nov 7, 2006 8:27 PM:

" Incredulous, u r an idiot, what part of this measure don't YOU understand? If you wanna meet for coffee I will be more than happy to draw you a picture. Our current law is sketcky. One case can go one way and the next the other, usually not in the best interest of the child. Time 4 u 2 get a clue. "

Incredulous wrote on Nov 7, 2006 3:58 PM:

" Tammy, Tammy, Tammy...I'm so disappointed in you. "Enough there"? It's not about whether parts of it are good, it's about whether the whole thing is good because you have to live with the entire part of the initiative, not just the parts you like. It's a frying pan you're jumping into. "

Tammy wrote on Nov 7, 2006 11:59 AM:

" Finally this measure addresses the inequity of child support payments. Yes parts of it are sketchy but there is enough there to vote YES! "

Jim S wrote on Nov 7, 2006 10:04 AM:

" Geez, More idiots in this room too! You just don't go away. When this passes, a child will not attent 2 schools, you need to pay for your own place to live and own expenses and Io will pay for all mine. Because you could not keep your pants up and stay true to your word of "until death do its part." The blame for divorse takes two, I don't give a damn who you are, me encluded, but I didn't cheet on my wife, I still didn't want a divorce after my wife did. I wanted to stay and work things out so my child could have her mommy and daddy. To: Mother of 1,M,ME,single mom, Gaye; you are all for your selves. Get a clue, veen if this law passes, the changes will not happen automatically, your ex will have to pettion for them if you have somethinig in place. When and if the father brings it up using the proper channels, it still doesn't mean that everything is going to be split even steven. You put a plan together, you ex puts a plan together and them you compromise and a mediator will help. How hard can this be for you to work out. It shouldn't be hard at all unless you are so unreasonable and so unfit to even care for yourself. In that case, it is a wonder, even with todays law, that you were able to get custody. Do the right thing people, vote YES!!!!!! "

For the Kids ! wrote on Nov 6, 2006 8:15 PM:

" Ok ok voting Measure 3 will help those "me" who want to see there kids. After seeing my ex-girlfriend move out and "disliking" me, she decided that she was no longer going to answer my phone calls. Who is she to just up and "kidnap" my daughter, not answer my phone calls, and make me pay child support all cause she's hurt and upset at our break up? All i want and when my daughter gets older is to give them the right to get to know both parents on an equal unbiased level. You forget that there are those parents that "hate" there ex, does that make the defending bad parent a bad parent? NO Let's vote measure 3 and give the children what they deserve! If both parents want to be there that's the way it should be. what was said before about "let's not make our children wonder where there going to sleep tonight", absolutley "dumb", is your kid homeless?! There'll be a schedule ! They'll know where there going to sleep for the next year! If both parents want equal time why the hell would you deny that to some loving parent! "

Mom of 2 wrote on Nov 6, 2006 3:15 PM:

" My husband is glad to pay child support....but i don't believe that if he has to pay anymore that what he does pay that it would be fair....Second of all who gives a crap about that, if the child is spending % of the time with their dad and % with their mom....why do we need child support. I think that if NO parent should automatically get the child, It should be looked at case by case and if neither can be proved an unfit parent, then do 50/50. Why can't people seriously think about the kid and not the child support. NOMATTER what the child needs two parents, and should be given a fair chance to get to know both parents. LETS THINK OF THE KIDS HERE PEOPLE NOT THE MONEY!! VOTE YES ON MEASURE 3. "

Confused wrote on Nov 5, 2006 1:06 AM:

" My ex gets $860 a month in child support for her first son from a previous relationship. Now we are separated and I have to pay her $832 a month for two. Guess what, she quit her job and no longer works while I pay for insurance and now end up with $103 a week for working 40 hours a week. This state needs a change. Why is the female automatically given custody when there is no court papers showing it. Let's get something different going. It is too easy for people to get divorced!!! "

mommyof2 wrote on Nov 3, 2006 6:37 PM:

" Well my husband has custody of his daughter. His ex girfriend gets away with not paying child support. She is suppose to be paying $289 month so what makes this system think that splitting cost of every thing will make them pay there half for the childs well being. Second of all, my stepdaughter's mother doesn't even want to see her, so why should we put the child in that postion and have her feelings hurt time after time. VOTE NO FOR MEASURE 3. "

frustrated stepmom wrote on Nov 3, 2006 12:05 PM:

" Alright, honestly people; let's think about this. Everyone knows that when it comes to politics, the politicians will not let "free" federal money slip through their hands. Inorder to be compliant with federal guidelines you have to have 3 things present when it comes to child support. Requirement number 1, the state must have a numeric presumptive and rebutable formula. Requirement number 2, this formula has to apply to all child support cases. And requirement number 3, you must include the obligor's income. There is nothing saying that both parent's income cannot be on it. Once those 3 requirements are met, you can add to the chart. Mark Rogers explains this very well in his conference of the acfc website. You can't tell me that if Measure 3 passes the legistlators are not going to rush to make sure their state gets that money still. Arizona has a very similiar setup to what Measure 3 is looking for. Yes that is right, the radio ad is wrong. There are states out there that are similar. No, they are not the same, but similar. Please, do your research before voting. There is alot of information out there. One website, one newspaper, one television station does not involve enough research to make such an important decision as this for the children and families. "

jones wrote on Nov 3, 2006 12:06 AM:

" This measure is ridiculous. It will not fix the problem. As a current county States Attorney put it, it should probably be called the "disgruntled previous parent seeking revenge on his ex wife" proposition. Please VOTE NO FOR MEASURE 3. VOTE NO FOR MEASURE 3!!!!! It will only clog our curent legal system (which is already clogged) forcing counties to employ more personell. As we all know, this will force county taxpayers to pay more taxes to support the provisions of this riduculous measure. Believe me, I work in a county. These types of propositions require money that the state and federal governments are not willing to pay--meaning county commissioners have to find it somewhere else. That somewhere else is from your pockets! Do not vote for measure 3 because some guy didn't get his way in court! Vote NO, because yes is only going to exasperate the problem--not to mention putting our defenseless children where they may not want to be. Please believe me when I say I am not involved in this controversy other than being an upright citizen. I have a happy home with a loving wife and 2 wonderful kids. I am wondering why we should all pay for those who made fundemental mistakes in selecting their proper spouse? "

MOMOF4 wrote on Nov 2, 2006 11:29 PM:

" I agree with Dad of 2 "

Callin it like it is wrote on Nov 2, 2006 10:38 PM:

" This just shows how much parents view their children as pawns to be used against each other when their relationship falls apart. Rather than a bill to deal with custody of children, how about spending more money on promoting birth control! "

dad of 2 wrote on Nov 2, 2006 7:30 PM:

" I really do not think there is a perfect answer, I believe each situation is different. I believe thats what the medator is fore. My family all live in the same town as I do. I believe I am in titled to see my kids on 50/50. Does it mean one day here and one day there no. How more days in the off days. Compermise. Now how about child support, there needs to be a fair way. 50/50 you split cost 50/50. I have house, car, and other expenses to. Sorry I rather work then goof of. Then spend my free time and extra money on my kids. With my kids, the money I have worked many of over time hours, to have my special time with them. There needs to base, it is my choice to work the extra job or hours. It is fair. Seperated parents should be able to work it out. And I believe a medator needs to keep track what is happing to this case. With out a doubt there needs to be change. "

MOMOF4 wrote on Nov 2, 2006 7:21 PM:

" Why does a Mom automatically get custody of the child when the couple separates, divorces, whatever. It's called DISCRIMINATION!!!!!I am a Mom,I have a child that I share custody with his father. Our realtionship didn't work, why does my child need to be punished. This measure is for all the dad's that deal with physcho Mom's that USE their children to get back @ the Dad's. I receive 500/month that is way to much for my ex to contribute. VOTE YES ON MEASURE 3 - KIDS NEED BOTH PARENTS. A mom can be an abuser just as easy as a dad. That's why we have FAMILY SAFETY CENTER. Get off your high horses people and REALLY think about the children. Also kids won't be split among schools the measure clearly says that. There is a thing called summers. I can't wait until this election is over, and if this measure doesn't pass I will be going to court to pay 2500.00 (money that could go to the child) in court costs just to see my step-son more than 4 days a month. "

Deb wrote on Nov 2, 2006 5:14 PM:

" Beesh: here's the part you are conveniently forgetting: Until which time as the parents can work with legal council and have their shared parenting plan mapped out & approved by the courts, the visitation is 50/50 - no more, no less. So, take your case for example: you say that you ex-wife was non-cooperative in negotiations. Well, anyone who wants shared custody and not to have to pay full support but just basic needs can drag out the mapping of the shared parenting plan for as long as they want - by being as uncooperative as possible. During that time, the child HAS TO SPEND NO MORE OR LESS THAN 50% of his or her time with BOTH parents. You sooooo spin this to what you want. It's just NOT the truth Beesh. "

to beesh wrote on Nov 2, 2006 4:28 PM:

" 247 dollars wouldnt even pay day care for a month. get with what's happening nowdays and not what was going on back when your kids were small. then figure the gas to and from school, say nothing of the car, and clothing and lunch tickets, medical bills, food at home, their share of the rent to keep a roof over their heads, phone to call incase of emergencies, heat and water, soap, shampoo, and all the many other things children need. 247 dollars a month is totally laughable!!!! vote NO!!!! "

webegeeks wrote on Nov 2, 2006 4:14 PM:

" And one more thing as long as I am on my high horse. ANY MAN (or woman) whose motivation is to weasel their way out of paying child support by voting for Measure 3, not only does not deserve liberal visitation, He (or less frequently she) does not deserve respect at all in my opinion! Moreover, these self-centered cretins are loathsome, despicable, and greedy and should not have become parents at all in the first place. Child Support should be viewed not only as an obligation, but as an honor, and any parent who truly loves his or her children PUTS THEM FIRST and out of love gladly pays what the court determines will meet the needs of the children. Anyone who believes less, IS LESS! "

MAYBE wrote on Nov 2, 2006 4:00 PM:

" WITH ALL THE ROCK THROWING ABOUT THIS MEASURE, MAYBE OUR LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE LOOKING INTO THE SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW AND FIXING IT. NOT, THEY DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED MORE THAN THEY HAVE TOO, BUT SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, VAGUE OR NOT THIS SHOULD BE AN EYE OPENER FOR BOTH PARENTS THE CHILDREN SUFFER AND BOTH PARENTS ARE TOO BLIND TO SEE THE ISSUES OF THE CHILDREN, ALSO THE GRANDPARENTS ARE STUCK IN BETWEEN AND THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BITE THEIR TONGUE AND SAY NOTHING, WRONG THIS GRANDPARENT HAD ENOUGH!!! "

webegeeks wrote on Nov 2, 2006 3:57 PM:

" Joint Custody sounds good, and when I went though my divorce (in Montana) it was good! However, Joint Custody did not mean a 50/50 split in visitation or anything else in Montana, it merely meant that neither parent was denied equal status UNDER THE LAW. My wife and I shared Joint Custody, and ONE parent was given primary PHYSICAL custody, and that was where the child lived. Visitation was then agreed upon either voluntarily by the divorcing parents prior to the granting of the Divorce Decree, or fought out in court when the parents couldn't be mature and agree as adults taking into consideration the best interests of their child(ren)! Once the primary physical custodian was determined, child support was assessed based upon a formula under Montana State Law. This was and IS in the best interests of the child(ren), and I pray for the sake of my grandchildren that Measure 3 falls flat on its face. Failing that, North Dakota is going to be the laughing stock of the nation! "

concerned citizen wrote on Nov 2, 2006 3:49 PM:

" Ok, so after reading all the comments I can say that we live in such a selfish society. All of this wouldn't be an issue if we didn't let divorce into our vocabulary when we get married. It is so selfish to not look at the long term effects divorce has on our kids. I agree that there is a time and a place for divorce-like to escape abuse. But you have better really know your partner before you get married. If you don't want to have these things happen-don't get married. Our schools would have better behaved kids. You can't disagree with the fact that kids need consistency in their lives. Our kids would not be jumping around from home to home if this measure passes. The measure says that it would give parents the ability to be involved in their kids' lives more and be able to have both parents in the decision making about their kids. "

Beesh wrote on Nov 2, 2006 3:32 PM:

" If a non-custodial parent should pay a minimum of $550 a month for child support, then it goes to logic the custodial will be contributing $550 a month too. This results in $1100/month in funds for that child. Based on what it takes to raise a child ($150,000 by age 18) it would be $694/mo. Divided equitably that would be $347. Seems fair to me as long as the custodial parent pulls their weight. Custody does NOT have to be a full 50/50, it will be negotiated by the parents, mediator or court. www.dictionary.com describes joint as: "13. shared by or common to two or more: a joint obligation. 14. undertaken or produced by two or more in conjunction or in common: a joint reply; a joint effort. 15. sharing or acting in common: joint members of a committee. 16. joined or associated, as in relation, interest, or action: joint owners." No indication of required equal shares. Nice try Deb. VOTE YES ON 3 "

Beesh wrote on Nov 2, 2006 3:19 PM:

" To Reality check wrote on November 02, 2006 9:52 AM I probably did misstated myself. I should have said the 13 states have “no statutory language promoting shared parenting”. This measure would put the option for joint custody on the books. Federal regulations do require TANF (temporary assistance for needy families). Child support enforcement agencies don’t want a reduction because the money for welfare will be reduced. If the state is truly interested in the best for its citizenship, they should do everything in their power to reduce or eliminate welfare. Did you know that if TANF funds are not used for welfare, the agencies can apply it to other projects? The reduction in child support will not be from disgruntled parents trying to reduce child support. It will come from parents being genuine about their custody and child support obligations, and not asking for outrageous child support to get even with the payor. The cost of reasonably raising a child is not any where near $550/mo. I have read it was more along the lines of $247. Did you know the agencies now say that the allowable for the second families of divorced parents is $35/mo? So average that out and it is $292.50. "

single mom wrote on Nov 2, 2006 2:57 PM:

" No one is taking into consideration that some parents don't live in the same area. If this measure passes, my daughter will be attending school in Washburn and Mandan. This is wrong. She needs stability. She spent the first 6 years of her life being shuffled back and forth, and does anyone care about what is best for the kids??? I think it's wrong for complete strangers (the public)to determine whats best for my kid or anyone elses. You cant subject every couple who splits up to the same custody arrangements. Where are my constitutional rights here? Where are my daughters? Her father pays $135/mo in child support because he won't get a full time job, and he feels he shouldn't have to pay that. Also there's the switching modes. My daughter is very reserved, and quiet when with her father. She is carefree and energetic, and happy when she's home with me. Different rules, different houses. "

to Jason wrote on Nov 2, 2006 2:31 PM:

" This measure is NOT in the best interest of the kids. You need to find a decent Lawyer & get more visitaion rights.It can be done,I've been there! "

To Jason wrote on Nov 2, 2006 2:29 PM:

" Sounds like you named your problem: your bad divorce lawyer not the law. Even with a different law your bad lawyer probably would have put you in the same place. Think about this in logical terms. "

Jason Magnun wrote on Nov 2, 2006 1:53 PM:

" Sis is right. Same exact story Iv'e been through. Except I pay $700. a month for 2. It started right after my youngest was born. And I have really no say in my visitation because of a bad Divource lawyer. Please vote for this measure. "

to me wrote on Nov 2, 2006 1:10 PM:

" WOW you say you love your son, but $550 a month is expensive...So what you are saying is that you love your son anything under $550 a month... You're a prince if only I had met you when I was rasing my daughter alone I would have wanted a man just like you.. Oh wait, never mind I had one like you... No actually my bad he was probably worse he loved his daughter just as long as he didn't have to help support her.. FYI to raise a child any child of any age is going to cost more then $550 a month.. Need I remind you that unless you are living in the streets you need to pay for rent/mortgage, utilities, food, clothing... These are basic cost. And believe me no matter how old a child is they do need to have these basic needs met.... Measure 3 is not the answer to the real problem.. But it seems to me that no one wants to address the problem. The problem is adults not taking proper responsibility for the children they bring into this world and they use children as tools against each other....Address this and you will solve the major problems!!! "

response to "me" wrote on Nov 2, 2006 12:48 PM:

" i agree that $550.00 a month for a 5yr old is high. my husband has custody of his 2 teenage kids & gets $300.00 a month.is it because he has custody & she is paying?i am totally against measure 3.kids of divorce suffer enough & getting bounced from one family to the other will only cause more problems. "

sis wrote on Nov 2, 2006 12:37 PM:

" I can see how this measure can go both ways, for the kids out there that one of the parents are big losers, this could be a tough situation for them, but as for my brother that is a very good dad, and has always been from day one. His xwife is the one that had the affair, she is the one that filed for the divorce, she is the one that has a good job, and remarried someone that makes big bucks, my brother is the one that got the bad end one the deal, got kicked out of his house, now has to pay rent, and LOTS of child support, he would love to have half of the amount of time with his kids, and now she is living HIGH OFF THE HOG, just where she wanted to be. So for my brothers sake, and for the parents out there that are in the same shoes. This measures for you!!!!! "

kjm wrote on Nov 2, 2006 12:33 PM:

" North Dakota child support guidelines have a formula for shared custody child support. The wages of each parent are used in the formula. The smaller is subtracted from the larger amount. Child support is based on the remaining amount.The existing formula does not put ND out of compliance with the guidelines. If #3 were to pass, it would simply mean that the state would collect less child support, which might reduce the incentive payments it received from the federal government. And does anyone really believe that the Federal Government will allow children who receive TANF benifits to go hungry just because fathers are allowed to have 50% custody of their children? "

Stepped Aside wrote on Nov 2, 2006 12:24 PM:

" I took a step aside and looked at this issue from both points of view. One thing that I noticed is that both proponents and opponents have been arguing over what the meaning of certain language or wording is to mean. The measure itself is so filled with vague and relative termonology; it will take numerous trips before the ND Supreme Court to hash it out. I believe both sides have valid arguements; however, it would seem that the right thing to do here would be to vote this measure down and go back and work on one that has more defined wording. Then, come back to the people with a measure that will work without causing more legal mess. "

Gaye Wiltse wrote on Nov 2, 2006 12:24 PM:

" I have three Grandchildren from a divorce and they are bounced around enough already! If this bill is passed they wouldn't be able to have anything close to a normal life, they would not be able to be in activities at one place, there relationships with other children would be strained, here for a short time and there for a short time...THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN...the children aren't the ones who put themselves in this place, it is the PARENTS, don't make the children suffer because two people can't get along. VOTE NO on measure #3 "

Deb wrote on Nov 2, 2006 11:16 AM:

" This was from the comment boards on an article yesterday. More of Beesh's distortions: Beesh wrote on November 01, 2006 9:59 PM:"To Deb, you say, "it says that if the non-custodial parent contest custody, they are entitled to 50/50 split time with the child(ren)". Joint custody does not mean an even 50/50 split. It can be 40/60, 60/40, 25/75, 75/25, etc. You falsely presume that the court (or mediator) will automatically give a 50% custody to a known unfit parent. You are divining all sorts of self induced rubbish out of a simple document. It is people like YOU that clog the judicial system with their self absorbed and nuanced litigation." Deb wrote on November 01, 2006 10:40 PM:"That is the most blatantly false thing I've heard you say in weeks, okay, days, Beesh- this measure ONLY calls for 50/50 split. Not "up to 50/50" not "under 50/50" not "over 50/50" - if the non-custodial parent contests visitation, he/she is given 50/50 custodial time until which time as that person is deemed unfit. And FYI (geez, have you NOT been reading my posts, this is has GOT to be the 5th time I've written this) the term "UNFIT" is a legally undefined term. So that means that anyone who loses their current custody with child will need to contest the given 50/50 custody time - and they will not regain current custody UNTIL THE TIME THAT THE TERM "UNFIT" IS DEFINED and until then, THE CHILD WILL ENDURE THE 50/50 SPLIT TIME. There is no room for what I call "common sense" or "this person is blatantly unfit to a lay person" rather, this is a legal measure that will become law within 30 days of passage and cannot be ammended or recalled until 7, that's SEVEN years after passage." "

To Beesh wrote on Nov 2, 2006 11:05 AM:

" You stated that presently the ONLY states have NOT recognized joint custody are: HI, IN, MD NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, RI, SC, SD, UT, WY. Thirty seven states have adopted or recognize joint custody as an preferred option or recognized option. Although this may be true....you state that these states have joint custody as a PREFERRED option. I believe that most people do think joint custody in our state is PREFERRED, but both parents have to get along and be willing to do joint custody, which in our state is ALREADY AN OPTION. However, it should not be forced on parents. It just won't work for everyone. Other states that have "shared parenting" do not have the same shared parenting that is in measure #3, it needs more work and better definitions. VOTE NO NO NO "

??forPresident wrote on Nov 2, 2006 10:37 AM:

" I wish I could remember the ladies name that recently wrote a letter to the editor. I'd vote for her for President! Her suggestion was, that the kids be the ones who stay put in their home, and the PARENTS should be the ones who tote their suitcase and toothbrushes every weekend and get 'bounced back and forth'. After all, aren't the parents most often the reason the kids are put in this situation?? I am the Aunt to three children who are affected by divorce. They are truly the ones who lose when the parents can't agree and continually have disputes. The emotional scars and experiences will stay with them probably forever. I hate to say it, but I can not wait till the next few years pass, so that my nieces and nephews are beyond the point of depending on whether their mother and father can agree on their visitation, parenting methods, child support payments and everything else. It's sad to wish a child’s life away, but that's the point where I'm at. I look at them and it makes me want to do everything I can, to make my own marriage work, for the sake of my child. "

Not True wrote on Nov 2, 2006 10:27 AM:

" Quote "Supporters of Measure 3 say the financial impact is grossly exaggerated, and a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administrator has said any money losses will depend on how the North Dakota Legislature responds to the measure, if voters approve it." The legislature cannot respond to the meausure for 7 years. "

Vote No!! wrote on Nov 2, 2006 10:00 AM:

" I am against this measure. I do not believe that a child should be uprooted from a stable secure home to be forced to bounce back and forth between parent's homes. Someone stated that this would lower divorce rates. Would you rather parents stay together, fight all the time, not get along just so the children do not have to be "shared" or would you rather the parents separate and try to fix their problems so they can provide a better life for their children? I agree that "if fit", both parents should have a big part of a childs life, but should not be forced split equal time on them. "

To Me: wrote on Nov 2, 2006 9:59 AM:

" you clearly have no children or you have them and don't support them. Have you looked at the price of day care lately? At 5 years old, I would assume that this child is still in daycare atleast 1/2 the day. I agree with M, Each situation is different, but the cost of day care isn't. If the dad/mom only works at Mcdonalds, someone still has to pick up the tab for the expenses not being covered. "

Frustrated dad wrote on Nov 2, 2006 9:57 AM:

" I agree with "me" on the child support issue. I do think the child support payments need to be looked at. I have no problem paying child support for my children but at what point does my ex-wife need to contribute equally to the kids? She works for minimum wage so she can get all the benefits of welfare while I work my butt off to pay my bills and give her half of my income. She actually makes more then me with my child support, welfare, and her minimum wage job. And oh yes, before the divorce - I put her through college! "

Reality check wrote on Nov 2, 2006 9:52 AM:

" A prior comment saying North Dakota does not recognize joint custody is wrong and is an example of the many exaggerations made by the measure's proponents measure so they can scare voters into taking their side. Trial courts in North Dakota routinely approve joint (equal) custody arrangements and have done so for many years. Further, the state's Child Support Guidelines specifically address how to calculate child support in equal physical custody cases. Since the existing system already allows for equal physical custody, it is not necessary to change it. The same writer also misdirects voters by saying "joint custody will not "put the state's system of child support enforcement out of compliance with federal law."" This makes it seem as though the measure will not put $71 million in federal funding in jeopardy. However, the measure will indeed put that money in jeopardy. The equal physical custody presumption will not put the federal funding in jeaopardy but the second element of the measure, which says that child support will be limited to the actual cost of providing the basic needs of child, will put the money in jeopardy. Federal regulations require each state to have child support guidelines in order to receive federal TANF and child support enforcement funding. The measure would nullify North Dakota's child support guidelines and will mean that North Dakota will be ineligible to receive federal funding for TANF and child support enforcement and the taxpayers of North Dakota will have to make up that loss. I am not willing to pay significantly increased state taxes because a bunch of disgruntled child support payors want to get back at their former partner by reducing their child support obligations (although they would be quite surprised at the true costs of raising a child child - which can easily exceed $550/mo for a 5 year old child - if they get the child in their home 50% of the time and have to provide for all of the child's financial and physical care. "

M wrote on Nov 2, 2006 9:36 AM:

" to me: your child has the right to a certain standard of living that his or her parents earn. doctor's children ultimately get more than dad who works at mcdonalds. it should be no differnt for the child whether their parents are divorced, married or born out of wedlock (majority of child support cases). you state $550 for a child is too much, maybe, but what about dad who pays $100? if you want some flat fee, yes it would benefit dad who can cover the expenses, but what about dad who can't cover the higher amount because i $100 doesn't cover a week of daycare. "

me wrote on Nov 2, 2006 9:09 AM:

" This measure will also help lower child support. Because what 5 year old in North Dakota needs $550 a month. I love my son and would do anything for him but this is pretty high. "

concerned citizen wrote on Nov 2, 2006 8:39 AM:

" I am in favor of Measure 3 as a parent. I think Measure 3 would drop the divorce rate substantially. "

Beesh wrote on Nov 2, 2006 8:37 AM:

" Mr. Wetzel, Please include the whole sentence in your observations. Instead of your definition of joint custody as "equal time sharing by the parents," the measure actually says, "Joint physical custody of the children is defined as a 'rebuttable presumption' of equal time sharing by the parents" (emphasis is mine). You also quote Pastor Schauer as saying , that "The proposal allows divorced parents who may want to change their custody arrangement to demand a hearing to determine whether their former spouses are fit parents". In reality the measure says, "Parents who have not previously had a fitness hearing 'may petition' the court for a fitness hearing at any time. (emphaiss mine)". I am fully aware that the North Dakota's Department of Human Services saying the measure could put $71 million in federal aid to families at risk. Tha is because the child support system is the measuring device for Federal kickbacks to the welfare system (each dollar of child support returns $3+ back for welfare). Joint custody will not "put the state's system of child support enforcement out of compliance with federal law". Presently the ONLY states have NOT recognized joint custody are: HI, IN, MD NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, RI, SC, SD, UT, WY. Thirty seven states have adopted or recognize joint custody as an preferred option or recognized option. (source: www.gocrc.com/research/legislation.html) Are these states in federal vioilation? NO. Trying to inject language that is not in the measure, cutting and pasting parts of sentences and using that to scare the public is deceptive. Vote YES on measure 3 "

Mother of 1 wrote on Nov 2, 2006 8:33 AM:

" I personally think that it is wrong to try to make the children split time with parents because alot of children don't like one parent but the other and it wouldn't work because the fact that there are so many children who are born out of wedlock so that doesn't help those people and for a child to keep switching schools in the middle of the school year that would confuse a child and then the child would be mad at the parents for doing it I think every child needs a stable home environment with one parent and there are alot of parents who do arrangements on thier own with holidays, weekend visits and if they live out of state summer visits with the other parent that is how it is suppose to be not what number three is trying to do. "

will not fix the problems wrote on Nov 2, 2006 8:29 AM:

" Just because there are some problems with the current laws, ND should not jump to the first attempt to fix those problems if the fix is itself flawed. Scrap this idea, and try again. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.