I realize that creating a war of statistics and experts is never a good way of helping people make decisions about issues, but I feel compelled to respond to a couple of points Kent Vandervorste made ("Shared parenting actually works," June 12) challenging my letter regarding the so-called "shared parenting" initiative.

First, I agree that nine out of 10 parents who are faced with a custody issue during a divorce figure out how to share parenting amicably. That is the whole point. They can and do exercise that option now. The initiative would force an arbitrary 50-50 physical custody arrangements on all parents. If they couldn't make that work, for all kinds of valid reasons, the only recourse would be to ask a judge to declare one parent unfit.

Vandervorste says the initiative "simply means one can have up to 50 percent time-shares if requested." That's not what it says. Read the language: "Joint physical custody of the children is defined as a rebuttable presumption of equal time sharing by the parents." As I understand it, the "rebuttable presumption" part means someone has to be declared unfit. This would put reasonable, loving parents in the terrible position of deciding which one of them gets the privilege of being declared unfit. That's not a choice at all.

And how did this whole debate shift to domestic violence shelters? That's a leap in logic I don't follow. It seems that maybe dismantling domestic violence laws is what this group is really after. I think we should keep the discussion to what the proponents say they want to stick to, the welfare of our children.