January 15, 2007
SB 5234 - An appropriate statement to make on the MLK holiday

Also posted at Thurston Pundits

SB 5234 The subject is shared parenting- It's actually about civil rights;

The issue is this:

In the absence of criminal wrong doing, proven abuse or neglect a parent who WANTS to be a part of their child's life- should be able to do so without going bankrupt in a legal battle for the right to do so.

Everyone knows two parents are better than one, however family courts prefer to wipe one parent out of a child's life whenever they get the opportunity. This is about more than the best interest of a child, the need for this bill is a civil rights issue.

SB 5234 is about a parent's right to have time with their child. It's not about changing financial support, it's not about funding the domestic violence industry; it's about the failure of judges and commisioners to protect the rights given to us by God and affirmed by the US constitution.

I don't even have kids and this issue is what brought me into the political arena. The playing field might be a little different than MLK's, but the issue is still about equal treatment under the law.
--------
I have to say thank you not only to Senator Kastama for introducing this bill again for the 2007 session- but also to the other senators who have joined him this year as sponsors.

Posted by Andy_Maris at January 15, 2007 11:28 AM | Email This
Comments
1. I would not be applauding this bill just yet. From what I can tell this is just a bill that allocates monies for the study of exchanging a child in a public place (church, day care, etc) and also the study "shall survey the statistically relevant number of geographically diverse final parenting plans in Washington to determine the allocation of residential time as between parents, including an analysis of gender disparities between parents, and the impact of legal counsel on outcomes of parenting plan disputes."

The bill does not even list anything about having to implement the finding of the study. So in other words this is a feel good bill (spending tax dollars) to make it appear that the legislature is trying to make child custody more fair and equitable.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on January 15, 2007 06:07 PM
2. Methinks the soldier in #1 is mixing his metaphors.

Kastams's shared parenting bill is one thing, and True seems to be talking about the Hargrove will, which deals out more money, when it is not necessary. It also funds MORE divorce, because it rewards "bad behavior", lying and being intransigent.

What you reward, you get more of. What you subsidize, you get more of.

The civil rights issue is simply this. Do you think the below has any place in AmeriKa?

They come in the middle of the night, handcuff you, and escort you from your house, with no time to even put on a shirt. Just because someone says you may have committed a crime. Now, there is no penalty for falsely reporting you. You spend two days in jail, get money from your family for bail, but are prevented from going to your residence, prevented from getting to your money, your car, your stuff. All this is sanctioned by a judge who never speaks to the accuser.

You are escorted, after two weeks, to your home to gather a minimal quantity of goods, no money, no car. The tools to do your chosen job are often taken from you, and their possession prohibited.

All the while, you never get to face that accuser, you never get the protection of a lawyer that is appointed in any other criminal trial.

When there is actually a "trial", the accuser doesn't show up, but you are branded as a criminal for the rest of your life. Kinda like being a sex offender, but no registry.

Violations of civil rights are you know them?

Happens every day in your neighborhood.

The Geez

Posted by: The Geezer on January 15, 2007 08:19 PM
3. I understand that when there'e abuse, etc. it can be necessary to get out. But please, people--use common sense and pick someone who will be suitable to be the mother/father of your child. No jerks, no financial losers, no abusers or addicts; no casual sex/carelessness. If you use the noggin and common sense God gave you and refuse to act desparate, you can make a wise decision and avoid all this heartbreak in the first place.
then you won't have to be visiting your kids and disrupt their lives with a split.

Posted by: Someone has to say it on January 16, 2007 12:50 AM
4. Kastama's bill is a good start to correcting a huge problem in our state. In my opinion, it doesn't go far enough, as it only requests a minimum of 30% visitation for each parent. It's unfortunate that our legislature will only even begin to consider a watered down version of what is truly needed - 50/50 custody.

However, one doesn't need to look far to see that even the passing of this bill, which I fully support, will do nothing for the ability of parents and children to continue to have meaningful relationships. Until our laws are modified, and the courts are required to hold parents accountable for keeping children from their other parent, this sickening pattern of behavior will never change.

It's critical that our legislature pass laws that ensure thos that keeps kids from having required visitations with their other parent are held to the same level as those that don't pay child support. Until this happens, the band will just keep playing the same old tune, with the kids caught in the middle.

Posted by: Joel Johnston on January 16, 2007 06:21 AM
5. I have to agree with Geez and Joel. Nobody warned me that the fine print in the protection order I signed said that I had been found to have comitted an act of domestic violence. That was not true, but now it is too late. Many lies and fabrications later, I now can boast experience with handcuffs and red jump suits. My previous credit score of 740 is now zilch. I am in debt to everyone and still can't get my tools. Go figure. Thankfully, the mess is drawing to a close. I am just hoping for a decent outcome re: the kids. They are the ones who are really suffering.

Posted by: superman252004 on January 17, 2007 07:31 AM
6. Ok I have read the bill and not the bill digest(the bill digest only has the "new section"). This bill does sound great. I just wish they had not added the "new section" (which is what was quoted earlier. It looks like the "new section" was added so they would have an out later when people start to complain.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on January 17, 2007 08:16 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?