"Joan Moyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hello Sue,
This sounds encouraging. IMO, it would be beneficial to the children.
Joan
----------
> From: Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: L&I Anti-batterer custody bill OK constitutionally, SJC rules
> Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 9:11 PM
>
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> In Massachusetts...
> (From Boston Globe)
>
> The Supreme Judicial Court yesterday removed several legal hurdles to
> the
> passage of a bill that would make it more difficult for parents
> implicated
> in spousal abuse to gain custody of their children.
>
>
> Vehemently opposed by several fathers' groups, the measure in recent
> years
> has cleared the House but repeatedly stalled in the Senate.
>
>
> The bill would create a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has
> engaged
> in a ''pattern or serious incident of abuse'' should not get custody or
> visitation rights with their children.
>
>
> It has won the backing of a broad range of groups concerned with
> domestic
> violence, child protection, women's issues and law enforcement, and it
> appeared to be on the verge of passage last November when the Senate
> gave
> its preliminary approval to the measure by a vote of 36 to 1.
>
>
> But Senator Edward J. Clancy Jr. (D-Lynn), the lone dissenting vote, who
> had
> succeeded in past years in killing the measure, persuaded his colleagues
> to
> ask the SJC for its opinion on the constitutionality of the measure.
>
>
> Yesterday, the SJC said that while parents have a constitutionally
> protected
> interest in their relationship with their children, when domestic
> violence
> has been a significant factor in the home, it may be in the child's best
> interests to limit parents' rights.
>
>
> The court addressed the issue of one parent making false allegations of
> domestic abuse against the other, a key concern of fathers' groups
> opposing
> the legislation. In the decision, the justices said most parents would
> not
> lie about abuse because if the lie were found out, they would risk
> losing
> custody of their children.
>
>
> The SJC said the bill is proposing nothing extraordinary.
>
>
> ''There is a growing national awareness that children who witness or
> experience domestic violence suffer deep and profound harms,'' the court
> said. ''To better protect children, many states have adopted legislation
> making it more difficult for an abusive parent to obtain custody of a
> child
> in a divorce proceeding.''
>
>
> Proponents were elated.
>
>
> Beth Boland, president-elect of the Massachusetts Women's Bar
> Association,
> said, ''It really is clarifying that the psychological well-being of
> children in abusive homes really trumps the interests of the allegedly
> abusive parent.''
>
>
> Senator Cheryl A. Jacques (D-Needham), a lead sponsor of the bill, said
> the
> SJC opinion ''has cleared the way for passage of this important
> legislation,'' which ''will go a long way toward breaking the cycle of
> domestic abuse.''
>
>
> Clancy could not be reached for comment, but the opinion rankled
> fathers'
> groups.
>
>
> John Maguire of Boston-based Fathers and Families said, ''Most children
> would crawl on their hands and knees for a chance to see either parent.
> This
> decision is a sad mistake because it will ensure that thousands of
> children
> will lose all-important contact with their fathers.''
> --
> Two rules in life:
>
> 1. Don't tell people everything you know.
> 2.
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
