Saturday,
December 28, 2002
This
report (dated December, 2002, hereafter “Report”) is a major step towards
reforming Connecticut’s divorce laws. If fully implemented, the recommendations
contained in the Report would move us a long way towards achieving the goals of
the Shared Parenting Council of Connecticut (SPC). The SPC’s main goal now
is to work towards legislative enactment of these recommendations, and to
further move the process towards the SPC’s goals.
Here
is a brief summary of the Report, organized by SPC objectives:
1.
1. Objective: The SPC wants the State of Connecticut to
strongly encourage both parents to
be actively involved with their children on a regular, frequent and continuing
basis.
a.
a. The Report states that “children need and have a
right to balanced, responsible, and meaningful relationships with both parents
that meet the needs of the child during and after the divorce and custody
determination process (p. 11).”
b.
b. To implement this, the Report recommends the prompt
filing of parenting plans that include a schedule, plans for decision-making,
and remedies if a parent fails to comply with the plan. These
recommendations summarize the most important parts of the SPC’s proposed
legislation (first proposed in the Fall of 2001).
c.
c. An important part of the recommended legislation is a
list of criteria for determining the “Best Interests of the Child.” Most of
these criteria are taken directly from the SPC’s proposed legislation. The
most important criteria adapted from the SPC’s proposed legislation are: “the
capacity and disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the
child; the willingness and ability of each of the parents to facilitate and
encourage such continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the
other parent.” A full list of criteria is on pages 35-36 of the Report.
d.
d. The Report fails to clearly recommend “the court may give sole legal custody only if it finds that
doing so is in the child's best interest.” Thus, the Report fails to shift the
burden of proof to the party objecting to shared-parenting.
2.
2. Objective: The SPC wants enforcement of parenting plans
(formerly known as “visitation schedules”). The SPC’s proposed legislation
recommended specific penalties for interfering with parenting plans.
a.
a. The Report proposes several penalties: More time for
the parent who has been denied access; the parent denying access should pay
fees and costs of enforcing the parenting plan; incarceration. (See page 40 of
the Report for a complete list.)
b.
b. The challenge will be to get the recommended
penalties enacted into law.
3.
3. Objective: The SPC wants to drastically reduce the role of
lawyers in the divorce process. The SPC believes that the vast majority of
divorce cases involve emotional issues that require mediation and conflict
resolution, not legal action.
a.
a. The Report contains a number of recommendations here,
including:
1.
1. Setting 12 month limit on all the legal maneuvers
that can be involved in divorce (p. 15);
2.
2. The parenting plan should contain “an alternative
dispute resolution mechanism (p. 12);
3.
3. Early identification of high conflict cases, with one
judge handling all issues involved (p. 16);
4.
4. Family Services Unit should conduct assessment,
mediation and evaluation;
5.
5. Better information to divorcing parents about the
custody determination process (p. 21);
6. 6.
Disclosure of legal fees paid by the
opposing party (p. 23);
7. 7.
Raising the standard for a significant
modification of the parenting plan, thus depriving chronic litigators of this
forum for conflict (p. 25);
8. 8.
In
determining whether to order the payment of attorney's fees, the court may
consider unnecessary tactics, delays, or obstructionist tactics by one or both
parents (p. 24).
b.
b. However, the Report stops short of recommending mandatory
mediation without the presence of attorneys. If the parents cannot agree,
the SPC advocates that the results from mandatory mediation should go forward
to the Judge.
4.
4. Objective: The SPC wants penalties for false accusations of
child abuse or spousal abuse. These penalties should be similar to those for
actual child or spousal abuse.
a.
a. The Report does not directly address this issue.
b.
b. However, the Report does require “identification and
accurate assessment of past or current family violence or abuse and any related
physical, emotional, or psychological harm (p. 10).” Unfortunately, the report
is silent about how this is to be done. The SPC recommends highly trained
investigators who focus on physical evidence of abuse.
5.
5. Objective: The SPC wants to encourage active involvement of
grandparents in their children’s lives. The Report says that “The court may
also make any order granting the right of visitation of any child to a third
party to the action, including but not limited to grandparents (p. 34).”
6.
6. Objective: The SPC wants the presumption of substantially
equal parenting time and responsibility to begin at the time of separation,
often prior to any formal Court proceedings. The Report recommends early
assistance to the children “in having contact with both parties (p. 41).” This
can occur prior to the “return date” for dissolution.
7.
7. Objective: The SPC wants a law that discourages long-distance
relocation of children by requiring that the relocating party show that the
other parent can maintain his or her current relationship with the children.
The Report is silent on this issue.