Child's Frequent Contact to Both Divorced Parents

We the undersigned request Idaho Congress to resolve the issue of a lack of clear custody laws in Idaho statutes.

Idaho Code Title 32, Chapter 7 reads:

"Joint physical custody" means an order awarding each of the parents significant periods of time in which a child resides with or is under the care and supervision of each of the parents or parties.

"there shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a minor child or children."

http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=320070017B.K

Idaho law currently does not provide any guidelines which could assist judges in ordering sufficient visitation with both parents.

We the Petitioners implore you to integrate an addendum into Idaho State Statute similar to the following:

'Joint Physical custody' shall normally entitle fit parents no less than one third overnights annually.

We believe there are not sufficient definitions in Idaho law for what is meant by "Primary" "Sole" or "Shared" physical custody. We believe ambiguity of this distinction in the law cultivates a combative environment where Secondary physical custody parents assert additional legal rights, or Primary physical custody parents conclude that the term Primary entitles them to Sole physical custody, or extra legal custody rights.  Please include language that disambiguates Primary and Secondary Joint physical custody from Sole custody and visitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_physical_custody


We believe this law is in the best interest of the majority of Idaho children of divorce, without causing detriment to potential outlying family situations.

Though objections have been noted, we are in agreement that this issue must be addressed, and we ask you to consider our various input while the issue is debated.

National Support

This law follows the lead of United States Senate resolution concurrent with the U.S. House of Representatives, "Expressing the support for the enacting of joint custody laws for fit parents, so that more children are raised with the benefits of having a father and a mother in their lives."

S. CON. RES. 59 | H. CON. RES. 241

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Regional Support

In Utah statute 'Joint Physical Custody' "means the child stays with each parent overnight for more than 30% of the year, and both parents contribute to the expenses of the child in addition to paying child support."

http://le.utah.gov/~code/title30/htm/30_03_001001.htm

Imperical Evidence

Leading contemporary research shows that frequent and meaningful visitation includes a minimum of 1/3 overnights and is in a childs best interest. This frequent time with both parents deters children from a host of societal problems. In addition, though it may be difficult for parents with great separations of distance to share parenting, wherever possible shared parenting is still considered in the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child do indeed require continuity in a child's life, and the paramount continuity is not necessarily where the child lives, but frequent access to mother and father. Overnights with non-custodial parents are not detrimental to even infant children, but beneficial and essential.

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/overnights.php

Joan Kelley Ph.D. |  Michael Lamb Ph.D

http://www.spig.clara.net/jc-faq.htm
Dr. Isolina Ricci

Mom's House, Dad's House

Judge Eisenhauer - Iowa

Anecdotal Evidence
Fathers in Idaho tell of going to great expense in Idaho Courts to maintain their rights as outlined in Idaho law, only to leave empty handed, or worse, to have removed from them visitation that was already agreed upon. The author of this petition was not able to secure joint physical custody and in seeking enforcement of a agreement stipulated with the primary parent, instead lost 2-days each week with his daughter. The judge cited these days were unreasonable and that "most" parents only get to see their kids on weekends. These observations are backed by Idaho lawyers who warn fathers and non-custodial mothers they have an uphill battle to secure their children the frequent and continual rights that are described in Idaho law.  We believe these losses are the cause of many of Idaho societal problems.

Upholding Judicial Discression

The proposed language of this law still gives judges discretion by providing a recommended threshold that has been supported by research and advocated by U.S. congress, without limiting the amount of visitation to a mandatory minimum or maximum.

Supports Education

One third overnights annually still allows full participation in an academic school year and advocates frequent and continual weekend visitations.

Allows for Personal Liberty and Negotiation

Because there is no fixed maximum or minimum, amicable divorced parents may negotiate an alternate plan. Non-custodial parents are provided with a reasonably sufficient and uniform amount of visitation, while still being able to concede time back to the custodial parent if they consider the quantity imprudent or unreasonable for the best interest of the child.

Protection from Abuse

Idaho law already provides Joint Physical Custody only to fit parents, careful to consider if "one of the parents is found by the court to be a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence"

Relief for the Courts

We believe that conciliation and mediation is more desirable than typical adversarial divorce proceedings. A statute would guide divorced parents to an objective ground where litigation is not necessary. Using the state law as a guide, parents will be empowered to mediate and mutually satisfy distinct beliefs of what is in the best interest for their children.

A Final Observation
Judges in Idaho act as an advisory to the Judiciary council through where laws like this have to be directed. While it will be important to gain judicial support for such a law, for congress to be discouraged from making this law on account of the Judges' reccommendations, may represent an environment of less benefit to Idaho consituents than a true separation of legislative and judicial powers.  We believe this can be overcome by congress crafting a solution which would be acceptable to both the Judicial system and to Idaho constituents.

Please do all you can to add this language to Idaho Statute, for the best interest of Idaho Children, Idaho Court Systems and Idaho Tax payers.