Tennessee Rejects Bill Codifying 50/50 in Children's Best Interests
Primary Custody to Moms Should Be Codified
The Tennessee House voted on Wednesday to reject a bill that would have codified 50/50 custody and parenting time is in the best interests of children.
Great! But does it make a difference whether there is a “presumption” of 50/50 or not?
Yes and no. Not in Family Court but in society’s attitudes towards what’s really in the best interests of children. And this attitude can make a difference in implementing the new system.
First of all, presumption is a euphemistic way of saying mandatory. This deception makes it easier for the public to swallow and legislators to legislate. What these 50/50 laws do is mandate judges order 50/50 parenting time unless a parent can prove that the other parent does not deserve it.
But these laws do not make any perceptible difference in outcomes. In states with and without mandatory 50/50, judges are ordering equal, or nearly equal, custody. Mothers everywhere are in the position of proving that is not best for the kids. There is obviously an implicit embrace of this 50/50 narrative in family courts, whether codified or not.
THE 50/50 BILL
Tennessee’s House Bill 1131/Senate Bill 1331:
There is a presumption, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence, that joint legal custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child.
…The court must base an order for any custody arrangement other than joint legal custody and equally shared parenting time on written findings of fact and conclusions of law to the contrary and include the findings and conclusions in the custody order. The burden of proof necessary to modify an order of joint legal custody and equally shared parenting time at a subsequent proceeding is by a preponderance of the evidence.
This bill, and others like it, codifies judges must order equal legal and physical custody, i.e. equal parenting time, deeming that is in the best interests of children unless it can be proven by preponderance of the evidence (>50%) that it is not. It coopts the “best interests of the child” doctrine by defining it as 50/50 parenting time.
This battle for and against equal parenting has been raging since the ‘70’s—ever since women gained financial independence and child support began being enforced. Equal parenting gives men more power and reduces or eliminates child support.
WHO BENEFITS/WHO’S HARMED?
Who’s behind promoting or fighting these mandatory equal parenting laws?
Equal parenting laws give men more power in the family so the Old Boy Network [OBN] works behind the scenes to promote them, while men’s organizations (often under the guise of “parent” and “parental alienation” groups) are public-facing. On the other hand, these laws make it harder to protect children, so domestic abuse/protective parent groups, which identify as gender-neutral, child-safety groups, are the ones fighting to stop them from passing.
Codifying 50/50 does appear to make it easier for judges to rubber stamp 50/50 orders and may make them less appealable. Men in general benefit because it makes it easier to present a legal case. So, both judges and men benefit.
Who is harmed? It may make it a bit harder for women to maintain custody and protect children from abusive fathers. But being best for children and mothers is not why the legislation was rejected. Duh.
Of course not. It was because the Tennessee Bar Association did not want it to pass. Some Tennessee moms were quite shocked they were on their side. So why did the TBA oppose it when they make up a good portion of the OBN? Likely because attorneys benefit from lengthy, contested custody cases, and there would be a lot less business if it had passed.
REPLACING NARRATIVES
So this quickie analysis begs the question: Is it worth it to spend time and resources fighting equal parenting laws when they make little difference in Court?
A qualified Yes.
Only if the activism is used to replace old, false narratives with new, true ones. It is not enough to merely contend that “abusers” (mothers and fathers) will be more likely to get custody if 50/50 is mandatory.
In a recent column: Dispelling Family Court Propaganda & False Narratives, we discussed how important it is to engage in cultural activism as well as legal. A large part of that advocacy is to replace old, false narratives with new, true ones. One of the false narratives featured was that equal parenting time is best for children.
Equal parenting time is in children’s best interests.
TRUTH: It is in children’s best interests in contested custody cases (arguably all cases) to live primarily with their primary attachment figure and visit regularly with their secondary attachment figure. This propaganda serves men’s main goal of reducing or eliminating child support.
The battles for and against 50/50 in legislatures can be used to get media and public attention on the truth of the matter—that, not only is a presumption of 50/50 bad for kids, but a presumption of primary custody to mothers is what’s best.
By a quirk of nature—a couple hundred million years of mammalian evolution—offspring need their primary attachment figure, their mother—the one who gestates, gives birth to, nurses and nurtures them, more than secondary attachment figures, such as fathers, grandparents, nannies, et. al.
It is important to note that children’s primary attachment figure remains such for their entire life. It does not change, even if the child is taken away from and a secondary attachment figure does the primary physical caregiving. The only thing removal does is deprive the child of their primary bond, which is harmful, no matter when in the course of childhood it occurs.
This reality has been disappeared by the OBN in their core agenda of maintaining men’s power over “their” women and children after divorce by diminishing the uniqueness and importance of motherhood. It is being replaced with the gender-neutral concept that children attach to any “caregiver” equally.
But that is false. Physical caregiving does not replace children’s hard-wired need for their mother—to feel safe and secure and loved by her. Kids need to be primarily with their primary attachment figure for their healthy mental and emotional development.
This truth refutes men’s assertion that fathers and mothers are the same. There are many slogans men use to support the 50/50 presumption, but they can all be rebutted by pointing out that children need their their primary attachment figure more than any secondary attachment figures, including fathers.
PRESUMPTION OF PRIMARY TO MOTHERS
Unfortunately, even if women could get a presumption of primary to mothers passed in the present system, that too would make little practical difference. This is because laws, or lack thereof, are not the reason mothers are losing custody. It is because the Family Court system gives judges the power to do whatever they want—and they want to stay in the Old Boys’ graces—so they give men what they want.
The problem is there is no law that will prevent Family Court judges from being able to lie about mothers being abusive or unfit, and disregard abuse and unfitness by fathers. [Read more: Down the Rights & Laws Rabbit Hole.]
But a cultural shift in attitude will help with the implementation of the new system we are proposing, in which the presumption will be that the best interests of children is to live primarily with their mother and visit a (non-abusive) father. [See: Activism Arm of the Coalition].
One last note. The concept of equality is often conflated in custody cases. The fact that men and women are equal as humans and citizens is not what is at issue in custody cases. What is at issue is how mothers and fathers are different in relation to the nurturing of children.
In summary, it is important to not just oppose equal parenting, but to actively work on instilling the true narrative into public consciousness that children need mothers more than fathers and it is in their best interests to remain living primarily with mothers after divorce. Talk to family, friends, coworkers. Share this article with them.
Rebutting and replacing false narratives is one thing we are working on in our Sisters in Solidarity group. Fill out this form if you’d like to engage in activism with us. We are having our monthly forum this Saturday. See below for details.
Subscribe to Women’s Coalition News & Views.
IN OTHER NEWS
UPDATE ON VIRGINIA GIUFFRE
Last Sunday’s column discussed how Virginia Roberts Giuffre, one of Epstein’s sex-trafficking victim, was being alienated from her children. She’d been in an accident and was in the hospital for a serious kidney problem. She was released from the hospital on Monday.
She had a hearing scheduled for Wednesday for supposedly breaching a Restraining Order that her husband took out on her after she says he assaulted her. However, it was postponed until June 11th. Thanks to the Perth mums who went to support her.
In the meantime, Virginia will most likely be kept from seeing or even contacting her children. She has not seen them since the beginning of January. Apparently, she has been gagged and is not able to comment on her custody case but we will follow her criminal RO case.
If you’d like to meet up with other Perth mums to attend the June 11th hearing together, contact womenscoalitionintl@gmail.com.
SISTERS IN SOLIDARITY
Sisters in Solidarity Forum this Saturday!
Mothers who’ve joined either SIS or the discrimination lawsuit will be sent a link to the zoom a few days before. It will not be open to all this month. [Check alternate inboxes.]
More info: Sisters in Solidarity
More info about the discrimination lawsuit
To join the lawsuit: fill out this form for the U.S. and for other countries this form.
SATURDAY FORUM:
Saturday, April 19th: 1pm Pacific; 4pm Eastern; 9pm London; 6am (20th) in Sydney.
CHAPTER 28: NEXT SECTION IS OUT!
Legion continues with her direct examination of Herry on the stand, acting in pro per in the third custody trial, in which she is trying to get custody of her three boys returned to her after Herry has wrongly moved them far away. She continues to point out things that demonstrates he was never an involved or caring parent so should not have sole custody. And he continues to lie under oath.
Herry is accusing her of being mentally ill as a basis for depriving her of custody, so she asks him why he would leave the kids with her for long periods of time, using her as his “refuge from parental responsibility”. Wouldn’t that endanger the boys if she really were so mentally ill she should get zero visitation now? This makes it obvious he is lying.
But Legion does not realize yet that no matter how good she does acting in pro per or how much evidence she presents to the Family Court judge that she is a loving, caring mother and Herry is a negligent and abusive father, it will make zero difference. Herry is the father—da man—and a pillared man at that, so he will be entitled to whatever it is he wants in “his” family.
In the last section, Legion finishes with her direct examination of the stepmother bringing out more of her lies. She did get her to admit that Herry wasn’t around often and that she was his “enforcer” who kept the kids away from Legion. Legion had rented a P.O. box and an 800 number in the hopes of connecting with them, but the boys were kept from using them.
CHAPTER 28 of Mother-Fucking: The Saga of One Fucked Mother begins with Act III, Part 4 of “The Opera” from Book 3. The Opera has three Acts with five Parts—one for each of the three Family Court and two Appellate Court trials. Chapter 28 covers all of Act III: Part 4: the third Family Court trial and Part 5: the second Appellate trial. This is a long chapter and will be published in newsletter-sized bites.
Dr. Blue’s novel is based on her own experience of the Custody Crisis. It uniquely conveys how Family Court judges are “mother-fucking” women—a form of systemic oppression—as protagonist Legion is systematically and methodically deprived of her children and money and reduced to “one fucked mother”.
Chapters are stand-alone interesting so you can begin reading anywhere. A Cast of Characters follows to help readers at any point. All published chapters are included in the Section: “Saga of One F**ked Mother” accessible on the top bar of the home page of Women’s Coalition News & Views. Sequential chapters are published every Wednesday so make sure to subscribe if you haven’t yet!
TEASERS
What it, that 11-day period had truly appeared to be to Herry, was not at all a time of his leaving the Boys with a mentally ill person in whose care a reasonable parent would never entrust children but, in fact, a perfectly sane mother who was instead for Herry his “refuge from parental responsibility” and under whose supervision he, Herry, would not have to actually DO ANY parenting work at all because he already knew the Boys would be very, very well taken care of…
…“You didn’t really believe, did you Dr. Edinsmaier, that I was nuts, did you?!” I wanted to clarify, “But I just fucking pissed you the hell off, didn’t I? By calling you to account for your sexual addiction about which you were soooo trying to hide it behind alcoholics anonymous and the 12 Steps…I mean I, Dr. Legion True, one uppity, blonde pussy, truly, truly pissed you off, huh, Herry?!”
“In other words,” I asked, “you never actively took them to practices, you never took them to their friends’ homes or to practices? You, Herry. You. You never went over to their homes, met their parents, found out what kind of people they might be, as far as adults around Zane, Jesse and Mirzah?
You may also give a gift subscription to a friend who is a victim of the Custody Crisis.
Or feel free to support the Coalition’s work through a one-time or recurring contribution through the Paypal Giving Fund.
All contributions are greatly appreciated!
Family court judges do not rule in a child's best interests. They often give custody to males that request it. It doesn't matter if they're abusive. Mothers are a child's primary attachment figure. They should be granted primary custody because that is in a child's best interests. Patriarchy dominates family court. Children are considered male property. They are not furniture. Children have feelings and needs. Loving mothers nurture. The mother-child bond is sacred. Family court judges falsely find good mothers to be unfit. Women have no enforceable rights in family court. They can't protect their children. New laws and training programs won't help. Facts and evidence don't make a difference. Children are frequently separated from their loving mothers. Family court judges have the power to rule how they choose. Their opinion is what matters. They often abuse their power and face no consequences. Women and their children suffer. Family court judges endanger them. Women must continue to unite and fight for a new system. A jury would give women and children a chance at justice. Family court must end. A child's best interests are to be primarily with their loving mother.
This is heavy.