NYS escapes me

The Times Union article on the failure of New York's shared parenting bill manages to be, er, "balanced", but nevertheless exposes unthinking prejudice.  Of course, I cannot condone threats of violence or death, supposedly received by some of the bill's opponents, but I also cannot be surprised at them when the narrow-minded and self-interested stand successfully against justice.  Why Ms. Pappas of NOW thinks cool heads and logic have prevailed escapes me, especially as she seems incapable of applying logic herself and her head is anything but cool.

It also escapes me why a "law [that] would have required judges to award joint custody unless there was an obvious reason why they should not" represents a "shift from what's in the best interest of the child", but then it would if by "the best interest of the child" you actually mean "the best interest of the custodial parent" and that parentectomy is a good thing, only those with a vested interest in the status quo could think it "a negative shift".

What do these people think they mean by "the best interest of the child"?  All I can think is that they have learned Hitler's lesson well(*).

Some of Judge Duggan's opposition escapes me too: "To apply a presumption of shared parenting to every couple who makes a baby makes a mockery of the process".  Er, what process?  The process of assigning custody, that's what process.  And, of course, he's right, sole custody and shared custody are absolutely and completely logically incompatible.  That's the whole point.

So much escapes me, would someone please explain?

* he said: "Society will tolerate almost any injustice so long as you
tell them it is for the children."



Technorati Tags: Joint Custody, Marcia Pappas, New York State, Sole Custody, Fathers' Rights, National Organization of Women, parentectomy