MN Governor Dayton recently vetoed a bill that would have raised slightly the presumed parenting time for a non-custodial parent. The authors of a thoughtful article from 2006 (linked below) analyze presumptions in family law cases, debunk the argument that presumptions reduce litigation and, therefore, promote benefits for children in high-conflict divorces, and suggest that more resources need to be devoted to children in custodial disputes to insure better outcomes for them. The authors state the following, with which I strongly agree:
...(W)here general parameters or child custody presumptions are established, those presumptions need to address significant issues and be supportable based on a broad-based, thorough and balanced consideration of social science research. Presumptions are, by their very nature, short cuts, which reduce the need- and opportunity to present- actual evidence regarding an individual case.
The presumption, once established by evidence, shifts the burden of proof on that issue to the opposing party to overcome the presumption. I disagree with those who argue that presumptions lessen litigation and promote settlement. There remains those 10-15% of cases that will remain high conflict regardless of the presumptions.
Article: http://lyngreenbergphd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/The_problem_with_presumptions_2006.pdf
Family lawyer's opinion of the MN bill:
http://courtnet/NewsClippingItemDisplay.aspx?item=55460
Is this common with the other states in the US? I'd be curious to see who Minnesota compares.
ReplyDeleteI really agree withe the author as this is the real points.Divorce online
ReplyDeleteYou can really get many information here. Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Nice blog, this is so fantastic many people would love to read this. Dayton Family Attorney , this would be so great.
ReplyDelete