are some thoughts and ideas, and remember we are working in a "positive"
environment. We may not like some of the things a Judge, Lawyer, Counselor, or our Spouse
has done -- but:
We do NOT hate them.
We do NOT seek revenge.
We do NOT blame them for a failure in marriage.
If you need to "hold on" to some of these
feelings for a while (and we can all understand why), what follows will probably not make
a lot of sense right now.
What changes with the assumption: "A child has a right to be with their parents, a parent has a right to be
with their child. Overriding this presumption requires proof beyond a
reasonable doubt presented to a jury of your peers."
By raising the "burden of proof" to the same standard of
criminal procedure, and involving a jury -- the present "battles" over
"who gets the kids?" will be reduced. The requirement to present
evidence that could convince folks off the street, instead of to a tired Judge who prefers
to spend "minimal" time on matrimonial cases, should reduce
"gratuitious" and "exaggerated" allegations of wrong doing.
Children would be taken from the battle field. They
would no longer be asked the ridiculous question: "Who do you love more, mommy or
daddy?" They would no longer see one parent suddenly shrink in their lives.
Both parents would know they can maintain an equal relationship seeing
their children. Their is less threat of loss. The temptation to use the
children as a "bargaining chip" against the other spouse are reduced.
The parent who wishes to move away (and upset the status quo) has a
clear decision to make.
Maybe the divorce rate among couples with children would start to drop.
Perhaps we would see more mediation and counselling instead of divorce papers being filed.