Thesis
The authors disagree with custody decisions and provide emotional and logical arguments, although they have different ways of expressing their opinions and have different backgrounds.
1. In the article, “Equal Protection Under the Law?” it shows judicial bias, maternal bias, professional bias, and even the author shows bias about the subject of child custody.
2. The author, Anne P. Mitchell, is a Stanford Law School graduate and attorney.
3. “Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues”, is written with an emotional bias.
4. While reading Dahlsad’s article, the first sentence and how it is written tells how he feels. “
5. “Equal Protection Under the Law?” Mitchell mentions the tender year doctrine.
6. Each article shows bias on the topic of tender year doctrine.
7. In Dahlsads article, parents that aren’t custodial in North Dakota and feel that they don’t participate enough are fighting for rights, called Shared Parenting Initiative.
8. Mitchell is a law graduate from and fathers right attorney.
9. These two articles were in agreement on how the tender year doctrine was being used still when it shouldn’t be.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Revised
Best Interest of the Child(ren)
Tender year doctrine or best interest of the child, is it used and is it fair? I read two articles, “Equal Protection Under the Law?” by Anne P. Mitchell; and “Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues” by Derek Dahlsad. Anne is arguing that men are not getting equal right by law. She is against how the 14th Amendment says one thing and judges are doing oppose. Derek is arguing against the Shared Parenting Initiative in his state. He is stating that he is not for the change because it is unfair to custodial parents. The authors disagree with custody decisions and provide emotional and logical arguments, although they have different ways of expressing their opinions and have different backgrounds.
In the article, “Equal Protection Under the Law?” it shows judicial bias, maternal bias, professional bias, and even the author shows bias about the subject of child custody. I read how the author truly felt about the 14th Amendment. She is upset because it is not being used properly. Men are not getting the same rights as women. “Years ago, at common law, custody of minor children automatically went to the father. The husband’s word was law.” (Mitchell, 2) The tender year doctrine was started because people were getting upset about how the mothers were being treated. Now the laws have changed again to the best interest of the child, but still people are supporting the tender year doctrine. People are assuming that all young children should be placed with the mother. This article keeps mentioning the unfairness of fathers in custody now.
The author, Anne P. Mitchell, is a Stanford Law School graduate and attorney. She is in charge of the Fathers’ Rights and Equality Exchange. Her writing is found on the internet.
“Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues”, is written with an emotional bias. The article is about how absent parents feel about not being there to make decisions for the children on a daily basis. North Dakota is trying to start a Shared Parenting Initiative, to help the absent parents. Many parents have custodial rights more than the other but the other wants a say in it now. With this new Shared Parenting Initiative, both parents make the decision and if they disagree with each other than they have to go to court to settle it. The absent parent will deal with the kids day to day like the other custodial parent does, no matter what. The custodial parent will not get child support since the other absent parent is now participating. Meaning that the custodial parent will pay for all and the absent parent can just help by being there for the child. How is that fair? Derek Dahlsad is a parent in the state of North Dakota and is a concerned parent. His article reflects how he sees things and shows his emotions on the Shared Parenting Initiative.
While reading Dahlsad’s article, the first sentence and how it is written tells how he feels. “I’m going to get a little political on you here; it’s a rare occasion, so don’t get too worried about it.” (Dahlsad, 1) He says “Despite my liberal meanings, reading their Initiative tells me what’s above is a Bad Idea.” (Dahlsad, 3) “Notice that my accusations are against the SPI itself; I do agree that current child custody laws are insufficient, possibly destructive in some cases.” (Dahlsad, 17) “It promotes selfish desires of parents who do not want responsibility for parenting, but wish to be treated as parents.” (Dahlsad, 17)
“Equal Protection Under the Law?” Mitchell mentions the tender year doctrine. “This doctrine suggests that custody of a child could be awarded to its mother if the child were of “tender years.”” (Mitchell, 4) “Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues” Dahlsad mentions the same doctrine. “The way things are now, in situations of disputed custody, the court assigns physical custody to one parent or the other; for better or worse, it often goes to the mother.” (Dahlsad, 4) Both articles see the tender year doctrine as a problem, and each article are fighting to help.
Each article shows bias on the topic of tender year doctrine. Mitchell asks, “Are men who find themselves in a custody or timeshare (visitation) dispute entitled to be judged by the same standards as the women who sits opposite them? Yes. Are those men, in fact afforded such equal treatment? No. Why not?” (Mitchell, 1) Vast majority of disputed custody cases are resolved with custody going to the mother. “Even in courts which have found the tender years doctrine to be repugnant, there is still a judicial bias towards giving custody to the mother.” (Mitchell, 13) One can see that this doctrine is of maternal bias in the courts which has continued to this day.
In Dahlsads article, parents that aren’t custodial in North Dakota and feel that they don’t participate enough are fighting for rights, called Shared Parenting Initiative. Itsn’t that a bias? A bias of how parents that are doing the day-to-day with the child is now going to have to share with someone who hasn’t done it.
Mitchell is a law graduate from and fathers right attorney. She is founder and director of the Father’s Rights & Equality Exchange. Her credibility and knowledge of this topic is a reliable source. Dahlsad is a father that has custody of his child, so his credibility and knowledge is useful as a source. They each have different opinions and facts but together they have a good argument.
These two articles were in agreement on how the tender year doctrine was being used still when it shouldn’t be. Each author had different views to point out on how it was being used or abused. We looked at how Mitchell showed the bias on the judicial, maternal, and emotional part, where as Dahlsad showed his emotional bias. Both authors are credible because one is law graduate and founder of a Father’s Rights group. The emotional and logical arguments provide us with information; their different ways of expressing their opinions and backgrounds are resourceful. So how do other people feel about this? Only time will tell?
Works Cited
Mitchell, Anne. "Equal Protection Under the Law?” Separated Parenting Access &
Resource Center "Keeping Families Connected". S.P.A.R.C. 19 October 2009.
http://deltabravo.net/custody/equal.php
Dahlsad, David. "Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the
Issues". The Liz Library “Liznotes”. 19 October 2009.
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/008-2.html
Tender year doctrine or best interest of the child, is it used and is it fair? I read two articles, “Equal Protection Under the Law?” by Anne P. Mitchell; and “Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues” by Derek Dahlsad. Anne is arguing that men are not getting equal right by law. She is against how the 14th Amendment says one thing and judges are doing oppose. Derek is arguing against the Shared Parenting Initiative in his state. He is stating that he is not for the change because it is unfair to custodial parents. The authors disagree with custody decisions and provide emotional and logical arguments, although they have different ways of expressing their opinions and have different backgrounds.
In the article, “Equal Protection Under the Law?” it shows judicial bias, maternal bias, professional bias, and even the author shows bias about the subject of child custody. I read how the author truly felt about the 14th Amendment. She is upset because it is not being used properly. Men are not getting the same rights as women. “Years ago, at common law, custody of minor children automatically went to the father. The husband’s word was law.” (Mitchell, 2) The tender year doctrine was started because people were getting upset about how the mothers were being treated. Now the laws have changed again to the best interest of the child, but still people are supporting the tender year doctrine. People are assuming that all young children should be placed with the mother. This article keeps mentioning the unfairness of fathers in custody now.
The author, Anne P. Mitchell, is a Stanford Law School graduate and attorney. She is in charge of the Fathers’ Rights and Equality Exchange. Her writing is found on the internet.
“Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues”, is written with an emotional bias. The article is about how absent parents feel about not being there to make decisions for the children on a daily basis. North Dakota is trying to start a Shared Parenting Initiative, to help the absent parents. Many parents have custodial rights more than the other but the other wants a say in it now. With this new Shared Parenting Initiative, both parents make the decision and if they disagree with each other than they have to go to court to settle it. The absent parent will deal with the kids day to day like the other custodial parent does, no matter what. The custodial parent will not get child support since the other absent parent is now participating. Meaning that the custodial parent will pay for all and the absent parent can just help by being there for the child. How is that fair? Derek Dahlsad is a parent in the state of North Dakota and is a concerned parent. His article reflects how he sees things and shows his emotions on the Shared Parenting Initiative.
While reading Dahlsad’s article, the first sentence and how it is written tells how he feels. “I’m going to get a little political on you here; it’s a rare occasion, so don’t get too worried about it.” (Dahlsad, 1) He says “Despite my liberal meanings, reading their Initiative tells me what’s above is a Bad Idea.” (Dahlsad, 3) “Notice that my accusations are against the SPI itself; I do agree that current child custody laws are insufficient, possibly destructive in some cases.” (Dahlsad, 17) “It promotes selfish desires of parents who do not want responsibility for parenting, but wish to be treated as parents.” (Dahlsad, 17)
“Equal Protection Under the Law?” Mitchell mentions the tender year doctrine. “This doctrine suggests that custody of a child could be awarded to its mother if the child were of “tender years.”” (Mitchell, 4) “Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues” Dahlsad mentions the same doctrine. “The way things are now, in situations of disputed custody, the court assigns physical custody to one parent or the other; for better or worse, it often goes to the mother.” (Dahlsad, 4) Both articles see the tender year doctrine as a problem, and each article are fighting to help.
Each article shows bias on the topic of tender year doctrine. Mitchell asks, “Are men who find themselves in a custody or timeshare (visitation) dispute entitled to be judged by the same standards as the women who sits opposite them? Yes. Are those men, in fact afforded such equal treatment? No. Why not?” (Mitchell, 1) Vast majority of disputed custody cases are resolved with custody going to the mother. “Even in courts which have found the tender years doctrine to be repugnant, there is still a judicial bias towards giving custody to the mother.” (Mitchell, 13) One can see that this doctrine is of maternal bias in the courts which has continued to this day.
In Dahlsads article, parents that aren’t custodial in North Dakota and feel that they don’t participate enough are fighting for rights, called Shared Parenting Initiative. Itsn’t that a bias? A bias of how parents that are doing the day-to-day with the child is now going to have to share with someone who hasn’t done it.
Mitchell is a law graduate from and fathers right attorney. She is founder and director of the Father’s Rights & Equality Exchange. Her credibility and knowledge of this topic is a reliable source. Dahlsad is a father that has custody of his child, so his credibility and knowledge is useful as a source. They each have different opinions and facts but together they have a good argument.
These two articles were in agreement on how the tender year doctrine was being used still when it shouldn’t be. Each author had different views to point out on how it was being used or abused. We looked at how Mitchell showed the bias on the judicial, maternal, and emotional part, where as Dahlsad showed his emotional bias. Both authors are credible because one is law graduate and founder of a Father’s Rights group. The emotional and logical arguments provide us with information; their different ways of expressing their opinions and backgrounds are resourceful. So how do other people feel about this? Only time will tell?
Works Cited
Mitchell, Anne. "Equal Protection Under the Law?” Separated Parenting Access &
Resource Center "Keeping Families Connected". S.P.A.R.C. 19 October 2009.
http://deltabravo.net/custody/equal.php
Dahlsad, David. "Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the
Issues". The Liz Library “Liznotes”. 19 October 2009.
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/008-2.html
Journal 5 Chapters 4 and 16
The way I write reflects the way I think! The combination of words and the way they are arranged in a sentence gives my writing a sense of style. Effectively the right words in the right way helps people understand what I want to say. The purpose, audience, and genre help make up my style as well. Writing naturally is the best way to write if you are a college student. Having the correct font and margins help people read better. Visual aids help understanding. When writing put points in order of importance... the most important put last. I try to let things flow just the way I understand them so others can understand it like I do.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Comparison Paper
Best Interest of the Child(ren)
Tender year doctrine or best interest of the child, is it used and is it fair? I read two articles, “Equal Protection Under the Law?” by Anne P. Mitchell; and “Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues” by Derek Dahlsad. Anne is arguing that men are not getting equal right by law. She is against how the 14th Amendment says one thing and judges are doing oppose. Derek is arguing against the Shared Parenting Initiative in his state. He is stating that he is not for the change because it is unfair to custodial parents. The authors disagree with custody decisions and provide emotional and logical arguments, although they have different ways of expressing their opinions and have different backgrounds.
In the article, “Equal Protection Under the Law?” it shows judicial bias, maternal bias, professional bias, and even the author shows bias about the subject of child custody. I read how the author truly felt about the 14th Amendment. She is upset because it is not being used properly. Men are not getting the same rights as women. Men were getting custody of the children since the early 19th century then it changed to the tender year doctrine. The tender year doctrine was started because people were getting upset about how the mothers were being treated. Now the laws have changed again to the best interest of the child, but still people are supporting the tender year doctrine. People are assuming that all young children should be placed with the mother. This article keeps mentioning the unfairness of fathers in custody now. The author, Anne P. Mitchell, is a Stanford Law School graduate and attorney. She is in charge of the Fathers’ Rights and Equality Exchange. Her writing is found on the internet.
“Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues”, is written with an emotional bias. I read the first sentence and how it is written tells it all. The article is about how absent parents feel about not being there to make decisions for the children on a daily basis. North Dakota is trying to start a Shared Parenting Initiative, to help the absent parents. Many parents have custodial rights more than the other but the other wants a say in it now. With this new Shared Parenting Initiative, both parents make the decision and if they disagree with each other than they have to go to court to settle it. The absent parent will deal with the kids day to day like the other custodial parent does, no matter what. The custodial parent will not get child support since the other absent parent is now participating. Meaning that the custodial parent will pay for all and the absent parent can just help by being there for the child. How is that fair? Derek Dahlsad is a parent in the state of North Dakota and is a concerned parent. His article reflects how he sees things and shows his emotions on the Shared Parenting Initiative.
“Equal Protection Under the Law?” Mitchell mentions the tender year doctrine. It states, that this doctrine suggests that custody of a child could be awarded to its mother if the child were of “tender years.” “Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues” Dahlsad, states that the court assigns physical custody to one parent or the other; for better or worse, it often goes to the mother. Both articles see the tender year doctrine as a problem, and each article are fighting to help. Each article shows bias on the topic of tender year doctrine. Mitchell asks, “Are those men, in fact afforded such equal treatment?” She answers, “No.” Vast majority of disputed custody cases are resolved with custody going to the mother. Even in courts which have found the tender years doctrine to be repugnant, there is still a judicial bias towards giving custody to the mother. The article states that one can certainly see that this doctrine seems to mark the beginning of maternal bias in the courts which has persisted to this day. “The mother is the softest and safest nurse of infancy” cast this maternal preference in a most humanitarian light: this is for the good and nurturing of the child. Dahlsad, agrees that current child custody laws are insufficient, possibly destructive in some cases. Parents that aren’t custodial in North Dakota and feel that they don’t participate enough are fighting for rights, called Shared Parenting Initiative. Dahlsad disagrees with these rights. I agree with both authors, why are fathers not getting full rights. I agree that parents that aren’t custodial should not get more rights. So, why are men treated differently? Mitchell is a law graduate from and fathers right attorney. She is founder and director of the Father’s Rights & Equality Exchange. Her credibility and knowledge of this topic is a reliable source. Dahlsad is a father that has custody of his child, so his credibility and knowledge is useful as a source. (Mitchell, page 1-2) (Dahlsad, page 1-3)
These two articles were in agreement on how the tender year doctrine was being used still when it shouldn’t be. Each author had different views to point out on how it was being used or abused. We looked at how Mitchell showed the bias on the judicial, maternal, and emotional part, where as Dahlsad showed his emotional bias. Both authors are credible because one is law graduate and founder of a Father’s Rights group. The emotional and logical arguments provide us with information, their different ways of expressing their opinions and backgrounds are resourceful. So how do other people feel about this? Only time will tell?
Works Cited
Mitchell, Anne P. “Equal Protection Under the Law?” www.parentingplan.net
Dahlsad, David “Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues” www.thelizlibrary.com
Tender year doctrine or best interest of the child, is it used and is it fair? I read two articles, “Equal Protection Under the Law?” by Anne P. Mitchell; and “Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues” by Derek Dahlsad. Anne is arguing that men are not getting equal right by law. She is against how the 14th Amendment says one thing and judges are doing oppose. Derek is arguing against the Shared Parenting Initiative in his state. He is stating that he is not for the change because it is unfair to custodial parents. The authors disagree with custody decisions and provide emotional and logical arguments, although they have different ways of expressing their opinions and have different backgrounds.
In the article, “Equal Protection Under the Law?” it shows judicial bias, maternal bias, professional bias, and even the author shows bias about the subject of child custody. I read how the author truly felt about the 14th Amendment. She is upset because it is not being used properly. Men are not getting the same rights as women. Men were getting custody of the children since the early 19th century then it changed to the tender year doctrine. The tender year doctrine was started because people were getting upset about how the mothers were being treated. Now the laws have changed again to the best interest of the child, but still people are supporting the tender year doctrine. People are assuming that all young children should be placed with the mother. This article keeps mentioning the unfairness of fathers in custody now. The author, Anne P. Mitchell, is a Stanford Law School graduate and attorney. She is in charge of the Fathers’ Rights and Equality Exchange. Her writing is found on the internet.
“Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues”, is written with an emotional bias. I read the first sentence and how it is written tells it all. The article is about how absent parents feel about not being there to make decisions for the children on a daily basis. North Dakota is trying to start a Shared Parenting Initiative, to help the absent parents. Many parents have custodial rights more than the other but the other wants a say in it now. With this new Shared Parenting Initiative, both parents make the decision and if they disagree with each other than they have to go to court to settle it. The absent parent will deal with the kids day to day like the other custodial parent does, no matter what. The custodial parent will not get child support since the other absent parent is now participating. Meaning that the custodial parent will pay for all and the absent parent can just help by being there for the child. How is that fair? Derek Dahlsad is a parent in the state of North Dakota and is a concerned parent. His article reflects how he sees things and shows his emotions on the Shared Parenting Initiative.
“Equal Protection Under the Law?” Mitchell mentions the tender year doctrine. It states, that this doctrine suggests that custody of a child could be awarded to its mother if the child were of “tender years.” “Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues” Dahlsad, states that the court assigns physical custody to one parent or the other; for better or worse, it often goes to the mother. Both articles see the tender year doctrine as a problem, and each article are fighting to help. Each article shows bias on the topic of tender year doctrine. Mitchell asks, “Are those men, in fact afforded such equal treatment?” She answers, “No.” Vast majority of disputed custody cases are resolved with custody going to the mother. Even in courts which have found the tender years doctrine to be repugnant, there is still a judicial bias towards giving custody to the mother. The article states that one can certainly see that this doctrine seems to mark the beginning of maternal bias in the courts which has persisted to this day. “The mother is the softest and safest nurse of infancy” cast this maternal preference in a most humanitarian light: this is for the good and nurturing of the child. Dahlsad, agrees that current child custody laws are insufficient, possibly destructive in some cases. Parents that aren’t custodial in North Dakota and feel that they don’t participate enough are fighting for rights, called Shared Parenting Initiative. Dahlsad disagrees with these rights. I agree with both authors, why are fathers not getting full rights. I agree that parents that aren’t custodial should not get more rights. So, why are men treated differently? Mitchell is a law graduate from and fathers right attorney. She is founder and director of the Father’s Rights & Equality Exchange. Her credibility and knowledge of this topic is a reliable source. Dahlsad is a father that has custody of his child, so his credibility and knowledge is useful as a source. (Mitchell, page 1-2) (Dahlsad, page 1-3)
These two articles were in agreement on how the tender year doctrine was being used still when it shouldn’t be. Each author had different views to point out on how it was being used or abused. We looked at how Mitchell showed the bias on the judicial, maternal, and emotional part, where as Dahlsad showed his emotional bias. Both authors are credible because one is law graduate and founder of a Father’s Rights group. The emotional and logical arguments provide us with information, their different ways of expressing their opinions and backgrounds are resourceful. So how do other people feel about this? Only time will tell?
Works Cited
Mitchell, Anne P. “Equal Protection Under the Law?” www.parentingplan.net
Dahlsad, David “Against Presumptive Joint Custody: A Custodial Father Explains the Issues” www.thelizlibrary.com
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Essay Exam 1 hour
Danielle Leerhoff
Essay Exam 1 hour
When asked about what I wanted to write about I chose something that is an ongoing battle. I chose to write about Child Custody Laws and the father’s role. I believe every person has rights. The information that I researched was very informative and hard to understand why some of the choices that were made, were made.
I researched on the internet Hawkeye Library about the tender year doctrine. The article by Julie E. Artis , she talks to judges in Indiana about the tender year doctrine. What they say baffled me. The new statue in Indiana and all other states, state to use the gender-neutral doctrine, but many of the judges still refer to the old tender year doctrine. With this new information I really got into the article. Why do they still use it? They use it sometimes as a tie breaker for battles because it is easier. What about the best interest of the kid(s)? The judges think that the mother is the natural nurturer, she is caregiver. The judges could have been wrong or right in their decisions but did they look at the case itself? Some just assumed the mother get custody in fake scenarios just because of the natural nurturer and care giving. What about fathers? Don’t they have a say? Fathers can be a nurturer just like the mother is. The evidence is clear, that many judges now matter what, still go by what they think is right. Should this be fair? Some judges think that the tender year doctrine being used is unfair to fathers. The more I read the more I understand why the laws have changed. I believe in the new laws but why can’t the judges use it. The article is a very typical one about the matter but still lacks in research about how the judges decide each case. Artis did not get much case evidence in this article which makes it hard to agree or disagree with. What if the mom was unfit? How did they justify that? I still stand for the rights of fathers to have custody but I also had to do a lot of in depth understanding of the judges to. Artis has written other informative articles that have helped others. So when she did all the questioning and prodding into the minds of the judges she learned just how they thought to. Some of the article was hard to read because I got frustrated and angry at the judges for what they were saying but I had to continue on and learn more about their aspects of the debate was.
Leaving you with a thought….Anyone can be a parent but it takes a real true man and/or woman to be one.
Essay Exam 1 hour
When asked about what I wanted to write about I chose something that is an ongoing battle. I chose to write about Child Custody Laws and the father’s role. I believe every person has rights. The information that I researched was very informative and hard to understand why some of the choices that were made, were made.
I researched on the internet Hawkeye Library about the tender year doctrine. The article by Julie E. Artis , she talks to judges in Indiana about the tender year doctrine. What they say baffled me. The new statue in Indiana and all other states, state to use the gender-neutral doctrine, but many of the judges still refer to the old tender year doctrine. With this new information I really got into the article. Why do they still use it? They use it sometimes as a tie breaker for battles because it is easier. What about the best interest of the kid(s)? The judges think that the mother is the natural nurturer, she is caregiver. The judges could have been wrong or right in their decisions but did they look at the case itself? Some just assumed the mother get custody in fake scenarios just because of the natural nurturer and care giving. What about fathers? Don’t they have a say? Fathers can be a nurturer just like the mother is. The evidence is clear, that many judges now matter what, still go by what they think is right. Should this be fair? Some judges think that the tender year doctrine being used is unfair to fathers. The more I read the more I understand why the laws have changed. I believe in the new laws but why can’t the judges use it. The article is a very typical one about the matter but still lacks in research about how the judges decide each case. Artis did not get much case evidence in this article which makes it hard to agree or disagree with. What if the mom was unfit? How did they justify that? I still stand for the rights of fathers to have custody but I also had to do a lot of in depth understanding of the judges to. Artis has written other informative articles that have helped others. So when she did all the questioning and prodding into the minds of the judges she learned just how they thought to. Some of the article was hard to read because I got frustrated and angry at the judges for what they were saying but I had to continue on and learn more about their aspects of the debate was.
Leaving you with a thought….Anyone can be a parent but it takes a real true man and/or woman to be one.
Final Response Paper
Child Custody Laws
“I want a divorce and I want the kids!” “No, I want the kids!” Now that I have your attention lets talk. When divorcing, child custody is based on the best interest of the child or is it? In the article, Judging the Best Interest of the Child: Judges’ Accounts of the Tender Year Doctrine, written by Julie E. Artis, many Indiana judges have many different views on the subject. Some believe in the tender year doctrine more than people think. Artis’ credibility is very strong as she interviewed actual judges on the matter; however it is weak because of lack of actual case information about how some decisions were made.
Julie E. Artis in her writing, Judging the Best Interest of the Child: Judges’ Accounts of the Tender Year Doctrine, focuses on the judges of Indiana and their views of the tender year doctrine where the children automatically go to the mother and the new gender-neutral laws. The new statue of Indiana states the new gender-neutral law but some judges are still favor the tender year doctrine. They say that the mother is the natural nurturer and caretaker, then the father. New gender-neutral law wants custody awarded in the sense of how much the child spent with each parent before the divorce. Older judges and male judges use the tender year doctrine more then female judges. Artis argues that some judges that said they don’t use the tender year doctrine later use it in the decision of cases or as a tiebreaker to make their decision. Some lawyers try to tell the fathers to get custody finalized before court because it is less of a hassle. When there is a father who is way involved in his children and there is reason to believe the mother is not as concerned about the children then go to court. When deciding custody judges look at which parent is there for the child emotionally, how strong the bond is between each parent and the children, adjustments to home and environment around them, health of all people in the home, time spent with the children, and who is there to care for them. Some judges agree that whoever uses the tender year doctrine is making the custody unfair to fathers. Fathers can bond and be the primary care giver just like the mother can. Many judges use gut instinct when is comes to custody cases. Whether or not a judge agrees to the tender year doctrine…eighty-two percent of the time mothers get custody. When there is a contested custody case then the judge tries to award the children equally between the mother and father. Judges that have dealt with contested custody and are against the old doctrine still award the children to the mother 80 percent of the time. Artis states in her findings that judges use the tender year doctrine as the best interests of the child instead of the gender-neutral.
Julie E. Artis is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at DePaul University. She has wrote an examination of the decline in women’s household labor with another person which appeared in, Journal of Marriage and Family. Her work being published means that her research is needed. In the article, Judging the Best Interest of the Child: Judges’ Accounts of the Tender Year Doctrine, she went through interviewing judges in the state of Indiana. She states in her article, she conducted twenty five face-to-face interviews with judges during summer 1998, and that most of her interviews lasted between one and two hours. I agree that with the interviews lasting that long because Artis got significant amount of information to put this article together. She stays consistent throughout the whole article by asking them the same questions. When each judge had a different point of view about the tender year doctrine she stayed to the main focus by asking more questions to clarify why the judges were for their decision. (Artis 769-806)
Artis biography states she is an Assistant Professor, however doesn’t state if into the law major. Her gathering of information was excellent, but her research could have been more in depth if she had gotten actual cases to collaborate her findings. Artis has very good basic form, but she is lacking in case evidence on how judges came to their verdict. She asked them to answer hypothetical cases but the cases were age sensitive. Some cases were about the mothers’ biological ties to the children. Why not the fathers’ biological tie? Nothing is mentioned about the father. Artis states, that in the arena of child custody law, state legislatures have adopted a seemingly gender-neutral standard, the “best interests of the child.” This standard has replaced gender-specific laws that granted custody, particularly of young children, to the mother. I ask again, why nothing mentioned about the father’s biological tie to the children. Does this infer that Artis is against fathers getting custody of the children? Artis ethos on the matter is just about getting the interviews into the article but she doesn’t discuss her feelings or how others would feel towards what these judges say. Is she for or against tender year doctrine? She is not that clear on it, but in her summary before reading the article, it states, “Should children be placed with an “open, empathetic” father or with a “stern but value-supporting” mother? That leads me to believe that she is for the new gender-neutral standard. I agree with her on being against the tender year doctrine just by what the judges have said. (Artis 769-806)
Artis ethos are not to try to change anyone’s views, just try to educate people in law and legal fields to understand what goes on behind the minds of judges. Anyone reading this article can agree or disagree with the judges. Each person can take this publication and stress each aspect, but still view it as they want to. She hasn’t made me change my view; I still think fathers don’t get the rights they should when it comes to wanting their children.
According to the logos that Artis got from interviewing, more than half of the judges expressed support for the tender year doctrine at some point. Is there no justice for fathers in this matter? Was there ever justice for fathers? In the reading, until the late 1960s, the tender year doctrine was the custody law in most states, emphasizing mothers’ biological superiority as a parent especially during infancy, resulting in a legal preference for mothers. The text justified, that mostly older judges, express a belief in the tender year doctrine as a factor in custody decisions. How does a judge decides when a mother and father both want custody, who gets the kids? The text told me that some judges use the tender year doctrine as a tiebreaker. (Artis 769-806)
Artis’ pathos intended this article for law and family rights, it was published in the magazine, Law and Society View. People that view this article may have mixed feelings. A few judges state in the interview, “Although I couldn’t say it on a public platform without being pilloried, I believe that the mother has the stronger natural nurturing instinct” or “I don’t mean to be sexist here… I believe other things equal, that at that kind of age… the mother is a better caregiver.” How does this make you feel? I disagree with both judges comments. I don’t think she intended for this publication to be read by college students, let alone be analyzed as a resource for a paper. I think it is a very good publication to use for my paper. I think she would want people to know what the judge’s views are and how they stand with their judgments. (Artis 769-806)
The pathos usage is very frequent in this article to get attention. Some judges use the gut feeling method on who gets the children. How do you know if the feeling is good or bad? Judges are to make the right decision for the children. Eighty-two percent of the time custody goes to the mother, whether or not a judge is for the tender year doctrine. In some contested cases custody could be equally split between the parents.
Her logos and pathos interlock in this article, because mothers are often the caretakers of small children, they receive custody more often. What about fathers that are caretakers of children? It states, there’s no reason why a father can’t bond and provide care giving duties to an infant just like a mother can. Some judges think the tender year doctrine is unfair to fathers. Why do some use it? Like one judge remarked, “I think it’s unfair to fathers. It’s sort of giving a mixed message. It’s saying to fathers: ‘You really need to be involved and you need to do things to get involved’ and when they do, it’s not enough to make them an equal in the eyes of the law…” I agree fathers that get treated unfairly. Why break the father’s bond? Don’t men and women both share in the duties of children? (Artis 769-806)
Artis gets the information you need from the right people, the judges but need to get the case information to make it stronger. Tender year doctrine is replaced by the gender-neutral standard, but judges still use the doctrine because that is what they think is right. Some judges think that fathers and mothers getting equal rights is fair while others use the doctrine as a tiebreaker. Fairness is not being met by judges and now we an understanding of why. So the couple at the beginning asking about the children…. they both got them equally it is in the best interest of the children.
Works Cited:
Artis, Julie E. “Judging the Best Interests of the Child: Judges' Accounts of the Tender
Years Doctrine.” Law & Society Review 2004: Vol. 38 Issue 4, p769-806.
“I want a divorce and I want the kids!” “No, I want the kids!” Now that I have your attention lets talk. When divorcing, child custody is based on the best interest of the child or is it? In the article, Judging the Best Interest of the Child: Judges’ Accounts of the Tender Year Doctrine, written by Julie E. Artis, many Indiana judges have many different views on the subject. Some believe in the tender year doctrine more than people think. Artis’ credibility is very strong as she interviewed actual judges on the matter; however it is weak because of lack of actual case information about how some decisions were made.
Julie E. Artis in her writing, Judging the Best Interest of the Child: Judges’ Accounts of the Tender Year Doctrine, focuses on the judges of Indiana and their views of the tender year doctrine where the children automatically go to the mother and the new gender-neutral laws. The new statue of Indiana states the new gender-neutral law but some judges are still favor the tender year doctrine. They say that the mother is the natural nurturer and caretaker, then the father. New gender-neutral law wants custody awarded in the sense of how much the child spent with each parent before the divorce. Older judges and male judges use the tender year doctrine more then female judges. Artis argues that some judges that said they don’t use the tender year doctrine later use it in the decision of cases or as a tiebreaker to make their decision. Some lawyers try to tell the fathers to get custody finalized before court because it is less of a hassle. When there is a father who is way involved in his children and there is reason to believe the mother is not as concerned about the children then go to court. When deciding custody judges look at which parent is there for the child emotionally, how strong the bond is between each parent and the children, adjustments to home and environment around them, health of all people in the home, time spent with the children, and who is there to care for them. Some judges agree that whoever uses the tender year doctrine is making the custody unfair to fathers. Fathers can bond and be the primary care giver just like the mother can. Many judges use gut instinct when is comes to custody cases. Whether or not a judge agrees to the tender year doctrine…eighty-two percent of the time mothers get custody. When there is a contested custody case then the judge tries to award the children equally between the mother and father. Judges that have dealt with contested custody and are against the old doctrine still award the children to the mother 80 percent of the time. Artis states in her findings that judges use the tender year doctrine as the best interests of the child instead of the gender-neutral.
Julie E. Artis is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at DePaul University. She has wrote an examination of the decline in women’s household labor with another person which appeared in, Journal of Marriage and Family. Her work being published means that her research is needed. In the article, Judging the Best Interest of the Child: Judges’ Accounts of the Tender Year Doctrine, she went through interviewing judges in the state of Indiana. She states in her article, she conducted twenty five face-to-face interviews with judges during summer 1998, and that most of her interviews lasted between one and two hours. I agree that with the interviews lasting that long because Artis got significant amount of information to put this article together. She stays consistent throughout the whole article by asking them the same questions. When each judge had a different point of view about the tender year doctrine she stayed to the main focus by asking more questions to clarify why the judges were for their decision. (Artis 769-806)
Artis biography states she is an Assistant Professor, however doesn’t state if into the law major. Her gathering of information was excellent, but her research could have been more in depth if she had gotten actual cases to collaborate her findings. Artis has very good basic form, but she is lacking in case evidence on how judges came to their verdict. She asked them to answer hypothetical cases but the cases were age sensitive. Some cases were about the mothers’ biological ties to the children. Why not the fathers’ biological tie? Nothing is mentioned about the father. Artis states, that in the arena of child custody law, state legislatures have adopted a seemingly gender-neutral standard, the “best interests of the child.” This standard has replaced gender-specific laws that granted custody, particularly of young children, to the mother. I ask again, why nothing mentioned about the father’s biological tie to the children. Does this infer that Artis is against fathers getting custody of the children? Artis ethos on the matter is just about getting the interviews into the article but she doesn’t discuss her feelings or how others would feel towards what these judges say. Is she for or against tender year doctrine? She is not that clear on it, but in her summary before reading the article, it states, “Should children be placed with an “open, empathetic” father or with a “stern but value-supporting” mother? That leads me to believe that she is for the new gender-neutral standard. I agree with her on being against the tender year doctrine just by what the judges have said. (Artis 769-806)
Artis ethos are not to try to change anyone’s views, just try to educate people in law and legal fields to understand what goes on behind the minds of judges. Anyone reading this article can agree or disagree with the judges. Each person can take this publication and stress each aspect, but still view it as they want to. She hasn’t made me change my view; I still think fathers don’t get the rights they should when it comes to wanting their children.
According to the logos that Artis got from interviewing, more than half of the judges expressed support for the tender year doctrine at some point. Is there no justice for fathers in this matter? Was there ever justice for fathers? In the reading, until the late 1960s, the tender year doctrine was the custody law in most states, emphasizing mothers’ biological superiority as a parent especially during infancy, resulting in a legal preference for mothers. The text justified, that mostly older judges, express a belief in the tender year doctrine as a factor in custody decisions. How does a judge decides when a mother and father both want custody, who gets the kids? The text told me that some judges use the tender year doctrine as a tiebreaker. (Artis 769-806)
Artis’ pathos intended this article for law and family rights, it was published in the magazine, Law and Society View. People that view this article may have mixed feelings. A few judges state in the interview, “Although I couldn’t say it on a public platform without being pilloried, I believe that the mother has the stronger natural nurturing instinct” or “I don’t mean to be sexist here… I believe other things equal, that at that kind of age… the mother is a better caregiver.” How does this make you feel? I disagree with both judges comments. I don’t think she intended for this publication to be read by college students, let alone be analyzed as a resource for a paper. I think it is a very good publication to use for my paper. I think she would want people to know what the judge’s views are and how they stand with their judgments. (Artis 769-806)
The pathos usage is very frequent in this article to get attention. Some judges use the gut feeling method on who gets the children. How do you know if the feeling is good or bad? Judges are to make the right decision for the children. Eighty-two percent of the time custody goes to the mother, whether or not a judge is for the tender year doctrine. In some contested cases custody could be equally split between the parents.
Her logos and pathos interlock in this article, because mothers are often the caretakers of small children, they receive custody more often. What about fathers that are caretakers of children? It states, there’s no reason why a father can’t bond and provide care giving duties to an infant just like a mother can. Some judges think the tender year doctrine is unfair to fathers. Why do some use it? Like one judge remarked, “I think it’s unfair to fathers. It’s sort of giving a mixed message. It’s saying to fathers: ‘You really need to be involved and you need to do things to get involved’ and when they do, it’s not enough to make them an equal in the eyes of the law…” I agree fathers that get treated unfairly. Why break the father’s bond? Don’t men and women both share in the duties of children? (Artis 769-806)
Artis gets the information you need from the right people, the judges but need to get the case information to make it stronger. Tender year doctrine is replaced by the gender-neutral standard, but judges still use the doctrine because that is what they think is right. Some judges think that fathers and mothers getting equal rights is fair while others use the doctrine as a tiebreaker. Fairness is not being met by judges and now we an understanding of why. So the couple at the beginning asking about the children…. they both got them equally it is in the best interest of the children.
Works Cited:
Artis, Julie E. “Judging the Best Interests of the Child: Judges' Accounts of the Tender
Years Doctrine.” Law & Society Review 2004: Vol. 38 Issue 4, p769-806.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Reflective
Reflective Analysis for Response Essay
This paper was confusing to me. I wrote one paper and argued throughout the whole paper. The second one I wrote I concentrated on just what the article says. I wrote it single spaced and had three pages cause that is what I thought the teacher had told us but to find out it was double spaced changed it. I have six pages of writing. I need to work on this paper a little more. I had a though time with the thesis… I still think that it needs work. I repeat many points in the article. Focusing on one article was tough, because I could not put my emotions into it, even though I know I did in some spots. I think this is a very good paper since I have never had to sit down and actually write one in my whole life. I think if I would have had more time I could have went more in depth and had time to think about my thesis. I was going to hand write my essay on paper first then type it but with one week turn around I didn’t have time so I just typed it instead. When I hand write something I get a better understanding of what I read. I was in a special education class for reading comprehension so I need to work on stuff more hands on instead of technology. I like to sit and let things sink in a while before I type a report/essay but again… the one week thing. It was hard to understand exactly what to write because the outline I was given was difficult to understand since I have not done many writing activities. I had to come up with new ways of wording and looking at the article from a non-judgmental stand point which was hard to do. I felt stressed when writing this paper because of the time frame and not being able to argue against it. I learned that I can write a paper which I never thought I could. The terms ethos, logos, and pathos are confusing. Writing has taught me new languages I never knew existed.
The fact that I can write something that I am interested in helps me to try my hardest to have other people see the same views that I have. I have not changed my mind about how I feel towards the tender year doctrine. I still believe that it should not be used in courts when determining custody of children. Both parents should be looked at and considered not one over the other. Fathers should have equal custodial rights just like the mother. After reading the article, I have questions that I have about the article itself. Why didn’t the author go and get more information about mothers who were always picked over fathers? If the tender year doctrine is “suppose” to be not used, then why are they still using it? How come it took so long to get the new gender bias doctrine? Writing about this topic has taught me how some people have different views than what I have and how judges make decisions when considering custody battles.
Writing this paper has taught me that there might need to be some edits, rewrites, and deleted parts. Never get rid of anything you wrote before because it might help me later on write the final masterpiece. The main purpose of writing is to get better information to the audience on facts and reasons. I think I did a good job of that in the paper.
This paper was confusing to me. I wrote one paper and argued throughout the whole paper. The second one I wrote I concentrated on just what the article says. I wrote it single spaced and had three pages cause that is what I thought the teacher had told us but to find out it was double spaced changed it. I have six pages of writing. I need to work on this paper a little more. I had a though time with the thesis… I still think that it needs work. I repeat many points in the article. Focusing on one article was tough, because I could not put my emotions into it, even though I know I did in some spots. I think this is a very good paper since I have never had to sit down and actually write one in my whole life. I think if I would have had more time I could have went more in depth and had time to think about my thesis. I was going to hand write my essay on paper first then type it but with one week turn around I didn’t have time so I just typed it instead. When I hand write something I get a better understanding of what I read. I was in a special education class for reading comprehension so I need to work on stuff more hands on instead of technology. I like to sit and let things sink in a while before I type a report/essay but again… the one week thing. It was hard to understand exactly what to write because the outline I was given was difficult to understand since I have not done many writing activities. I had to come up with new ways of wording and looking at the article from a non-judgmental stand point which was hard to do. I felt stressed when writing this paper because of the time frame and not being able to argue against it. I learned that I can write a paper which I never thought I could. The terms ethos, logos, and pathos are confusing. Writing has taught me new languages I never knew existed.
The fact that I can write something that I am interested in helps me to try my hardest to have other people see the same views that I have. I have not changed my mind about how I feel towards the tender year doctrine. I still believe that it should not be used in courts when determining custody of children. Both parents should be looked at and considered not one over the other. Fathers should have equal custodial rights just like the mother. After reading the article, I have questions that I have about the article itself. Why didn’t the author go and get more information about mothers who were always picked over fathers? If the tender year doctrine is “suppose” to be not used, then why are they still using it? How come it took so long to get the new gender bias doctrine? Writing about this topic has taught me how some people have different views than what I have and how judges make decisions when considering custody battles.
Writing this paper has taught me that there might need to be some edits, rewrites, and deleted parts. Never get rid of anything you wrote before because it might help me later on write the final masterpiece. The main purpose of writing is to get better information to the audience on facts and reasons. I think I did a good job of that in the paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
