Mothers and fathers in families are the backbone of America. They teach children right from wrong, respect for others, and the value of working hard to make a good life for themselves and for their future families. Many single parents work hard to do the job of both mother and father and succeed in raising children to become successful adults. Many children overcome parental and environmental deficits to become contributing members of society. However, the evidence is clear that most children do best when they receive the emotional and financial support of both parents.' Marriage is the institution by which society communicates the social value of longterm, two-parent commitment to raising children. Yet, despite the importance of marriage, each year nearly a million American children experience the divorce of their parents. In addition, each year more than a quarter of all American children born have unmarried parents. In fact, sometime before they reach adulthood over half of all children will live in a home with one parent only.
Many divorcing parents focus on the interests of their children. They try to assure that their separation has a minimal impact on their children. They work together to provide adequately for their children. They plan together how to share decision-making about the children's schooling, religious upbringing, medical care, and participation in activities. They agree on what rules and kinds of discipline should be used with the children. They agree on where the children will live and they make reasonable arrangements about sharing parenting time.
For other parents, divorce is a paralyzing experience. Only one spouse may want the divorce. The other spouse may experience severe feelings of betrayal, fear of what lies ahead, or a loss of control. Each parent may face a sharp break in relationships with many others beyond the spouse.
Although in many divorcing families there is hostility before the decision to divorce, the divorce often heightens the hostility. The parents vie for the loyalty of their children. One parent may use control of the children to the exclusion of the other parent as a source of power and security; another parent may use control of financial resources to achieve the same ends. Often, anger toward each other is used as justification for lack of cooperation. Too often, the parent who does not live with the children fades from their lives. It has been well documented that children in such hostile situations pay a price.
Most divorcing parents struggle with their own feelings and try to do what is best for the children. While many parents manage to resolve their disputes out of court, others do not have the help they need to agree on the future role each parent will play in their children's lives.
Many unmarried parents, too, need help in agreeing on the roles they will play in their children's lives. In recent years, through collaborative Federal/State efforts, increased emphasis has been placed on establishing the paternity of children born to unwed parents and securing child support for them. Less emphasis has been placed on developing effective mechanisms for formalizing other parenting responsibilities to assure that both parents provide emotional and financial support to their children as they grow to maturity.
When separating, divorcing, or unmarried parents cannot reach agreement on parenting issues involving their children, they must often resort to an adversarial system that dies little to ensure that they come to terms with their changing situation and feel comfortable with the outcome. The confrontation of parent against parent, especially if it is ultimately resolved in litigation in there are winners and losers, simply is not a good way to induce cooperation between parents and best address the interests of the children.
Therefore, the Commission, as its mission, sought ways of creating environments in which decisions can best be make about the well-being of children to ensure they receive the emotional and financial support of both parents. In particular, the Commission decided to focus on custody and visitation issues that affect the children of separating, divorcing, and unmarried parents. As described in Chapter 2, Framing the Issues, the Commission examined the demographic and economic factors contributing to the increase in divorce and out-of-wedlock births, the ways in which custody and visitation determinations currently are made, and the problems often presented by the ways the determinations are made.
After analysis, the Commission decided to focus on two important forums courts and communities and the assistance they can give in helping parents meet their ongoing responsibilities to their children. The Commission looked for ways to reduce the adversarial nature of court proceedings affecting parental decision-making, parenting time, and residential arrangements of children whose parents are separating, divorcing, or unmarried. In addition, the Commission looked for ways to build support for parents in their communities to help them better fulfill their responsibilities to their families before, during, in the absence of, and after marriage.
Courts that address family matters are the forums for deciding parenting disputes that affect the children of separating, divorcing, and unmarried parents. These courts make decisions that are of enormous importance to the well-being of children. Yet the adversarial nature of many courts can exacerbate rather than ameliorate family conflict. In contrast, family-friendly courts can empower parents to focus on the needs of their children and help parents resolve together the nature of their continuing relationship to their children. Chapter 3, Reshaping the Courts, provides a discussion of the core components of family-friendly courts, and urges States and court systems to adopt these components. In sum, to help ensure that courts produce outcomes that are beneficial to children and families, the Commission on Child and Family Welfare makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 1:
Courts and legislatures should replace the terms "custody" and "visitation" with terms that more accurately describe parenting responsibilities and are less likely to foster conflict, such as "parental decision-making," "parenting time," and "residential arrangements" for children.
Recommendation 2:
States should assure that courts charged with adjudicating family matters are at the level of the highest trial court of general jurisdiction and have appropriate resources, high-quality judges, and well-trained court personnel.
Recommendation 3:
Courts should provide intake and referral services that are appropriate to the individual needs of separating, divorcing, and unmarried parents.
Recommendation 4:
Courts should require separating, divorcing, and unmarried parents to attend orientation and education programs to help them understand court processes and the effect that their decisions will have on their lives and the lives of their children.
Recommendation 5:
Courts should adopt effective court coordination and information systems that provide complete, accurate, timely, and (when appropriate) confidential information, including information on current and past court actions within and across courts that involve particular families or family members. The coordination of family matters before the courts should in no way undermine the authority or discretion of court systems to prosecute family violence offenses as criminal matters.
Recommendation 6:
The National Council of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) should make recommendations for revisions to the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act and other relevant laws that would clarify jurisdictional issues, resolve subject matter conflicts, and improve communications between courts in interstate cases affecting parental decision-making, parenting time, and residential arrangements for children.
Recommendation 7:
Courts should require separating, divorcing, and unmarried parents living apart to attempt to develop parenting plans that set forth parental decision-making, parenting time, and residential arrangements for the children. Courts should provide guidance for the development of parenting plans by identifying the legal parameters and issues that plans should address and by making forms available to help parents develop the plans.
Recommendation 8:
Courts should require separating, divorcing, or unmarried parents living apart who have not agreed on a parenting plan to try to resolve their differences through mediation, except in cases involving domestic abuse, substance abuse, mental impairments, and/or other characteristics of the parties that would make mediation inadvisable or that would preclude a fair mediation process.
Recommendation 9:
Public and private efforts should be made to increase the competence of attorneys, judges, and other court personnel on issues of family law and family dynamics and to increase the availability of counsel for probono work in family law cases.
Beyond the extended family, resources to help families can be found in the communities where families live. The community, with its various voluntary, religious, business, nonprofit and public institutions, and their mix of programs and approaches, can help provide the strong support that families in distress so desperately need. The Commission believes that, together with family-friendly courts, the community can help families ensure that children receive the emotional and financial support of both parents, whether those parents are married, separated, divorced, or unmarried. Approaches that communities should consider in developing their family support networks are discussed in Chapter 4, Empowering the Family Through the Community. In sum, to help communities support and strengthen families, the Commission on Child and Family Welfare makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 10:
Communities should support education, counseling, and employment assistance programs designed to prepare people for marriage and to promote responsible parenting.
Recommendation 11:
Communities should help at-risk teens set viable, long-term goals and develop plans for achieving them through mentoring programs that reinforce responsible behavior and through avenue-out-of-poverty programs that invest in education, training, and job placement.
Recommendation 12
Communities should support the development and public awareness of effective community-based, non-court, dispute resolution, and family support programs that can help family members resolve disputes and address the consequences of divorce.
Recommendation 13:
Communities should develop and disseminate directories of programs that help families meet their emotional and financial responsibilities to their children and foster the creation of networks among these programs.
Recommendation 14:
Religious institutions and other community-based groups should work cooperatively to disseminate information about the positive impact on children of the involvement of both parents in their lives and to adopt approaches and expand efforts to reduce the rate and ad-verse consequences of divorce and non-marital births.
Recommendation 15:
Religious leaders should convene a multilevel summit to develop a strategic plan on ways to expand assistance in support of families and provide the necessary interventions to help individuals prepare for marriage and parenting, strengthen intact families, and support families in which parents are separated, divorced, or unmarried.
Recommendation 16:
Businesses should develop family-friendly business practices to build more effective supports for families.
Recommendation 17:
Governments at all levels should adopt as a priority the goal of keeping both parents involved emotionally and financially in the lives of their children.
Recommendation 18:
Governments at all levels should evaluate laws and policies with respect to their effects on the family.
Recommendation 19:
Governments at all levels should examine tax codes and modify them to provide greater support for families with children and to eliminate marriage penalties.
Recommendation 20:
Government and private organizations should encourage the training of parent leaders who ill help other parents improve their parenting and problem-solving skills and will work to influence and improve the delivery of family services in their communities.
Recommendation 21:
Public schools should be catalysts for widely based community efforts to strengthen families and encourage parent groups to make greater use of school facilities.
The Commission developed an agenda for strengthening families and communities through court reform and increased community efforts to support families. To encourage further research and educate the public about its important agenda, the Commission on Child and Family Welfare makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 22:
Federal and State governments and other research funding sources should sponsor additional research and disseminate findings on important issues such as: 1) the elements of a successful marriage; 2) the causes of divorce; 3) the effects of different parenting arrangements on children; 4) the impact of divorce on the well-being of children; 5) the well-being of children of unmarried parents; and 6) the components of the current legal system that promote or fail to promote the continued financial and emotional support of children by both parents.
Recommendation 23:
Federal, State, and local government and private entities should participate in a broad public education program to promote the Commission's recommendations.
The Commission on Child and Family Welfare was established by Congress in the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 (PL.102521). The Commission received a broad charge to investigate a wide variety of issues that affect the best interests of children and provide recommendations to the President and the Congress.
The Commission is comprised of 15 individuals: 3 appointed by the President; 4 by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate; 2 by the Senate Minority Leader; 4 by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and 2 by the House Minority Leader. The Commission's expertise spans family law, children s issues, mental health, domestic violence, and child and family welfare. Members have expertise in both research and delivery of services.
The Commissioners were sworn in on January 10,1995. Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Walter Broadnax advised the Commission to select its topics carefully so that in the brief time available it could focus on urgent priorities for children. In looking at how to improve outcomes for the Nation's children through better, more harmonious parental decision-making, Commissioners brought to the table their own expertise and specific concerns, which were then bolstered as well as challenged by expert and public testimony and staff research. The Commission heard national experts, parents, and other concerned citizens and representatives of community-based organizations that educate and assist parents and children who are experiencing the effects of divorce and single parenthood (see Appendix E). The Commission sought information on parenting arrangements that were beneficial to children and looked for ways to reduce conflict. The focus on the well-being of children allowed this diverse group of Commissioners to address basic concerns and formulate a concrete set of recommendations.
In charting its course, the Commission had to try to reconcile strongly held viewpoints on the family, marriage, parenting, divorce, unmarried parents, father absence, and outcomes for children. These viewpoints often were at odds with one another. Moreover, the Commission found it hard to make general statements about what is desirable, because exceptions arose that were so compelling and of such vital concern that it became necessary to retreat before them. For instance, although two-parent, married-couple families generally have desirable outcomes for children, there are bad marriages that adversely affect children and parents who harm their spouses and their children. At the same time, there are single parents who are raising their children well in difficult circumstances. Finally, there is evidence that the absence of either parent negatively affects children, but there also are fathers and mothers whose behavior negatively affects children. The Commission was hampered by a lack of definitive, critically needed research that might help reconcile these disparities.
Moreover, the Commission had only nine months and extremely limited resources to perform the complicated task before it. As a result, the Commission could undertake only a limited exploration of a number of complex issues. In particular, the Commission wishes it could have examined more closely the research on single-parent families; the impact of family violence on the well-being of children; the impact of poverty and the economy on families; and the many societal factors and government policies that affect families, especially their formation and stability. Despite these constraints, the Commission believes that its 23 recommendations, if implemented, will advance its goal of building supports in the courts and communities to help parents provide their children with both emotional and financial support.nmarriedIn conclusion, the Commission believes that it is in the Nation's best interest to promote and encourage healthy and functional two-parent families as the most effective and stabilizing environments for rearing children. At the same time, the Commission believes that persons in other family structures must be supported in the interest of the children who live in these families. The Commission believes that its recommendations will help our Nation reach these goals.
The Commission began its focus on custody and visitation issues by examining the demographic and economic factors that contribute to the increase in divorce and out-ofwedlock births. In addition, the Commission examined ways in which custody and visitation determinations are currently made, the standards used to reach these determinations, the environments in which the standards are applied, and the problems often presented by the ways the determinations are made.
High rates of separation and divorce, as well as births to unmarried parents, have led to over a quarter of the Nation's children living with only one parent. Indeed, over half of all children sometime before they reach adulthood will live in a home with only one parent. For too many children, this has jeopardized the emotional and financial support that they need from both parents. Although many single parents provide the nurturing and support that help their children succeed in life, the evidence is clear that most children do best when they receive emotional and financial support from both parents
More than 18 million children of separated, divorced and unmarried parents
live with only one parent (see Chart 1). The percentage of children living
with one parent almost doubled from 14.7 percent in 1970 to 28 percent
in 1993.
Note: Children under age 18
Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census and unpublished
data.
The number of children each year whose parents divorce increased by 16 percent from 870,000 in 1970 to 1,005,000 in 1990 (see Table 1). The number of divorces increased by 67 percent between 1970 and 1990 2 During the same period, the number of births to unmarried parents increased by 300 percent.
In 1970, one in ten babies was born to unmarried parents; by 1992 three out of every ten babies were born to unmarried parents. There were 399,000 births to unmarried parents in 1970; the number of births to unmarried parents increased to over 1.2 million in 1992 (see Chart 2 and Table 2).
TABLE 1
Children Involved in Divorce: 1960 to 1991
|
1960 |
1970 |
1980 |
1990 |
1991 |
|
| Estimated # of Children involved in divorces (thousands) |
463 |
870 |
1,174 |
1,005 |
985 |
| Average # of children per decree |
1.18 |
1.22 |
0.98 |
NA |
NA |
| Rate per 1,000 children under 18 years of age |
7.2 |
12.5 |
17.3 |
15.7 |
15.1 |
NA - Not Available
Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, STATISTICAL
ABSTRACT of the U. S., 1993, Table 144, p.101.
Note: births to unmarried women as a percent of total
births.
Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center
for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report and unpublished
data.
TABLE 2
Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women,1992
| Race/Ethnic Group |
Total Births |
Unmarried Births |
% of Total Births Unmarried |
| All Women |
4,065,014 |
1,240,172 |
30.5 |
| White |
3,201,678 |
742,129 |
23.2 |
| Black |
673,633 |
452,476 |
67.2 |
| Asian/Pacific Islander |
150,259 |
23,742 |
15.8 |
| American Indian |
39,453 |
21,825 |
55.3 |
| Hispanic |
654,418 |
261,538 |
40.0 |
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center of Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistical Report, Vol. 44, No. 3 Supplement, Table 9, p. 43
Decades of stagnant and declining wages have placed serious strains on families and contributed both to the breakup of marriages and the fact that many individuals are having children without forming marital families. These trends have been accompanied by increases in child poverty (see Table 3). Since 1989, real income for all family types has been falling. During the same period, productivity, measured by output per hour in the business sector, has increased by over 30 percent.3
At the same time that real family income has been declining, family costs have been increasing. During the period 1970 to 1991, the median price of a new, one-family house increased nearly 23 times as fast as median come for married couples. The cost of health care in the same period increased more than four times as fast as median income for married couples. Overall personal consumption grew almost twice as fast as the median income for married couples between 1970 and 1991.
Note: In the paragraph and chart following, the Commission makes assertions which are NOT supported by the source referenced. See correction following the Commission's chart.
One way that many married couples have responded to declining incomes and increasing costs is for both parents to enter the labor force. Between 1970 and 1992, the percentage of mothers in the labor force increased by over 79 percent. In 1994, 68 percent of married mothers and 70 percent of all mothers were working full-time outside the home (see Chart 3). These changes in workforce participation by married women have resulted in higher incomes for their families. In 1991, married couples where both parents were employed had over 60 percent more gross income than married couples where one parent was not employed. Indeed, the median income for families where both parents work outside the home grew by nearly 19 percent between 1970 and 1991. For all other families, median income declined.7
According to the Census Bureau Report: Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics, P20-484, Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1994 chart on Living Arrangements of Children, March 1994 (page 36), the actual distribution of working versus non-working mothers is very different. In married families, 68% of mothers work full-time, but in unmarried families only 41% of mothers work full-time.
Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics, P20-484, Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1994
Why did the commission publish statistics in its report, from an "unpublished study" allegedly based on Census Data which diverges so dramatically from the Census Bureau's published data? I don't have the answer.- Richard Bennett
With the increased labor force participation of women, families have experienced increased work-related expenses. For most families, the largest of these expenses is child care. Child care costs $3,276 a year on average for a family whose youngest child is under 5 years of age. This represents 20 per cent or more of the median pre-tax income of single mothers and percent of the median pre-tax income of two-earner married couples.
If families with two earners are strained financially, the situation in one-parent families is even worse, especially when these families are headed by women. In 1991, two earner married couples had nearly 70 percent more income than single-parent families headed by men and nearly 300 percent more income than single-parent families headed by women. One-earner married couples had 33 percent more income than single-parent families headed by men and 80 percent more income than single-parent families headed by women. Between 1970 and 1991, the median income of families headed by a single male declined by over 8 percent, and the median income of families headed by a single female declined by nearly 8 percent9.
Children in single-parent families are also much more likely to be poor than children in two-parent families. Only 9 percent of families with children under 18 headed by a marred couple are poor, compared to 46 percent of such families headed by a woman and 23 percent of such families headed by a man.
The low incomes of single-parent families with children are due, in part, to a widespread failure of non-custodial parents to pay child support. In 1991, about 60 percent of the 9.9 million women and about 80 percent of the 1.6 million men who are custodial parents received no child support. These individuals either had no child support orders or had orders with payments due and received no payment. Of the individuals who were owed child support under a court order, only about 52 percent of women and 43 percent of men received full payment.11
Although a greater percentage of men than women do not receive child support, the consequences of the failure to receive support are more severe for women. First, far more women than men 5.9 million compared to 1.3 million do not receive child support. Second, because of women's lower incomes the economic effect on their households of not receiving support is greater on average for custodial mothers than it is for custodial fathers. Custodial mothers who received no child support in 1991 had an average annual income of $ 11,140, compared to $27,221 for custodial fathers who received no child support. If all the fathers who owed child support had paid in full in 1991, households where mothers were the custodial parent would have had 24 percent more income than if no child support were paid. In contrast, if all mothers who owed child support had paid in full, households where fathers were the custodial parent would have had 9 percent more income.
Children who have contact with their non-residential parent are more likely to receive child support. Of the 9.9 million custodialmother families, 5.7 million noncustodial fathers had joint custody, visitation, or both in 1991, while 4.2 million had neither. Of those fathers with visitation and/or joint custody who were supposed to pay support, about 81 percent made full or partial payment, while only 56 percent with neither custody nor visitation paid all or some of their child support. Of the 1.6 million custodial-father families, 1.l million noncustodial mothers had joint custody, visitation, or both in 1991, while less than 500,000 had neither. Of those mothers with visitation and or joint custody who were supposed to pay support, about 65 percent made full or partial payment, while only 48 percent with neither custody nor visitation paid all or some of their child support (see Table 4).
In addition to the possible loss of child support, children who lose contact with their nonresidential parent are likely to lose the emotional support of that parent. Yet, a large percentage of children who live with only one parent have little contact with the other parent. The National Survey of Children found that 49 percent of the children in its national sample who lived with only one of their parents in 1981 had not seen their nonresidential parent in the last year, and only one in six averaged contact once a week or more often.
Because so many nonresidential parents are fathers, the problem of absent fathers and its impact on children is of great national concern. Profound feelings of rejection and grief often reverberate in the children of these fathers for years. There are sometimes complex reasons why men lose contact with their children, from apathy to a belief that the system is biased against them. Lack of employment and economic success also have contributed to father absence. For whatever reason, the consequences of father absence for children are typically detrimental. The problems of mothers who are single, residential parents are of great national concern, too. In many instances, they are raising children alone, with inadequate financial and emotional support. Moreover, they are going it alone in a world that is increasingly requiring more of them as well as of their children. Often without sufficient resources, even when employed full time, these mothers can become overburdened with their responsibilities. Whether from too little time with even one parent, too little income, or both, children too often suffer.
More than ever, today's children of separated, divorced, and unmarried parents need the emotional and financial support of both parents.
Table 4:
Child Support and Money Income of Custodial Parents
Source: U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P60-187.
The following charts from the Census Bureau were not included in the Commissions's report, but are added here for clarification. RB.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, SB/95-16 Issued June 1995
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, SB/95-16 Issued June 1995
The Commission misstates the facts regarding both employment and the payment of support. The facts indicate more money is to gained, a lot more money, by requiring custodial parents to work, just as married parents work to support their children, than is to be gained from stricter enforcement of support orders, all philosophical issues aside. RB.
When married parents legally separate or divorce, they go to court where, during the proceedings, a determination is usually made about the custody of their children and visitation by the nonresidential parent. The parents may agree on the custody and visitation arrangements or seek a court determination of the issues. If they agree, the court reviews and generally approves their agreement if it is not inconsistent with the legal standards of the jurisdiction. If they disagree, the court must obtain sufficient information to decide how to award custody and visitation in a manner consistent with these legal standards.
When parents separate or divorce, or when paternity is established for a child born outof-wedlock, an order is usually entered for child support. The Commission has not focused on child support issues because earlier Commissions, including the National Commission on Children and the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support Enforcement, made extensive recommendations for child support reform. This Commission agrees, however, that parents should financially support their children in accordance with State child support guidelines. Moreover, although child support issues are often interwoven with other issues of parental responsibility, the Commission believes that payment of child support and access to children are separate and distinct issues. Denial of one should not be a justification for the refusal to provide the other.
An award of custody determines both the legal responsibility for and the living arrangements of children whose parents do not live together. Sole custody means that children live with one parent who has full legal responsibility for them. Joint custody's meaning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but in its fullest sense means that both parents have equal legal rights and responsibilities and the children reside in each parental home on some scheduled basis that divides their time. For this kind of arrangement to be effective, the parents must be able to cooperate, and they must usually live in reasonable proximity to each other and to the children's schools.
Some custody awards distinguish legal custody from physical custody. Legal custody specifies who has legal responsibility for making decisions about the child's life. Physical custody specifies who has responsibility for where the child lives. Legal custody may reside in one parent while physical custody is shared. Conversely, legal custody may be given to both parents but physical custody to only one. When parents share legal custody, they are both legally responsible for the child. They share in making important decisions about how the child is raised for example, which schools the child will attend, what the child's religious upbringing will be, and how the child's medical treatment will be handled.
Data on custody awards have only recently begun to be collected at the national level. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 1990, in the 19 States that reported, 53 percent of divorces involved children. In the great majority of these cases custody was not contested.'5 In 32 percent of the cases, custody was not even specified. In the cases in which custody of children was specified, mothers had sole custody in 72 percent of the cases. Joint custody was specified in 16 percent. Fathers had sole custody in 9 percent.
In addition to resolving custody, courts usually provide for visitation by a nonresidential parent unless there is evidence that contact with that parent would subject a child to harm from substance abuse, child abuse, domestic violence, or other causes.'6 All States give grandparents the legal right to seek visitation," and some States provide it to former stepparents as well. Visitation arrangements allow nonresidential parents to remain involved in the lives of their children and provide children with a way to know both parents.
All States articulate in statute or case law their legal standards for child custody and visitation, which prescribe the factors that courts must consider when they determine how children will be cared for when their parents live apart. Child custody and visitation law has undergone several major transformations from its English Common Law origins. Under Common Law, the father had an absolute right to the custody of minor children to the exclusion of the mother's Common Law was superseded by new enactment's in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that reversed earlier practice in part to presume that the mother was the best parent to care for children below the age of seven. The new laws also presumed, under this "tender years" doctrine, that the mother had visitation rights with children older than seven, unless the presumption was overcome by proving the mother to be unfit.'9
Today's custody laws have abandoned the tender years doctrine and are, with two exceptions, gender-neutral. The standard for custody awards in 45 States is "the best interests of the child."
Seven of the 45 States have "best interests of the child" standards that do not include any specific factors to be evaluated in determining the best interests of the child.2' The determination of the best interests of the child in these States is left to judicial discretion and case law. The other States specify in statute various factors that the court should consider in determining the best interests of the child.
The Michigan standard, which has a large number of factors to be considered, is illustrative. Title 722.23 of the Michigan Child Custody Act of 1970 defines best interests of the child as follows:
Sec. 3 "Best interests of the child" means the sum total
of the following factors to be considered, evaluated, and determined by
the court:
(a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the
parents involved and the child.
(b) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child
love, affection, and guidance and continuation of the educating and raising
of the child in its religion or creed, if any.
(c) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the
child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized
and permitted under the laws of this state in place of medical care, and
other material needs. (d) The Length of time the child has lived in a stable,
satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity
(e) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial
home or homes.
(f) The moral fitness of the parties involved.
(g) The mental and physical health of the parties involved.
(h) The home, school, and community record of the child.
(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child
to be of sufficient age to express a preference.
(j) The willingness and ability of each of the parents to facilitate and
encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the
child and the other parent.
(k) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular
child custody dispute.
Standards for custody determination provide a framework for parenting decisions that separating and divorcing mothers and fathers, sometimes with the assistance of their attorneys, may make before they come to court. In addition, as previously noted, these standards are applied by judges to determine custody when parents cannot agree about arrangements for the children. In these contested cases, the parents are sometimes, but not always, represented by attorneys and argue conflicting positions. The court must decide between the positions or decide, based on the standards, some third position that it believes is in the best interests of the children. Although the conflict between the parents is legally resolved, acrimony often continues to prevail between the parents.
Whatever initial custody and visitation arrangements are approved or decreed by the court, parents may return to court to request a change in those arrangements if circumstances change. Most States require that the changed circumstances be material or substantial before they will consider a change in arrangements. Courts have differing interpretations of this standard. Some will consider modifications on the basis of the changing developmental stages of the child. Others have more exacting standards, such as by requiring physical moves that alter the ability of parents to comply with child access provisions of orders, or requiring evidence that the current custody arrangement is harmful to the child.
The Commission heard testimony both about the legal standards for custody and visitation and about the need for court procedures to better address problems of continuing unresolved hostility between separating and divorcing parents.
With respect to legal standards for custody and visitation, the Commission heard conflicting testimony about whether changes should be made. For example, Richard A. Warshak, Clinical Professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center,23 and Sanford L. Braver, Professor of Psychology and Co-Director of the Program for Prevention Research at Arizona State University24 , urged that State custody standards be changed to establish a presumption25 of joint legal custody. They argued that joint custody results in more satisfied parents, greater compliance with child support orders, and better outcomes for children.
June Carbone, Associate Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law, opposed a presumption of joint custody and advocated the establishment of a preference of sole custody in the primary caretaker.26
Others opposed a presumption of joint custody or, indeed, any presumption or preference. Gerald Nissenbaum, President of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, recommended that there be no presumption of any form of custody.27 Judith Wallerstein, Founder and Senior Consultant at the Center for the Family in Transition, told the Commission that she had seen no evidence that any particular form of custody was uniformly helpful to the post-divorce adjustment of children.28 Sally Brush, Director of the Beech Acres' Aring Institute, cautioned the Commission to avoid making general assumptions about the appropriateness of particular custody and visitation arrangements in favor of arrangements that are responsive to the circumstances of individual cases.29 Katharine Bartlett, Professor of Law at Duke University, agreed that decisions about how children are to be raised following a divorce should be tailored to individual situations.3o
With respect to the application of legal standards, both mothers and fathers appearing before the Commission testified that, although all but two States have laws that are gender neutral, gender bias influences custody proceedings. Some claimed that the preponderance of sole custody awards to mothers3' is prima facie evidence of gender bias. Others pointed out that in the overwhelming majority of cases sole custody is awarded to the mother because fathers do not request custody. Others argued that fathers do not request custody because they feel or are advised by their attorneys that to do so would be futile.
Karen Czapanskiy, Professor of Law at the University of Maryland, told the Commission that, based on her analysis of studies of gender bias in the courts conducted in about 60 percent of the States, for the most part, custody awards in favor of women did not result from judicial gender bias but rather from the fact that women, even those who work outside the home, are the primary caregivers of the children before divorce. By awarding primary physical custody to women the courts are merely continuing the arrangement that the parents established before the divorce.2
State court gender bias studies have found that gender bias against both women and men does exist in custody decisions in other respects, however. For example, mothers sometimes are held to higher standards than fathers in their sexual behavior. In addition, even when mothers are the primary caregivers, fathers are sometimes given more credit than mothers for any child rearing activities they perform. Or, judges may order custody in favor of the father because the mother works outside the home, even though the father also works outside the home. Conversely, some courts have been unwilling to award custody to fathers because fathers are presumed to be unable to care for children or because it is not their "proper role" to do so.33
Wholly apart from gender bias, the Commission heard testimony from a range of parents dissatisfied with the custody and visitation arrangements imposed on them by courts. Such dissatisfaction breeds continuing conflict and sometimes brings parents back to court. Often, returning to court means an additional adversarial confrontation that could have been avoided if resources had been available to help parents work out their concerns together initially. Yet until recently, most courts have had no process to help divorcing or unmarried parents work through their differences about parental decision-making, parenting time, and residential arrangements for the children.
Indeed, parents facing dissolution of their marriages are often unable to obtain any assistance in helping them work out what is best for the children. They are unable to find community resources that will help them try to save their marriages, or, if they are divorcing, that will help them resolve conflict and develop parenting plans they agree are best for all concerned. If they go to court with conflicting views about how the children should be cared for after they part, they are not helped to come to agreement. Rather, the court decides their competing claims. More and more parents are finding that court decisions are unsatisfactory and fail to avert continuing hostility and conflict to the detriment of the children.
For unmarried parents who want to try to formalize their role in their children's lives . even fewer resources are available for help. Moreover, custody and visitation issues for unmarried parents often arise in a different context. Unlike separating and divorcing parents, there may be no event that brings unmarried parents to court. Fewer than half of the children of unmarried parents have paternity legally established.34 For these, paternity may be established through a written declaration or in an administrative process outside the court. Even when paternity is established in court, it may not be accompanied by a determination of custody and visitation. And the court systems that are beginning to provide services to help divorcing parents mediate or otherwise reach agreement on custody issues have rarely addressed the different needs of unmarried parents.
For example, one of the ways in which unmarried parents are different from divorcing or separating parents is the extent to which they are involved in informal parenting arrangements for their children, which may occur in the absence of established paternity or formalized child support. As Robert Lerman35 has shown, substantial percentages of young, unmarried fathers actually live with their children. Nearly a quarter of these fathers, aged 21-31 years in 1988, lived with all of their children and nearly 30 percent lived with all or some of their children. About half of the unmarried fathers who lived with their children also lived with the children's mother. For these parents living together with their children, formalizing custody and visitation arrangements to the extent it arises at allpresents very different concerns than it does for divorcing parents. At the same time, other unmarried parents have never lived in the same household. As Ronald Mincy, Program Officer at the Ford Foundation and Ralph Smith, Director of Planning and Development at the Annie E. Casey Foundation,36 told the Commission, these individuals need help in learning how to "co-parent" before they can work out successful parenting arrangements.
Finally, the Commission heard testimony from a range of expert witnesses and parents about the importance of creating a court system that is responsive to individual circumstances and gives greater deference to the wishes of parents. Katharine Bartlett, Professor of Law at Duke University, stressed that courts should place greater weight on parents' views about what is best for their children. Isolina Ricci, Administrator, Statewide Office of Court Services, Judicial Council of California, told the Commission that families are complex and require a case-by-case approach that is best accomplished by requiring the parents to develop a parenting plan, either with or without the assistance of a mediator.38 Nicholas Zill, Vice President and Director of Family Studies, Westat, Inc., called for the development of meaningful parenting plans that allow the active engagement of both parents in at least some aspects of their children's lives.39
The Commission did not have the resources to conduct a systematic evaluation of State standards for custody and visitation determinations. Although the Commission considered but voted down a recommendation that States adopt a presumption of joint custody, in other respects the Commission's silence on the matter of standards should not be interpreted as an endorsement or rejection of a particular approach. >From the review that the Commission has made, it is apparent that there are areas in which further clarification of standards and guidelines for decision-making is warranted. The Commission urges States to review on a continuing basis their standards and the outcomes that result from them. In particular, States should ensure against gender bias both in their standards and in the application of their standards by courts.
In the Commission's view, more important than reform of State standards for determining custody and visitation is reform of court processes for reaching and formalizing custody and visitation arrangements. Moving away from traditional, adversarial court processes to procedures and services that help parents come to their own agreements about their children's care can have several salutary effects. It can reduce the hostility that so of ten accompanies the resolution of custody and visitation issues and help parents minimize conflict in the ongoing relationship they must have with each other in order to have effective relationships with their children. It can also improve voluntary compliance with custody and visitation orders and greatly reduce both the need for enforcement actions and court resources devoted to such actions. As a result, it can have positive effects for children, who often suffer from continuing conflict between their parents. In sum, the Commission believes that there is more potential benefit to be gained for parents and children from reforming court processes to help parents come to agreement about their needs and the needs of their children than from making changes in custody and visitation standards and laws.
In addition to court reform, the Commission believes that more should be done to build and reinforce community supports for families. Many American families with children are "stretched thin." Time spent at work as well as hours spent commuting can significantly reduce parenting time. Single parents who work outside the home face even greater difficulties than two-parent families. Increasingly, families need support from their communities in helping them meet their responsibilities to their children.
Communities can help families through times of trouble and assist in peaceful resolution of conflict. They can help prepare young people for adult responsibilities in the family, community and the world of work. The institutions of the community its religious congregations, neighborhood organizations and voluntary associations, businesses, schools, law enforcement agencies and courts, public and privately sponsored programs to provide income and food, health care, job training and social and mental health services can each provide critical support to families. In short, the Commission believes that supportive communities can empower parents to play a continuing, active role in their children's lives.
In summary, the Commission finds that much can be done to help Americans prepare for family life, resolve conflicts that emerge in marriage, and reach agreement on the best way for both parents to stay involved with their children when they are separating, divorcing or have never been married to each other. Both communities and courts should facilitate the process of empowering parents to decide together how the children should be raised in marriage, after a divorce or, if parents are not married, when paternity is established. The remainder of this report will develop the Commission's recommendations on some of the ways in which these goals can be achieved.
Over the past two decades, a growing number of judges, attorneys, legal scholars, mediators, and mental health professionals have challenged the notion that the only way to resolve family disputes is through adversarial court proceedings. These experts believe that the win-lose nature of these proceedings often exacerbates existing conflicts to the detriment of both parents and children. This is particularly true in cases in which parents, as part of divorce, separation, or paternity proceedings, are seeking to resolve disputes related to parental decision-making, parenting time, and residential arrangements of children.
It is clear from the testimony before the Commission and a review of the literature that the preferred approach to resolving parental disputes is negotiation, not confrontation.2 In recognition of this, some courts have instituted procedures for early referral of parents to services that will help them come to agreement about what is best for their children, before thrusting them into the adversarial process of the court. These courts are finding that by helping parents resolve together the arrangements for their children's care, continuing conflict between the parents is diminished, greater compliance with court orders is achieved, and costs to both parents and the courts are reduced all to the benefit of children.
Drawing on the experience of courts that have been successful in making their systems more family-friendly, the Commission has identified several core components:
All of these components are important to shaping a court system that is effective in helping parents resolve disputes about parental decision-making, parenting time, and residential arrangements of children. For example, implementing one component (such as a mediation program) without the others (such as parent education and orientation and welltrained, competent mediators) could well be counter-productive. The Commission therefore urges State legislatures and court systems to improve their laws and procedures for resolving parenting disputes by adopting all of these core components. The following sections of this chapter address these components in greater detail.
The very terms custody and visitation evoke a world in which one parent has "dominion" over the child and the other parent is seen as merely a "visitor" in that dominion. The Commission believes that this mind-set should be changed and these terms replaced with terms that more accurately describe the responsibilities of both parents in providing for their children's care and support.
The Commission heard testimony from a number of witnesses who advocated replacing the traditional terminology of "custody" and "visitation" with terms that neither convey a sense of ownership over the child, nor imply that one parent is merely a transitory figure in a child's life. Katharine Bartlett, a law professor at Duke University, urged abandoning the traditional terms as a first step toward reconstructing the way in which disputes over parental responsibilities are resolved.3 Robert Tompkins, former head of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, testified that the terms "custody" and "visitation" imply power and control and recommended that "parental rights" be recast as "parental responsibilities."4 Isolina Ricci of the Judicial Council of California suggested that the term "custody" be eliminated and that parents' rights and responsibilities be delineated in a detailed parenting plan.5 Ernest Sanchez of the Los Angeles Conciliation Court recommended that the emotionally charged terms "custody" and "visitation" be eliminated and replaced by terms that encourage positive communication and cooperation, such as "parenting plans" and "periods of parental responsibility."6 Raymond de Levie of the Ohio Children's and Parents' Rights Association cited a bill before the Ohio legislature that would replace the term "visitation" with the term "parenting time."'
The Commission agrees with these witnesses that nomenclature should more accurately address the responsibilities of day-today parenting and care for children. The Commission recognizes that most State statutes and a large body of case law use the terms "custody" and "visitation," and that a change in terminology may therefore require action of the State legislature. The Commission urges court systems to determine whether they have the authority to change the terminology without or pending legislative action, and to do so as promptly as they can. The Commission is convinced that such a change will have a positive impact on parental cooperation and the well-being of children.
Recommendation 1:
Courts and legislatures should replace the terms "custody" and "visitation" with terms that more accurately describe parenting responsibilities and are less likely to foster conflict, such as "parental decision-making," "parenting time," and "residential arrangements" for children.
Courts that have jurisdiction over family matters often do not have the status and the resources necessary to fulfill their missions. They are perceived as inferior courts, literally, because appeals must be resolved by a higherlevel trial court, or, figuratively, because the quality of their judgess and the amount of their resources do not match those of other trial courts. All too often the presiding judges have too many cases and too little interest in family matters.
Accordingly, a major step toward making sure that courts addressing family matters are effective is to assure that they have the appropriate stature. The Commission believes that States should ensure that courts addressing family issues be trial courts of the highest level in the State, and not subject to review by other trial-level courts. They should have judges and other court personnel whose qualifications and pay are at least on par with those of the highest-Level trial court judges. Finally, courts addressing family issues should have sufficient resources to assure reasonable caseloads and effective management and coordination systems.
Recommendation 2:
States should assure that courts charged with adjudicating family matters are at the level of the highest trial courts of general jurisdiction and have appropriate resources, high-quality judges, and well-trained court personnel.
No matter how great the stature or lavish the resources, to be effective, courts must be well-managed. Courts need to assure that cases are properly and professionally handled, appropriately referred, and decided with consideration of the unique circumstances of each particular family. They need to inform parents about court procedures, the options available to them, and the impact parental decisions may have on children. From intake to case resolution, courts need to assign, schedule, and track a family's progress through the court system. When the actions of more than one court involve the same family members, courts need to be aware of these pending and past actions and outcomes, including those of the courts of other States, when rendering decisions. At all stages of the court process, relevant information must be available to appropriate court personnel. To accomplish these goals, the Commission believes that courts should provide effective intake and referral, orientation and education, and court coordination and information systems.
Intake and Referral
For a court to effectively meet the needs of separating, divorcing, and unmarried parents and their families, it needs to establish a means of tailoring its services, as much as possible, to each family's individual circumstances. An important first step is to establish an effective intake and referral system.
Intake units should provide families with a single initial point of contact with the court. Trained intake professionals should assess the family's immediate and long-term needs and refer parents and, potentially, other family members, to the appropriate services provided by the court or by others. A first step for most parents will be referral to the court's orientation and parent education program. For parents with a need for more intensive counseling or with serious problems associated with the divorce or separation, such as substance abuse or domestic violence, referral to other appropriate services will also be warranted.
Even the best court system cannot provide families with the full range of services they may need, especially on an ongoing basis, and therefore should coordinate its efforts with other community resources. Intake units should have the authority to refer families to community services, or, in some circumstances, request that courts order families to use these services. The services can include crisis intervention, family violence counseling, family support programs, and parenting skills training. The services should be tailored to meet the specific needs of each family and to produce both short-term help and long-term solutions. Chapter 4 discusses in more detail the many ways in which community institutions can assist families in difficulty.
Recommendation 3:
Courts should provide intake and referral services that are appropriate to the individual needs of separating, divorcing, and unmarried parents.
Orientation and Education
When separating, divorcing, and unmarried parents come to court for resolution of their disputes, they are usually unfamiliar with court procedures and the legal options available to them. Even when they are represented by counsel, their understanding of the way the system works may be limited. Parent orientation and education programs can help give parents a basic framework for understanding the process and facing the challenges it poses as their case moves through the legal system. The programs also can help parents understand and prepare for the effects their decisions will have on their lives and the lives of their children. Orientation and education programs can lessen parental anxiety about the court process by describing how the court operates, what services it provides, and how it can help parents reach agreement about what is in the best interests of their children. These programs can provide basic, rudimentary information about legal requirements that affect parental decisions. They can help parents understand common legal terms, issues they need to address, and forms that they may be required to complete. Parent education programs can also address the impact of parental separation on children and help parents keep children out of the direct line of parental conflict. Joan Entmacher, Senior Policy Counsel of the Women's Legal Defense Fund, and Janet Johnston, Director of Research for the Center for the Family in Transition," were among the Commission witnesses who testified that exposure to parental conflict usually is the most damaging aspect of family breakup for children. Judith Wallerstein, Founder and Senior Consultant for the Center for the Family in Transition, observed that:
Conflict can destroy ... What protects the child is a civil, rational, responsible relationship between (the) parents and realistic planning that is sensitive to the (needs of the) growing child.12
PAGE 33 MISSING
Agenda for Legal Action observed that "...in virtually all cases, in virtually all communities, the myriad of courts... do not communicate adequately with each other, resulting in unnecessary delay, duplication, and contradictory rulings and recommendations." The piecemeal approach of many courts is illustrated by the following:
A wife can charge a husband with battery in one of three courts. A husband may find himself ordered out of the home by a criminal court judge and then the subject of a divorce and custody battle based on his absence from the home in Domestic Relations Court. Child abuse cases can be found in Domestic Relations, Juvenile, or even the Probate Division of the court, depending upon the circumstances. Inconsistent child support orders can be entered by different judges. Different guardians may be appointed to represent children in separate criminal and juvenile court proceedings. Termination of parental rights can occur in one court without notification of another which issues a child support order.
In at least one case, the lack of coordination has proven to be fatal.
One way to achieve the necessary coordination within a jurisdiction is through a unified family court to which all family-related matters are assigned. Some States already have unified family courts, and others are considering establishing them. Proponents argue that family courts are more likely to provide easy public access; reduce emotional trauma for the parents; coordinate information on cases related to families; result in better, more expedient legal determinations; avoid duplication; and provide collateral services such as intake, orientation, education, and mediation.
Whatever advantages for coordination unified family courts may have, the Commission wants to be clear that it in no way wishes to undermine the authority and discretion of courts and court officials to prosecute family violence offenses as criminal matters. Court systems should be guided by consideration of what will most effectively protect the victims. Courts and court officials may chose to deal with individual cases of child abuse by adults as civil matters or refer them for criminal prosecution, as they may construe it to be in the best interests of the child victim. In cases of family violence directed toward adults, courts should not deter adult victims from filing criminal charges. When family violence matters are before the criminal courts, civil courts should assure that these cases are prosecuted vigorously and defer to criminal jurisdiction. When matters concerning the same family members are before different courts, the courts should exchange information, taking care to protect the confidentiality of the information when the safety of a victim of abuse might otherwise be compromised.
The Commission considered endorsing the concept of a unified family court system for every State but decided not to do so. The Commission believes that a court's structure is less important than the stature the court has within the State system and how it conducts its business. States should configure their court systems in a manner best suited to their needs. However, they should ensure that courts addressing family issues have complete, timely, and effective information, including information on current and past court actions within and across courts that involve the same family or family members.
Interstate cases pose particular problems of court coordination, in part because of a lack of clarity about which State's rules apply to prevent conflicting orders and ensure effective enforcement across State lines. For example, sometimes a parent will be subject to orders in more than one State that are in conflict with each other. One order may have been made on an emergency basis, but without a stated limit to its duration. There may be confusion as to whether the State that issued the original order has continuing jurisdiction over the order. States may have conflicting statutes, or conflicting interpretations of their statutes, which further complicate resolution of the issues. More tragically, in cases of parental kidnapping, there may be confusion about when Federal or State law applies, or which State has jurisdiction. In all these cases, the confusion or conflict makes it difficult for courts to resolve the issues before them.
The Commission did not have the time or resources to fully consider solutions to these interstate problems. The National Council of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws is currently studying these issues, however, and the Commission supports its efforts to recommend workable solutions to these problems.
Finally, for courts to have timely and complete information about current and past court action involving a family, they must employ state-of-the-art management information systems that collect information and help coordinate cases and services effectively. Purchasing computer hardware is not enough. A court must carefully consider what information is needed, the case flow, and security issues when planning its system. It must ensure the system's capacity to accommodate increases in the number of cases and the need to expedite decisions that affect children and families. It must take care to protect the confidentiality of information that should not go beyond the judge or other appropriate court personnel, especially when the disclosure of such information would compromise the safety of individual family members.
The Commission believes that an effective management information system should assure: a
Recommendation 5:
Courts should adopt effective court coordination and information systems that provide complete, accurate, timely and, (when appropriate) confidential information, including information on current and past court actions within and across courts that involve particular families or family members. The coordination of family matters before the courts should in no way undermine the authority or discretion of court systems to prosecute family violence offenses as criminal matters.
Recommendation 6:
The National Council of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) should make recommendations for revisions to the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act and other relevant laws that would clarify jurisdictional issues, resolve subject matter conflicts, and improve communications between courts in interstate cases affecting parental decisionmaking, parenting time, and residential arrangements for children.
Courts should require divorcing, separating, and unmarried parents to attempt to develop a parenting plan. By parenting plan, the Commission means a written description of the parental decision-making, parenting time, and residential arrangements that parents who do not live together agree upon for their children. A parenting plan is usually more specific and detailed than parenting arrangements ordered by a court because it is developed by parents in consultation with each other and is intended to minimize ambiguity.
The Commission's support of parenting plans is based on the successful practice of a growing number of States to encourage divorcing and separating parents to reach agreement about parental arrangements for their children and to specify those arrangements in a written plan. Fifteen States require, or give courts the authority to require, the use of a parenting plan in a variety of circumstances.29 In 10 of the15 States, parenting plans are required only in joint custody cases. Of the remaining 5 States, Washington State requires parenting plans in all cases, while California, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania authorize courts to require parenting plans in all or a subset of cases.31 An additional 15 States expressly recognize some form of "parental agreement," although the circumstances in which such agreements are used are not always clear.
The Commission believes that a parenting plan is the best blueprint for parents' future ties to their children, because it reflects the personal choices of the two people in charge of raising their children. The process of arriving at a parenting plan also should help parents to think through and address issues that are important to their continuing relationship to their children. Agreeing on the resolution of these issues as part of the plan should minimize ongoing conflict between the parents as well as their need to turn to the court to resolve that conflict.
Parents should develop their plan according to their personal situations. For example, if one parent is unable or chooses not to have the child reside with him or her for extended periods of time, and cannot manage extended or frequent time with the child, a parenting plan may be very brief. In contrast, if the children will reside at both parents' residences, regularly traveling between both households, the plan probably will need to be quite detailed. The latter plan likely will include items as specific as how the children will be picked up and dropped off at the respective households
Although parents should have primary responsibility for developing their parenting plan, States and court systems should set legal parameters and provide guidance to parents on issues that should be addressed in the plan.
With respect to legal parameters, States should make clear that parenting plans should be established not only by separating and divorcing parents but also, once paternity is established, by unmarried parents who live apart. In addition, States should decide whether issues of child support will be covered in the parenting plan, making clear that if child support is included the amount of support agreed upon must at a minimum conform to the State's federally mandated child support guidelines. Finally, States should specify the process for and standard of review to obtain court approval of the plan or an amendment to the plan.
With respect to the issues that parents should address in the plans, States should outline these with some specificity, perhaps by providing preprinted forms for parents to complete (see Appendix F). Although parents may not be required to resolve all the issues, they should at least have to decide together that an issue does not need resolution. Examples of issues that parents might be required to consider in developing their plans include time with children on holidays, grandparents' and other relatives' time with children, and the way in which the parents will approach decisionmaking regarding the children's religious and educational upbringing or medical treatment.
Special care should be taken in parenting plans to address the changing needs of children as they grow older. For example, as a child's after-school activities increase changes in the parenting time arrangements set forth in the original plan may be warranted. Accordingly, parents should build into their parenting plan and courts should permit a procedure that allows them to agree on certain changes to the plan without having to go back to court.
The Commission debated whether to recommend automatic, periodic court reviews of parenting plans, but decided that the initiation of such reviews should be left up to parents. Allowing parents to decide when to review the plan is more responsive to the needs of individual families and less costly to the system. Some parents may never feel the need to review their parenting plan, while others may require frequent scrutiny of the plan. Parents should specify in the initial parenting plan those events that would trigger reviews. At the same time, the plan should provide that returning to court for further dispute resolution efforts when parents do not agree on particular changes remains an option as well.3s In turn, States should specify how courts will treat parental amendments to parenting plans.
The Commission believes that courts should give substantial deference to the agreements that parents reach in parenting plans. Parents know the details of their lives better than anyone else; they know what works and what doesn't work for themselves and their children. However, if the court finds that an agreement is clearly not in the best interests of the children, or that it is not the result of a fair mediation process, the court should exercise its prerogative to refuse to approve the plan or to require changes in the plan. Once a parenting plan is approved by the court, it should be made a part of the court's order, enforceable as any other court order would be.
All 30 States that recognize parenting plans or other parental agreements require their incorporation in court orders.36 All these States require courts to review parental agreements to ensure that they do not contain arrangements that are contrary to the best interests of the child, giving deference to the agreements that parents have reached. In the States that prescribe specifc issues that must be addressed in a parenting plan, courts additionally are required to determine whether these issues are addressed in the plans.
An exception to the general rule that courts should give substantial deference to negotiated parenting plans is necessary with respect to child support. As discussed above, if a State permits child support issues to be included in the parenting plan, the support award that results must at a minimum comply with the State's federally mandated child support guidelines. The court has an obligation to closely review the plan to ensure this compliance.
Recommendation 7:
Courts should require separating, divorcing, and unmarried parents living apart to attempt to develop parenting plans that set forth parental decision-making, parenting time, and residential arrangements for their children. Courts should provide guidance for the development of parenting plans by identifying the legal parameters and issues that plans should address and by making forms available to help parents develop the plans.
Mediation provides a process whereby parents, with the help of a skilled and neutral mediator, can negotiate their differences. A mediator is a professionally trained person who works with parents in a safe, structured environment to help them develop and agree on a detailed parenting plan.3' A mediator can help parents articulate their positions in a way that helps them reach their own resolution of their differences. A mediator also can help parents put the interests of their children first and develop conflict resolution skills that continue to be useful to them in their ongoing relationships with each other and with their children.
The use of mediation to help divorcing, separating, and unmarried parents come to agreement on issues of parental decision-making, parenting time, and residential arrangements for their children has grown significantly over the past 20 years, but it still cannot be considered a widespread practice.39 Twenty-seven States have laws that either permit or require courts to offer mediation services in parenting disputes.4o Five of these States require that parents participate in mediation, under varying circumstances, when they have not reached agreement on their parenting arrangements-California, Florida, Maine, North Carolina and Wisconsin (see Appendix G).
Most parents who participate in mediation either by choice or judicial requirement reach agreement. A review of 15 research projects, which examined program outcomes in 75 courts, three counties, eight cities, and four States, found that agreements were reached in 50 to 75 percent of the cases. The Commission's own survey of programs in the five States that require parents to mediate their disputes found similarly high settlement rates. Four of the five States, and one Wisconsin county, provided the Commission with data on the total number of cases referred to mediation and the percentage that reached agreement. Settlements were reached in 80 percent of the cases in Maine in 1993, in 71 percent of the cases in Florida in 1994, and in 56 percent of the cases in North Carolina in fiscal year 1994-95. In Wisconsin, where statewide data are unavailable, a 1991 audit revealed a settlement rate of 92 percent in the State's second-most populous county.
The ability of parents to reach agreement in mediation greatly reduces the number of contested cases and, therefore, trials to resolve disputes about parental decision-making, parenting time, and residential arrangements for children. Mandatory mediation in California, for example, has reduced the number of such trials from 20 percent of all contested cases to 5 percent of all contested cases. Fewer trials mean lower attorney costs to parents as well as savings in court time and resources.
Although many parents initially are reluctant to try mediation, parents who are required to mediate usually discover that they like the process and come to agreement as frequently as those who enter mediation voluntarily. According to Jessica Pearson, Director for the Center for Policy Research, most assessments find that 70 to 90 percent of all those who use either mandated or voluntary mediation programs are satisfied with the results.4s
Individuals who negotiate their parenting disputes through mediation are also much more satisfied with the process and the outcomes than those who contest their cases in court. A 1991 California survey of 2,504 parents who participated in mediation showed an overall satisfaction rate of 76 to 82 percent.46 Conversely, most parents are not very satisfied with courtroom settlements of disputes. In a 1981-83 survey of litigants in two cities and one State (Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Connecticut), between 50 and 70 percent of the respondents found the legal system to be impersonal, intimidating, and intrusive.4' Another study indicates that parents who had decisions imposed by judges tended to view themselves as winners or losers and carried that attitude for many years thereafter.
Parents who use mediation report that the process increases the control they have over the decisions reached in the final settlement.49 Mediation often makes parents feel that they are full partners in decisions that affect their children, and this sense of empowerment of ten correlates with satisfaction with the final outcome. In addition, parents who mediate their disputes report feeling less intimidated by the other parent and less pressured to agree to something they do not want than their counterparts who adjudicate their disputes in court.5o
Based on the available evidence, the Commission believes that courts should make mediation services available to separating, divorcing, and unmarried parents to determine their ongoing parenting responsibilities and should, with some exceptions, require parents without an agreed-upon parenting plan to try to resolve their differences through mediation. In instituting mandatory mediation programs, however, courts need to protect parents by addressing several critical issues: determining which parents should be required to participate; identifying which issues should be mediated; establishing cost and qualifications of mediators; and ensuring court oversight of both the process and the effects of mediation. Each of these protections is discussed in greater detail below.
Parents who develop a parenting plan on their own, or with the help of others (e.g., their lawyers, clergy, private mediators, or through a community-based dispute resolution center) before coming to court should not be required to participate in mediation. Rather, as previously discussed, these parents should be required to attend a court orientation and education program before the court approves their parenting plan, to help assure that in arriving at the plan they have considered all the options and issues before them. All other parents should be screened for referral to mandatory mediation.
The Commission recognizes that there are circumstances in which characteristics of the parties or other factors may make mediation inadvisable or preclude a fair mediation process. In these circumstances it is essential that exceptions to mandatory mediation be recognized. Specifically, the Commission believes that mediation should not be mandated in cases of domestic abuse, or where substance abuse, mental impairment, or other factors preclude a fair mediation process.
Several witnesses testified to the Commission that mandatory mediation may compromise the safety of parents or children in families with a history of family violence. A woman who is a victim of domestic abuse could be intimidated by the prospect of having to negotiate with her abuser. That sense of intimidation could place her at a disadvantage in the mediation process. There may be other circumstances in which the parties do not come to the table with equal bargaining power as well. Joan Entmacher, Senior Policy Council at the Women's Legal Defense Fund, warned that compulsory mediation between parties with unequal power could lead to a scenario in which the more powerful party coerces a quick settlement from the less powerful party. In these situations as well, individuals should not be required to participate in mediation.
Not all parents who are required to participate in mediation may be able to come to agreement on a parenting plan. The Commission believes that it should be left to the discretion of trained mediators, subject to appeal to the court, to decide when further mediation is unwarranted. If parents cannot agree on a parenting plan after mediation has been attempted, they should be referred to the court for judicial resolution of their differences.
The Commission recognizes that some parents may want to have their attorneys or other advisors counsel them on issues in mediation, participate with them in the process, and review the mediated parenting plan. In the Commission's view, it is appropriate for attorneys, clergy, or other advisors to play such a role. Although courts or mediators should have the discretion to exclude attorneys, clergy, or other advisors from participation in the mediation sessions if the advisor's presence is determined to be counter-productive,52 this discretion should be exercised sparingly.
Issues of parental decision-making, parenting time, and residential arrangements are the principal issues for mediation. How-ever, the court may choose to refer other is-sues to mediation as well, such as child support, spousal support, and the division of property. It bears repeating, however, that any mediated decisions with respect to child support require careful judicial review, since under Federal law child support orders must comply with State child support guidelines.
Ideally, if parents are required to participate in mediation, they should not have to pay for mediation services, just as they do not have to pay for judicial services. However, if the imposition of fees is necessary in order to offor mediation, courts should assure that such fees are based on the ability of participants to pay, with provision for fee waiver for the lowest-income individuals. Some courts have established a fund to cover the costs of mediation by increasing their filing fees and by assessing mediation fees on those who can afford to pay. California's program was supported originally filing fees, but it is now part of the court's budget, although many of its courts continue to charge fees for services and grant fee waivers to those who cannot afford to pay. Maine requires a one-time fee of $ 120 that may be wived. North Carolina's mediation program is State-funded but collects fees from those participants who can afford to pay. Wisconsin's program is partially funded through filing fees; the State's first mediation session is free, but subsequent sessions cost either $200 or are based on a sliding scale fee and ability to pay. In Florida, if the parties cannot afford the fee and the court does not have in-house mediators available, the State prohibits referral to mediation.
Crucial to the success of any mediation program is the quality of the mediators. The Commission believes that the appropriate authorities in a State should establish qualifications for mediators and assure that all mediators working on court-assigned cases meet those qualifications. California, for example, has set qualifications by statute. There are several organizations, including the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, that will train individuals to become mediators and certify their qualifications. Some court systems, such as the District of Columbia, have their own mediator training programs.
In addition, it is important to have standards governing the mediation process. For example, some States have standards of practice to help mediators assure that both parties to the mediation maintain a relatively equal negotiating relationship, prevent bias, determine when to end an effort to reach a mediated agreement, and assure that the parties provide feedback to the mediator on their satisfaction with the process. California has Uniform Standards of Practice, which are Standards of Administration in its Rules of Court, that both set the qualifications of mediators and establish standards of practice for the mediation process.
Critical to the success of mandatory mediation is court oversight. The court should be alert to common problems and establish methods for addressing them. For example, if a dispute arises as to whether an attorney should be permitted to be present during a mediation, the process for resolving the dispute should be clear. In addition, the court should assure that mediation processes are fair and that parents are not penalized for failure to reach agreements. Finally, the court should be alert to continuing improvements that can be made in the mediation process. Although the Commission believes that mediation is an extremely promising method of resolving parental disputes, it is important for courts to continue to experiment with different mediation models and to learn from their experiences. In addition, the Commission urges courts to share their experiences with interested national organizations (e.g., the National Center for State Courts and the State Justice Institute) and use the information collected by these organizations to improve their own mediation programs. To measure the continued effectiveness of court-based mediation programs, courts should consider collecting information on user characteristics, user satisfaction, and settlement rates, among other factors. California's Uniform Statistical Reporting System collects information on user characteristics and satisfaction.
Recommendation 8:
Courts should require separating, divorcing, or unmarried parents living apart who have not agreed on a parenting plan to try to resolve their differences through mediation, except in cases involving domestic abuse, substance abuse, mental impairments, and/or other characteristics of the parties that would make mediation inadvisable or that would preclude a fair mediation process.
High-quality court personnel from in-make workers to judges are essential to ensuring a family friendly court system and providing competent, effective assistance to individuals who come before the court.
All court personnel must be well-trained to recognize family situations that need special attention. Judges, mediators, and attorneys representing individuals in family-related matters should have some basic knowledge of family dynamics and an understanding of the changing needs of children as they grow older as well as knowledge of family law. Other court personnel, such as intake workers, should be knowledgeable about both court and community resources to assist families, and be trained to recognize problems such as substance abuse and child and spouse abuse.
Professional organizations such as the American Bar Association, National Judicial College, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Conference of State Court Administrators, National Association of State Judicial Educators, Society for Professionals in Dispute Resolution, Academy of Family Mediators, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, and State and local bar organizations should continue to play an active role in increasing the professional capacity of court personnel to help families resolve their parenting disputes.
A crucial component of developing family-friendly courts is to expand access to legal counsel. More and more people are having to resolve family matters in court without legal representation. According to Judge James Garbolino of the Placer County, CA, Superior Court, the unprecedented rise in the number of parents bearing children outside marriage has a direct influence on the burgeoning size of the population in need of legal counsel and mediation services.55 Moreover, both lowand middle-income individuals have difficulty obtaining affordable counsel.56
There are no nationwide data on the number of unrepresented litigants involved in family-related cases. However, information collected from local courts reveals that a great many parents choose to represent themselves. Judge Garbolino, in testimony based on a review of data maintained by a number of California counties, estimated that in eight or nine cases out of ten there is at least one party unrepresented by counsel.5'
Information from Maricopa County, AZ, reveals a similar trend. In 1991, 92 percent of the divorce cases involved self-representation compared to 25-50 percent of the caseload in 1985.Ss Similarly, Robert Tompkins, immediate past president of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and Deputy Director for Family Services, Family Division, Connecticut Superior Court, testified that in 40 percent of the family cases in Connecticut, at least one party represented himself or herself double the percentage of 10 years ago, and a 20-fold increase from 20 years ago.5
The right to represent oneself has been protected over the years by the courts. However, the task of representing oneself in court is formidable. It requires a knowledge of the law; an understanding of complex rules of procedure, discovery, evidence, and appeal; the filing of motions; the time to prepare and present one's case; and the ability to challenge the credibility and legal arguments of the opposing party.61
Helping parents to resolve their parenting disputes through mediation is one way of providing assistance to parents who cannot afford legal counsel. Even a mediated settlement, however, can benefit from review by an attorney. And, in some cases mediation may not be appropriate or will break down and resort to the courts will be necessary. Thus, even though mediation may reduce the time and cost of legal services, those services are still needed and there is still a greater demand for legal services, especially for low-income parents, than can be provided. With some training, many attorneys can fulfill a commitment to provide Pro bono legal services by helping families resolve their disputes. The Commission urges a concerted public and private effort, especially through local bar associations, to increase the availability of pro bono attorneys to help such families.
Recommendation 9:
Public and private efforts should be made to increase the competence of attorneys, judges, and other court personnel on issues of family 1aw and family dynamics and to increase the availability of counsel for pro bono work in family law cases.
Family-friendly courts should ensure that their services are available to all parents, whether they are unmarried, separated, or divorced. Unmarried parents should be given the same institutional respect in deciding their parenting responsibilities as that given to separating and divorcing parents. While the Commission believes that adoption of the above recommendations will make courts more effective and more family-friendly for all parents, the special circumstances of unmarried parents require further consideration.
For example, the establishment of paternity is a necessary prerequisite to establishing a legal right to parenting time or a role in parental decision-making for unmarried fathers. But because paternity is often established by voluntary acknowledgement or in an administrative proceeding, rather than by a court, there is often no way to easily resolve issues of parenting time, residential arrangements, or parental decision-making at the same time. States and court systems need to address ways of assuring that these parenting issues are resolved promptly for unmarried parents.
Some jurisdictions have recognized the need to have unmarried parents develop parenting plans after paternity has been established. The Lucas County Juvenile Court of Ohio requires parents in all paternity cases to attempt to develop parenting plans through mediation. Teresa Martin, Coordinator of Mediation Services in Lucas County, testified that the court initiated the requirement because of a heavy paternity caseload. In Lucas County 52 percent of all children are born to unmarried parents. Eighty-one percent of unmarried parents reach agreement on parenting plans through the mediation process.6z California's statute on mandatory mediation requires that unmarried parents who establish paternity utilize mediation services to attempt to develop parenting plans. In 1993, 20 percent of the cases in California's court-based mediation program were unmarried parents.
Finally, community institutions and programs can do much to help encourage unmarried parents to establish paternity and parenting plans and direct them to courts and other resources that will help them to do so.
In sum, the Commission recommends that courts with jurisdiction over family matters have sufficient status, adequate resources, highly qualified judges, and well-trained court personnel, and that they embrace certain principles that aim to make them more family-friendly. The objective of adopting these principles is better decision-making for children and families, which will result in a better informed court, a court that is responsive to the needs of the families who come before it, a court that helps parents reach their own decisions about the best arrangements for their children, and a court that requires that the future arrangements of individual parents with their children be spelled out in a parenting plan. The Commission believes that these are important steps toward reducing hostility between separating, divorcing, and unmarried parents, and empowering each parent with respect to his or her future parenting role. The Commission believes that this will result in increased well-being for children, as well as more effective and efficient court systems.
The preceding chapter addresses ways that courts that hear family-related matters can assist families in meeting their parenting responsibilities. This chapter addresses ways that communities can support and strengthen families. The Commission believes that communities can help ensure that both parents, whether married, separated, divorced, or unmarried, play active roles in the lives of their children.
The Commission recognizes that extended families are usually the primary source of support for their members. No outside support network can replace loving family members and friends who are available to give comfort and advice to someone going through a time of crisis or uncertainty.
Within families, grandparents traditionally have played a major role in supporting families during times of uncertainty. Grandparents can be a source of strength and wisdom for their children and grandchildren. Grandparents may be caretakers for the children during family crises or take on a parental role in actually raising them. Siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends also can provide support. In short, families are and must be the first line of support for parents and children in times of family difficulty.
When family or friends cannot perform this role, other resources close to home must do so. Religious institutions, not-for-profit organizations, associations and charitable groups, businesses, schools, and government agencies can help families help themselves. The key for families is to identify resources, determine which resources best meet their needs, and avail themselves of those resources.
The Commission believes that communities must continue to encourage the development of services to help families cope with life's stresses and strains. These services may include education, skills training, counseling, support groups, alternative dispute resolution, and mentoring programs, and may be provided by a wide variety of organizations. Some services may be aimed at teaching young people about the consequences of early marnages and out-of-wedlock births and their effects on the future quality of their lives. Others may prepare people for marnage and help couples confront and resolve problems in marriage. When divorce is inevitable, community programs can help parents come to terms with the divorce, resolve their differences, and work out effective parenting arrangements for their children. For unmarried parents, community programs can help parents fulfill their responsibilities to their children in ways that are responsive to their unique situations.
It is important to underscore the range of community resources potentially available to families. Often neighborhood organizations, voluntary associations, and charities can provide advice and assistance with problem-solving that is grounded in expertise and experience in the community. Religious institutions can provide spiritual guidance and support in seeking effective solutions. Courts, as part of an enhanced role in the community, can provide help to potential litigants and others who apply to them for legal assistance. Businesses can help provide community supports for families and can help their employees work productively by implementing family-friendly policies. Schools can educate and can help young people and their parents address problems. Public and private non-profit programs can provide income and food, health care, job training, mediation, and social and mental health services. Law enforcement agencies can protect those threatened with harm. All of these varied community service providers should be knowledgeable about the roles and responsibilities of other providers and should better coordinate their efforts in order to avoid duplication and to fill gaps in services.
This chapter presents the Commission's findings and recommendations on ways in which communities can support and strengthen families and help ensure that children receive the emotional and financial support of both parents.
The Commission found programs operating in communities that provide a wide range of services designed to strengthen families. These programs assess family needs, identify existing resources and gaps in services, and help families find the appropriate assistance and support. The Commission believes that assuring a mix of family services in the community and promoting awareness of them should be a priority for communities everywhere.
Many ways that communities can help families are discussed below. In addition, Appendix H contains examples of the types of programs and approaches that have come to the attention of the Commission. These may be a useful reference for communities wishing to develop similar programs.
The Commission believes it is important to teach young people how to make responsible decisions about marriage and having a family and to help parents of all ages fulfill their responsibilities to provide emotional and financial support to their children. The high national divorce rate and the fact that 30 percent of children in the United States are born to unmarried parents underscore the need to do more to prepare young people for marriage and parenting and to help parents meet their ongoing obligations to their children.
A variety of community-based adolescent and youth programs are addressing the need to educate and raise the awareness of the level of commitment and maturity that it takes to sustain a marriage and to raise a child. These programs help prepare young people to assess their readiness for such important steps.
School systems in some States have developed school curncula on parenting rights and responsibilities to help young people understand the legal, financial, and emotional responsibilities of parenthood. The American Bar Association (ABA) has developed an interactive video program for schools. The video is designed to teach teens the communication and negotiation skills needed to resolve common relationship problems that couples face. Head Start programs and child care centers have helped teenage volunteers experience what it is like to care for young children. These programs are useful models for other community groups that want to help young people prepare for marriage and parenting.
In addition to helping young people prepare for marnage, parenthood, and maintaining a family, communities need to support the parenting efforts of individuals who already have children. Whether married, separated, divorced, or unmarried, parents often need the help of others to strengthen their families and ensure that their children receive the financial and emotional support they need. Community organizations, public programs, religious institutions, and businesses all have roles to play in promoting responsible parenthood.
Parents who live together may need various kinds of help to strengthen their families. They may need help finding a job or improving their earning capacity so that they can support their families adequately. They may need assistance in managing their fmances or finding affordable housing. They may need to learn to care for their children and provide appropriate guidance and emotional support. They may need advice about the education of their children. They may need to strengthen their relationship with one another and renew their bonds of love and commitment. They may need to learn how to resolve conflicts in a constructive way.
Parents who live apart from each other have many of the same needs as parents who live together. In addition, they have special needs. They may have more pressing needs for help with employment and increasing their earning skills. They may need assistance to work out how they will share parental responsibilities. If they are divorcing or have experienced an acrimonious divorce with continuing hostility, they may need help to resolve the conflict and focus on the well-being of the children. If they have never married or lived together they may need help in creating a set of shared parenting responsibilities.
The Commission heard from a variety of local programs that promote responsible parenting that are designed for married parents, single parents, divorcing parents, stepparents, and others. Some of these programs focus on increasing family income through education, job training, and placement. Some focus on teaching family life skills, such as parenting techniques, budget management, and conflict resolution. Others focus on helping remarried parents cope with the children's adjustment to the new marriage. Still others focus on involving unmarried fathers in the lives of their children.
For example, Ronald Mincy, Program Officer at the Ford Foundation,' and Ralph Smith, Director of Planning and Development at the Annie E. Casey Foundation,2 described for the Commission the initiatives their foundations are supporting to promote responsible fatherhood. Working through a consortium that includes the Fatherhood Project at the Families and Work Institute in New York City, the Father Policy Institute at the Family Resource Coalition in Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania's National Center on Fathers and Families, and the National Practitioner's Network, these foundations and others are supporting research and dissemination of best practices in support of "fragile families" families headed by disadvantaged, unwed parents. The Families and Work Institute's re
PAGE 54 missing
An important role for communities is providing positive role models for at-risk youth. Adolescents, especially those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, can benefit greatly from relationships with adult mentors who can help them set goals and plan the necessary education, training, and development of positive attitudes to achieve these goals. Adult mentors can help guide young people along the way, providing assistance and encouragement. They can reinforce positive and productive behaviors, such as getting an education, being a supportive parent, and learning and using conflict resolution skills.
For example, Public/Private Ventures, a non-profit organization that supports the development of program models that foster young people's success, recently completed a control group study of a major mentoring program, the Big BrothersBig Sisters (BBBS) of America. The study showed a dramatic difference in the lives of high-risk young teens, ages 10 to 16, who participated in the program. The BBBS youth showed a substantial reduction in first-time drug use, school absenteeism, and fighting, as compared to their peers outside the program. Overall, they were more trusting of their parents or guardians and more likely to have good relationships with their peers than the control group. These results came from providing adult friendship and guidance on a regular and intensive basis, not from tutoring, anti-drug counseling, or other problem-focused services. Other mentoring programs emphasize the importance of having young adults become economically self-sufficient and responsible. These avenue-out-of-poverty programs are intended to break the cycle of dependency through education, training, and job placement. They bring together businesses, employment and training systems, and the jobready workforce. Like the BBBS program, they include a focus on establishing healthy relationships between high-risk teens or young adults and adults and/or peer support groups. As a result, young adults learn social skills that enable them to connect to job opportunities in the labor market. Cleveland Works, which was mentioned previously, is one such program.
Recommendation 11:
Communities should help at-risk teens set viable, long-term goals and develop plans for achieving them through mentoring programs that reinforce responsible behavior and through avenue-out-of-poverty programs that invest in education, training and job placement.
Divorce, separation, and remarriage place unique pressures on children and parents. Children who cannot adjust to these changes often experience long-term emotional problems. To avert these consequences, community-based mediation agencies and family support groups can help family members resolve disputes, learn to handle their feelings, improve parenting effectiveness, and enhance self-esteem.
Community-based dispute resolution agencies, for example, mediate a wide variety of family disputes. They mediate disagreements between married parents, sometimes averting divorce. They mediate disputes of separating and divorcing parents, helping them come up with a settlement and a plan that focuses on the best interests of their children. They mediate disputes between unmarried parents over issues such as establishing paternity and arranging parenting time with children.
Community-based mediation services are often able to respond quickly and comprehensively and are sometimes available free or at low cost. Indeed, there is presently under-used capacity within many of these programs s This may be because parents are unaware of the availability of these services and how they work. To address this problem, the National Association of Community Mediators in Washington, DC, a member organization for community mediation groups, is developing a directory of the estimated 200 to 300 community-based dispute resolution organizations operating nationwide.
Beech Acres' Aring Institute in Cincinnati, OH, is a family support organization that offers both mediation and emotional support to parents and children who must adjust to the major life changes occasioned by divorce, remarnage and other family transitions. Director Sally Brush told the Commission that:
Probably the reason I'm still doing this 20 years later is because of what the children have told me over the years about what the (divorce) experience was like for them. We're raising half our children in families where there's a divorce and we don't know how to do it well.9
Rainbows, an international non-profit organization operating in 46 states and 10 foreign countries, offers training and curricula for establishing peer support groups in communities to help children and adults who are experiencing divorce, death, or other painful transitions. Its Founder and President Suzy Yehl Marta told the Commission that:
Every divorce does not begin with the legal system but rather with the emotions of grief. Each divorce is the death of a family unit, usually the nuclear family. The emotions of grief are painful, complex, and often conflicting, and they are felt by every member of the family, no matter what their age.
Recommendation 12:
Communities should support the development and public awareness of effective community-based, non-court, dispute resolution, and family support programs that can help family members resolve disputes and address the consequences of divorce.
The Commission believes that collaboration among and within community-based agencies is crucial to strengthening families. Two nationwide membership organizations that work collaboratively to build strong families and foster healthy child development are Family Service America, Inc., and the Family Resource Coalition. These two nationwide membership organizations represent some 1,100 community-based family service providers that offer a broad range of services, including parenting education, literacy training, mentoring of high-risk youth, substance abuse prevention, child care, and information and referral services. The family service providers collaborate with local agencies to coordinate service delivery to families.
These and similar organizations of member agencies are in a strong position to build alliances with trained, neighborhood-based mediators, and to stimulate the creation of mediation services in communities. Having mediators available to train families in conflict resolution techniques and to mediate high-conflict disputes would complement the efforts of these agencies to ensure family well-being and the future of children.
In addition to coordinating efforts, communities need to compile lists of local services and programs that help families meet their emotional and financial responsibilities to children, and distribute those lists to the public. The compilation can be shared with cities, counties, States, and the Federal government through resource networks, libraries, computer networks, large organizations, charitable groups, and clearinghouses. Many "undiscovered" effective programs, once highlighted, can be replicated successfully in other communities. Ideally, a national organization could facilitate the publication and dissemination of the information gathered at the local and State level and ensure that the information is complete and current.
Some of these lists exist already on a national level. For example, the Alliance of Information and Referral Systems (AIRS) and United Way of America recently published The Directory of Information and Referral Services in the United States and Canada.11 This 552 page directory has information about social services broken down by State or province and city. Family Service America, Inc., has published the Directory of Member Agencies in the United States and Canada.12 The agencies are listed by State and by social service subject. These and other directories exemplify comprehensive compilations of services that are helpful both to families and professionals. Ideally, directories should identify exemplary programs that address:
In addition to describing program service approaches, directories should include key research and demonstration programs that address these areas of study.
Recommendation 13:
Communities should develop and disseminate directories of programs that help families meet their emotional and financial responsibilities to their children and foster the creation of networks among these programs.
At its San Francisco public hearing, the Commission heard testimony from a panel of local religious leaders. The testimony focused on the role religious institutions play in preparing couples for marriage, preventing divorce when possible, and easing conflict when divorce is inevitable. The Commission also heard testimony regarding a wide array of family support services that religious institutions provide in their communities.
Religious institutions can be an important resource for individuals considering marriage, for married couples, and for families needing support related to a divorce or nonmarital birth. Indeed, because religious institutions are a focal point for many families in the community, they often are the first to know of family distress and the first to be in a position to help. For this reason, many religious institutions provide a host of direct services to families, ranging from marnage preparation to teen pregnancy counseling to assistance in coping with the emotional effects of divorce.
Moreover, religious institutions have a valuable resource available within their congregations: people who want to serve and be involved in the community. Many of these people are skilled in the techniques needed to provide assistance to families. If training is needed, the clergy often can enlist training sources at little or no cost. And houses of worship can easily be converted into a locus of services during off hours.
Because two-thirds of all marriages in 1993 were performed in a religious settingl3 religious institutions are an important community resource with an opportunity to help couples objectively assess their relationship before marriage. "With a 60-percent dissolution rate for new marriages, the engagement should be rigorous enough that weak relationships break up before marriage," says Michael J. McManus in his book Marriage Savers: Helping Your Friends and Family Avoid Divorce.l4
Traditionally, the clergy have played an active role in preparing couples for marriage and have formalized their advice through premarital courses and curricula. For example, since the 1940s, the Roman Catholic church has required engaged couples to complete a Pre-Cana Conference, a series of lectures dealing with courtship, physiology, morals, and day-to-day issues of marnage, in order to be married in the church. As the divorce rate began to soar in the 1970's and 1980's, religious institutions responded by developing more elaborate marriage preparation courses. They continue to refine their approaches today. The Commission applauds the work of religious institutions in helping prepare couples for marnage. It also supports their efforts to discourage couples from marrying if they are not ready for the commitment or responsibility or if they have unrealistic expectations about marriage. For example, some religious institutions employ various assessment techniques in combination with counseling, exposure to problem solving and conflict resolution techniques to determine a couple's level of maturity and compatibility. Some of the assessment techniques, are already in use, e.g., FOCCUS, PREPARE, and are described in Appendix H.
Because marriages go through ups and downs in response to the stresses and strains of daily life, couples often seek the support and guidance of their religious advisor. In addition to the clergy's providing counseling to individual couples, many religious institutions offer programs that are designed to improve marital relations through various small group and mentoring techniques. One of these programs is Marnage Encounter, a weekend retreat involving three or four couples and a member of the clergy for the purpose of strengthening the couples' communication skills and reinforcing their commitment to marriage. Marriage Encounter began in the Catholic Church in the 1960s and has been adapted for use by other denominations such as the Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Jews. Another divorce prevention program available to all faiths is Retrouvaille, the French word for "rediscovery." The Retrouvaille program also uses mentoring couples. In their testimony before the Commission, a Retrouvaille mentoring couple, Ed and Peggy Gleason, talked about their approach:
We have a team of three (mentorJ couples (and) a priest or a minister, and we present a live-in weekend experience where we tell couples what we were like (as a couple), what happened to make us want to change and reconcile, and what we are like now, and what our families are like now.15
Similarly, Marriage Ministry, which is Episcopalian in origin and modeled afterAlcoholics Anonymous, uses a mentoring couple and a priest and requires the couple experiencing difficulties to acknowledge each partner's responsibility for his or her part of the problem. The Commission strongly encourages religious institutions to continue their efforts and explore new ways to help couples weather a major breakdown in their marriage and prevent divorce.
When divorce occurs, many families are in turmoil emotionally and financially. The children of divorce often experience dramatic feelings of loss and face significant lifestyle adjustments ranging from the departure of a parent from the home to changes in residence, neighborhood, and school. Parents experience the same losses, coupled with new responsibilities and fears about how they will get along. Many divorcing families and their children benefit from the support of religious institutions during this time of crisis.
Many unmarried parents and their children also benefit from the attention of religious institutions in their communities. The Reverend Cecil Williams, Minister of Liberation, Glide Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco, told the Commission of programs for unmarried parents offered by Glide Memorial. These programs encourage unmarried parents to work together and help them to provide emotional and financial support to their children.l6 The Commission urges religious institutions to develop programs especially geared to unmarried mothers and fathers that will help them fulfill their parenting responsibilities to the fullest.
Recommendation 14:
Religious institutions and other community-based groups should work cooperatively to disseminate information about the positive impact on children of the involvement of both parents in their lives and to adopt approaches and expand efforts to reduce the rate and adverse consequences of divorce and nonmarital births.
The Commission encourages religious institutions to make their talents and capabilities in support of families accessible to the whole community. In doing so, the Commission encourages religious institutions to expand their efforts to coordinate with other community family service providers in their work on behalf of families.
Given their stature in the community, the clergy should look for other ways as well to expand their leadership in efforts to strengthen our Nation's families. Specifically, the Commission calls upon religious leaders to organize a national interdenominational summit to share ideas and methodologies, and to develop strategies to better prepare individuals for marriage and parenting, strengthen intact families, and provide support to families in which parents have separated, divorced, or are not married.
Recommendation 15:
Religious leaders should convene a multi-level summit to develop a strategic plan on ways to expand assistance in support of families and provide the necessary interventions to help individuals prepare for marriage and parenting, strengthen intact families, and support families in which parents are separated, divorced, or unmarried.
Businesses are important to communities and can help strengthen families in two ways: by adopting family-friendly business practices and by collaborating with community organizations and schools to build more effective supports for families.
Businesses can help keep families strong by providing the support and flexibility that employees need to be good parents. This is particularly important today, because most parents work outside the home.
Parents who work outside the home are often away for 8 to 10 of the 12 to 14 hours that their young children are awake. Like all parents, they also must spend time transporting their children to activities, shopping, cleaning, preparing meals, and otherwise maintaining the home. If children are preschoolers, commuting time may be increased to transport the children to and from child care, which often is neither near the home nor the workplace. When a child is sick or otherwise unexpectedly at home, parents may have difficulty caring for them because of their work responsibilities.
Flexible work schedules can help many of these parents to meet both their family and employment obligations more effectively. Unfortunately, relatively few workers enjoy such flexibility. In 1990, only 15.3 percent of the private sector workforce was on a flexible work schedule. In the public sector (Federal, State, and local governments), just 14.2 percent of workers were on flexible schedules. While the public sector as a whole has less flexible scheduling, 27 percent of Federal workers were on flexible work schedules.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 increased the number of businesses offering family-friendly leave policies by requiring employers to provide unpaid leave at the birth or adoption of a child or for family medical illnesses. Businesses can expand on that foundation and offer more time off, including paid time, for a range of activities in which parental involvement is crucial to the child's development. Businesses can also consider how to lessen the impact of a school system's weather-related closings on parents or how to better coordinate parents' work schedules with school calendars.
A major concern for parents is the availability of affordable, safe, and nurturing child care. Businesses can help their employees grapple with this issue by providing child care directly or through cooperative arrangements with other businesses, subsidizing child care through pre-tax benefit dollars or direct payment, or helping parents fmd child care.
The Commission also encourages businesses to sponsor organized children's activities and employee family outings and other events. Such activities strengthen workplace camaraderie and develop positive values in children that carry over into adulthood.
Several resources are available to help employers construct family-friendly workplaces. For example, the experiences of other businesses can provide useful models. The Corporate Reference Guide to Work-Family Programs and The State Reference Guide to Work-Family Programs for State Employees, both partially funded by the Ford Foundation, rank 188 large corporations and the 50 State governments respectively on their "familyfriendliness." Child magazine featured an article by James Levine and Carol Hernandez entitled "30 Great Companies for Dads" that highlighted businesses whose workplace policies recognize the importance of family to men. Working Mother magazine publishes an annual survey of the best corporations in America for mothers working outside the home. Finally, organizations such as the Families and Work Institute in New York City are a source of ongoing information about polices of employers.
In short, the Commission believes that broader adoption by businesses of fIexible work schedules, job sharing, telecommuting, employee-choice benefit plans, child care support, and liberal family leave policies would be good not only for America's families but also for businesses. Added flexibility helps parents respond better to the needs of their children. Businesses benefit by attracting more qualified job candidates, and achieving a better ftt between employees and jobs.
Recommendation 16:
Businesses should develop family-friendly practices to build more effective supports for families.
The Commission urges businesses to become active partners with civic organizations, religious institutions, schools, service providers, neighborhood groups, and parents themselves in building more effective supports for families in their communities.
For example, in recognizing that today's students are tomorrow's workers, businesses can play an active role with parents and teachers to make schools effective places for young people to learn. The communications, goal setting, planning, and problem-solving skills that young people will need to succeed in tomorrow's world can be fashioned by businesses that work together with parents, teachers, and students.
Some businesses have adopted schools or made their personnel available to work with schools. In some instances, public/private partnerships have involved businesses in investments of equipment and technical staff to upgrade schools. For example, several companies contributed over $6 million in cash, equipment and in-kind services toward the establishment of 13 high-tech laboratories to Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology inAlexandria, Virginia. Businesses have also worked with school systems on programs to teach students about a particular aspect of business. For example, the Open Gateways Program of Sun Microsystems Foundation, Inc., supports 11 school districts in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties in California through grants for hardware, software, and training. The Foundation also supports SmartSchools NetDay, where Sun employees volunteer their technical expertise in 35 schools in the Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay area, and Sun provides products to the schools at substantial discount. Businesses can receive favorable publicity from their involvement in these kinds of endeavors and prepare a better trained pool of workers from which to draw in the future.
The Commission believes that government plays a vital role in fostering the well-being of children and families and helping to ensure that children receive the emotional and financial support of both parents.
The Federal government funds many programs that help families. These programs provide a vast array of services in areas such as nutrition, health, income support, child support enforcement, and child welfare. The Federal government also provides leadership in research, disseminating information about best practices, and being an information resource for communities. For example, in June 1995, President Clinton directed Federal agencies to begin a review of their programs, policies, research, evaluation, and personnel practices to strengthen the role of fathers in families. Federal agencies currently are engaged in this assessment, with the expectation of improving family-related policies government-wide. The Federal government can bring attention to issues, too, through initiatives and public education campaigns.
State and local governments also have a key role to play. They not only fund programs that help families, but also can do a great deal to encourage innovative and effective programs in local communities that lead to greater parental responsibility and nurturing of children. As parents are strengthened and empowered and their children thrive, families can create powerful, vibrant, attractive communities.
Although governments at all levels have a long history of addressing the unmet needs of children and families, and much good is being done, the Commission believes that governments must be learning organizations open to new ideas and new ways of doing business. New and creative initiatives are needed to marshall public, private, and nonprofit expertise to create a common vision, set an agenda, and move toward realizing goals.
Because government policies and programs have a major impact on people's lives it is important for government to ensure that these policies and programs work for families and do not unintentionally interfere with family formation, family stability, and parents taking care of their children. The Commission believes that government, in partnership with other public entities, the private sector, and citizens, has a responsibility to help build a society that values families and communities. One way that government can do this is by ensuring that policies and program regulations further rather than hinder parents' efforts to provide ongoing emotional and fmancial support to their children.
Although the Commission did not have the resources to study and make recommendations on government policies that promote or act as barners to parents in providing emotional and financial support to their children, it urges legislators and other government policymakers to examine these policies and to be mindful of their effects when shaping future policies. Since the 1970s, increased housing, transportation, education, and health care costs, wage stagnation, and a high tax burden on the average family have contributed to a decline of family formation and family disintegration, greater child poverty, and economic insecurity among all but the wealthiest Americans. It is important to consider the impact of government policies on these trends. To cite just one example, under the current Federal tax code two individuals who marry often pay higher taxes than if they had remained single. The Commission believes this marnage penalty is one of several tax and other policies that should be examined and reformed to help parents support their children.
The Commission believes that there are many ways for governments to pursue the goal of having family-friendly policies and programs. The Commission's recommendations as well as ongoing efforts that the Commission supports, are discussed in the remainder of this section.
Recommendation 17:
Governments at all levels should adopt as a priority the goal of keeping both parents involved emotionally and financially in the lives of their children.
Recommendation 18:
Governments at all levels should evaluate laws and policies with respect to their effects on families.
Recommendation 19:
Governments at all levels should examine tax codes and modify them to provide greater support for families with children and to eliminate marriage penalties.
At least 30 States have initiated comprehensive reform strategies to improve the coordination, integration, and effectiveness of services for children and families, often using collaborative councils, commissions or cabinets as a springboard for their efforts.22
These collaborative bodies take several forms. Cabinets or councils generally include the State commissioners or deputy commissioners of various childand family-service agencies. Sometimes a superagency is created with line authority over several different agencies. These bodies may provide strategic planning, policy development, budget development, recommendations for funding reallocation, and coordination or supervision of parallel local bodies. The Commission believes that these bodies can play a significant role in ensuring that children receive the emotional and financial support of both parents through the following kinds of activities:
The Commission supports the efforts of States to improve collaboration among family-focused programs at the State and local level and encourages other States to follow the path of the 30 or more that have already begun to implement these reforms.
There is a growing movement to utilize parent peer groups to help resolve parenting problems and to develop parent leaders who will work constructively with social service providers, community planners, and policymakers toward a more responsive delivery of family services.
Parents Anonymous, Inc., and Head Start are two examples of programs that emphasize the importance of parents helping parents and parent leadership. Parents Anonymous, Inc. (PA), created in 1970 to help parents overcome abusive behavior toward their children, has expanded its mission to include 2,000 neighborhood-based support groups that help parents acquire parenting skills, share their frustrations about parenting, build self esteem, and reach out to others in the community. PA plans to establish a Parents Anonymous National Resource Center on Parent Leadership. The Center will promote parent involvement and, even beyond involvement, parent leadership. Health, education, and human service professionals will receive training and technical assistance in methods of encouraging and supporting strong parent involvement. Interested parents will receive training and materials related to advocacy, self-assertiveness, communication, community building, and public speaking. The goal is to develop parent involvement and leadership in planning and implementing services to children and families all across America and to inform key policymakers and the public about current issues facing families.
The Head Start program, which focuses on the developmental needs of children, has a strong parent involvement and leadership component. The Head Start Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, recently published and disseminated to all Head Start grantees a Head Start Handbook of the Parent Involvement Vision and Strategies. A good portion of the handbook is dedicated to creating opportunities for parents to become involved in decisions which affect their lives, the lives of their children, and the functioning of their communities. For example, Head Start agencies are urged to provide formal leadership training to parent volunteers who are transitioning out of Head Start so that their leadership skills can benefit community-based programs and organizations.
These and related efforts can greatly assist parents to become valuable resources in their communities. The Commission believes that State and local governments and private organizations should develop ways to identify and train parent volunteers for this purpose. Volunteers would learn about good parenting, problems that parents confront, group processes for problem solving, skills in communication, knowledge of the local family support system, and ways to access community resources that can help families in times of crisis. Once trained, they would work with mothers and fathers to help them resolve their parenting issues and develop the skills they need to provide for their children. They would provide outreach, mentoring, and peer support under the auspices of institutions in the community, such as courts, family resource programs, schools, religious institutions, and community centers. They would also take a leadership role in ensuring that these institutions provide effective services to families in the community.
Recommendation 20:
Government and private organizations should encourage the training of parent leaders who will help other parents improve their parenting and problem-solving skills and will work to intluence and improve the delivery of family services in their communities.
Public schools represent an important community resource. Parents often view schools as a critical first line of support for today's young people and for families. School personnel teachers, principals, psychologists, guidance counselors, and others contend with learning problems, behavioral difficulties, and emotional distress on a daily basis. School-based services may include child and teen counseling, comprehensive evaluations and needs assessments, classroom intervention strategies, parent education, referral services to outside agencies for specialized problems, and a host of other activities that promote the well-being of children, youth, and families. With all of these assets, schools are an excellent community resource.
Kentucky has pioneered the use of schools as community resource centers. Over 500 family resource centers serve 700 public schools in Kentucky. The schools and area social service providers collaborate to bring individualized services to the children and families. These services include infant/toddler care, intervention programs, counseling and mental health services for children and their families, general education degree training for parents, and home visiting for at-risk young mothers and their children. The Commission supports these schoolbased efforts and believes that public schools are a unique resource for families. School personnel, through their leadership position in the community, can be natural role models for parents and children, teaching positive, nurturing behavior by example. School-sponsored activities that draw parents into the school with their children provide additional opportunities for families to gain insights into the importance of parental involvement in their children's lives. Schools can be an important resource for community-based programs seeking to work with families in yet another way. Schools generally are situated in residential communities and often have space where community-based organizations and groups can provide a wide array of services to assist children and families. Many schools have kitchens, gymnasiums, meeting spaces, libraries, and on-site technology, and often space is available for use by community programs during nonschool hours at little or no cost.
Recommendation 21:
Public schools should be catalysts for widely based community efforts to strengthen families and encourage parent groups to make greater use of school facilities.
The Commission believes that communities can do much to assure the well-being of children. Parents can be empowered and families can be strengthened through community support. Coordinated assistance by various voluntary, public, religious, and business institutions can help relieve the many pressures on today's families and help parents obtain the tools they need to better cope with their lives and their families.
What is needed is to better prepare young adults for marriage, strengthen existing twoparent families, and support parents and children when marnages dissolve or families do not form. For some communities that means adopting proven approaches and finding more effective ways to use existing resources. For others it means developing new resources where there presently are none. Whether children are in families with two parents who live together or whether their parents live apart, they can benefit from a supportive community that puts families first.
The Commission was hampered in its deliberations by a scarcity of definitive research on many subjects that were of concern. In addition, much of the research that was examined by the Commission was dependent upon the emphasis of the researcher, choice of study sample, and how the variables were measured, making it difficult to compare one study to another. The Commission believes there is a general need for studies that use larger, more representative samples. Many of the existing studies are based on samples that do not represent or compare adequately the full universe of married, divorced, separated, and unmarried parents and their children. There also is a need for more longitudinal studies. The effects of successful and unsuccessful marriages, divorce, separation, out-of-wedlock birth, and various parental decision-making, parenting time, and residential arrangements on the well-being of children need to be studied over time. It is also important to more clearly identify some of the factors that make a successful marnage and to learn more about why marriages come apart. Finally, more carefully constructed studies are needed to determine the extent of gender and other bias in judicial decision-making and the effects of innovations in court procedures (such as mediation) on helping separated, divorced, and unmarried parents provide emotional and financial support to their children.
Recommendation 22:
Federal and State governments and other research funding sources should sponsor additional research and disseminate findings on important issues such as: 1) the elements of a successful marriage; 2) the causes of divorce; 3) the effects of different parenting arrangements on children; 4) the impact of divorce on the well-being of children; 5) the well-being of children of unmarried parents; and 6) the components of the current legal system that promote or fail to promote the continued financial and emotional support of children by both parents.
The Commission believes that the modern family is facing issues today that often throw it into turmoil. About 1 million children experience the divorce of their parents each year. Close to another million are born to unmarried parents. The recommendations contained in this report, if implemented, will help ensure that children receive the emotional and financial support of both their parents.
Many of the reforms will cost money, but the Commission believes they are investments that must be made. Others will merely require refocusing court and community efforts on family issues and engaging in concerted outreach. Everyone needs to be better informed about what can be done to assure that children receive the love, care and financial support they deserve from both of their parents. "Parenting Our Children is in the Best Interest of our Nation!"
Recommendation 23:
Federal, State, and local government and private entities should participate in a broad public education program to promote the Commission's recommendations.
The following duly appointed members of the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare voted on the final report and the recommendations contained therein as follows:
Mary R. Cathcart Yes
Honorable Robert E. Robles Yes
Kathryn Monahan Ainsworth Yes
Donald R. Bardill Yes
Carol Statuto Bevan Yes
Nancy Duff Campbell Yes
George C. Cheek Yes
James C. Dobson Yes
John Guidubaldi No
Bill Harrington No
Barbara Sabol Yes
James G. Sherman Yes
Kaye Theimer Yes
Marna S. Tucker Yes
Cynthia Gulley Wiedemann Yes
The following duly appointed members of the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare prepared and submitted statements which are found in Appendix D:
Donald R. Bardill
John Guidubaldi
Bill Harrington
Cynthia Gulley Wiedemann
Mary R. Cathcart, Chair, Orono, Maine.
Ms. Cathcart was a member of Maine's House of Representatives from 1988 until 1994. She served on a number of boards and commissions concerning child welfare, domestic violence, and juvenile corrections. Prior to her legislative service, Ms. Cathcart was a Community Education Coordinator for Spruce Run Association, a battered women's project, and served as a member of the Maine Commission for Women. She is currently a candidate for the Maine Senate.
Honorable Robert E. Robles, Vice Chair, Las Cruces, New Mexico:
Judge Robles was appointed District Judge by Governor Bruc:e King in 1991 and was subsequently elected to office in the Third Judicial District. Judge Robles presides over all family law matters including dissolution of matriage, custody, visitation, child support, paternity petitions, Violence Protection Act petitions, and the Family Law Mediation program.
Kathryn Monahan Ainsworth, J.D., Portland, Maine:
Ms. Ainsworth is a founder of Resources for Divorced Families and through this established KIDS FIRST: Parenting Through Divorce, an educational program for parents. She is a trained family mediator and, as an attorney, has focused on children's and family issues and court reform. She was thc director of a commission that studied the future of Maine's courts and serves on committees that work to utilize alternatives to the courts. Recently she served as an American Bar Association consultant to the court system in Latvia. She currently is a facilitator/mediator with the firm of Gosline, Reitmen and Ainsworth, where she concentrates on collaborative problem solving and conflict resolution.
Donald R. Bardill, Ph.D., Tallahassee, Florida:
Dr. Bardill is the former Dean of, and presently a Professor in, the School of Social Work at Florida State University (FSU). Currently, he is the Acting Training Director for the FSU Mazriage and Family Therapy Clinic and editor of The Journal of Family Social Work. He has been the president of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy and chief social worker at Walter Reed Hospital and has published articles on the subject of children and the family.
Carol Statuto Bevan, Ed.D., Washington D.C.:
Dr. Bevan is a Professional Staff Member of the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means in the U.S. House of Representatives (HOR). At the time of her appointment to the Commission she held the position of Vice President for the National Council for Adoption. Dr. Bevan has previously served as the Republican Staff Director of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, HOR. As an expert on child and family issues Dr. Bevan has worked extensively to develop legislation related to child and family welfare.
Nancy Duff Campbell, J.D., Washington, D.C.:
Ms. Campbell is an attorney and founder and Co-President of the National Women's Law Center, an organization that for over 20 years has worked to advance and protect the legal rights of women. An expert on income security and family support issues, Ms. Campbell has helped develop and implement key legislative initiatives, litigation, and public education programs that benefit women and their families. She has served on several boards and task forces, authored numerous publications, and been honored by the District of Columbia Bar with its William J. Brennan Award for her legal career dedicated to service in the public interest.
George C. Cheek, Mill Creek, Washington:
Mr. Cheek, a retired business cxecutive, is presently a consultant in marketing and public affairs. Previously he was Senior Vice President for Public Affairs for the Potlatch Corporation in San Francisco and Executive Vice President of the American Forest Institute in Washington DC.
Jamcs C. Dobson, Ph.D., Colorado Springs, Colorado:
Dr. Dobson is a psychologist, author, and the founder and President of Focus on the Family. This non-profit organization produces a nationally syndicated radio program. Dr. Dobson has served on a variety of national advisory boards, task forces, panels, and commissions. These have included Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the U.S. Army's Family Initiative, the Panel on Teen Pregnancy Prevention, and the Advisory Board on Missing and Exploited Children. Dr. Dobson is a clinical member of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.
John Guidubaldi, Ed.D. Kent, Ohio:
Dr. Guidubaldi is a Professor of School Psychology and Education at John Carroll University and Professor Emeritus at Kent State University. He is past President of the National Association of School Psychologists and the Portage County Family Counseling and Mental Health Center. He is coauthor of the Battelle Developmental Inventory and the director of a nationwide longitudinal study of the effects of divorce on children and has published articles on the subject. Under a grant from the State of Ohio, he studied the relationship of father involvement to child adjustment in two large Ohio cities. He was the founder and editor of The School Psychology Review and Highlights Magazine's Newsletter of Parenting.
Bill Harrington, Tacoma/Seattle, Washington:
Mr. Harrington is President of the American Fathers' Alliance in W ashington, DC, an umbrella coalition of 280 fathers' rights organizations throughout America. The Alliance is focused on national family policy issues and development. In his role as a fathers' movement leader, Mr. Harrington testified before both the U.S. Senate Finance Committee as well as the House Ways and Means Committee in support of national welfare reform in 1994,1995 and 1996. Mr. Harrington is employed as a legal assistant with priority on custody, paternity, parental relocation, and child support issues. He is President of Fathers' Rights in Washington State and is a board member of the Northwest Men's Law Center based in Tacoma, Washington.
Barbara J. Sabol, R.N., Bethesda, Maryland:
Ms. Sabol is President of University Research Corporation, which provides training in leadership development, management, health, education, and communication services. Previously, she headed New York City's Human Resources Administration, the nation's largest public welfare agency. Ms. Sabol also is a member of the Boards of Directors for Girl Scouts USA and the American Public Welfare Association.
James G. Sherman, ACSW, Peoria, Illinois:
Mr. Sherman is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Children's Home Association of Illinois. The Association provides home-based services to families to prevent the removal of children from their homes. The Association also provides residential, group home, and transitional living services, teen parenting programs, and mental health services for children. Mr. Sherman is the Youth Exchange Officer of the Downtown Rotary Club and is a member of the Board of Directors.
Kaye Theimer, Ph.D., San Francisco, California:
Dr. Theimer formed a consulting firm, Childworks Inc., which helps business and government employers develop and implement family support programs for their employees. More recently, Dr. Theimer formed a public/ private partnership, the Partnership for Children, to mobilize community involvement in improving the lives of children. She serves on the Board of Directors of Children Now, a child advocacy organization with offic:es in Oakland, Sacramento, and Los Angeles, California.
Marna S. Tucker, L.L.B., Washington, D.C.:
Ms. Tucker co-chairs the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. She is a senior partner in the law firm of Feldsman, 'Ibcker, Leifer, Fidell and Bank, practicing for over 25 years in the field of domestic relations including divorce and custody. Ms. Tucker is a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and of the American College of Trial Lawyers. In 1984, she was elected the first woman President of the District of Columbia Bar.
Cynthia Gulley Wiedemann, Dallas, Texas:
Ms. Wiedemann is a consultant in public relations and marketing. She was a member of the Texas Advisory Council on Domestic Violence for six years and served on the boards of the Austin Battered Women's Center and the Dallas Family Place. She is a former staffer for the U.S. Senate Judiciary and Finance Committees.
COMMISSION STAFF
Administration and Research
Marianne Rufty, Executive Director
Kevin Costigan, Associate Director
Debra Pontisso, Associate Director
David B. Smith, Consultant
Justine Truesdale, Professional Staff
The Commission gratefully appreciates the following experts who generously contributed their time and knowledge to the Commission's endeavor:
Katharine Bartlett, Duke University School of Law
Charlene Depner, Judicial Council of California
Dana Farthing-Capowich, State Justice Institute
Hunter Hearst, National Council for Juvenile Justice
Ronald Mincy, Ford Foundation
Theodora Ooms, Family Impact Seminar
Maria Elena Onego, Family Resource Coalition
Judge Robert Page, Superior Court, Camden County, NJ
David Pate, Paternal Involvement Demonstration Project
Jessica Pearson, Center for Policy Studies
Isolina Ricci, Judicial Council of California
Ralph Smith, Annie E. Casey Foundation
Finally, the Commission especially acknowledges and appreciates the written and public personal testimony of more than 250 public and expert witnesses who generously shared their time, insights and personal experiences.