How about the fact that it circumvents the entire familiy court system!  We elect judges in Michigan be cause we trust them to make decisions like what parent should have custody of the kids after a divorce.  That is not a question that Lansing needs to answer.

If both sides of the aisle are against both pieces of legislation than why has there been such great sponsorship for HJR NN 2008?

Second, your comments smack at the very problem, that judges are equipped to make the so called "best interest of the child" decision. Stop and think about it- Who is better equipped than parents to decide for their children? And, what right does the state have to intrude into children's lives in order to decide for them?

Third, while I doubt you're a "HouseStaffer", you're playing ignorant to the real agenda behind these bills- Money! Lots of money! The only resistence to these bills in both the judiciary and the legislation is because of the superfunding of Federal tax dollars to the state, exponentially increased with sole custody awards.

Finally, despite your false inference that you're a "HouseStaffer", certainly you're not a credentialed PhD psychologist. If you were, you would be familiar with your colleagues' vast amount of published literature concerning the overwheming benefit children accrue in having both parents actively raising them!

Thus, your rhetoric to the published non-response of Rep. Schauer has no validity! Politics aside, he is filibustering his constituents! Politics upfront, he knows the public outcry for our state to stop kidnapping our children in order to fund its coffers! He has not the courage, nor the political capital to express his opinion!

"You ask what could possibly be wrong with this familiy friendly legislation?"  

The author was referring to Michigan House Joint Resolution NN (2008)

"We elect judges in Michigan be cause we trust them to make decisions like what parent should have custody of the kids after a divorce.  That is not a question that Lansing needs to answer."

Wrong.  Judicial discretion right?  Wasn't it the judicial discretion of the U.S. Supreme Court that voted in favor of slavery?  YEP!

There would not be a cry for change in our family court systems if Judges were not failing Michigan's families and children.  Did you even read the article on how federal incentives drives judicial discretion?  Research Title IV-D and follow the flow of money right back to the Judge's budget.  Did you even watch this?

It is sad that so many are blind to this problem, however eventually it will affect your family.  As a father, mother, step-parent or grandparent...and most of all the children.

Poll after poll shows Michigan voters support shared parenting.

House Staffer, you're advocating judicial activism, or legislating from the bench.

This is 100% not true.  HB 5464 does not circumvent the entire family court system.  

The courts use a 12 point custody system taht the legislature made in the Child Custody Act of 1970.  It is the legislature's job to set state policy with regards to child custody, and the judiciary's job to implement it.

The legislature can amend their legislation at any time and in any constitutional manner they see fit.  It is the judiciary's job to determine whether the legislature's law is constitutional, and if so, how to implement it.

HB 5464 simply amends the law so that judges are encouraged to give joint custody if either party asks for it, and there is no clear and convincing evidence that it's not in the best interests of the child.

Judges STILL must determine when to apply this change, what constitutes clear and convincing evidence, etc, etc.

The same judge is still in charge of the same cases with the same family laws.  If the law changes, then its because the legislature did its duty, listened to the people, and made the decision that it felt was best.

House staffer, you're abdicating the proper role of the legislature.

"We elect judges in Michigan be cause we trust them to make decisions like what parent should have custody of the kids after a divorce.  That is not a question that Lansing needs to answer."

Exactly!  That's why HB 5464 doesn't say "Little Jimmy goes to his mom.  Little Suzie goes to her dad.  Little Harry is shared by his parents with joint custody."

Again, House Staffer, the Child Custody Act was created by the legislature.  Its the duty of the LEGISLATURE to amend it.

In effect, you're advocating that voters demand if they want change, that they have to go to their local judges and say, "Either you legislate from the bench, or we will find someone who will, because the Legislature just won't do its job."