NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, this is a potential proposal idea based on something out of the now closed thread 'Charter of Masculism Rights' by Unibot, but we are borderline as to whether the WA should legislate on it.

The particular section that has sparked this is this:

Insists that the handling of custody settlements must have a basis in logic and presentable evidence, no parent may be prohibited from seeing their children or raising them because the verdict sees them only as their gender with its inherent stereotypes, and not as a parent.

I was wondering if this could be expanded upon to become its own resolution, setting out guidelines to do with custody and visitation rights, if there should be some restrictions applied and such things, and ultimately whether or not the WA should actually legislate on it.

As I have stated, our position is borderline in regards to legislation, but it is concerning in some situations. In some places, nations lean towards the mother, even though she might not be in a fit position to raise the child, whilst in others they will lean towards the father due to their beliefs, even though that may not be the best option in that situation

So, I am opening this up to see what ideas and opinions others have.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

In the Draft Resolution I am currently sponsoring, there the following passage:

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

[...]

5) If there are children to the Parties, the best interest of the child shall be the only factor in considering their placement with parents in the event of a divorce.

I think it is a General Principle broad enough to be met with broad acceptance, short (thus relatively immune to loopholes), and sober enough to dismiss the impression of "micromanaging things".

Whilst we applaud your Divorce proposal, and admit that section is fine coverage, there are a couple of short-comings in relation to this discussion. On the one hand, it doesnt deal with visitation rights, and possible restrictions that could be placed on those.

The other is the fact it only covers Divorce. It doesnt cover custody in regards to those who havent entered into a legal marriage contract, whether through an unrecognised marriage (one performed by someone who isnt licensed to do so) or the couple having not been married at all.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

The other is the fact it only covers Divorce. It doesnt cover custody in regards to those who havent entered into a legal marriage contract, whether through an unrecognised marriage (one performed by someone who isnt licensed to do so) or the couple having not been married at all.

I agree.

In that light, I propose a Draft should be submitted for general appreciation.

My only worry is that, in the event of The Right to Divorce (and its aforementioned section) becoming a Resolution (hopefully) how can a Draft on Parental Rights be not conflicting on grounds of Amendment and/or Duplication?

I agree.

In that light, I propose a Draft should be submitted for general appreciation.

My only worry is that, in the event of The Right to Divorce (and its aforementioned section) becoming a Resolution (hopefully) how can a Draft on Parental Rights be not conflicting on grounds of Amendment and/or Duplication?

I guess that is the thing, tip-toeing around current legislation and your possible proposal as well, and also whether this should be a WA issue, hence the opening of this thread as a WA forum on the issue. I just felt it was a concept that shouldnt have been wasted of Unibot's now closed thread

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I guess that is the thing, tip-toeing around current legislation and your possible proposal as well, and also whether this should be a WA issue, hence the opening of this thread as a WA forum on the issue. I just felt it was a concept that shouldnt have been wasted of Unibot's now closed thread

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Should such a proposal be written, it should contain wording that requires proof of wrong doing on one parent's part should situations of neglect and abuse be claimed. This could be as simple as providing photographic evidence, or video evidence. The Republic requires this should custody of a child be questioned. Of course, claims such as this, with or without proof, also requires our Child Protective Services to become involved where the child is concerned.

I agree.

In that light, I propose a Draft should be submitted for general appreciation.

My only worry is that, in the event of The Right to Divorce (and its aforementioned section) becoming a Resolution (hopefully) how can a Draft on Parental Rights be not conflicting on grounds of Amendment and/or Duplication?

With your proposal only determining custody on the 'best interests of the child' from the divorce case, it does not protect this child further. There are no clauses for future modification. There are no clauses to require proof of wrong doing. There are no clauses that require the courts to look at parents equally. Many nations may feel that staying with the mother is in the best interest of the child. Oppositely, there are probably nations that the rights of the father are above that of a mother and that the father will be considered the best interests. A proposal to determine how a court may determine custody wouldn't go against your own proposal unless the author attempted to alter divorce. That is, after your proposal has been submitted and voted into being.

Unibot would be happy to support your effort, if you want us to. Lately my public relations among the other diplomats has been pretty sour, with my legislature banned without even being (closed forum) submitted, you might not want me around. Lately my administration has been thinking about a "declaration of unconditional equality". Gender Stereotypes still exists in a court of law, military conscription, media and education. Juries still see, (at least in Unibot) burly men as guilty before proven innocent when it comes to charges of rape. Or a women as less likely to have committed a homicide. Rarely does one see a jury side with the father in a divorce case, therefore disregarding the best interests of a child in some cases in favour of traditionalism.

But after another failed proposal, I'm going to the bar. But, I'll be back in a month and a half with another half-baked proposal, a grimy beard and a crowd of esteemed critics no doubt.

And I'll TRY to not get an arrest on suspicion of rape. But it's sooooo hard lately as I've stated in the preambles of my radical, and banned proposal.

*Gets arrested before walking out the door*
Officer, really, I wasn't even staring....

My government does not believe that this matter should be the subject of international legislation. In fact, in our country it isn't even the subject of national legislation, because jurisdiction over all matters of 'family law' is constitutionally reserved to the separate Clans.


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Unibot would be happy to support your effort, if you want us to. Lately my public relations among the other diplomats has been pretty sour, with my legislature banned without even being (closed forum) submitted, you might not want me around. Lately my administration has been thinking about a "declaration of unconditional equality". Gender Stereotypes still exists in a court of law, military conscription, media and education. Juries still see, (at least in Unibot) burly men as guilty before proven innocent when it comes to charges of rape. Or a women as less likely to have committed a homicide. Rarely does one see a jury side with the father in a divorce case, therefore disregarding the best interests of a child in some cases in favour of traditionalism.

But after another failed proposal, I'm going to the bar. But, I'll be back in a month and a half with another half-baked proposal, a grimy beard and a crowd of esteemed critics no doubt.

And I'll TRY to not get an arrest on suspicion of rape. But it's sooooo hard lately as I've stated in the preambles of my radical, and banned proposal.

*Gets arrested before walking out the door*
Officer, really, I wasn't even staring....

Since you are inadvertently the instigator of this, you are most welcome to give input.

We agree with the representative of Rutianas that if a proposal was written it would need something to determine proof of being an unfit parent both prior to and after custody is given (if there is a dispute after).

Also one of the things we were thinking of was visitation rights. In some cases it has been known for a parent to move to another city, state or province within a country, or even move to another country, so as to prevent the other parent from seeing their child. The thing we were looking at was some sort of compromise where the parent with custody can still move as they wish, but visitation rights of the non-custodial parent are upheld too

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Also one of the things we were thinking of was visitation rights. In some cases it has been known for a parent to move to another city, state or province within a country, or even move to another country, so as to prevent the other parent from seeing their child. The thing we were looking at was some sort of compromise where the parent with custody can still move as they wish, but visitation rights of the non-custodial parent are upheld too


A little bit of a radical, socialist idea here...typically parents with custody in Unibot after a divorce will move, far away from the other parent with visitation rights. Its a bit of a sleazy thing to do, because its basically to deter the other parent from driving to see his child. How about the government pays for the parent's travel fees? Or gives them a tax break or something?

A tax break for being a parent with visitation rights, with an audit from a family worker annually or on the grounds of suspicions of failure to be a good example, healthy role model, parent and such.

As if the system is attempting to rehabilitate their parenting skills by drawing them in with financial help, in many cases couples divorce under financial stress.

However if their estranged father is just a fat pig, I wouldn't want them around just for the tax breaks. I'd probably prefer the "father" go off and live in a trailer somewhere like nature intended.

A little bit of a radical, socialist idea here...typically parents with custody in Unibot after a divorce will move, far away from the other parent with visitation rights. Its a bit of a sleazy thing to do, because its basically to deter the other parent from driving to see his child. How about the government pays for the parent's travel fees? Or gives them a tax break or something?

A tax break for being a parent with visitation rights, with an audit from a family worker annually or on the grounds of suspicions of failure to be a good example, healthy role model, parent and such.

As if the system is attempting to rehabilitate their parenting skills by drawing them in with financial help, in many cases couples divorce under financial stress.

However if their estranged father is just a fat pig, I wouldn't want them around just for the tax breaks. I'd probably prefer the "father" go off and live in a trailer somewhere like nature intended.

I dont see why the government should have to fund the transport, it should be up to both parents to shoulder the costs. Tax breaks are a good idea though, but as you have shown it can be open to abuse, which is why I am against them. This also doesnt take into account the expense of travelling internationally, which happens in some cases.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Should such a proposal be written, it should contain wording that requires proof of wrong doing on one parent's part should situations of neglect and abuse be claimed. This could be as simple as providing photographic evidence, or video evidence. The Republic requires this should custody of a child be questioned. Of course, claims such as this, with or without proof, also requires our Child Protective Services to become involved where the child is concerned.

The Ambassador for The Cat-Tribe certainly agrees that custody decisions should not be made on the basis of acusations of neglect and abuse without any proof. I am alarmed, however, at the suggestion that videotape or photographic evidence of actual abuse would be required by any nation to protect a child. I hope I have misunderstood your remarks.

The Ambassador for The Cat-Tribe certainly agrees that custody decisions should not be made on the basis of acusations of neglect and abuse without any proof. I am alarmed, however, at the suggestion that videotape or photographic evidence of actual abuse would be required by any nation to protect a child. I hope I have misunderstood your remarks.

Those were suggestions of how to document potential abuse. Not requirements for providing proof. I do believe that hard evidence should be provided, however, that abuse or neglect is present. This is to protect both parents and the child.

The Republic allows for photographic evidence. What we do not accept is people just testifying to the situation unless the individual is a completely neutral party. Even so, it is hard to argue with photographic or video evidence.

OOC: This is actually something I'm having to do with my own daughter. I'm having to photograph things that are wrong with her. My ex cried abuse and neglect with no proof and had my daughter taken away by the courts. Now I'm fighting to get her back. She's had multiple bruises, severe diaper rash, and several other things wrong. If I were to go into court and cry abuse and neglect, there's no telling what my ex would say as I am on several types of pain medication. What sucks about all this is that I have sole custody of my other daughter. Court split my two girls up and never got CPS involved with my other daughter. So yeah, I'd want to see several things in this legislation that weren't afforded to me RL. :p

Those were suggestions of how to document potential abuse. Not requirements for providing proof. I do believe that hard evidence should be provided, however, that abuse or neglect is present. This is to protect both parents and the child.

The Republic allows for photographic evidence. What we do not accept is people just testifying to the situation unless the individual is a completely neutral party. Even so, it is hard to argue with photographic or video evidence.

Um. Does The Republic use this same standard of evidence in any legal decision, particularly criminal trials?

If a child is being abused, particularly sexually, I would think that testimony from eyewitnesses and the child in question should be admissible.

I am not at all convinced that some standard of proof would be an appropriate subject of WA legislation -- especially given that the WA has no fair trial requirements.

OOC: This is actually something I'm having to do with my own daughter. I'm having to photograph things that are wrong with her. My ex cried abuse and neglect with no proof and had my daughter taken away by the courts. Now I'm fighting to get her back. She's had multiple bruises, severe diaper rash, and several other things wrong. If I were to go into court and cry abuse and neglect, there's no telling what my ex would say as I am on several types of pain medication. What sucks about all this is that I have sole custody of my other daughter. Court split my two girls up and never got CPS involved with my other daughter. So yeah, I'd want to see several things in this legislation that weren't afforded to me RL. :p

OCC: This is unfortunate. Best of luck with your struggles.

OOC: This is actually something I'm having to do with my own daughter. I'm having to photograph things that are wrong with her. My ex cried abuse and neglect with no proof and had my daughter taken away by the courts. Now I'm fighting to get her back. She's had multiple bruises, severe diaper rash, and several other things wrong. If I were to go into court and cry abuse and neglect, there's no telling what my ex would say as I am on several types of pain medication. What sucks about all this is that I have sole custody of my other daughter. Court split my two girls up and never got CPS involved with my other daughter. So yeah, I'd want to see several things in this legislation that weren't afforded to me RL. :p
OOC: This is similar to the reasons why I wanted to look into this in the first place. Thankfully my ex-fiancée and I are on good terms and have the situation organised without the courts, but I have also seen the bad side to situations like this. I am not just 'thinking of the kids' but also parents who have done no wrong by the children yet have these restrictions thanks to their former partner's fury and spite. There has been a serious high profile incident recently here in Australia where a father threw his daughter (and possibly could have thrown his sons had he not been stopped) off the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne due to a custody and visitation dispute, though it isnt the first time something like that has happened.

Um. Does The Republic use this same standard of evidence in any legal decision, particularly criminal trials?

If a child is being abused, particularly sexually, I would think that testimony from eyewitnesses and the child in question should be admissible.

I am not at all convinced that some standard of proof would be an appropriate subject of WA legislation -- especially given that the WA has no fair trial requirements.



OCC: This is unfortunate. Best of luck with your struggles.

It depends on the crime. We do have very rigid laws for fair trials and appeals are automatically sent to the Emperor for review. Granted, not all of them are reviewed by his Excellency but by advisors. If there is anything at all even possibly questionable, then the appeal is granted and a new trial is held.

For custody cases, and we do have them, if any accusations of abuse or neglect is made, then the only eyewitnesses that are credible are those who are not friends, coworkers, or acquaintances, but neutral parties to both sides. So, in the case of abuse, the person standing on the street corner who saw one party beat their child is admissible. The coworker who claims that the other parent was always leaving a minor child at home in the middle of the night is not admissible. In short, if there is any question about the bias of a witness, then the witness may testify, but the testimony cannot be accepted to determine custody. It is why if there is a claim of abuse or neglect, with or without proof, our Child Protective Services becomes involved. If the claim is false, the accusing parent faces potential punishment for a false claim.

If a parent makes a claim of abuse or neglect and has photographic and/or video evidence, the courts will accept it. That kind of evidence is studied by a specialist brought in by the court for veracity. We are aware that doctoring of photographs and video is possible. We take that into account. Abuse and Neglect are serious charges and the Republic does not wish to take a child away from a parent that was falsely accused.

OOC: Thanks. I plan on going back to court late this year if I can afford it. Otherwise it has to wait until next year.

OOC: This is similar to the reasons why I wanted to look into this in the first place. Thankfully my ex-fiancée and I are on good terms and have the situation organised without the courts, but I have also seen the bad side to situations like this. I am not just 'thinking of the kids' but also parents who have done no wrong by the children yet have these restrictions thanks to their former partner's fury and spite. There has been a serious high profile incident recently here in Australia where a father threw his daughter (and possibly could have thrown his sons had he not been stopped) off the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne due to a custody and visitation dispute, though it isnt the first time something like that has happened.

OOC: Yeah, he and I are not on good terms. He used a disability against me and also claimed I was addicted to pain medication. No drug test was ordered by the court. The judge just decided that I shouldn't have either of my kids, but one of them isn't his, so the judge couldn't rule on my older daughter. Oddly enough, after he made all those claims against me, a month later, he gave me 50% custody of my youngest daughter. That alone should have brought everything he said into question, but it didn't. Gotta love the American judicial system. :eek:

It depends on the crime. We do have very rigid laws for fair trials and appeals are automatically sent to the Emperor for review. Granted, not all of them are reviewed by his Excellency but by advisors. If there is anything at all even possibly questionable, then the appeal is granted and a new trial is held.

For custody cases, and we do have them, if any accusations of abuse or neglect is made, then the only eyewitnesses that are credible are those who are not friends, coworkers, or acquaintances, but neutral parties to both sides. So, in the case of abuse, the person standing on the street corner who saw one party beat their child is admissible. The coworker who claims that the other parent was always leaving a minor child at home in the middle of the night is not admissible. In short, if there is any question about the bias of a witness, then the witness may testify, but the testimony cannot be accepted to determine custody. It is why if there is a claim of abuse or neglect, with or without proof, our Child Protective Services becomes involved. If the claim is false, the accusing parent faces potential punishment for a false claim.

If a parent makes a claim of abuse or neglect and has photographic and/or video evidence, the courts will accept it. That kind of evidence is studied by a specialist brought in by the court for veracity. We are aware that doctoring of photographs and video is possible. We take that into account. Abuse and Neglect are serious charges and the Republic does not wish to take a child away from a parent that was falsely accused.

With all due respect it seems the answer to my question is that you apply stricter rules of evidence in custody and child abuse cases than you do in criminal trials -- like murder!

I humbly suggest you are letting personal prejudice color your judgment, Ambassador.

With all due respect it seems the answer to my question is that you apply stricter rules of evidence in custody and child abuse cases than you do in criminal trials -- like murder!

I humbly suggest you are letting personal prejudice color your judgment, Ambassador.

I don't recall ever telling you our rules for murder trials. Nor am I willing to share them as we are not discussing murder. All you need to know is that, in over seven hundred years, we have not made a mistake in any trial concerning murder. The rules are no less strict than those of custody.

with my legislature banned without even being (closed forum) submitted ... the preambles of my radical, and banned proposal.

Your legislation (not "legislature") was neither radical nor banned; it simply failed to meet WA technical standards. The thread was closed because there was no point discussing further a proposal that had no chance.

And I'll TRY to not get an arrest on suspicion of rape. But it's sooooo hard lately as I've stated in the preambles of my radical, and banned proposal.

*Gets arrested before walking out the door*
Officer, really, I wasn't even staring....

Your delegate is addressing the WA General Assembly. The WA has banned discrimination and enforced it (see effects on your national stats). Yet you imply that the WA does not enforce its own rules on its own ground.

This is godmoding. To continue godmoding when other players have called you on it can lead to justifiable complaints of trolling.

Please stop the "oppressed males" references while in the WA.

The WA has banned discrimination and enforced it (see effects on your national stats). Yet you imply that the WA does not enforce its own rules on its own ground.


I'm merely astounded by the naivety of this organization, to believe that it is exempt from the unintended consequences that burdens every other governing institution. Where is the unintended consequence for banning discrimination? It must exist, is it the over examination of every word to insure no discrimination? Criminals that we're not caught after the disintegration of stereotyping? Or reverse discrimination, where the once over privileged gender or "race" (there's only one race though ;)) is oppressed from the newly established mentality against them?

I refuse to call this godmodding, it's just the logic of Murphy's Law.
Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

To further my "innocence", Unibot isn't in the WA, Stash Kroh my puppet is.
I didn't mention Stash Kroh at all.

Your legislation (not "legislature") was neither radical nor banned; it simply failed to meet WA technical standards. The thread was closed because there was no point discussing further a proposal that had no chance.


The point of putting proposals in this forum is to have it evaluated, and changes made accordingly. I don't see the point of putting any proposal up for evaluation if it is going to be locked after half-a-week, under the violations I would have been prosecuted on if I had sent it straight to the general floor for voting.


Yours
Eduard Heir, Unibot

I humbly suggest you are letting personal prejudice color your judgment, Ambassador.

Bullshit, these two fine diplomats who have shown personal experiences with the failure of parental custody systems in some cases, are the perfect people to be organizing international law to improve it.

Bullshit, these two fine diplomats who have shown personal experiences with the failure of parental custody systems in some cases, are the perfect people to be organizing international law to improve it.

Fair point.

I would note, however, my comment was aimed not at Ambassador Jenner's desire to improve parental custody systems, but with her specific ideas concerning the standards of proof in cases of child abuse or neglect. As I tried to point out, few nations would require photographic or video evidence of a murder in order to convict the murder. Nor would they prevent an eyewitness to a murder from testifying on the grounds they weren't neutral (although I suspect any alleged bias could be raised to question the credibility of the witness). If any nations, including The Republic of Rutianas, were to actually have such strict standards of evidence, then the logical conclusion is that a great number of murderers go unpunished.

My only other concern is that a bad experience with one child custody system somewhere not trigger an unwarranted overall of all child custody systems everywhere in the WA. As a wise man known to The Cat-Tribe as Mark Twain once said:

We should be careful to get out of an experience all the wisdom that is in it -- not like the cat that sits on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot lid again -- and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.

Fair point.

I would note, however, my comment was aimed not at Ambassador Jenner's desire to improve parental custody systems, but with her specific ideas concerning the standards of proof in cases of child abuse or neglect. As I tried to point out, few nations would require photographic or video evidence of a murder in order to convict the murder. Nor would they prevent an eyewitness to a murder from testifying on the grounds they weren't neutral (although I suspect any alleged bias could be raised to question the credibility of the witness). If any nations, including The Republic of Rutianas, were to actually have such strict standards of evidence, then the logical conclusion is that a great number of murderers go unpunished.

My only other concern is that a bad experience with one child custody system somewhere not trigger an unwarranted overall of all child custody systems everywhere in the WA. As a wise man known to The Cat-Tribe as Mark Twain once said:

We should be careful to get out of an experience all the wisdom that is in it -- not like the cat that sits on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot lid again -- and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.

Why should any court have the right to say 'Oh, you claim abuse, but can't prove it, but we'll go ahead and believe you and give you custody of this child, completely destroying the other parent's right to the child'? This is not in the child's best interest. It is merely stopping the 'he said, she said' arguments in court from swaying the judge. By requiring proof of wrong doing, it is guaranteed that no parent can make these claims and win just based on the claim itself without proof. If the situation is indeed occurring, then it should be a simple thing to prove.

As for accepting the word of the child in question (I believe that was asked previously), that is something that the Republic allows for, but the child must go through professional counseling prior to and after testifying by a neutral court appointed therapist. We do this in order to make certain tat it is not something that a parent made the child say in order to harm the other parent.

Paula Jenner

What about hypnotizing the parents? Observation and psychoanalysis could prove useful to the court to decide which parent would be in the best interest of the children.

And what about the court deciding that the best interest of the child could include the wealth of the parent? A good father or mother being disregarded as not as capable of provider because he/she is poor, compared to the well-off parent (possibly aristocratic and powerful) who could logically "provide" for his children better.

Unibot, my earlier attempts to explain the RP implications of your stance may have obscured certain facts. They are:

You put up a proposal for discussion. It was ruled illegal and the thread was closed. Closure of a thread means: you may challenge that ruling in the Moderation forum. You may not challenge it elsewhere, IC or OOC. You may not start another thread on it. You may not reopen discussion on it in any other player's thread, IC or OOC, in detail or by a passing reference. To continue to do so may incur penalties.

For that reason, I have not given you an infraction -- yet. You are warned not to continue.

"These two fine diplomats" haven't; the players behind them have, in posts correctly labelled OOC (Out Of Character). Those posts describe events in the mythical Real World. In the NSverse, it didn't happen.


Fine, then the argument's instigation is rendered null and void. The diplomats have no apparent past history related to child custody as far as I know, nor can anyone say reasonably so either without their word on the matter.

I, Eduard Heir, may possess knowledge that can been seen as humorous nonsense, eccentric and neurotic. I apologize. These concepts have been etched into my reality from my studying of the real testament, and the mythic real world.

(OOC: Eduard's a religious zealot who mixes NS reality with the teachings of the "real world" as if psychotic)

*Politely backs away from the scene of his latest witch-burning*

What about hypnotizing the parents? Observation and psychoanalysis could prove useful to the court to decide which parent would be in the best interest of the children.

And what about the court deciding that the best interest of the child could include the wealth of the parent? A good father or mother being disregarded as not as capable of provider because he/she is poor, compared to the well-off parent (possibly aristocratic and powerful) who could logically "provide" for his children better.

That is why there needs to be clear rules on what is in the best interest of the child. Emotional parenting is just as important as physical provisions. That kind of situation might be common in nations where there is no equality of pay. The kind of nations that lawyers get rich from dragging out cases and overcharging their clients. If clear rules are in place, then the manipulation of the system by the rich and powerful would be lessened. I'm not saying it would disappear entirely, but it would lessen.

Paula Jenner

Fine, then the argument's instigation is rendered null and void. The diplomats have no apparent past history related to child custody as far as I know, nor can anyone say reasonably so either without their word on the matter.

OOC: No, Paula has no past history with child custody issues. She has no children.

That is why there needs to be clear rules on what is in the best interest of the child. Emotional parenting is just as important as physical provisions. That kind of situation might be common in nations where there is no equality of pay. The kind of nations that lawyers get rich from dragging out cases and overcharging their clients. If clear rules are in place, then the manipulation of the system by the rich and powerful would be lessened. I'm not saying it would disappear entirely, but it would lessen.


What if both attorneys in the matter must be public defenders? Therefore governments would work towards divorce settlements being done quickly and efficiently to avoid the further loss of ..well, money. Poorly done settlements, that warrant further court investigations and trials would be looked poorly on by the state.

_________________________________________________________________________

How about this clause?

Insists that material possessions and wealth do not necessarily establish happiness and a better life for a child. The best interests of a child lies elsewhere, in the soul of a well moralled parent and their unconditional love.

That is why there needs to be clear rules on what is in the best interest of the child. Emotional parenting is just as important as physical provisions. That kind of situation might be common in nations where there is no equality of pay. The kind of nations that lawyers get rich from dragging out cases and overcharging their clients. If clear rules are in place, then the manipulation of the system by the rich and powerful would be lessened. I'm not saying it would disappear entirely, but it would lessen.

Paula JennerSurely the streamlining of legal processes should a burden upon the state to act upon? I'm all for a speedy resolution in the interests of child welfare, but not every nation has legal processes that are vulnerable to dragged out cases....for that matter some nations don't have laws at all.

Make it an encouraging clause and leave a margin of discretion to member states to implement.