Resolution 182
An attempt to abolish father's rights
Resolution 182 is a blatant attempt to outlaw joint custody. It is unconstitutional
and discriminatory, and the information it contains is mostly thinly veiled
NOW propaganda.
The entire text of 182 is included below, complete with links where
you can tell each of the responsible representatives what you think of
them and their un-American philosophies.
However, this might not be enough. We need to point out to the rest
of our congressmen, just how ridiculous this resolution is. Click
here to write to your U.S. Representative today!
Remember, justice starts with you!
HCON 182 IH
105th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. CON. RES. 182
Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to child custody,
child abuse, and victims of domestic and family violence.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 30, 1997
Mrs. MORELLA (for herself, Mr.
SCHUMER, Mr. DAVIS of Virginia,
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut,
Ms. FURSE, Ms.
CARSON, Mr. VENTO, Mr. LAFALCE,
Mr. STARK, Mr.
FROST, Mr. PAYNE, Mr.
HINCHEY, and Mr. SANDERS)
submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to child custody,
child abuse, and victims of domestic and family violence.
Whereas domestic violence has serious detrimental effects on children,
even when they do not directly witness such violence;
Whereas courts still hold women to higher standards of conduct than
they do men;
Whereas gender bias still exists within the courts, particularly those
making and affecting child custody determinations;
Whereas gender bias has long existed and still exists within the mental
health system;
Whereas, as a result of this gender bias, many myths are that women
make false allegations of domestic violence or child abuse, and most particularly
of child sexual abuse, during divorce and custody proceedings;
Whereas false accusations by women are in fact rare, occurring no more
often than do other false reports of crimes, such as bank robbery;
Whereas the myth that women make false accusations is so widely believed
that many child protective service agents have policies of not bothering
to investigate such allegations when made during the pendency of divorce
or custody proceedings or only superficially investigate such allegations;
Whereas there are many myths that fathers are discriminated against
in custody proceedings, even though studies show that fathers fighting
for custody actually win sole custody or joint custody in 40 to 70 percent
of these disputes;
Whereas the American Psychological Association's Presidential Task Force
on Violence and the Family has found in a 1996 Presidential Report that
Congress views as authoritative on questions of domestic violence, child
abuse, and custody determination that--
(1) fathers who abuse their children's mothers are more likely to dispute
custody and visitation than are fathers who are not violent;
(2) there is no reliable data to support the phenomenon of `parental
alienation' syndrome, although courts and custody evaluators frequently
use that term and other inappropriate terms to discount the children's
fear in hostile and psychologically abusive situations; and
(3) psychological evaluators not trained in domestic violence ignore
or minimize the violence and give inappropriate pathological labels to
women's responses to chronic victimization, including `parental alienation'
to blame mothers for their children's reasonable fear or anger toward their
violent fathers.
Whereas many courts and professionals use the baseless parental alienation
syndrome to force mothers into joint or shared parenting arrangements or
to give custody to fathers, especially when mothers try to protect themselves
or their children from men who abuse them or their children;
Whereas almost every custody evaluator or judge recognizes how important
familiar routines and objects are to a child, particularly in times of
stress, but often fails to recognize the importance for the child of maintaining
its living arrangement with the child's primary caretaker parent;
Whereas Congress never intended that the Parental Kidnapping Prevention
Act be used--
(1) to encourage forcing shared parenting arrangements when it is not
in the child's best interest;
(2) to prohibit an abused or protective parent from protecting themselves
or their child;
(3) as a tool to punish a parent, without regard for the needs of the
child, by removing physical custody of a child from a fit abused or protective
parent; or
(4) as a tool to punish abused or protective parents who act to protect
themselves or their children;
Whereas when there is domestic or family violence or major discord between
the parents, shared parenting arrangements, couples counseling, or mediation
arrangements only exacerbate the difficulties of the children and give
the abusive parent more tools with which to victimize the other members
of the family;
Whereas children who grow up not seeing abusive parents clearly held
accountable for their abuse are reinforced in believing that domestic and
family violence are socially acceptable and effective means of behavior;
and
Whereas every State has legislation or judicial decisions that base
its custody determinations on what is in the best interests of the child:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) for purposes of determining child custody, it is in the best interest
of children to have a presumption that children should have their main
physical residence with their primary caretaker parent unless that parent
is unfit;
(2) for purposes of determining child custody, it is not in the best
interest of children to--
(A) force parents to share custody over the objection of one or both
parents or when there is a history of domestic or family violence;
(B) punish abused or protective parents who protect themselves or their
children;
(C) presume that allegations of domestic and family violence are likely
to be made falsely or for tactical advantage during custody and divorce
proceedings; and
(D) make `friendly parent' provisions a factor when there is abuse
by one parent against the other or a child;
(3) child abuse and child sexual abuse allegations should be fully
and impartially investigated regardless of when they are raised or whether
the child has recanted the allegation;
(4) States should be far more protective of victims of domestic and
family violence in custody and visitation determinations and not order
mediation, couples counseling, shared custody, mutual orders of protection,
unsupervised visitation, or other measures when they may endanger victims
of domestic and family violence; and
(5) States should provide training in domestic violence and child abuse,
as they impact custody, child support and visitation determinations, to
all professionals who interact with children and parents (including judges,
attorneys, guardians ad litem, therapists, mental health professionals,
custody evaluators, child protective services personnel, and court appointed
special advocates).
Back to main page