Guest Author
One of the most inspiring visuals in the Florida Capitol is during children’s week. It’s a beautiful display of thousands of hand-crafted waving hands hanging from the ceiling. It’s an important reminder that the laws that are debated and passed during the Legislative Session should always put our children first.
Which is why it’s especially important lawmakers get family law right.
In the case of a divorce, few laws impact the future of a child’s life more. That’s why attorneys and parents across the state of Florida are closely monitoring CS/HB 843 by Rep. Alexander Andrade and co-sponsored by Rep. Anthony Sabatini and Rep. Spencer Roach. These lawmakers are likely well-intentioned, but their bill is deeply flawed — with potentially very harmful consequences.
Right now, courts are required to always put the best interest of the child first.
According to the legislative staff analysis, CS/HB 843 would put parents first — presuming that the custody of the child is 50/50% — and requiring a parent to show that equal time-sharing is not in the best interest of the child.
This is an entirely flawed approach.
And it would add mountains of new litigation to our courts.
A 2016 Pew article cited a legal expert who said that Laws that encourage shared parenting may sound “seductive” to state lawmakers, but they often force families into bad situations.
There are cases where equal parenting time is appropriate, but it’s hard to find fault with examining each case and each child individually when deciding what works best for their family and them.
More divorcing parents are already choosing shared custody. While mothers are custodial parents 82.5% of the time, it may just be because fathers aren’t asking for that job. A study in Massachusetts found that fathers who actively sought primary or joint custody obtained it more than 70 percent of the time.
Additionally, this bill will roll back important protections against abusive or controlling former spouses. A victim shouldn’t have to prove that it’s not in a child’s best interest to live half the time with an abusive ex-partner.
In short, CS/HB 843 is unnecessary.
The courts are using a process that works — putting the child first — and considering the ability to care for a child, stability, and the child’s reasonable preference. Courts need discretion to apply guidelines, not presumptions that will force their hand a create more acrimony and litigation, not less.
Putting our children first means putting CS/HB 843 aside.
___
Mark Sessums, President-Elect of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Florida Chapter, formed the firm now known as Sessums Law Group, P.A., in April 2008. The firm has three lawyers and represents litigants in all types of civil matters in all courts throughout the State of Florida and in other jurisdictions.
20 comments
Nevada Bedwell
February 28, 2020 at 2:42 pm
This article is so ridiculous. Mark Sessums is a divorce attorney looking out for his own interest. This publication is a “ arm “ of the Florida bar.
Mr Sessums has hurt so many people over the years of his career. “ Money first child last “
The Florida bar and the Mr Sessums are the same swamp creatures that love socialism and hate soldiers. What a joke this article is and this publication is. Some day when Mr Sessums and the rest of the crime driven bar demons will be judged by God. What are you going to say than Mr Sessums when you can’t lie? Good luck your going to need it.
Tony Shrove
March 1, 2020 at 4:26 pm
I agree with you. They are not looking out for the children, they are looking out for there wallets at our expense. And why are we still paying alimony after the children are married and have children. Not sure why we have to take care of someone for a life time because they wanted the divorce. I agree with you also, they will stand before God one day and answer for what they do. And lets see how they get out of that lie.
Denny
February 28, 2020 at 3:04 pm
This Attorney is a Treasonous Tyrant violating the very oath and Sworn Duty to up hold the Constitution. He along with other like him profit on Family sabatage and using Children as weapons to feed the Courts State Government and Himself. Alimony is Slavery and a Sentence with no Due Process or Protections. It’s extortion til bankruptcy and Death to be relieved with no retirement.Alimony is a crime against Humanity Humans Trafficking.
Tina Murphy
February 28, 2020 at 3:05 pm
The opinion piece is an erroneous opinion that is based upon a bumper-sticker mentality. Best interest of the parents, instead of best interest of the children.
This is total nonsense. Based upon the longstanding, common-law principle of parental rights, HB 843 states that in custody is contested, then the court must begin at the premise of 50-50 time-sharing. If there are certain factors present, then judges can deviate. If the parents decide on something different, then the court approves the parental agreement.
This will reduce litigation because there is way, way more incentive to mediate in HB 843 unlike today, with current statutes, that promote going to court because of the outrageous level of judicial subjectivity. Quite frankly, this best interest of the parent argument is boring and juvenile. The factors to determine this penumbra of best interest of the children in Florida law is so vague, and the factors and not weighted, any judge can give different weight to these factors. Current law must go now!!
Sharon Hardon
February 28, 2020 at 3:30 pm
Did anyone click on the Massachusetts study link? It is a study from 1990. WTF? Did Mark have his minimum wage clerk write this garbage . . . pathetic. HB 843 is more than just necessary.
Sterling Balz
February 28, 2020 at 3:31 pm
This waste-of-our-time editorial is deeply flawed.
C. Spears
February 28, 2020 at 4:28 pm
Tim his guy has no clue and is only looking out for his cash cow business of family law. He cites legal experts to say what children need. He cites a Massachusetts study saying most fathers eventually get it if they want it. I’m pretty sure we are talking about Florida laws and what happens here. Many more fathers want to be a big part of their children’s lives but it is the courts and predatory attorneys (like the author) that inhibit such relationships. There is nothing like fighting over custody that racks up the attorneys bill. The majority of major studies in the last 20 years show the best interest of the child is shared parenting. However, most court defaults are every other weekend for dad. The law needs to presume equal shared parenting first for the child with both fit parents.
Janice Kelder
February 28, 2020 at 5:15 pm
Everyone knows that current law causes more litigation and that dad’s get their lives ripped apart in favor of a biased court-system that rules almost exclusively in favor on mom’s based upon gender stereotypes from a bygone era. Mark and his gravy train is dependent upon the old regime. They fear change, because they will be living under the bridge without all those billable hours.
Tim Shepard
February 28, 2020 at 5:34 pm
Attorneys are proving themselves to be the scum of the earth they have always been ridiculed as being. In my opinion the best thing the legislature could do is remove all lawyers from Family Law. Remove the profit motive from our children’s necks and see what happens to lowlifes like Guest Author.
Andrew Bloomberg
February 28, 2020 at 5:44 pm
So this is what a receding hairline gets you?
Jennifer
February 28, 2020 at 5:44 pm
Thank you Mr. Sessums. There are complaints that the research you provide is too old. There is current research out there about the harmful affects of a parental rights custosy driven society versus the best interests of a child driven model. Saunders ACE study is one such study. Also WHO has removed parental alienation from its database. There is a lot out there that shows the harm in determining where a child would live based on what the parents want versus what is best for the child. If this were not the case there would be no need for the stop abuse campaign group with state chapters across the country. There would be no need for the many groups out there, the saunders study, joan meiers study or the bmcc held annually in ny in may.
The courts are getting it wrong. The anecdotal evidence which has been difficult to put into report form due to gag rules by courts, by dv and child abuse murders and more is leading to more harm to children. California alraeeady tried mandatory 50/50 custody and it failed.
Sterling Balz
February 28, 2020 at 11:01 pm
Jennifer,
You. Are. Wrong.
California never had a mandatory 50-50 custody law ever. There is no evidence is showing harm based upon what parents want verses what is best for children because these things are not defined or operationalized so that there could be a “study.” The folks are your side are intellectual lightweights. Have a great night.
Frederick Douglas
February 28, 2020 at 5:54 pm
Sirs:
Mr. Sessums has provided another example of the Bar’s “Family” “Law” Section’s hypocritical portrayal of “fact”.
The facts are:
1) Without starting at 50/50 time sharing, the children are used to extort the paying spouse into “settlement”;
2) Settlement is a misnomer as it engenders presumptions of mutual concessions in order to reach an agreeable conclusion. In the case of “Family” “Law”, settlement is accurately characterized as an extorted signature by the payor-either hand over the money or you’ll never see your children again. At least with a street mugger or organized crime racket there’s a chance the criminal may be caught and prosecuted. In “Family” “Law”, the criminals hold meetings at the Breakers to conspire new “Law” to strip families of their assets;
3) The “Courts” are not using a process that “works”. The truth is that mid-level bureaucrats posing in robes accept campaign contributions from the very “attorneys” practicing in front of them. It would be interesting to investigate District Court Judges’ financial disclosures to determine how many have taken HELOCS while on the bench (and their close relatives). Further these same mid-level bureaucrats are not held accountable for gross misconduct and betrayals of their oaths because Florida is the ONLY state in 50 that PCAs cases to prevent appeals from being reviewed. In addition to “Campaign Contributions” and HELOC bribes, the entire judicial branch receives $0.50 on every dollar paid in child support as a direct subsidy from the US Government under Social Security Act Title IV-D. Lest we not forget the elected Court Clerk (with the same “contributions” that submits reports to the State Department of Revenue that, oops, combines alimony and child support numbers to boost the federal monies. The judicial branch directly profits from every dollar of child support and alimony paid.
4) Mr. Sessums disingenuous (to be kind) portrayal of a nice, clean process also ignores the prohibition of one’s Constitutionally-protected, God given Rights, Rights “Judges” and “Attorneys” swore an oath to uphold. No redress in “Family” “Court”
5) And finally, let’s consider the laughably self-labeled “Frederick Douglas” “Republican” from NJ, bought and paid for by the Bar and desirous of higher office. The “Republican” that wants this system to continue do the Bar’s money river will continue to flow through indirect contributions from FLS’ membership. This is the same system that promotes payors’ suicides, encourages payors to flee to common-sense jurisdictions, created murderous emotions through “attorneys’” torquing of families in their most vulnerable time, and that costs Florida hundreds of millions annually in lost productivity by alimony recipients refusal to work for fear of losing their gravy train, alimony payors’ refusal to advance their efforts for fear of being drug back to court to pay more, new spouses afraid to marry payors because the new spouses income will be subject to alimony as well, suicides -lake county man drives off sunshine skyway pier, and DEAD LAST, children stripped of their college funds, life insurance proceeds, and ability to have any normalcy with one parent extorting the other by pointing a “Family” “Lawyer” at the other one.
Mr. Sessums, you are either impossibly ignorant of reality or a scheming member of the organized racket perpetuated by the Bar.
The same Bar that the YS Department of justice, no beacon itself, named in an amicus brief as, well, just WRONG.
What must your parents think?
Randy Means
February 28, 2020 at 7:58 pm
Sheesh! And people thought John Morgan was THE example of a sleaze all attorney (of course, John isn’t licensed to practice).
What a peach of a liar sessums is. No wonder people hate attorneys.
Delores Anderson
February 29, 2020 at 6:15 am
Sessums would do well to stop pretending he’s worried about the children, we all know what he’s really worried about, Benjamin’s: https://www.floridadaily.com/francheska-sabatini-fix-alimony-to-protect-families-from-predatory-attorneys/
Sterling Balz
February 29, 2020 at 10:58 am
Good call, Delores.
Charlie
February 29, 2020 at 6:01 pm
Time to stop listening to family law lawyers on this issue. They make money off of discord inequity in family court. Kids do best with the involvement of both parents in their lives. Period.
Janice Kelder
February 29, 2020 at 7:22 pm
Yes, exactly right. Chapter 61 states that it is the public policy of the state of Florida that children have continuous and fruitful contact with both parents. Florida is in the top ten, according to a recent study, of dad’s getting 50-50 custody, oh sorry, time-sharing. The problem is that it costs families thousands and thousands for this outcome. Why not have it in statute explicitly to avoid the cost? The only people who will suffer . . . attorneys. Could be worse, no?
Stephen Gladstone
March 1, 2020 at 3:42 pm
WHY? Why are we, the public, entertaining the opinions of the trade guild that most stands to profit from continued buggy whip manufacturing!?
They’re not elected. They’ve probably broken their oath. They don’t uphold the Constitution. BUT they DO handsomely purchase votes, don’t ther Herr Tommel?
Jennifer
March 5, 2020 at 1:46 pm
Not everyone against the mandatory 50/50 shared custody stands to benefit from it. I am not a lawyer. My career is not in family law. My child is aged out. So how am I benefitting? Not financially because I make no money from any family law case. Custody is not an issue and hasn’t been for several years. Definitely isn’t an issue now. So how do I personally benefit for fighting against mandatory 50/50? All I want is for claims of abuse to be treated properly and not ignored by the system. Unlike my case and many others I have seen. Everyone else on here stands to either win or lose in some way. Either financially by having alimony or by not having to pay alimony. Or by having to pay child support or not having to pay child support. So basically by the logic presented by nearly everyone commenting on here, nobody can give an unbiased opinion based on how this law will affect/benefit them.
Comments are closed.