Should a Child Only Have One Home After Divorce?
Ron and Sherry Palmer discuss the family court myth that a child should only have one home after the parents get divorced.
By: Fix Family Courts | Posted: | Modified:
Fix Family Courts ChannelShould a Child Only Have One Home After Divorce?
Published: December 25, 2017
Ron and Sherry Palmer discuss the family court myth that a child should only have one home after the parents get divorced. You can find more discussions on this topic at www.fixfamilycourts.com This video belongs to a series of videos from a webinar on Family Court Myths.
The Illusion of Protection: Why State Courts Harm Children by Ignoring Constitutional Rights in Custody Battles
Imagine a judge who thinks he's saving a kid from divorce fallout. He orders the child to live in just one home. But that choice rips apart family bonds. It leaves lasting scars.
State courts push this "one home" idea hard. They claim it shields kids. Yet no proof backs it up. Federal courts see things differently. They weigh kids' safety against family ties. Even in bad abuse cases, they balance both sides. State judges skip that step. They overreact out of fear. This hurts kids more than it helps.
You see the damage in broken routines and lost parent bonds. Courts ignore basic rights. They favor caution over fairness. Let's break down why this happens. And how it wrecks families.
The Myth of the "One Home" Mandate in Child Custody
Examining the Lack of Evidence for a Single Residence Requirement
No court ruling proves kids need just one home after divorce. Studies show shared homes work fine for many. Co-parenting across two spots builds stability. It keeps both parents close.
State courts cling to old views. They force one roof. This ignores real life. Kids thrive with routine visits to both homes. Psych experts agree. Two homes beat one if parents cooperate.
Think of it like this. A child shuttles between loving parents. That's normal now. Rigid rules cause stress. They spark fights over pickups and schedules.
The Constitutional Right to Family Association vs. State Overreach
Federal courts protect family links. They say kids have a right to daily contact with both parents. Even in tough abuse claims, judges must balance. Cut off ties too fast? You harm the child's base.
State courts forget this. They slam doors on one parent. This breaks due process. Liberty rights demand fair play. Overprotect, and you do worse damage.
Picture a kid losing Dad's bedtime stories. Or Mom's soccer games. Those lost moments stack up. Federal rulings warn against it. State judges push ahead anyway.
Judicial Self-Preservation: The Motivation Behind Overcautious Rulings
Fear of Public Scrutiny and Blame in High-Profile Cases
Judges dread the headlines. "Kid dies after court lets parent see them." They hear complaints about one mom or dad. To dodge blame, they tighten rules. Supervised visits for safe parents? It happens.
This fear twists justice. They pick safety over facts. Media blasts make them jump. One bad case a year ago showed it. A supervised visit turned deadly. But low-risk parents suffer most.
You pay the price. Weeks of watching your kid through glass. It builds resentment. Not protection.
The Detrimental Effects of Excessive Caution on Family Stability
Overkill backfires. Supervised meets strain bonds. Kids sense the distrust. Parents fight more. Routines shatter.
Stats show it. Alienated kids face depression. Poor school marks follow. You can't erase all risk. Life has bumps. But fair rules cut real harm.
Take two parents who split clean. Court demands oversight. Why? Just to cover bases. Result? A fractured family. More pain than divorce itself.
The Erosion of Procedural Fairness by Arbitrary Judicial Authority
The Danger of Judicial Discretion Unbound by Established Rules
Judges act like kings. They make snap calls. No set steps. This skips evidence rules. Timelines blur. One side shines, the other fades.
Rules exist for a reason. They shield rights. Equal shot for Mom and Dad. Clear proof standards. Without them, bias rules.
Ever seen a hearing drag? Judge picks favorites. Arbitrary picks ruin lives. Families need firm guardrails.
Upholding Constitutional Protections Through Procedural Fairness
Stick to basics. Demand due process in court. File motions for fair hearings. Cite federal cases on family rights.
You can push back. Get lawyers who know appeals. Point to Constitution each time. Force judges to follow steps.
Here's how:
- Log every rule break.
- Request written reasons for orders.
- Appeal to higher courts fast.
This levels the field. Kids win when rules bind judges.
Conclusion: Reasserting Rights Over Fear in Family Court
State courts chase safety. They ignore Constitution. This shields judges, not kids. Families break under heavy hands.
Key point one: Challenge one-home mandates. No evidence backs them. Push for balanced shared custody.
Key point two: Demand procedures. They curb judge whims. Protect your rights.
Don't let fear win custody battles. Fight for fair play. Know the federal standards. Use them.
Grab our guide on family court myths next. Subscribe for tips to win your case. Share if this hit home. Your voice matters. Stand up now.
Video Transcript
0:03 [Music] 0:07 so let's go into the child must have 0:10 only one home again there's no evidence 0:14 showing that the courts have proven that 0:18 this is indeed the case 0:19 harm that comes from a child from 0:21 divorce is not the kind of harm that 0:24 comes from divorce is not the kind of 0:26 harm the courts can protect children 0:28 from in fact when they try to protect 0:31 children from harm that the Constitution 0:33 doesn't allow they usually end up doing 0:35 more damage and the federal courts have 0:38 talked about this they have talked about 0:40 this in terms of specific child abuse 0:42 cases or they say even in the most 0:44 serious and most heinous cases of 0:46 alleged child abuse they still must 0:48 balance the rights of the child in terms 0:50 of being protected from child abuse with 0:53 them with the rights of the child to 0:55 have association with their family and 0:58 to live with their family and be 0:59 involved with their family on the daily 1:00 basis because if you go overboard and 1:03 you protect the child that's not really 1:05 in danger 1:05 you're hurting from that child hurting 1:07 their relationships and their foundation 1:09 right so there's always a balance here 1:12 in the federal courts recognize you have 1:13 to look at both sides the state courts 1:16 ignore something they want to protect as 1:20 they say the child but what you see 1:22 they're really doing is protecting 1:24 themselves because they don't want to be 1:26 the judge who didn't go to the extra 1:27 mile when they should have and have 1:29 something happened to the child that 1:31 they get blamed for yeah they don't want 1:35 to be the judge that you see on the news 1:37 where you see people saying look they 1:39 complained about all these things about 1:40 the other parent and now the child is 1:42 dead or you know they don't want to be 1:45 that judge so they think that if they're 1:47 overly cautious they'll be okay no bad 1:52 things will happen but by the way 1:54 sometimes that sense of parent over the 1:57 edge too doesn't when on these cuts to 1:59 about a year or two ago or the child was 2:01 actually killed by one of the parents of 2:02 supervised visits and they wind up 2:04 causing way more harm than they would 2:06 cause otherwise you cannot protect 2:08 everybody from everything that's why we 2:10 have rules that's why we have 2:12 fundamental rights 2:13 that's why we have proper procedures to 2:15 protect these fundamental rights there 2:17 is always going to be error but what we 2:20 cannot do is allow little small kings 2:24 who are these judges to just make random 2:26 arbitrary decisions they're ultimately 2:28 only protecting themselves not 2:30 protecting the children are the families 2:32 yeah we have to have a basic rules 2:35 procedural rules that apply equally to 2:37 everybody's on and to protect as much as 2:41 possible all of the rights involved and 2:44 that's what the Constitution provides 2:45 but these state judges are ignoring we 2:49 find ways and we help you force them to 2:51 all the rules thank you for watching and 2:55 if you found this video valuable please 2:57 subscribe to the YouTube channel and 2:58 then go on to the next video about 3:00 family court myths 3:10 thank you for watching and if you found 3:12 this video valuable please subscribe to 3:15 the YouTube channel and then go on to 3:17 the next video about family court myths