GURU,

I believe you have missed a few key things while skimming the JCFLG.

"Because infants perceive time differently than adults, parenting time with infants should be on a consistent routine with frequent contact throughout the entire week for generally shorter periods than older children. Ideally, neither parent should be separated from their infant child for more than 3 days. Suggested MINIMUM for one parents parenting time with infants......... B) Weekends - One Block of not less than 8 hours every weekend either on Saturday or Sunday. D) If the parents are both regularly involved in providing day-to-day care for the infant child, then they should consider extending parenting time to overnights.

There is no "one size fits all" way to raise children and I don't think it is the intent of the Bench Bar committees to say there is.

Ultimately, when two parents agree to a plan, the Courts will not set it aside. So, the guidelines would be irrelevant. However, if two parents do not agree or argument for the sake of setting up a win/loose situation occurs (abuse or bullying) than the JCFLG present a well thought out guide for consideration on each point of potential conflict, a suggested resolution and often another alternative the parents may get stuck with if a third party has to decide for them.

I have found the JCFLG to be an effective tool to limit opportunities for arguments to be made for the sake of argument as is the case in abusive relationships. As read the guidelines give an outline of MINIMUM standards on parenting time which I believe were initially put in place to protect Fathers rights when a "traditional" family breaks apart. There are a series of suggested choices A or B and sometimes C which I have seen be helpful when parents do not know where to start and what details need to be considered when crafting a parenting plan, a new way of parenting their children due to the change to living in separate homes and taking separate Holidays & Vacations.

Having been in an abusive relationship where the other parent argued every single detail, every single exchange time and was regularly arguing for changes in the schedule it was a blessing to have the JCFLG to end the constant conflict. A person who wants to argue with you because they are angry and want to set up a win/lose scenario will argue over anything, always take the opposing view and then change positions before ever compromising. Such is the art of "war". They win because they don't care about the actual outcome. The only way to end that behavior is to limit the choices and take the opportunities to argue away one by one over time.

GURU,

Unfortunately my experience is firsthand & not professional.

I am a Pro Se Litigant who has been working through a High Conflict Divorce case brushing up with the Criminal Courts at times over the past 5 years. I had to put many many hours of research into how the laws and the system work in order to reduce my costs. My family has utilized the services of 4 different Judges, 7 different attorneys, The District Attorneys Office, The local Police Department Detectives, Court Services, a Domestic Violence Shelter, Court Appointed Guardian (for kids), Mediation, Case Management, Psychiatric Evaluation, Custody Evaluation and Home Study, Psychological Counseling, Supervised Visitation services, the Kansas Payment Center, and Special Master for property division. There were 3 trials and 1 appeal. One by Judge, One by Jury & One by Magistrate.

This process has cost me personally over $150,000.00 to obtain & maintain my ability to be a parent free from intimidation/threats and advocate for my children.

My familiarity with the guidelines comes from the painstaking 4 year process it took through the Case Management process finalized by Court Hearing to get a parenting plan in place that was so specific and clear to the letter that there was no room for interpretation thus eliminating the possibility of starting an argument for the sake of yanking someones chain or filling a need to be in control.

If you reference the JCFLG introduction it outlines the process of how the document is constructed and who contributes. I have not looked at it before posting this. But, believe the Bench Bar Committee is listed. The meetings are business meetings as Family law matters are business. If someone from the general public would like to find out if their views are being represented and how than it would be appropriate to contact someone on the committee, make an appointment with them (may be for a fee) and ask questions.

I suspect that there are cultural & geographical differences in each County which are better represented by local input vs. Statewide mandate. Again, if two parents agree it does not matter what the County or anyone else recommends. The parents will get what they agree to.

GURU,

In paragraph 1 of your post below you state that Mom is given preference in the JCFLG. I do not read any preference given to Mom vs. Dad. As written there are two parents A & B. There are families in Kansas that consist of two mothers or two fathers.

In paragraph 2 of your post below your statement about the JCFLG committee, Bench Bar committee and it's constitution is not accurate. Reviewing the first page of the document will give you the accurate information about how the committee is formed, it's purpose and who is on the committee. This list includes members of the community who are neither Judges or Attorneys.

As to your question in paragraph 3 in your post below, the people on the committee are experts because they spend 5 days of every week working within the bounds of Family Law in Kansas. I have personal experience (a narrow view), as do you and others. But, I do not have experience which allows me to understand the scope and magnitude of the issues within the boundaries of the Law and professional responsibilities.

However, I agree that there are value judgments being made and implemented through the Legal process of Divorce. One of which is that there are two parents of equal importance in the child/ren(s) life. The presumption is that the child/ren need(s) both parents. The entire Divorce system is based upon that principal. There is no moral judgment as to what constitutes a good parent. Only issues of physical or sexual child abuse, neglect, abandonment and safety are considered. Even a parent that has a criminal history, is incarcerated, has been abusive to the other parent, abuses drugs/alcohol or has psychiatric issues is considered an equal parent with rights to parenting time. If both parents are financially responsible for the child/ren than the State and Federal government are presumed less likely to be involved.

The JCFLG as I read them provide a well considered professional guideline outlining what would be MINIMALLY appropriate as equal parenting time regardless of the roles of parent A or parent B in the child/ren(s) life prior to Separation & Divorce. I believe this was initially written and structured to suggest the MINIMAL parenting time rights of fathers exiting a traditional marriage working a full time job with mom, unemployed,  still at home with the kids and has been modified over time to reflect and include options for other family structures.

I too did not appreciate being pushed in a direction other than what our chosen roles were with me as full time mom to my kids. I told the Case Manager that she was preventing me from being a mother to my children. Dad worked 40-60 hours per week and routinely traveled out of town on business. I managed the household and cared for the children. After separation, in order to give Dad his 50%, with a restraining order, it meant I would no longer be there for my children 50% of the time. My chosen role was, as a stay at home mom, to care for them. In one fell swoop my entire identity was gone. Just as it would be if any employer cut your hours in half or laid you off work because you were no longer needed. I did not have a backup plan. But, when the pushing started by dad to have 80% or 100% of the parenting time, the same guidelines I resented protected me and the children's time with me.

Guru,

Is it possible or even probable that the ratio of Mom's vs. Dad's receiving support is an indication of the existing ratio of Traditional marriages vs. non traditional marriages (Husband as primary wage earner and/or sole provider) in the state vs. any real prejudice within the judicial system?

Wouldn't it be important to have the factual data before making such broad assumptions as stated in your post here?

I can appreciate that the language may be offensive to you. But, legal terms do not have the same meaning legally as lay terms do to the general public even when using the same exact word.