Columnist Sandra Thompson: System often gives desperate parents little recourse

SANDRA THOMPSON is vice president/associate editor of the Las Vegas Sun. She can be reached at 259-4025 or on the Internet at [email protected]

WHEN a single mother told a legislative subcommittee about her Family Court ordeal -- being jailed and having her wages garnisheed so that she had only $1.25 left for the week -- the subcommittee chairwoman remarked that "it doesn't get any worse than that."

Sadly, it has.

Because I had written about Mitzi's child custody dispute, a friend called to tell me that Mitzi has left town with her 8-year-old son.

Mitzi felt buried by a barrage of legal motions filed by her ex-husband's attorney. She could not afford her own attorney, but was ordered by Judge Steve Jones to pay part of her ex-husband's legal costs. Her bank account was frozen. Her wages later were garnisheed, which led to the loss of her job.

She had difficulty answering all the motions on her own. The judge denied her an evidentiary hearing and her plea that a CASA (court-appointed special advocate) volunteer be appointed for her son.

Mitzi had been embroiled in Family Court litigation almost nonstop since May 1996. She says it's just a continuation of the abuse she suffered from her ex-husband during their marriage. According to court documents, he was ordered to enroll in impulse-control counseling. Mitzi underwent four years of therapy for battered women.

Despite no changes in circumstances that would normally warrant a change in custody, Mitzi went from having full custody of her son to visitation every second and fourth weekend.

The latest flurry of motions by her ex-husband sought to eliminate even that precious time, Mitzi's friend says. It was as if the court was trying to push her to the breaking point rather than working out a fair custody arrangement.

"I'm at the end of my mental strength," Mitzi wrote to the legislative subcommittee.

On her own, she filed an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, which tries to expedite cases involving children. The court clerk's office tries to schedule oral argument within 60 days of the date the final brief is filed. Several litigants, however, say they've been waiting double that time for their cases to be heard.

According to the clerk's office, 114 appeals of Washoe and Clark County Family Court decisions were filed in 1997. For the first six months of this year, 62 have been filed.

It's not known whether the Supreme Court would have even heard Mitzi's case since her ex-husband filed a motion to dismiss her appeal. Mitzi mistakenly believed there could be no further action in Family Court while the case was on appeal. Then she learned that a hearing on the motion to strip her visitation had been pushed up from August to later this month, giving her little time to prepare.

Feeling that the legal system failed her, Mitzi ran.

Ironically, the system that couldn't provide her an attorney to assist her in Family Court probably will provide a public defender when she's charged with the crime of parental kidnapping.

What Mitzi did is wrong. What the legal system did to her is wrong. But we all know that two wrongs don't make a right.

Lost in the legal shuffle is an 8-year-old boy. Throughout the years of litigation, were his needs being served? What purpose did it serve to jail Mitzi and garnishee all her money (mostly for attorney's fees)?

This is not just a woman's problem. Some men are pushed to the breaking point and are unjustly denied contact with their children. Yet statistics show that a child is better off when he has a relationship with both parents, except in cases of abuse.

According to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, roughly one-third of the children of divorce lose contact with their parents. The group cites a Princeton University study that showed children who live apart from one of their parents are more likely to drop out of school, become idle or have a child before they're 20, than children who live with both parents.

To underscore the devastating effects of divorce on children, the 1,500-member AAML has put together a free booklet, "Stepping Back from Anger: Protecting Your Children During Divorce," which includes a Children's Bill of Rights. It also offers a video and public service announcements.

"It's unusual to find a group of divorce lawyers worried about children; we usually represent parents," says Barbara Handschu, chairwoman of AAML's Special Concerns of Children Committee, which wrote the bill of rights.

Yet the group's leadership felt so strongly about the need to focus on children that it last week launched a national public awareness campaign to counter the profound effects of divorce on children.

Its Children's Bill of Rights states:

* You have the right to love both parents.

* You do not have to choose one parent over the other.

* You have the right to be in a safe environment.

* You don't belong in the middle of your parents' breakup.

* Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are still part of your life.

* You have the right to be a child.

Handschu suggests that attorneys, courts and related agencies distribute the booklet to their clients. Copies can be obtained by calling (800) 877-4-THE-KIDS.

Let's add another right to the AAML's list: The right of a parent or child not to be pushed into hopelessness by the legal system.

archive