THE GLOBE got it wrong on the "shared parenting" bill ("A fair role for fathers," Editorial, Feb. 23). You cite law professor Charles Kindregan, who should know better, writing that he "argues that a presumption of joint legal and physical custody could handcuff judges who should be free to consider the best interests of children on a case-by-case basis." The bill would not take any discretion away from judges, as you noted three paragraphs earlier. Rather, it would require judges to state the reasons for their rulings in the event that one parent got sole custody.
Kindregan says, "You don't need a presumption when you have facts." Which should be true, but the experience of so many fathers in family court is that judges ignore facts and rule based on their own prejudices about mothers and fathers.
Lawyer Fern Frolin says, "We trust the discretion of judges." The bill would never have been filed if judicial discretion was working. It is not, and data from case after case support this.
You call for research and pilot studies. The research has been done. Children do better with both parents actively involved in their lives. That is our goal: not father's rights, but the best lives for our children.
PAUL SAWYER, Westford
IN A perfect world, where judges could know everything accurately and quickly, simply leaving it for them to decide would be appropriate. The Massachusetts court system is not that world. It is encumbered and overscheduled, so divorce cases are often prolonged and acrimonious, with incomplete and biased information presented. Quick judicial decisions must be made at the beginning, and, without the presumption of joint custody, these often separate the father from the children and begin a destructive process that could have been avoided.
Your editorial presents opinions that seem fair, calling for more research and for trusting judges. However, it makes no reasonable argument for not passing the bill currently in the Legislature. In the absence of domestic violence, why shouldn't the presumption be joint custody? This presumption may change the course of many divorces - albeit with less income for adversarial lawyers - and would be better for our children as they grow up and eventually become parents themselves.
DONALD R. MILLER, Boston
