One has to wonder why North Dakota bureaurats would be so desperate as to break the law to defeat a bill that would benefit their state’s children. What would cause normal, everyday people to lie, use taxpayer money and their positions to rally illegally against a bill that would bring stability to children after divorce? The answer is obvious, but I’ll get to that later.

First, I’d like to dispell the rumors and lies that have been spread through an efficiently organized campaign of opposition.

It’s been said that North Dakota would lose more than $70 million dollars in federal monies if measure 3 passes. Dr. Wade F. Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services has dispelled this lie in a letter to Ms. Carol K. Olson, Executive Director of North Dakota’s Department of Human Services dated September 27, 2006. (link)

It’s also been said that this measure would harm children financially, that there would no longer be child support. Aside from the fact that all parents support their children financially when they’re in their care (meals, housing, etc) whether custodial or noncustodial, the truth is child support would still exist.

Like California and other states, North Dakota would simply calculate child support based on both parents’ income instead of just one. No longer do we live in a 1950’s society with most moms staying home while dad works. Today, most mothers work outside the home and have their own income. And we can’t ignore the fact that studies show shared parenting increases compliance to child support orders.

One common myth is that shared parenting is unsettling to children, that they won’t know where they’ll be sleeping night-to-night. Ask any child with shared parenting if this is true and they’ll tell you, “No.” Children with shared parenting adjust to their lifestyle just as well as children who are new to overnight day care, camp, visiting grandparents or any number of situations where they sleep away from Mom’s house. The most important thing for a child’s stability is consistency. Keeping both parents actively involved in a child’s life after divorce benefits them.

Children with shared parenting talk about having two neighborhoods, two sets of friends and family, not two houses, but two homes. The number one complain of children of divorce is losing contact with one parent. Shared parenting assures that won’t happen. While opponents claim forcing couples into shared parenting increases conflict, studies show just the opposite; shared parenting reduces conflict. (Bender, W.N. 1994. Joint custody: The option of choice. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 21 (3/4): 115-131)

Opponents want voters to think that measure 3 will force every family into a strict 50/50 timeshare. The truth is every family will work out the timeshare that best benefits their children. Factors such as the age of the children, school, extracurricular activities, location of parents’ homes, etc, will all be taken into account. Parents will write a parenting plan together, one that can and should be adjusted as the years go by and circumstances change.

Domestic violence organizations claim that shared parenting puts women and children in danger. The truth is less than 1% of all divorces are families involved in domestic violence. Considering the fact that all shared parenting bills include provisions to protect these families, why are we punishing the children in the other 99% of divorces?

Domestic violence organizations also allude to the fact children will be forced to spend the night with fathers who sexually abuse them. Aside from the fact that mothers commit most child maltreatment (link), studies show fathers are the least likely to commit sexual abuse (link). The most common adult perpetrator is a male acquaintance of the child’s mother. Keeping fathers close to their children protects them.

There are a multitude of studies showing the positive aspects of shared parenting on children and families. (link)

So, with all of these benefits to children, why are certain organizations opposing measure 3? How does that phrase go? Oh yeah, “Follow the money.” The people who are showing acts of desperation are those who fear losing their jobs. In an email to his directors (on your taxpayer dime), one government employee wrote, “…’talk it up’ in your communities about the ‘terrible impact’ these measures can have…”

So my questions to the citizens of North Dakota are these: Who are you going to listen to, people who organize illegal coalitions and spread lies to keep their jobs, or children who’ve been through divorce, both with and without shared parenting? What are you going to believe, lies and rumors spread as fear tactics, or multiple reputable studies showing the benefits of shared parenting to children?