Columnist Sandy Thompson: Visitation ruling misses the mark

Sandy Thompson

Friday, July 19, 2002 | 3:47 a.m.

COMPUTERS MAY make our 21st century lives easier, but they are no substitute for human contact.

Tell that to a Massachusetts probate judge who recently granted "virtual visitation" to a divorced father of three. Twice a week the father will be allowed to read and talk to his children (a 5-year-old boy and twin 2-year-old girls) via videoconferencing. According to The Boston Globe, the judge granted the mother sole custody of the children and approved her moving with them to New York, while the father lives in Massachusetts.

The mother's attorney, in what was described as a bitterly fought custody battle, noted that the couple work in the computer field and are adept at videoconferencing. He was quoted as saying that as technology advances, we'll be seeing more of this. (Does that mean videoconferencing will be the trendy parenting skill of the future?)

The ruling doesn't sit well with some child advocates who say computers are no substitute for sitting on a parent's lap, hugs or any other loving contact with a child.

Another key issue in the Massachusetts case is the move of the mother and children so far away from the father. The ideal arrangement is for a child to have real contact with both parents, except in cases of abuse and neglect.

"The best parent is both parents," says David Levy, president of The Children's Rights Council in Washington, D.C. "That's not rocket science."

Levy says "research on all sides" shows that children are better off when they maintain contact with both parents after divorce. In fact, he adds, studies have shown that children in shared custody fare as well as children of married parents.

Levy does not believe the Massachusetts virtual visitation ruling is the beginning of a trend. He knows of only four such cases. Rather, he says, the national trend is toward shared parenting. A majority of states now have joint custody laws. Oklahoma has the strongest, Levy says. Judges must grant 50-50 shared custody after the first hearing. If they don't, they must put their reasons in writing.

That should mean a child spends 50 percent of the time with Mom and 50 percent with Dad. However, there are cases where a noncustodial parent has joint legal custody but sees the child only every other weekend.

Whichever way you cut it, videoconferencing is not shared parenting. How ironic that judges and, worse yet, parents use modern technology to reinforce an ancient notion that children are possessions to be moved around a parental chessboard.

Maybe if children were considered puppies, they would get better treatment. The voluminous farm legislation, recently passed by Congress, at one time contained the Puppy Protection Act. A controversial provision regarding breeders required that puppies "have plenty of human contact before they are put up for sale." According to supporters of the provision, "puppies that have had human contact are easier to manage and less likely to be abandoned by their owners." An Associated Press story quoted an ASPCA spokesman saying, "It's real important that animals be properly socialized and be able to fit within the family setting and the community."

Puppies -- as all helpless animals -- need protection. But what about children? Don't they need "plenty of human contact" when they are young? After all, children who are loved and cared for are "easier to manage." And it's very important that children "be properly socialized and be welcomed within the family setting and community."

The Puppy Protection Act also contained a "three-strikes-you're-out" provision that would revoke a breeder's license after a third violation for failing to meet sanitary standards and other requirements. How about a one- or two-strikes-you're-out law for parents who fail to meet a child's needs or who are abusive?

Children deserve as much -- and more -- protection as puppies. Human contact is a primary need. Talking to Dad or Mom on a video screen once or twice a week does not fulfill that need.

archive