Letters

Bar shouldn't abandon downtown

I was disappointed to read that the State Bar plans to abandon its traditional downtown Madison location and move out to the interstate ("New facility reflects Bar's national reputation of service," September 1998).

The State Bar's current location on W. Wilson St. places it within easy walking distance of the Dane County Courthouse, the U.S. Courthouse, the State Capitol, and major law firms. By moving out to the interstate the bar association will be convenient to nothing but strip malls and fast-food franchises.

State Bar President Susan Steingass called the move out of downtown, "a move toward inclusiveness." In fact, moving to the interstate means moving away from inclusiveness, as the only way to reach the new building will be by private automobile. Disabled lawyers and lawyers who cannot drive will be effectively excluded from the interstate location.

In recent years civic leaders in Madison including many lawyers have sought to strengthen downtown, most notably by the construction of the Monona Terrace Convention Center. The State Bar's move to the interstate will undermine this effort by taking jobs out of downtown and discouraging visiting lawyers from going downtown.

I am a new lawyer (I swore the oath in October) and so until now I have not had a voice in this debate. I urge my fellow State Bar members to stop this building before it is built and ensure that the State Bar remains where it belongs: in the heart of downtown Madison.

Timothy Kiefer
Madison

Susan Steingass responds

I already have responded to Mr. Kiefer personally, but I want to take this opportunity to respond to others who have expressed concern that the new Bar Center is moving out of downtown Madison.

All other things being equal, I personally would have preferred a downtown location as well. I also know that the Facilities Committee, when analyzing the nature and location of the new Bar Center, gave an even-handed look at all available locations. While numerous downtown locations were considered, no suitable locations were found.

Mr. Kiefer also expresses concern that the location of the new Bar Center might effectively exclude people who do not have private transportation. Please know that transportation corridors and access for those who are either unable or do not wish to drive their cars was closely examined, and that the new Bar Center will be readily accessible to all by public transportation.

In fairness it must be said that many of our members who do not live in Madison were very supportive of the location of the new Bar Center. While it may be an additional inconvenience to those of us who live and work downtown, the new location is far more accessible to those from the rest of the state. They are pleased to avoid the traffic and parking problems occasioned by coming into downtown Madison.

Susan R. Steingass
Madison

Whose "rights" should prevail?

A good deal of space in the July article, "Debating the Standard in Child Custody Placement Decisions," is given to James Novak of Wisconsin Fathers for Equal Justice Inc. to pontificate about so-called "fathers rights." Having worked as a divorce attorney for 19 years, I can assure you that much of what he says does not comport with reality.

He lays the basis for his argument by saying the laws of nature, two constitutions, and human rights give fathers equal rights to their children. Those same documents give children rights as well, which he ignores. Unfortunately, nothing mandates equal responsibility, which is what remains seriously lacking between parents. Study after study has shown that women spend far more time with parenting than do men whose time usually is limited to minutes a day or less. Contrary to his statement, there has not been a "substantial change in gender roles" though women would love to have the fathers do their half of the work if only they would.

Especially where there is violence in the family, the father's interest in the children usually begins after the divorce is filed. For Mr. Novak to claim that men are discriminated against in court is simply a lie. Again, study after study from one state to another has shown that women are the victims of discrimination in courts; not men. Eighty percent of women get custody because men do not ask for it. But if men ask for custody, they are likely to win it 65 percent of the time, and most likely to win it are the men who have been the most violent in the family. Does this support anyone's rights or best interests but the father's?

Contrary to his example of the Little League game, what really occurs is that a mother is expected to devote her life and nurturing talents to the children. Thus, what she does as a mother is invisible, counts for nothing, does not make her a "good mother," but just an average one. But if dad, of whom there is an expectation of zero, does anything like taking the child to Little League, suddenly he becomes a fabulous dad though doing very little. If dad is to have custody, he will have to launder that Little League outfit, so why not start now? Or is that "women's work" that he will leave to his next wife?

For Mr. Novak to claim there are some "short-term financial benefits which accompany primary placement" illustrates a complete break with reality. Facts have borne out for years that upon divorce, the mother's financial situation declines drastically while the father's improves dramatically. Mr. Novak seems to admit this later when he says that, "The best interest of the child standard moves massive amounts of families into the ranks of the poor. " He neglects to point out that those "families" are women and children, not fathers. One early hope for joint custody was that fathers would be more involved and thus would be more likely to pay their child support. Neither hope has come to fruition. Fathers with joint custody are no more involved with their children than fathers without, and they are no more likely to pay their child support. The only result is that they retain control and the child support award is less.

California pioneered the "joint custody" idea and it has now been the first to realize its error. Studies of those cases where joint custody was granted show that generally the parents are happier but the children are not. The children feel they have no home and suffer from a variety of psychological problems not evident in children who have a primary home. So whose needs should prevail the parent's or the children's? Why does Mr. Novak argue for his "right" over the well-being of the child?

Studies on the cases where joint custody has been granted also have shown that it is not cost effective. The parents return more often to court because of differences in child rearing. Thus, even more court time is used, more acrimony is created, and more money is spent on lawyers. It doesn't work. That's been proven.

Most dangerous is joint custody in a situation where there has been domestic violence in the marriage. In Arizona 85 percent of the divorces have a history of prior domestic violence. Joint custody is used by the abuser to maintain control over the wife and child and only results in further terrorizing of both.

Mr. Novak's suggestion that we treat our children like our property, that is, divide them 50/50 upon divorce, sounds like Solomon's solution and makes about as much sense.

Diane Post
Moscow, Russia