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
Wisconsin Lawyer