A Sea Change in Family Law
Takes More Than One Session

by State Representative Andy Dawkins
(651-296-5158)

It’s 1985 – two years before I got elected to the Minnesota Legislature and twelve years before I became the Chair of the Civil and Family Law Committee in the Minnesota House. For the umpteenth time I’m telling a divorce client in my law office that it’s truly wonderful he’s willing to put the kids’ interest first, and forego a custody battle, but does he understand that if he voluntarily grants custody to her, then she can move with the children to another state, and he’ll have nothing to say about it?

No, he didn’t understand that, so he asks what his options are. I explain that he either has to convince her to agree to joint physical custody or we have a custody battle. And for the umpteenth time we head into an unnecessary, expensive, demeaning custody battle that will force each parent to say negative things about the other which poison-the-well for any future parental cooperation – all because of the way Minnesota divorce and custody laws are structured.

Twelve years later I introduce House File 1323, called "Parenting Plans," to change this antiquated, winner-take-all system of choosing one parent over the other when we have two good, experienced parents.(1) I know that getting this legislation enacted will require an extraordinary effort, a multitude of hearings, and lots of time to be digested and understood, but I am truly surprised by the ferocity of the opposition. The organized bar comes out against it, claiming among other things that the bill will increase, rather than decrease, litigation. A judge literally became unglued from his seat when testifying that it will cost millions and millions in increased court time. The women’s groups, particularly the advocates for victims of domestic violence, are concerned it will lead to more violence. And the government agency in charge of child support says less, not more, child support will get paid.(2)

All these pivotal issues were addressed at six well-attended public hearings around the state, but insufficient public momentum was generated at the grassroots, lay sector, level to overcome the opposition from these powers-that-be in family law. So in the 1998 Legislative Session the Senate refused to even hear the bill, simply based on who opposed it, rather than on any understanding of what the bill actually contained.(3)

Nevertheless, I remain undaunted. I get HF 1323 passed the committee I chair, then the Judiciary Committee, and then the entire House, on a vote of 110 to 24 no less. I had always sensed that once this bill made the House or Senate floor there would be no stopping it based on constituent complaints with the current system.

In a bicameral system, however, it takes two bodies to make a law, and the Senate’s inaction essentially killed my bill. In a procedural maneuver to force the Senators to deal with Parenting Plans (after the hours and hours invested on the House side), I amend HF 1323 into SF 2276, a bill dealing with child support. This forces the Senate to go to a conference committee to take off my amendment, but at least five Senators will have to listen to Parenting Plans for a few minutes. My ploy plays out in the best way I could have expected. Yes, indeed, the House has to recede from its amendment and concede that Parenting Plans, out of respect for the process, should have public hearings in both bodies before being voted upon on the Senate floor; but the Senate has to agree to a $75,000 appropriation to the Minnesota Supreme Court to do a study on Parenting Plans (and other ways to achieve better parental cooperation). These last words were underlined and insisted upon by Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz before agreeing to take on the study. The Report has to be back at the Legislature by January, 2000.

Although the Chief Justice was very gracious about listening to my ideas about membership on the Task Force, when I show up at the first meeting of the "Supreme Court Task Force on Parental Cooperation" I am discouraged to observe quite a few of my opponents and very few of my friends. On the other hand, there are lots of new faces, so who knows?

There’s Suzanne Born who headed up the Bar Association’s strong opposition. There’s Judge William Howard, a vociferous opponent. And Maria Pastoor, together with Nancy Mischel and Rosemary Frazel, representing the Battered Women’s Advocacy Project and legal services for the poor. And Christa Anders who represents the government agency which worries about child support. One new face is child psychologist Mindy Mitnick, but I don’t know her yet. She soon becomes a true heroine, in my book, to all the children of divorced parents.

Mindy, myself, Judge Howard and Suzanne Born join the Parenting Plans Subcommittee. Christa Anders goes on to chair the Fiscal Review Subcommittee. Maria Pastoor joins Conflict Reduction. Also in my group, the Parenting Plans Subcommittee, is attorney Bill Mullin. In the beginning I didn’t know if Bill was a proponent or opponent, but he quickly takes the lead in explaining current law and some of its adverse consequences/deleterious effects.

Mindy is our chair and she is wonderful. Pretty soon the whole subcommittee is engrossed in learning about parenting plans and destranding. (See discussion in footnote 3 supra.) Several other states have some form of parenting plans, but none have totally destranded. Mindy carefully makes the case that the current system can be improved upon for the sake of the children and the parents.

And then the most amazing thing began to happen. Judge Howard explains to me that he had to oppose last year’s legislation because it moved too far too fast but that he actually likes voluntary parenting plans. Attorney Born who practically single-handedly killed my bill at the Capitol in 1998 now morphs into the one and same Suzanne Born who virtually single-handedly gets the bill to become a law in the 2000 Session. She explains to me that as the head of the Family Law Section she was representing the Bar Association at the Legislature, but that here at the Task Force she’s simply private practitioner Born (and, I might add, she’s very widely respected by her peers in the field of family law. So much so that the Bar Association Family Law Section decides not to take a position on the 2000 bill out of respect for her involvement.)

Meanwhile, Bill Mullin fights tenaciously for mandatory parenting plans. I am actually excited that this Task Force, which includes three Senators, may recommend some form of parenting plans to the Legislature. It is to the credit of every member of the Task Force, especially the chair, Judge Sharon Hall, that everyone kept an open mind and genuinely believed that progress is worth exploring.

Eventually all three subcommittees report back. However, the other two subcommittees do little in the way of recommending parenting plans; instead they raise lots of concerns as to what parenting plans might wrought. I am worried that they outnumber those of us in the Parenting Plans Subcommittee.

Finally, after 17 months of deliberations and a last ditch change of heart by Judge Leslie Metzen on the issue of nomenclature changes, the Task Force makes formal recommendations which eventually become Chapter _____ of the 2000 Session Laws.

The main recommendation is to go forward with voluntary (4) parenting plans, but with the caveat that any and all fiscal implications need to be addressed by the Legislature before parenting plans become effective.

This last caveat was intended by a minority of the Task Force to be the poison pill that kills parenting plans in a non-appropriations year at the Capitol. However, a majority of the Task Force adopted the recommendation out of a sincere belief that there are fiscal aspects that would make parenting plans more or less successful, and meaningful, and more or less risky of being a failed experiment.

I tell the Task Force at the last meeting that I am willing to carry the Task Force’s recommendations forward as a bill and that I will uphold the Task Forces integrity by refusing to accept amendments that run counter to the Task Force’s intent, even though I personally wish the Task Force’s recommendations had gone further.(5)

Senators Sheila Kiscaden and Dave Knutson, Task Force members, both want to be the chief author in the Senate. My, what a difference a year makes – or in this case a Task Force’s 17 months. Two years ago I couldn’t find a Senator that supported the idea. Senator Knutson is also a lawyer. Senator Kiscaden is not. Which way does that cut at the Legislature? Being a lawyer may help in explaining the bill. Senator Kiscaden is female. Senator Knutson is not. Which way does that cut with regards to the politics of this bill? Both are Republicans, in the minority in the Senate, but the lone DFL Senator on the Task Force has become a judge, so we have to count on Senate Democrats being open-minded to a Republican authored bill. In the end Senator Knutson graciously steps aside and lets Senator Kiscaden be the chief author.

The key to passing the bill is getting a Senate hearing. Sheila gets a commitment from Chairman Leo Foley that she will get a hearing if I get the bill passed in the House by the first committee deadline. I am confident that the House will support parenting plans in 2000 with as much fervor as in 1998. The House Civil Law Committee passes HF 3311 on the day before committee deadline. However, an amendment gets added that changes the Task Force’s recommendations significantly. Representatives Phil Carruthers and Rob Leighton offer Bill Mullin’s minority report (to the Task Force Report) which makes one aspect of parenting plans mandatory – the amendment says that court permission to relocate a child to a different state will only be granted if the move is in the child’s best interests. Remember current law says the primary physical custodial parent can move with the child to another state so long as there is a legitimate reason for the move, and the Task Force Report says parents can voluntarily agree to use the best interests standard, but it’s not mandatory in all cases. So this amendment is a big deal.

I explain to the committee that I oppose the amendment even though I am a signatory on Bill Mullin’s minority report. I explain that personally I would prefer the law be changed per the Carruthers/Leighton amendment but I am sworn to uphold the Task Force Report and this amendment runs contrary. On a close vote the amendment is adopted and Judge Hall, Chair of the Task Force, is furious. "I don’t know that I can support the legislation with this amendment," she says. I try to explain that the legislature has the prerogative to change the Report despite our wishes to the contrary.

The next morning I’m practically skipping and singing all the way to the office and can’t wait to tell Senator Kiscaden the good news that the bill passed before committee deadline, so now it’s set to have its Senate hearing. I find Sheila at the photocopying machine. "Bad news," she says, "the Senate is no longer willing to hear the bill." "What!" I say, "You had a commitment! We’ve worked too long and too hard! Why did we spend $75,000 on a Task Force only to have the Senate not hear the bill again this year?!"

I immediately drop everything I’m doing and rush off to visit every Senator I know who might possibly be able to influence Senator Foley to hear the bill. I enlist Janet Marshall to get the Supreme Court to weigh-in. Janet is the "jack-of-all-trades" for the Court. She staffed our Task Force. She handles legislative matters for the Court. She convened the ad hoc group of Task Force members who worked on drafting the legislation to conform to the Task Force’s Report. She kept us all working together when we were pulling in different directions. In short, she kept the ship afloat in rough waters on more than one occasion, and is another one of the heroines in this story.

In the end Senator Kiscaden is able to get the bill a hearing, but Senators are bombarded with information on how bad the bill is. The bill is held over for further work. Sheila agrees with Senator Linda Berglin to accept a number of amendments that come from other minority reports (to the Task Force Report) which provide added protections for victims of domestic abuse – but some of these are "killer amendments" which gut the Task Force’s recommendations and go completely in the wrong direction by outlawing some current practices. For example, both parents will have to be represented by counsel to get a parenting plan; whereas under current practice a large number of divorces are resolved by both parents agreeing to the terms of their divorce and then hiring one lawyer to write it up. If this amendment becomes law all we will have succeeded in doing is making it twice as expensive to get a parenting plan as compared to not getting one.

However, I agree with Sheila that she should accept these amendments if that’s what it takes to get the bill passed out of the Senate Family Law Committee, and we can work on analyzing what’s right in a conference committee. Meantime I’m thinking, "Boy am I glad the House adopted the Carruthers/Leighton amendment. At least that way I’ve got something to leverage with the Senate – you don’t like our digressions from the Task Force Report; we don’t like yours; let’s get rid of all of them."

With this understanding between Senator Berglin and Senator Kiscaden the bill is rescheduled for a hearing on the last day it can be taken up. Senator Alan Spear is an old friend and he sits on this committee. He also happens to be an old friend of Suzanne Born’s – in fact Suzanne Born is one of his constituents. So Suzanne and I arrange to meet with Senator Spear prior to the committee hearing. We want to make sure he understands our bill. He’s the President of the Senate. He’s the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is a very influential Senator and we need his support. After listening he says he thinks our bill is reasonable and promises us that if the opponents attempt to filibuster it in committee, despite Senator Kiscaden’s agreement to accept Senator Berglin’s amendments, he’ll call for the vote so that we don’t lose the bill for failure to meet the time deadlines. This is great news. Suzanne and I head for the committee hearing. Judge Howard is there to testify for the bill. Chairman Foley remembers that Judge Howard opposed the ‘97-‘98 Parenting Plans bill and is reassured to know that this year’s bill is different and has Judge Howard’s support. Both Suzanne and the Judge explain what they don’t like about the Berglin amendments, but in the main, they are adopted. The bill passes by a unanimous vote. Hooray! We’ve cleared our biggest hurdle!

Soon thereafter the bill passes the Senate floor by a lopsided 62-0 margin, and I get the House version passed on a floor vote of 116-12. Now we have to go to conference committee to reconcile the differences in the two bills.

Before we talk about what happened in conference, we need to back up. You might be wondering what happened to that poison pill the opponents got into the Task Force Report – that Parenting Plans not be enacted without a legislative appropriation (in a non-appropriations year).

This brings us back to Janet Marshall’s heroism. Early in the session Janet convened a small group of Task Force members who had volunteered to draft the legislation based on the Task Force's Report.(6) At our second meeting Janet refined the task at hand to analyzing: Which parts of the Task Force's fiscal recommendations are severable from parenting plans and should wait until an appropriations year to be introduced, and which parts are so intertwined with the enactment of parenting plans that they have to be funded before parenting plans can be implemented? Yes, we agree, increased funding for child safety and visitation centers is a good idea, but independent of whether parenting plans gets enacted or current law remains.

In the end there is agreement that only two things need funding -- education of judges as to parenting plans and updated informational brochures to divorcing parents. "If you don't get the money," Judge Hall warns, "you don't pass the bill." And then another Janet Marshall miracle -- all this can be done for $24,000! At one time, based on Task Force discussions, I was worried we'd be talking millions of dollars (an impossible amount) and even $100,000 might be difficult in a non-appropriations year. But $24,000 -- I think I can do that even if I have to raise the money myself from a current group of divorcing parents.

Fortunately, three legislators who are in charge of money at the Capitol happen to be friends of parenting plans. House Majority Leader Tim Pawlenty says we should be able to find $24,000 -- visit with Ways and Means Chairman Dave Bishop. Dave is a Task Force member and he says he'll do the motion to get the money tomorrow night. Senator Randy Kelly is Chair of the Senate Judiciary Finance Committee and he quickly agrees to find the money on the Senate side. Hooray! No poison pill!

The last part of the process, the Conference Committee on Senate File 3169, is a delicate negotiation, but Senator Kiscaden is one of those "can do" legislators, an adroit judge of what is possible, and an articulate supporter of parenting plans, so I am confident we will get the job done. However, Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe does not appoint Sheila's choices to the Conference Committee. Leo Foley is appointed and he's lukewarm to parenting plans at best. Senator Don Betzold also gets appointed, and although he's a thoughtful, open-minded, legislator, he’s studiously avoided giving any indication of whether he’s pro or con on parenting plans.

I approach the Conference Committee with two thoughts in mind. First, we can't go backwards and outlaw any existing practices -- the "two counsel" provision must go, the House position on reserving child support in appropriate cases must be maintained, and judges have to be able to impose a limited parenting plan to avoid giving one party unreasonable veto power over the entry of a plan. My second thought is that we can probably accept some of the Senate language that added increased protections for victims of domestic violence. I don’t know for sure what Senator Kiscaden’s thoughts were as she approached conference committee, but I can say for certain that she helped immeasurably and was very perceptive at finding the right language to say what we mean in a way that everybody could support.

Early on as we compare the bills in side-by-side fashion I give my impassioned defense of the Carruthers/Leighton amendment. I have decided that my duty to uphold the House position should prevail over my promise to uphold the Task Force's integrity, and, regardless of that loyalty conflict, the stronger I can make the House position, the more likely I can leverage its outcome to get other outcomes I have in mind.

"Just imagine," I say, "a dad who for 10 years has given his daughter piano lessons, has regularly helped her with homework, kept her grades at an "A" level, and has in all respects been a great father; and then one day, despite her roots in the community, the friendships she's established, her extended family all in Minnesota, mom decides to move to Texas. Shouldn't the court at least be able to determine if the move is in the child's best interests?" In the end, however, we agree to give up that position in one mega-motion that leverages everything else we need to put parenting plans on a solid foundation without backtracking on current law. I am confident that after several years experience with voluntary parenting plans we will be able to get the powers-that-be in family law and the Legislature to go further and make parenting plans the law of the state for every case.(7)

Conclusion

I learned a great deal about family law as this legislation progressed. I think back to that client of mine in 1985 and I realize that I could have offered a third option -- that maybe I wasn't as good a lawyer as I thought -- that I could have suggested we negotiate an agreement which said mom can't move to another state even though she's the custodial parent. Other lawyers were doing that despite apparent law to the contrary. Being creative, rather than sticking to black letter law, is something law schools don't do a very good job of teaching. But then it turns out I was right. The Frauenshuh case said lawyers could not be that creative with the law. Finally, in the end it turns out I was wrong; but who would have imagined I would run for the Legislature and succeed at making such creative advice a correct assessment of the law?

Something else my client and I only had a vague sense of in 1985, but has become much clearer in the intervening 15 years, is that family law needed to catch up with the cultural revolution of moms and dads both working and both sharing parenting; that dads have become just as involved with reading stories, playing and cooking and diaper changing as moms. It is my hope that parenting plans catches family law up with modern times; that I can look forward to a law office visit in 2001 (8) where I advise my client to save his money and go see a mediator who can negotiate a parenting plan that keeps him involved as a parent; or better yet a law office client in 2004 whom I can tell, if the mediation is unsuccessful, come back and see me because the law of Minnesota is that moms have to be reasonable about parenting plans, that if appropriate the judge will order one over her objection; and regardless of what the judge decides is appropriate, don't worry about your daughter being taken away from you and moved to a different state, the law doesn't allow that if it's not in her best interests.

Finally, in conclusion, I have to say I enjoyed this process. Yes, it was hard work, but not everybody gets a chance to do what I did. I am grateful to each and everyone who helped make all this possible. Now, be good parents!

Footnotes:

(1) HF 1323 was drafted and redrafted many times by a team of mediators and lawyers, headed by Erickson Mediation Institute. The hard work and dedication of this drafting group needs to be acknowledged. Diane Anderson introduced me to the Ericksons. Diane is one of the heroines in this story. She’s a citizen lobbyist who advocates on behalf of divorced parents with kids who have seen the failures of the current system.

(2) Each of these charges had to be refuted. After four years of debate a consensus emerged that the bill is more likely to decrease, rather than increase, litigation, even though family court judges may spend more time being thoughtful at the time of the court’s initial decision. The child support issue remains an open question. The original provisions in the bill were greatly moderated. The final year 2000 version of the bill says exactly this: "Parents creating a parenting plan are subject to the child support guidelines. Parents may include in the parenting plan an allocation of expenses for the child."

The violence issue was the hardest for me personally because I never for one moment would wish any violence on anyone, much less an increase in violence, and yet those who made this claim never retreated. Their position is that many victims of domestic abuse will never self-identify themselves as victims, and therefore never get the protections afforded by the bill. Instead they will get caught up in more co-parenting. My position is that this is a problem with current law and that Parenting Plans, instead of making it worse, will make it better because it will be easier to self-identify. In a parenting plans universe more cases will be resolved though mediation, and less through litigation. It’s easier to tell a mediator in private what’s going on than to explain in open court.

The reason there will be more successful mediations is that mediators can offer more alternatives under parenting plans than they can under current law. For example, Dad can agree to a residential schedule that makes Mom’s house the primary residence, but the parties agree to come back to mediation and review this when the children become teenagers.

Much more could be said on all this. For example, once a bad parent, not necessarily always a bad parent, but for the moment it’s important to note that we still need to institute a way of tracking Parenting Plan cases and evaluate all these issues based on some actual experience.

Let me conclude this footnote by simply saying that as amazed as I was at the ferocity of the original opposition, I was equally amazed at the consensus which eventually emerged in favor of Parenting Plans, after four years of discussion.

(3) Keeping in mind that the bill which finally passed the Legislature in 2000 was different in many respects, here’s what the ‘97-‘98 bill did: First it changed the nomenclature of divorce from "custody and visitation" to "parenting time." Secondly, and more importantly, it "destranded" the various decisions that have to be made regarding the children. Under current law once a primary custodial parent is decided upon, there is little else that needs to be decided. The custodial parent gets to make almost all the upbringing decisions, can choose to relocate with the children to another state, is automatically the recipient of child support, and the only thing the non-custodial parent can do is prove endangerment to get a change in custody, something very difficult to do.

Under HF 1323 once the decision is made about the child’s primary residence, then that box is closed and the decision-making box is opened. Once the decision-making is allocated, that box gets closed and the child support box is opened. What are the actual expenses to raise the child? Who has incurred these expenses? Who will incur these expenses? What expenses can the parties afford? What are the parties respective abilities to pay these expenses?

Third, in the ‘97-‘98 bill the decision to move to another state is detached or destranded and not determined at the time of the initial decree. Current law gives that decision to the custodial parent. Under Parenting Plans that decision is postponed until an actual move is proposed, and then the decision to allow or disallow the move is based on what’s in the child’s best interests at that time.

Fourth, the parties are given the opportunity to adjust the residential schedule and decision-making designations from time-to-time based on the child’s emotional development.

For those who claimed that current law afforded these very same options by allowing joint custody arrangements, my questions were (1) how many joint physical custody arrangements were court-ordered when one parent objected? and (2) how many joint legal custody arrangements actually resulted in shared decision-making when the primary custodial parent objected?

Finally, HF 1323 set up a state-wide system to have a neutral mental health professional advise the court in contested cases. In my private practice I found the current custody evaluation system inadequate at best, and non-existent in most of the state. Instead of this backwards look at who has been the better or worse parent, instead of such a flimsy foundation on which the court has to make this custody decision (he said vs. she said), a mental health professional can look forwards and suggest ways to maximize both parents involvement, and, in appropriate cases, monitor that involvement to ensure the child’s best interests are protected.

(4) This "voluntary" aspect needs elaboration: two parents who voluntarily stipulate to a marital termination agreement can include in their divorce any terms they want, so long as they don’t conflict with the child’s best interests, and the court has to accept these terms. This overrules Frauenshuh v. Giese decided by the Minnesota Supreme court in September, 1999. In other words, parents can agree to use a "best interests" standard instead of Minnesota Statutes, Section 518.18(d) "endangerment" standard to govern future modifications. For example, you could see divorce decrees which never mention the word "custody" and instead say things like, "We agree to review this residential schedule when the children become teenagers to see if it needs to be changed to adjust to their emotional development." But this option is not available if one of the parents objects. In these cases where one party objects, the judge can still do a parenting plan, but it has to be confined to residential schedule, decision-making designations, and ADR – or the judge can choose to use the existing, traditional custody laws. So in a sense it’s voluntary with the court as well. There needs to be some checks and balances when one party is unreasonably vetoing the entry of a parenting plan. In those cases the court can impose a limited parenting plan over one party’s objection. However, if the court makes a finding that domestic abuse has occurred between the parents or children who are subject to the case, then the judge has to use the existing, traditional custody laws.

Another aspect of the voluntariness is the use of alternate terminology. This option is only available to two consenting parents. If one party objects, the court has to use existing, traditional terminology – minus the word "visitation," thanks to Judge Metzen. "Visitation" is changed thru-out the statute books to read "parenting time."

(5) I do very much support the work of the Task Force as a good beginning step. The underlying rationale of the Report is that we are institutionalizing a practice that already exists, or at least did exist until the Minnesota Supreme Court decided Frauenshuh vs. Giese in September, 1999. Prior to Frauenshuh good lawyers with good parents (who put the kids interests first) negotiated their own agreements which on occasion substituted a "best interests" standard for the "endangerment" standard contained in Minnesota Statutes, Section 518.18(d). (Frauenshuh outlawed this practice, but our bill, Chapter _____ of the 2000 Session Laws, nullifies Frauenshuh.) Washington County even uses a form titled "Parenting Plans" to help create its divorce decrees. So parenting plans are out there; they’re just not widely known or used.

In my mind the issue was anti-elitism. Parenting Plans should be on the books for everyone to use, not just for enlightened folks with good lawyers. Moreover, implicit in the Task Force Report is an understanding that destranding needs to be explicitly embraced in statute as a way to maximize the involvement of both parents, where it’s healthy. Hopefully, this will result in some cases that are teetering on the brink of becoming custody battles to instead fall back on mediation as a way to resolve things amicably.

(6) Actually we convened to review the work of Ms. Deb McKnight who works for the House Research Department. Ms. McKnight's efforts need to be acknowledged. How many drafts did you have to revise over the years Deb? Probably 15 or more.

(7) Here's what I envision down the road for what still needs to be done: First, next year, which is an appropriations year, we need the Legislature to fund an evaluation component. Already the Supreme Court has agreed to set up a method of flagging every divorce case in the state where a parenting plan is adopted so that we can do follow-up analysis on whether the parties returned to court with on-going disputes; whether litigation is decreased or increased, etc. Additionally next year it would be good to fund other Task Force recommendations such as the increase in child safety and visitation centers. Ideally we should try to fund the "neutral mental health professional" position in each county to help the court create parenting plans that maximize the involvement of both parents to the extent it's healthy. (See my earlier discussion of this idea in footnote 3 supra.)

After the evaluation period I would hope we could move from voluntary parenting plans to mandatory parenting plans. In other words, the court can impose a full-fledged parenting plan when one party is unreasonably objecting to a parenting plan. This is not that much different than current law in the sense that a court could still decide, even if parenting plans were mandatory, that 100% of the residential schedule will be with Parent A, 100% of the decision-making authority will be with Parent A, and Parent B will simply pay guidelines child support -- or some variation on that continuum.

Mandatory parenting plans would also include the Carruthers/Leighton amendment and the "best interests" standard to guide the court regarding future modifications tailored to a child's emotional development; this would then not be just for cases where the parents voluntarily agree to that standard, but for all cases.

Finally, child support still needs to be destranded from the residential decision. Some, but not most, child-rearing expenses are tied to where the child resides, such as having food in the house. But a child needs clothes regardless of whether the residential schedule is 90/10 with mom or 50/50 with mom and dad.

More needs to be done on nomenclature changes as well. Next year we should be able to substitute "obligor" for "non-custodial parent" and "obligee" for "custodial parent" in all our child support laws. Eventually we should be able to get rid of "custody" and "custodial parent" altogether.

As the title to this story says, "A sea change in family law takes more than one session."

(8) The effective date of Chapter _____ is January 1, 2001. There are two other provisions of this legislation which I have yet to mention in this story. First, folks who got divorced prior to the effective date of this enactment can come back to get a parenting plan provided they both agree to the plan. Also, if you have grounds to change your old decree, and you have to make a motion to the court because your ex doesn't agree to the change, then if you prove your grounds, the court can replace your old decree with a parenting plan. Second, Chapter _____ makes it clear that the grounds to change the terms of "joint legal custody" or parental decision-making will be the child's best interests.