Facts and Fallacies about The Mandatory 50/50 Custody Initiative

Fallacy: My child support will decrease when “limited to the actual costs of providing for the basic needs of my child.”

Fact: The proposed initiative erases our current child support system. It limits child support to “actual costs” for “basic needs.” These terms are not defined, and open to wide interpretation. Many non-custodial parents may actually end up paying much more than they do now.

In addition, the initiatives propose eliminating all penalties for not paying child support. This would leave the responsible parent with no recourse should the irresponsible parent choose not to pay. What happens to the children then?

Fallacy: I have very little right to anything as a non-custodial parent.

Fact: In 2003 the legislature passed a “Parents’ Bill of Rights” (NDCC 14-09-28) which guarantees a wide array of parental custody rights. It includes everything from the right to access dental records to the right to reasonable access to the child. If more specific rights are needed, why not build on this current statute?

Fallacy: According to one of the initiative’s drafters, “Right now the way the system works our children are really getting hurt… we’re pumping out dysfunction children… We’re creating more domestic violence.”

Fact: Mandatory 50/50 custody arrangements are not based on the best interests of the child. Virtually every recent study of the psychological well-being of children has indicated shuffling children back and forth has very negative impacts. The initiatives also pose logistical nightmares, making it almost impossible for children to maintain consistent and stable school, church, and social environments.

These arrangements will also force more contact between victims and their abusers in domestic violence situations. 50/50 custody may even encourage victims to stay in their violent relationships because it will become nearly impossible to completely sever ties with the abusive party, or to manage contacts in a safe way.

Why would anyone want to risk the welfare and safety of children just to satisfy some arbitrary and rigid sense of equality?

Fallacy: These initiatives will reduce the intrusion of the courts in my family’s lives.

Fact: The absolute opposite will occur. Courts and lawyers will be brought into family disputes constantly to settle disputes ranging from medical care to educational choices.

The only way a parent can get out of a 50/50 arrangement is to have one parent declared “unfit” by the court. And if there hasn’t been a “fitness hearing,” a parent can request one “at any time.” The stigma of being labeled unfit will impact both parents and children for years to come. Court intervention will become an expensive, routine tool for harassment. Do we really want to invite more legal intervention in our families?

Fallacy: Only uncaring bureaucrats, lawyers, and people who don’t care about families oppose these initiatives.

Fact: Although some well-intentioned people honestly believe these initiatives would improve our current systems for families, these initiatives are part of a well orchestrated national campaign to disrupt the courts and destroy essential family supports. The initiatives promote the rights of adults over the rights of children to a safe, secure, and nurturing childhood. A broad based grassroots coalition of groups and individuals who care about children and families is emerging to oppose these self-serving efforts.


Produced and Distributed by the Concerned Citizens for Children’s Rights
Robert “Tork” Kilichowski
Secretary/Treasurer