North Dakota Measure 6, Parent Custody Presumptions Initiative (2014)

Measure 6 Type State statute Origin Citizens Topic Divorce and custody Status Defeated d

2014 measures June 10 Measure 1a November 4 Measure 1 d Measure 2 a Measure 3 d Measure 4 d Measure 5 d Measure 6 d Measure 7 d Measure 8 d Endorsements Expenditures

The North Dakota Measure 6, Parent Custody Presumptions Initiative was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in North Dakota as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated. The measure, upon voter approval, would have created a legal presumption that each parent in a child custody case is fit to parent, unless “clear and convincing evidence” demonstrated otherwise. Furthermore, the measure would have given each parent in a custody case, unless one parent was proven unfit, equal parental rights and responsibilities, parenting time, primary residential responsibility and decision making responsibility over a child.

Measure 6 was also referred to as the Fathers' Rights Initiative.

Election results

North Dakota Measure 6
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		152,004	62.09%
Yes		92,807	37.91%

Election results via: North Dakota Secretary of State Office

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot text was as follows:

“

Initiated Statutory Measure No. 6 This initiated measure would amend section 14-09-06.2 of the North Dakota Century Code to create a presumption that each parent is a fit parent and entitled to be awarded equal parental rights and responsibilities by a court unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary; the measure would also provide a definition of equal parenting time. YES - means you approve the measure summarized above. NO - means you reject the measure summarized above.

”

Background

North Dakota Measure 3 was on the ballot in 2006. The measure was defeated by voters. The initiated state statute would have entitled each parent to joint legal and physical custody of a child in a child custody case, unless one parent was declared unfit based on clear and convincing evidence. It would have also required the separated parents to develop a joint parenting plan, something which the 2014 initiative did not require. The defeated measure's election results were as follows:

• Yes: 91,225 or 43.59%
• No: 118,048 or 56.41%

In 2012, Walsh County constituents voted on a similar, but local, measure. The county was the first in the state to vote on a local shared custody-related issue. The measure was designed to establish equal parental rights in situations where parents of a child are separated, unless one is deemed unfit. Mitch Sanderson, who advocated for 2006's Measure 3, was the local initiative's primary sponsor. The following is the approved local measure's election results:

• Yes: 3,017 or 66.26%
• No: 1,536 or 33.74%

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem (R) challenged the local measure for usurping state powers since matters related to domestic relations, including child custody, are regulated at the state level.

Support

North Dakota Shared Parenting for Kids ad, titled "North Dakota Shared Parenting 1."

The campaign in support of the initiative was led by North Dakota Shared Parenting for Kids.

Supporters

Organizations

• North Dakota Libertarian Party
• Lawyers for Shared Parenting
• Leading Women For Shared Parenting
• Stand Up For Gus
• Parenting Rights Institute
• American Coalition of Fathers and Children (ACFC)
• Equitable Child Maintenance & Access Society (Alberta)
• Walk for Lost Kids
• California Coalitions for Families & Children
• Common Sense North Dakota For Common Sense North Dakotans
• A Voice for Men
• Gentleman’s Forum LIVE Talk Radio
• Canadian Equal Parenting Council
• Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition
• National League of Fathers Inc.
• Minnesota Dads For Justice
• Dads on the Air
• Divorce Corp
• Operation Rewire
• Families Civil Liberties Union
• South Dakota Shared Parenting
• The Fathers' Rights Movement of Texas
• The Fathers' Rights Movement of Wisconsin
• Dads of Wisconsin
• The Fathers' Rights Movement of North Carolina
• Fix Family Courts

Businesses

• Hart Investigations (DC)
• Sanders Equipment Company, Inc.
• Tweten's Photography

Individuals

• Phyllis Schlafly, conservative activist
• Kiefer Sutherland, actor
• Jason Patric, actor
• Arnold Fleck, attorney
• Kristin Overboe, attorney
• Craig M. Richie, attorney

• Daniel Frisk, attorney

Arguments

Jill Bjerke, the initiative's sponsoring committee chairperson, provided the following eleven points in favor of Measure 6.

“	Measure #6 focuses first on what is best for children based on current Social Science Research: Research Consensus Statement on Co-Parenting After Divorce Conclusions of the First International Conference on Shared Parenting Measure #6 was written from US Supreme Court Rulings on Parents Rights and supported by the US Constitution. The current Family Law System is a cookie cutter/one-size fits all and Measure #6 would acknowledge individual cases. Our Current Family Law System is purely adversarial by design and Measure #6 will reduce conflict and litigation simply because it would take the fight "children" out of divorce. The Retroactive portion of Measure #6 will benefit loving parents and children who have been separated unjustly in the past. Our current courts are already overloaded with civil cases, this will actually reduce legal battles when parents start out on equal footing. Measure #6 does not force equal parenting on everyone, it simply allows loving, fit parents to be restored a healthy relationship for their children. 110 world experts endorsed shared parenting in family law and said the current system is based on "flawed science." Too many children are growing up without on of their parents; usually the dad. Shared parenting is popular in poll after poll achieving over 70% approval and with equal support of men and women. Lawyers only get paid to draft documents and "argue", so they have a financial incentive to create conflict. (quote)	”
—Jill Bjerke

Rob Port, editor of SayAnythingBlog.com, argued that opponents of the initiative had a financial incentive in it being defeated. He said:

“	By contrast, opponents of shared parenting only got around to establishing their organization on September 4th of this year according to filings with the Secretary of State’s office. Within a month they had $70,000 in their coffers contributed solely by the State Bar Association of North Dakota and the Family Law section of that same State Bar. Six of the eight members of the executive committee of that organization are lawyers, five of them family attorneys. That’s no surprise. In state after state, country after country, when shared parenting legislation comes before a house or senate committee, those lining up to speak against it are mostly family attorneys. Why? It’s one of shared parenting’s most important features that it tends to reduce conflict between divorcing parents. That’s been found by social scientists in the United States and Canada and family lawyers obviously know it. They of course take parental conflict straight to the bank. No family lawyer gets rich doing uncontested divorces, but when parents are at each other’s throats, there are always more motions to file, more hearings to attend, more parenting evaluations to assess, etc. Family lawyers thrive on the very conflict that shared parenting tends to ameliorate. Hence their opposition to it.	”
—Rob Port

Other arguments in support of Measure 6 included:

• Jill Bjerke said that contemporary social norms disproportionately favor the mother in child custody battles. She stated, "It's just the norm, right now, for Mom to get custody. And when that happens, Dad is cut out of the children's lives. Fathers are both extremely important to both girls and boys. And we want to have our children grow up with parts of both parents."

Campaign contributions

Total campaign cash as of December 3, 2014
Support:	$26,850
Opposition:	$70,000

Supporters had received $26,850 in contributions as of December 3, 2014.

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
ND Shared Parenting Initiative	$26,850	$17,160
Total	$26,850	$17,160

Top contributors:

Donor	Amount
Philip Sternberg	$17,500
Candor Entertainment LLC	$7,500
Arnold Fleck	$1,000
Ken Takekoshi	$250
Virginia McClure	$250
National Coalition of Free Men	$200

Opposition

The campaign in opposition to the initiative was led by Keeping Kids First.

Opponents

Organizations

• ND Council on Abused Women’s Services
• North Dakota Women's Network
• Prevent Child Abuse North Dakota
• American Association of University Women
• American Civil Liberties Union
• Family Law Section of the State Bar Association of North Dakota

Arguments

Keeping Kids First developed a number of articles on the group's website detailing arguments against Measure 6. The following quote, from the page titled "Measure 6 - Here Is The Reality," summarized the arguments against the measure:

“	Measure 6 is focused on the rights of parents as opposed to the current law, which is focused on the best interests of children. Measure 6 attempts to impose a “one size fits all” solution, ignoring the uniqueness of each family. Parenting arrangements after divorce should just be left to the parents to determine. If the parents cannot decide then the Court should be able to have the discretion to determine. There are too many factors in the life of a child for any default position to be prescribed, even just as a starting point. Imposing a presumption is too radical a change to the existing law and other approaches to enhancing maximum contact have been implemented with considerable success. Measure 6 proposes an overly simplistic idea of equality rather than considering a result best for the children in a particular family. Measure 6 does not give parties tools to resolve differences, minimize conflicts and maximize children’s benefits. Measure 6 will encourage families to engage in lengthy and costly legal battles. The retroactivity clause of Measure 6 will foster litigation in families with currently settled court orders. Measure 6 fails to protect the rights of stay-at-home parents who occupied a primary parent role prior to separation. Equal shared parenting is not advisable in high conflict cases. Equal shared parenting will significantly reduce the amount of child support received by children for their basic needs. Variations of equal shared parenting are an option under the current law, so Measure 6 is not needed. The quality of parenting time is more important than the quantity of parenting time.	”
—Keeping Kids First

Other arguments in opposition to Measure 6 included:

• Attorney Erica Shively noted that the current statute places a stronger emphasis on children's rights relative to parental rights. She claimed, "[The initiative] puts the focus in the wrong place. Currently, the focus is on children in North Dakota. And, it basically says we need to look at what's best for them, not for the parents. And it changes that focus to whether or not a parent is fit or unfit. There's [sic] many wonderful parents out there where there's not equal residential responsibility because it's not something that works for the child in that scenario."
• Attorney Lisa Benson, a family law practitioner, issued a similar criticism, saying, "When awarding residential responsibility (physical custody), whether split, equal or primary, the best interests of the children should be paramount, not one parent’s wishes. On its face, the measure gives more weight to one parent’s wishes than what is best for the children."

Campaign contributions

Opponents had received $70,000 in contributions as of December 3, 2014.

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Keeping Kids First	$70,000	$53,000
Total	$70,000	$53,000

Top contributors:

Donor	Amount
State Bar Association of North Dakota	$50,000
State Bar Association of North Dakota Family Law Section	$20,000

Media editorial positions

A Valley News Live discussion between Measure 6 proponent Attorney Arnold Fleck and Measure 6 opponent Attorney Jason McLean.

See also: Endorsements of North Dakota ballot measures, 2014

Support

• Bismarck Tribune said, "Measure 6 deserves to pass — we support a yes vote. To assume either parent is unfit, at the beginning of a child custody case, is the wrong starting point. Presuming instead that both are on equal footing and fit, unless deemed otherwise, is the right course of action."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in North Dakota

The initiative petition was submitted to the North Dakota Secretary of State on June 6, 2013. The initiative was approved for circulation on June 18, 2013. Supporters were required to submit 13,452 valid signatures by June 18, 2014.

On June 16, 2014, the measure's sponsoring organization submitted about 15,021 signatures to the North Dakota Secretary of State. On July 21, 2014, Secretary of State Al Jaeger (R) announced the measure's certification for the November 4, 2014 ballot. The secretary of state verified 14,452 signatures.

Similar measures

• North Dakota Child Custody and Support, Statutory Measure 3 (2006) d

See also

Suggest a link

• North Dakota 2014 ballot measures
• 2014 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in North Dakota

External links

Basic information

• Official Ballot Language for Measures on the November 4, 2014, Ballot

Support

• North Dakota Shared Parenting for Kids
• North Dakota Shared Parenting for Kids Facebook

Opposition

• Keeping Kids First
• Keeping Kids First Facebook

Additional reading

• The Jamestown Sun, "The new and improved Measure 6," September 23, 2014
• Washington Post, "Fathers’ rights initiative makes North Dakota ballot," July 23, 2014