Posted: October 18th, 2022

PENDING LEGISLATION Bill NO A06608

Law
Topic:
PENDING LEGISLATION Bill NO A06608

THIS IS A LAW AND PSYCHOLOGY PAPER. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO ASK. THANK YOU SO MUCH!
PLEASE OPEN THE PDF, WHERE INSTRUCTIONS ARE PROPERLY LISTED. THE ARTICLE THAT IS TO BE USED WILL ALSO BE ATTACHED AS A PDF. ”Bill NO A06608”
THIS IS THE SAME INSTRUCTIONS LISTED IN THE PDF: This paper will evaluate pending legislation involving clinical forensic psychology. You must use the case provided which will be also attacthed. ’ Does empirical research in psychology indicate that this law will be helpful or harmful? Your thesis statement will indicate whether you recommend that legislators vote to approve or reject the pending law.
In your paper, you will need to identify at least three empirical articles (original sources) you will use to support your thesis. You will likely have more than three citations in your paper.You will need to support your thesis statement using research, not just your opinion! BUT ALSO INCLUDE YOUR OPINION. Your paper should clearly:
1) Describe the pending legislation and your thesis statement. (approximately 1 page) THIS IS PAGE ONE

2) The bulk of the paper should support your thesis statement. Why do you recommend that legislators support or reject this law? Use the sources to support your reasoning. Provide a critical analysis of your three relevant sources and explain why they support your recommendation to support or condemn the pending law. For each of the empirical articles, describe the research question tested by the research, describe how the authors tested that question and what they found, the strengths and limitations of their findings, and relate their findings to your thesis statement. Your analysis should be critical. Note the strengths and weaknesses both in the study itself and in its relevance to the case in question.
(approximately 3 pages) THIS IS PAG E TWO,THREE & FOUR

3) Analyze the impact of the law on the basis of race, gender, class, sexual orientation, immigration status, ability status , or culture . Has the law disproportionately impacted those of particular races ? classes ? Does the law protect allmarginalized communities ? Who does it leave out and why? How might we begin to reconcile this? Your paper must include the impact of the law on at least two groups that are not addressed within the law (e.g ., if you consider the Violence Against Women Act then you can possibly consider whether there will be a differential impact on those with varied immigration status and race – but gender is already directly addressed by the law and should already be considered in your paper). (approximately 1 page) THIS IS PAG E FIVE

4) Include a reference section with the pending legislation on which you based your assignment, the three original sources you selected, along with any other sources you used to complete your assignment. THIS IS WHE RE THE SOURCE S ON A SE PARTE PAG E

Your assignment must follow APA formatting including:
1) Size 12 font, preferably Times New Roman
2) Double-spacing
3) Page numbers on top right (header)
4) 1” margins on all four sides (you may have to adjust the default settings)
No abstract is necessary for this assignment
YOU DO NOT NEED TO CREATE A COVER PAGE FOR ME THANK YOU.

AGAIN I WILL ATTACH THE PENDING LEGISLATION THAT I CHOOSE AND I CHOOSE TO BE FOR THE PENDING LEGISLATION, I recommend that legislators vote to APPROVE THE PENDING LAW.

Introduction
Bill NO A06608 sponsored by Brian Kolb, and cosponsored by Crouch, Finch, Montesano, Lalor; is a bill that makes numerous changes to laws relating to child custody matters. Currently, the bill is in the committee stage, in the New York State assembly. The bill was introduced to the assembly in March 14th 2019, and its last action was on July 14th 2020, where it was held for consideration in judiciary. Summarily the bill seeks to stipulate for shared custody. It provides for parenting time as opposed to visitation time. It also stipulates greater emphasis for mediation and counselling in matrimonial actions that involve child/ children instead of litigation. The bill institutes greater sanctions for parties that interfere with parent’s parenting time. It advocates for greater equality in burden for child support basing the decision on net income of the parents and other aspects such as FICA taxes. In this regard, Child support will also cease when the child in question reaches 18 years of age. In cases where the arises paternity issues the court requires that DNA evidence to be used in priority in order to settle such contestation. The bill mainly aims to increase parental access to their child by improving communication around the child. The central focus of the bill is to provide the child with the best transition and childhood, it imposes a structural framework that establish limits to parental conflicting, and holds parents accountable for shaping the child’s behavior.
Discussion of the Bill A06608
It is in the best interest of the child that the bill be passed. This recommendation is based on the fact that a child requires both parents for their health and mental development. It is also a trend that has been gaining traction across the United States. Hetrick (2014) identifies that sharing of the custody of the child has been identified to be most beneficial outcome for the child. In a review of nearly 10,000 divorce cases, the courts have started swaying away from the idea of mother-only custody as this was cited to be non-beneficial to the child’s general well beings. Shares custody has been a gaining trend, increasing from 8% in 1998 to 45% in 2008 (Hetrick, 2014). Nonetheless, fathers are rarely given custody and this is linked to the culture as the mother is always assumed to be better versed in raising the child. This assumption is not always the case but more or less considered in across a wide cross section of divorce cases.
Divorces have greater impact on children. Researchers identify that for children extended periods of conflicts during the proceedings of divorce have negative impact to the point that they work to mimic symptoms of physical illness and disease (Oppawsky, 2014). It is in the best interest of the child that the matter be handled amicably without exposure of conflict especially for a greater period to the child. Hetrick (2014) identifies that litigations are costly as well as very time consuming. This has a greater impact on the child’s mental, physical and psychological well being. Bill No. A06608, suggests that the divorces consider pursuing matrimonial mediation and counselling first, rather than jumping straight to litigation so as to take greater interest in the child’s well being.
Mediation is a less antagonistic and the approach works to sustain greater communication and general agreeableness. Cohen (2012) reports on the benefit of mediation agreements in post-divorce stating that it was both emotional and physically fulfilling, aided in reduction of hostility, increased cooperativeness, and was fostered on a more child centered communication. In an empirical study that was conducted, reviewing 96 divorcees, mediation showed that overtime, hostility to each other reduced and this fostered a better environment for the child’ growth and development (Cohen, 2012). Overall, the child’s interest should be placed at the center of the conflict and Bill No. A06608. Cohen (2012) additionally shows that mediation increased the father’s involvement in the child’s life. This is unlike in court litigations where the court was more than likely to always side with mother-only custody.
The Bill No. A06608 puts the child’s best interest forth. According to research the law prioritizes the best interest of the child when awarding custody to the parents (McCann, 2015). Research also shows that parents who are awarded with custody are more than likely to pay child support, share decision making, support their child’s tangible and intangible needs (McCann, 2015).
One of the most important changes that the bill recommends is that, the term visitation be changed to parenting time. This is a very important consideration. Warshak (2017) identifies through research that the term “visit” over time captured a transformation of the role of the “Dad” or father into somewhat that of an “Uncle.” This works to distant the child from their father and in most cases the father figure becomes a distant item to achieve. Warshak (2017) identifies that this sets a precedent where it becomes harder to achieve a realistic parent-child relationship. Warshak (2017) points out that in a study of 50 shared custody cases, most children who spend at least 35% of time with either parents perform better academically, socially and psychologically.
The well being of both parents means better care and support for the child’s need. The Bill encourages child support payment equality and in the case that one parent does not have the ability to achieve this, the other parent will be taxed with the payment relative to the child’s need and subjected to transparency. The benefit of equality in payment is that both parents are encouraged to work. Vuri (2018) identifies a study that showed that in cases of joint custody where the non-custodial father only paid child support, the mother was discouraged from looking for high paying jobs and pursuing her career and became dependent on his payment. Overtime, she became poorer. According to research, in 1991, 39% of all divorced single parent women lived in poverty and 55% of the children were under 6 years old. This has a lot of consequences especially in regard to mental, physical and emotional development of the child (Behrman and Quinn, 1994). This is a trend that has continued and manifested into the modern times.
Poverty limits access to better diet, education and shelter and works to affect the child’s growth as it presents them to a myriad of societal ills. This establishes a direct correlation of mothers diminished income as a result of the implementation of joint custody. Unlike shared custody, joint custody’s main objective is to make easier accessibility of non-custodial parents who are usually the father to their children, but overtime works to undermine the financial independence of the mother (Vuri, 2018). This works to negatively affect their relationship dynamic overtime. Equality in the burden of child support between parents encourages both parties to be present in the child-rearing responsibilities as such easily accessible to the child, for the benefit of the child.
Analysis
The outcome of the Bill No. A06608 prove more beneficial for the wellbeing of the child than as it centers on creating better parent-child relationship. The child remains fragile and better family structure allows for the better adaptation of the social value system. Hetrick (2014) states that most fathers and daughters than father and son post divorce in cases of no custody fail to establish relationships. Behrman and Quinn (1994) identify that as many as 17 million children as of 1992 may have been brought up in poverty as a direct result of parent centered divorce proceedings. The law brings attention to the role of the parent in the child’s life and encourages it.
The law limits spouse dependence on another spouse’s income. Bill A06608 does not address father’s or mother’s economic wellbeing in the event that only one spouse pays for child support. On the other hand, it provides the child with the ability to benefit from both parents dividing support relative to the parent’s ability. Here marginalized groups in New York, are the ones who risk being disproportionately impacted by the law. This is because it does not provide for spousal economic dependency as it encourages auditing and accounting for all funds given for child support with the central focus being that all the funds are used for the child.
Conclusion
The bill centrally encourages both parents to take more time in child-rearing. It critically compels the parents to equally choose to be in the child’s life. This is done by limiting conflict and adversarial stances that court litigation brings. It emphasizes on the need for mediation and counselling first to create a non-conflict based divorce proceedings.

References
Behrman, R., & Quinn, L. (1994). Children and Divorce: Overview and Analysis. The Future of
Children, 4(1), 4-14. doi:10.2307/1602474
Cohen, O. (2012). Agreement Reached through Court Mediation Conducted by Social Workers:
Impact on the Co-Parenting Relationship. The British Journal of Social Work, 42(2), 227-244. Retrieved September 27, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43771632
Hetrick, K. (2014). Sharing the Caring: Trends in Child Custody. Futurist, 48(5), 10.
McCann, M. (2015). It Takes Two. State Legislatures, 41(6), 11.
Oppawsky, J. (2014). The Nurse Sees it First The Effects of Parental Divorce on Children and
Adolescents. Annals of Psychotherapy & Integrative Health, 1–8.
Vuri, D. (2018). Joint custody law and mothers’ labor market outcomes: evidence from the USA.
Journal of Population Economics, 31(4), 1203–1237. https://doi-org.sbcc.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s00148-017-0680-x
Warshak, R. P. (2017). After divorce, shared parenting is best for children’s health and
development. STAT.