What a difference a word makes
Louisiana prides itself on being a pro-family state.
But during the 2010 legislative session several laws are being considered that would seriously hurt Louisiana families, single fathers in particular.
I’d like to focus on one of those laws today, SB 236, which is being pushed by Sen. Julie Quinn. This bill requires your immediate attention if you are a single parent.
SB 236 seeks to remove the word “should” from the following sentence and replace it with “may” – “physical custody of children should be shared equally in a joint custody decree.”
This sentence is the foundation of our court’s approach to joint custody in Louisiana law, and has been for about 20 years. By stating that physical custody should be shared equally, the law recommends that unless dire circumstances exist to suggest otherwise, shared physical custody should be granted.
Changing should to may alters years of precedent in the state and hurts Louisiana families.
Quinn’s argument for the bill is that because should is not in Black’s Law Dictionary, nor in Louisiana law, the use of it in this sentence leaves for broad discrepancies in judges’ interpretation of the law.
I, for one, believe that our judges are perfectly capable of applying the common sense definition of should in the context of this sentence.
And, frankly, if Quinn really wanted to pass a simple “housekeeping” bill to clarify the law — rather than significantly alter the law — then she should have (there’s that word again) introduced a bill to add a legal definition for should to Louisiana’s civil code.
And, by the way, she would not have to look far to find it.
Three states have defined should in their civil code: Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.
- Pennsylvania law states that, “‘should indicates that an action is advisable but not required.”
- Rhode Island law’s definition reads, “should indicates a recommendation, not a requirement.”
- And, finally, Vermont law dictates that, “should means that an activity is encouraged but not mandated.
I learned that in a few hours.
I wonder how many hours Sen. Quinn spent drafting legislation masked as housekeeping that clearly changes the intent of the law?
I wonder, also, if Sen. Quinn has ever taken the time to look up the word “devious?”
I’m thinking not, so I’ll define it here and save her some time:
Devious — misleading, oblique, characterized by insincerity or deceit.
I’ll even use it in a sentence — the Senator’s characterization of the bill was misinformed at best, devious at worst.
Senator Quinn is herself involved in a messy divorce. Surely her legislation has nothing to do with her case. If you believe that then I have beachfront property on the moon for sale. Sen. Quinn along with DSS, Faith House, and Professor Katherine Spaht control 98% of all the divorce laws written and passed in Louisiana. Professor Spaht drafted these bad laws 40 years ago and lobbies the legislature to keep them whole. They defend this broken system that has torn families apart for the past four decades. Reset assured, Sen. Quinn got her "blessing" before filing this bill so the fix is in.
This is a total crock. Quinn knows exactly what she's doing with this bill. This is not housekeeping, it's a blatant attempt to ramrod through a bill for which there is no need, a bill that is counter to what families in Louisiana want. Quinn should be ashamed of herself. Lou, I cant believe this bill is getting no press, well other than yours!
– Mike
I'm not saying a agree with the bill, but is it really so simple to add "should" to the civil code? Wouldn't it affect ALL bills with that verbiage?