Safety at Exchanges. Better Addressed by Legislature or Courts?
@Inthedetails Thanks for ^ post re possible legislation.
The goal is an admirable idea, but is a state STATUTE specifically requiring it in all custody proceedings the way to address the issue? Why not allow the COURT handling the custody proceedings to address safety concerns during custody exchanges by issuing an ORDER? Could do so on a case by case basis as appropriate. Or could add it to one or some of the templates cts use as default orders.
Parents/ppl involved in child custody exchanges can already make exchanges in a public location and w video/CAMERA recording.
Can arrange this either by agreement btwn themselves (if relatively amiable) or IIUC, thru their attys by filing motion for COURT to order that as a term in the original custody ORDERS or by modifying them.
Respectfully, I don't see the two points of this (admittedly hypothetical) bill as "ensuring safety" during custody exchanges.
IIRC, Ms Butler & Ms Kelley were together in the car so Ms K could serve as a supervisor of Butler's visitation w her children, not just the exchange.
IIRC she was one of a few (3?) on a COURT APPOINTED list of ppl who could serve as SUPERVISOR during this visitation. Her presence did not ensure safety in this instance; sadly, she became another victim.
Seems that a "supervisor-present-at exchange" element would not necessarily ensure safety from the parents who want to injure others. Perhaps even the children. For ex, see "Murders of Charles and Braden Powell" section at
Disappearance of Susan Powell - Wikipedia.
As for idea re requiring exchange LOCATION to be monitored or recorded on video/CAMERA, would that "ensure safety?" Awareness of vid recording in progress may discourage some parents (grandparents/whoever) from injuring the other parent at time of exchange.
But an astronomical number of crimes are committed despite the perps knowing that the site has vid recording systems. For ex, banks, retail stores, businesses, etc. Not to mention homes as well.
Having exchanges (and even visitation) occur at site w vid cams can also be accomplished without a state STATUTE requiring it. People can simply agree to it, again, if amiable. Or could file motion asking for it by a COURT ORDER.
Vid cameras (in cell phones) are at the fingertips of virtually everyone today, and even if not affordable for ppl involved, they can identify potential exchange locations w video recording systems.
Not saying that ct orders or legislation would or could have prevented these tragic deaths. Ideally parents would come to acceptable arrangements themselves. Unfortunately IRL, RL is not ideal.
jmo