Witness:  Mr. Steve Rayper, Father, Rolla, Missouri

     DOUGHERTY: Pardon me, just a second, if you would move closer to the mike, appreciate that.

     RAYPER: In my own situation, I believe I became an expert on a lot of the issues. But, I do want to make some comments about the situation. Again, I'm a father of a six-year old girl. It was about six days ago, it was the four-year anniversary when my wife left. I can tell you that was a harrowing experience. I don't think anybody would doubt that.

     I'm here in my own case to say that there is a need for mothers and fathers in a relationship with children. I do not believe that our current statutes lend themselves to that, that they lend themselves to an acrimonious situation.

     Just to give you some background, in my own case, it was a three-year process, in Rolla, Missouri. In fact, you had the judge that oversaw our case, the Honorable Judge Ralph Haslag. So, he's very aware of our particular case. It was almost three years from the time of final judgement, from the time that she left and final judgment.

     When it first started, I had no idea it was going to be so acrimonious. In fact, I was naive, and thought it was going to be simple what we would put our child through. It didn't end up being that way, and so in this three year process, ended up taking $45,000 to $50,000, is what it has cost me. And, that didn't include interest. I have about $30,000 in loans that I'm paying, and thank God that I'm in a position I'm in to do that. So, I have difficulty with the current statutes in their order of preference. I believe that we ought to look at, this committee, this state, ought to look very seriously, at the idea or the first step of a rebuttable presumption in joint legal and joint physical custody. In my case, again, the cost of $45,000 to $50,000, I cannot tell you the emotional cost. It goes without saying it was tremendous. We had a one-week court trial in Rolla. We were given 20-hours of testimony apiece. We probably came to that. We had experts, psychiatrists, psychologists. One was a psychiatrist, from Columbia, Dr. A. E. Daniel, a local child development psychologist here, Dr. Anika Rudloff, in Jefferson City, and some local ones in Rolla. So, it was a court case that presented a lot to this particular judge. I sought joint legal and joint physical custody and I did achieve that. I'm at Rolla, Missouri, assistant professor of the Department of Engineering Management. My ex-wife, and daughter, are in Farmington, Missouri, which is, in round numbers, 90 miles apart. Prior to her starting kindergarten this year, we had about a 50/50 co-parenting situation, and the decree is written in co-parenting and shared-parenting terms. The judge said, okay, here's the basic ground rules. Each of you provide a decree. To be truthful, most of it was taken from my side, because in this process, I did become, I believe, an expert. I have a Ph.D., and did all that sort of stuff. I did enough literature work on child development issues of child development, divorce, fathers, mothers, and, in particular, fathers and daughters, that I had the basis to start a Ph.D., had I taken the appropriate classes. There's no question in my mind. So, I consider myself to be somewhat of an expert in that.

     So, I was familiar with many of the issues that have been discussed here, in terms, like parental alienation to alienation syndrom, some of those things. I'm familiar with those. So, I had a large basis for that. We developed a decree, joint legal, joint physical custody. That's the only time custody is stated and hereafter referred to as joint parenting, shared parenting.

     My child, Shelby, did not start kindergarten until this year and that had to be mandated by the judge. She was a bubble child, in terms of kindergarten. Prior to kindergarten, it was about 50/50 in a real odd sort of way. It would probably shock you, in terms of the time that we made the transitions from home to home. Once she started kindergarten, had a situation of three weekends out of four, I'd drive to Farmington every Wednesday to see her, spend four to five hours with her in Farmington. I will have her all but four days of a holiday vacation, her spring break. We alternate Thanksgiving, a minimum of eight weeks in the summer. So, I do not have the harrowing experience that some of these gentlemen have had, as well as mothers. I have a decent situation.

     My primary dissolution to it is the cost. I, as a parent, should not have to spend $45,000 to $50,000 to assert my rights as a father and as a parent. Fortunately, I did the research. The first gentleman said he had trouble with his schools, in terms of sharing information. That is not difficult. I established that right away. Once you establish it, it works fairly well, with the pre-school, with the school and so on. So, I can't tell you I've had the harrowing experiences, I can tell you it was highly acrimonious. My ex-wife and I certainly do not trust each other, but we're building a bridge to that. Our little girl was not privy to our hostilities. That was confined between the lawyers, the judges, and so on. So, thank the good Lord, that didn't happen, and we have a little girl that's very well developed. Is doing quite well. Very bright. Has gone back and forth significantly with the custodial arrangements or the parenting arrangements. I don't think she's that unique. I think children are more flexible than we think they can be.

     DOUGHERTY: Mr. Rayper, I'd like to ask a couple questions. On two things you mentioned that I gleaned from your scenario, cost and rebuttable presumption, and joint physical and legal custody. You said you had joint physical or legal custody.

     RAYPER: Correct.

     DOUGHERTY: And, you were able to get that in that scenario, and yet, you said the preferences for the order of preferences in the current statute was something that you want to change.

     RAYPER: If I recall, what they were correctly. I read it a couple of times, but I do not believe we have a joint, I guess, the first option of rebuttable legal and joint physical situation. Do we? I don't believe the statute reads in that order.

     DOUGHERTY: And, then, obviously, in your situation, you didn't - you were able to get the joint physical and legal because you requested that?

     RAYPER: Requested it, yes.

     DOUGHERTY: Because the system worked in this particular.....

     RAYPER: Well, it was contested. It was contested, but no person, male or female should have to go through a one-week trial and have to spend that kind of money. In my case, it was about $35,000. That includes expert witness testimony. I had to pay $10,000 there....

     DOUGHERTY: Okay, let me back up very quickly on that one, and what do you suggest to resolve cost? Individuals frequently hire an individual to accomplish their aims, depending upon what their aims are. You could resolve it quickly, or it might take forever, and in your case, it took $30,000 to $50,000. How do you solve that?

     RAYPER: Well, again, maybe I just misunderstand what the statutes say, but, ......

     DOUGHERTY: Tell them what the costs are?

     RAYPER: I think that's done with the statutes, and, hopefully, going to the rebuttable presumption, joint legal and joint physical custody. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I don't believe our statutes are driven that way at this time.

     DOUGHERTY: What you're saying is, you believe if that's there at the top, that the trial......

     RAYPER: That takes away some of the incentive for the lawyers, and there are good lawyers, and there are bad lawyers. I don't question that. I believe that would take away some of the incentive to make these things drawn out, and last as long as they do. Again, I had the ability to pursue this.

     DOUGHERTY: Yes, Senator Bentley, then Representative Hollingsworth.

     BENTELY: Yesterday, we heard testimony. I can't remember which witness it was, but, that in almost every state that had put mandated rebuttable presumption, that joint legal and physical custody was preferable, have now repealed that, and, we heard a lot of testimony that things be looked at, individually, and on a case-by-case basis. I just wanted to make that point, because that's in my line, and also, I looked up the statute. I think this might be the section. It says prior to awarding the appropriate custody arrangement in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider each of the following. Joint custody to both parents which shall not be denied solely for the reason that one parent opposes the joint custody award. So, it doesn't really get....

     RAYPER: That implies legal custody.

     BENTLEY: It doesn't really say legal or physical. But, it does say joint custody is the number one preference, as the law is currently written.

     RAYPER: It would be interesting to review those studies and try to find out why. You know, at a surface level, one would assume that if you take away some of the potential for acrimony, the cost would go down. If you have two very hard-headed individuals, as I and I my ex-wife were, and you end up getting two hard-headed attorneys, that lends itself to that, and I might add, we did try mediation and that was not all successful, and I have my opinions on that particular process, too. We did try that.

     DOUGHERTY: Representative Hollingsworth.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Thank you. Professor, your three-year divorce, did it center solely around this custody dispute or were there other issues involved?

     RAYPER: Oh, no. There were other issues. My ex-wife was seeking maintenance or alimony. She was seeking that. The primary issue, though, was the removal of myself as an active and involved parent to my child.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: And, simply because she objected. You're saying you had to go through, yourself, to prove that you were responsible enough to share in the parenting.

     RAYPER: Very true. Two statements that were made to me by my ex-wife, again, I was naive. I thought we're good parents. We're both good parents. This will work out fine, until we were talking, without the aid of the lawyers, between ourselves what's best for our child. I referred to her as her daughter. My ex-wife said, I will not refer to her as our daughter. I will only refer to her as my daughter. You may refer to her however you wish. So, first shock there. I had brought up about three weekends out of four, and eight weeks or so in the summer, without going to court. She looked me straight in the eye and said it would take a court order before you'll ever see her that long. She stated that my mother was good for me. I'm good enough for our child, and that's when I started the research, and it became, yes, I was obsessed with it, by nature, an academic and all, I have the obsessive compulsive personality traits and I don't apologize for that. They're traits. Everybody has those, and I had that held me against for doing the research. I am not naive. It's a very complex situation. I certainly would appreciate any thing that our state could do make the situation better. I wished it could be gender neutral. I wish we could always put the best interest of our children first, but we're people. We're human, and other factors come into play.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Mr. Rayper, one other question about relocation. The committee is struggling, we have struggled in the past with trying to determine whether a custodial or non-custodial want to relocate within the state of Missouri, and it causes an undue hardship of the custody arrangement. When your, I'm assuming you stayed in Rolla and she went to Farmington?

     RAYPER: She went to Potosi, then Farmington, that day, immediately.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Upon filing?

     RAYPER: No, upon leaving. The filing was maybe two weeks after she left. She left October 6, 1993, and went to her parent's house in Potosi.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: So, the issue of relocation was not an issue for you in your divorce?

     RAYPER: It was not a point in fighting it. That situation was already established and we both had a situation, I'm here, she's there, what's the best co-parenting relationship, including the time shared, and a point I want to make, when I say joint legal and joint custody, joint physical custody does not imply shared 50/50. That can occur among a wide variety of parenting plans, and as I said, if you saw mine, if you knew what we did in the first three years, prior to, you'd be amazed. I understand some people think that means straight 50/50. It does not and should not mean that.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Mr. RATper, what if your former wife wanted to move to Kennett, Missouri?

     RAYPER: In our particular situation, there's a clause, and there's a debate on whether it has a - it's enforceable. We have 110-mile restriction, either way, that if one of us moves, that we would try to resolve it without going back to court, and we also have a clause in our decree to try to use a retired judge in Salem, as a mediator, or as a reconciler, something of that nature. We have that clause in there.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: You have 110 miles?

     RAYPER: About 110 miles, because the judge, Judge Haslag felt that that would allow my ex-wife to either go to St. Louis or to Cape Girardeau. She's a writer, paper writer, so forth, so that would allow that. Yes, I would probably pursue a change in the....

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Or try to prohibit the move?

     RAYPER: Well, I guess it would depend. My first step would be, okay, let's see how this affects us. Can we still have some reasonable co-parenting situations in terms of time share? I would hope that we would look at what would be the best situation for Shelby, to the point where would I be in a better position for Shelby to be going to school with me versus her mother, all those situations. You cannot break it down to black and white, but if it went beyond that and we couldn't agree to it, I would seek remedy through the court.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: One other comment, briefly. We heard from a parent, I think, last session who traveled two hours, I think it was, one way, to pick up their children for holidays or weekends, and this parent indicated that sometimes that was the best time that they had with their child, because it was so quality and it's one-on-one, basically, and you get to catch up on what's happened, what's been going on. How your visits? When you're traveling back and forth, is that really good time for you? Is it a big hassle and a big pain?

     RAYPER: There's no question. It's probably 12,000-14,000 miles a year to do that, every Wednesday, and we alternate the pick-up. I pick her up. Her mother picks her up. I have a whole case full of tapes. We sing. We joke. We're very jovial. Lot of educational process, in term of trees, this that and the other, of teaching. So, no, you can't question that. I don't particularly like doing it, but we've gained a great deal, both Shelby and I, and that also makes her more flexible in the situation. So, it does not prohibit our parenting relationship at all.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Thank you.

     DOUGHERTY: Representative Smith.

     SMITH: I want to, first of all, say I admire you for doing that research, and I think that - I wish that we could get more information to more people the way you went and dug it out yourself, because I think that's the best thing that you could have done, was so that you have some knowledge and some basis from which to negotiate.

     I guess, you know, I have some question as to your remarks about having to spend that kind of money. Really, realizing full well that lawyers probably charge too much money, but, if you want professional advise, and when you're sick, you go to a doctor, and you pay for professional advice, and the University hires you because you're a professor. They don't go out and say, well, we'll just take Joe Schmoe off the street here and let him teach at the University of Missouri at Rolla, and so they pay you for your expertise, and I guess my comment to you is, weren't you paying for the expertise of that lawyer and those people that you had come testify?

     RAYPER: Sure. There's no question. I don't deny that. We're professionals. You're professionals. We have occupations, all of us. We should be compensated accordingly. It just doesn't seem like the right situation. I don't know the answers to it. I don't know all the solutions to it. I guess I wish....

     SMITH: I mean, if you went in there and represented yourself, you could have done it, obviously, because you did a whole lot of research, and you knew the law and so on, but the average person who goes into court, she's going to represent herself and he's going to represent himself, it's probably going to take longer than a week to try the case before a judge, because of all the extraneous stuff that may come in. I mean, you need some kind of guidance.

     RAYPER: That's not a feasible solution, but, what do you call it, pro se, some mechanism for that would be, I think it should be considered. How it would work, I don't know. No, two people, two laymen can't do that. You have to have the legal representation.

     CASKEY: Thank you, very much, for appearing today. We appreciate you coming.

     Marilyn Gibson: