VIEWPOINTS
Saturday, June 18, 2022
East Oregonian
A5
DEAN
RIDDINGS
OTHER VIEWS
The time
to support
local news
is now
C
ongress has an opportunity to
pass legislation that benefits
all local citizens, businesses
and even protects our democracy.
The Local Journalism Sustainabil-
ity Act, LJSA for short, should be
included as part of any upcoming
reconciliation bill that Congress is
considering.
The LJSA is a well-thought-
out bill that would provide needed
support to local news organiza-
tions, including local newspapers,
to ensure their viability as they
continue to make progress toward a
digital future.
Many members of Congress have
seen what happens when a newspa-
per closes in their district, and they
see the impact it has on the commu-
nity. That is why many of our lead-
ers, including Sens. Maria Cantwell,
Chuck Schumer, Joe Manchin, Ron
Wyden and others have stepped up
in support of the LJSA. And while
others in Congress may not have
signed on as cosponsors of the bill
yet, many recognize the importance
and the need to maintain strong local
news organizations in their commu-
nities.
To understand what the LJSA is,
it is important to understand what it
is not. This is a temporary measure
to help newspapers at this critical
time, and it sunsets after five years.
The LJSA won’t help national news
organizations, but it will support
local news organizations and help
them invest in their newsrooms in
order to continue to cover the issues
that impact local cities and towns.
The result is a bill that provides a
bridge for local newspapers as they
continue to evolve their business
models.
So why is it so critical for
Congress to pass the LJSA now?
Quite simply, the future of local
newspapers in many areas of the
country hangs in the balance. In the
past 15 years, more than a quarter
of all newspapers have disappeared,
and many more have been forced
to make staff reductions that have
diminished the coverage of topics
that impact local citizens. The way
people get their information and
advertise their local businesses is
quickly moving to digital, and local
newspapers continue to be impacted
by the Big Tech companies that use
their original content without fair
compensation. To make matters
worse, newspapers, like many other
industries, were financially impacted
by the pandemic, even though the
coverage provided by local newspa-
pers was more vital than ever.
The current economic challenges
have only hastened the need for
Congress to act on the LJSA quickly.
As inflation is impacting everyone, it
has made the environment for local
newspapers even more challenging.
The cost of retaining employees has
gone up. The cost of newsprint has
increased 30% from last year, and
the cost of gas used to deliver the
newspaper is up more than 50% in
the past two years. Many newspa-
per carriers drive hundreds and even
thousands of miles each week. These
increases have driven many local
newspapers closer to making further
reductions or even ceasing opera-
tions.
Who wins with the passage of
the Local Journalism Sustainabil-
ity Act? Clearly, local newspapers
win by obtaining the support needed
to continue their investments in
reporting on local news. But the real
winners are the communities that
keep their local newspaper. From
watching the actions of local govern-
ment, reporting on the state of local
schools, tracking local health trends
or providing the latest restaurant
reviews and sales information, local
newspapers keep a community
connected and informed.
We encourage everyone to
reach out to their representatives in
Congress and ask them to support
local journalism. Whether it is inclu-
sion of the LJSA in the budget recon-
ciliation bill, or a stand-alone bill,
the time for action is now. It’s a rare
opportunity for government to act on
something that benefits us all.
———
Dean Riddings is CEO of Amer-
ica’s Newspapers, an association
committed to explaining, defending
and advancing the vital role of news-
papers in democracy and civil life.
The difference between custody and parenting time
BLAINE
CLOOTEN
ASK A LAWYER
Q: My soon to be ex-wife and I are going
through a divorce, and I want to fight for
custody of our two children. When we
were together, I feel like we took equal
care of the children, although most of our
marriage she was a stay-at-home mom.
We’ve been living separately since October
of 2021, and since then we haven’t really
followed a set parenting plan. I get to see
the children most weekends and some-
times during the week. I just don’t think
it’s fair that my ex should automatically get
custody, just because she’s the “mom.”
A: You’ve included some great infor-
mation that I need, but there are a couple of
important questions still outstanding. I’m
going to do my best to frame this answer
based on the information provided.
When you ask about custody, usually
people mean custody and parenting time.
For purposes of this column, I’m only
going to talk about custody. It’s useful to
understand the legal difference between
the two.
When you think about custody, think
about decision making. The most common
situations for decision making and custody
come about through the following: school,
religion and major medical decisions.
When there is a disagreement between the
parents on one of these issues, the custodial
parent is the decider.
Let’s take some examples. One parent
wants to homeschool the children and the
other parent wants them to go to private
school. The legal custodial parent gets to
decide.
Typically, custody is either sole (one
parent decides) or joint custody (deci-
sions shared between both parents). If
the parents start out with joint custody
and are not able to get along on important
decisions, one parent may file to modify
custody to be determined sole custodian.
In your case, the court has not yet made
a custody decision, so we are not attempt-
ing to modify custody, which has its own
set of considerations.
Most of the law on custody is contained
in one statute. One thing that statute says
is “No preference in custody shall be given
to the mother over the father for the sole
reason that she is the mother …” So in this
sense, the court should not give a prefer-
ence to your soon-to-be ex simply because
she is the “mom.”
The court considers certain “factors”
when deciding who will get custody. The
primary consideration for the judge during
custody cases is what is the best interests
and welfare of the child. Keep in mind,
this is not what is in the best interests of
the parents, the state, society or the court.
Only the child(ren).
Factors considered in determining
custody of child.
(a) The emotional ties between the child
and other family members.
(b) The interest of the parties in and atti-
tude toward the child.
© The desirability of continuing an
existing relationship.
(d) The abuse of one parent by the other.
(e) The preference for the primary
caregiver of the child, if the caregiver is
deemed fit by the court.
(f) And the willingness and ability of
each parent to facilitate and encourage a
close and continuing relationship between
the other parent and the child. However,
the court may not consider such willing-
ness and ability if one parent shows that
the other parent has sexually assaulted or
engaged in a pattern of behavior of abuse
against the parent or a child and that a
continuing relationship with the other
parent will endanger the health or safety of
either parent or the child.
When looking at these factors, the court
doesn’t look at any one factor in isolation.
If a parent has committed abuse there is a
rebuttable presumption that it is not in the
best interests and welfare of the child to
award sole or joint custody of the child to
the parent who committed the abuse.
Typically, the court considers these
factors under a current analysis and/or a
recent analysis. The term primary care-
giver (or primary parent) usually refers to
the parent who has provided more care for
the child and with whom the child has lived
a majority of his or her recent life. All other
factors being relatively equal, considerable
weight is given to which parent has been
the primary caretaker.
The primary parent is the parent who
handles (or who has handled) most of the
decision-making and caretaking of the
child. In some situations, there is no clear-
cut primary parent, because the parents
divide the parenting duties approximately
equally. In that case, the court will turn
to the other factors to determine the best
interests of the child.
Therefore, the parents’ behavior as
parents prior to the custody case as well
as their behavior during the pendency of
the case largely determines who will be
granted sole legal custody.
Custody and parenting time are compli-
cated areas of the law. Please talk to an
attorney to discuss your options and decide
the best way to move forward in your
particular case.
———
Blaine Clooten is an attorney serving
Umatilla County with a focus on family law,
estate planning and personal injury cases.
Questions answered do not create an attor-
ney-client relationship. Facts and law may
vary; talk to an attorney for more information.
Oregon congressmen should explain their votes
GERRY
O’BRIEN
OTHER VIEWS
O
regon U.S. Reps. Kurt Schrader,
a Democrat, and Cliff Bentz, a
Republican, both voted to oppose
passage of one of two gun regulation bills
in the aftermath of the mass shootings in
Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York.
We still don’t know what their reasons
are. Neither have responded to requests
from the media for an explanation. That’s
unconscionable. Their employers, the citi-
zens of Oregon, should demand and get
answers.
We suspect, especially in Bentz’ case,
that he voted along party lines as he has so
often done. Schrader, too, has sided with
the Republicans from time to time, but has
explained those votes, too.
Public officials often clam up when
they do something that may be perceived
as controversial. It’s a sad commentary on
how accountability has taken a back seat in
the public sector.
According to Oregon Capital reporter
Peter Wong, Schrader and Maine’s Jared
Golden were the only Democrats to join 202
Republicans to oppose a bill (HR 7910) to
raise the minimum age to 21 for purchase of
a semi-automatic weapon — both shooters
in Uvalde and Buffalo were 18 when they
bought their military-style guns legally.
East Oregonian, File
U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Ontario, holds a town hall meeting June 7, 2021, in Pendleton. Bentz
and Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Oregon City, voted against two gun regulation bills in the after-
math of the mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York.
The bill also would outlaw high-capacity
magazines, require background checks for
purchases of ghost guns that bear no regis-
tration numbers, strengthen requirements
for safe storage of firearms and close a loop-
hole for bump stocks, which are devices that
allow for more rapid fire by semi-automatic
weapons, Wong wrote.
The issue may be moot, as the bill passed
largely along party lines but is expected
to die in the evenly divided Senate, where
some Democrats and Republicans have
been negotiating more modest changes.
At the very least, both men need to
explain their votes to their constituents.
———
Gerry O’Brien is the editor of The Bulle-
tin in Bend.