[ekm]100x100[ekm].jpg)
« Happy Valentine's Day | Main | Tennessee Democrat Uses Law He Created To Lower His Own Child Support Obligation »
February 14, 2005
Fathers' Rights Activists In Iowa Unhappy With Joint Custody Law
[I received this from a family law mailing list. It comes from a fathers' rights mailing list that will go unnamed. I've edited it to delete links and fix spelling and grammatical errors. Fathers' rights activists all over the web had crowed when Iowa's presumptive joint custody law had passed, but it seems that the law has no teeth. Other states that have had these laws, like California, have turned them back after they find that presumptive joint custody has harmed children and doesn't take existing childrearing patterns between parents into account. Presumptive joint custody does not force warring parents to work together for the sake of the children. In fact, three years later, those families are in worse shape than when joint custody was forced upon them. Children end up the biggest losers. Women's groups in Iowa have fought the presumptive joint custody law.]
Dear Members,
2005 may shape up to be a very important year for all of us. Since HF22 was signed into law in July 2004 we have seen little consistency in the results for requested joint physical care. Some judges are standing behind the new legislation and some are completely against it. We will be busy this year. In the past our focus has been convincing legislation to support much needed changes in our child custody rulings. This year we will be working with legislation and applying pressure to the court system. Part of the pressure may lie in revisions to the HF22 bill that will include the use of parenting agreements and intent language from legislation both of which will strengthen our bill. I would personally like the bill to include a change of circumstance but that may or may not be advisable. As soon as we have the details ironed out I'll get them to you.
The court system is another matter. Judges are not elected officials and they are very hard to get to ($$$) when they are up for retention. We placed information on the [link deleted] web site to encourage you and the public to start campaigning against those judges who wish to buck the system. We haven't had much participation with the "Campaign for Judicial Reform" and the results could prove costly for those in the future who want more time spent with their children. Litigation is in the way and we must stand up against the old way of ruling, win/lose.
I recently made some changes to the [deletia] site to encourage more of you to write about the judge in your case and as I stressed then they are checking into this site to see if there names are highlighted. The courts are not used to accountability and we are the ones who can do that and do it with great success, but it won't happen at the rate we are going.
A second change to the site to encourage activity on the site is for you the public to share your general views about the child custody process and what needs to be changed. If we have a lot of activity with that then I can direct the legislation to the site so they can see your concerns and suggestions. Big plus!!
Example: I think the courts fail to represent the children involved. If the courts haven't figured that out after all these years then legislation needs to look at others, more qualified to handle divorce with the true best interest of children at mind. Mediation is an excellent new option and it should be pursued!
Third, use the process the state gives you, file complaints against the judges and attorneys who took your children away and ran you into bankruptcy. This has been around for years and gets used very seldom. Below is a recent article about just that, filing complaints.
Its time to get active and show the courts they can no longer hide behind the robe.
Posted on February 14, 2005 at 09:52 AM | Permalink
Comments
Great, I hope these children don't lose one more day without their dads. Good for them. I hope it works out. Children need both parents.
Posted by: carri at May 18, 2005 7:34:51 AM
Thanks for the supportive comment, carri. Funny how joint custody is "forced" only when the mother doesn't want it. By this logic, child support is "forced". And why shouldn't it be?
What women's groups routinely fail to point out about presumptive joint custody is A) The presumption, while affecting burden of proof, does not automatically mean joint custody is awarded and B) States with such statues routinely make joint legal and joint physical custody seperate matters for the court to consider. The "best interest" standard still exists.
If joint physical custody isn't logistically onerous for a child, I don't see any reason why some form of it should not occur, at least after the tender years have ended. Sure, 50-50 might be onerous in itself, but non-custodial parents, most of them men, deserve more than four lousy days a month. Most of us men aren't vindictive psychos, no matter what the Second Wave would have women believe and we should have a right to the benefit of the doubt in child-rearing. Anything less is plainly punitive.
Posted by: DP in SF at May 18, 2005 12:24:02 PM
I am all for the joint custody of parents. As a grandparent who has had trouble with my daughter-in-law, I know I will fight with every ounce of energy I have for my son's rights to have equal custody.
GO DADS
Posted by: Gloria Herman at Jul 20, 2005 3:50:12 PM
"If joint physical custody isn't logistically onerous for a child, I don't see any reason why some form of it should not occur, at least after the tender years have ended."
The problem is that ONCE it becomes law you cannot exclude infants from it...and the bottom line is for children past 10 years old or so, it's practically impossible to enforce this Joint Physical custody anyway. So when the back and forth becomes too much for them, generally they can get it ended.
So if an old kid doesn't want to do it, basically it can be stopped.
BUT younger kids, especially babies, DO NOT have a voice in this.
So why should mothers and infants be separated due this experiment in social engineering???
Posted by: NYMOM at Jul 20, 2005 4:40:13 PM
I am an unwed father. According to my attorney I'm about to lose my fight to have Shared physical custody of my son. Before he was born I asked the mom if I could raise him and was turned down. He was born and again I asked to raise him... and again turned down. I have paid an attorney to help me win at least shared physical custody. He has now told me that it is not going to happen becuase it is not being awarded anywhere in Story county Iowa.
His mom will allow me the state mandated bare minimum visitation. Give me one reason why it is so socially acceptable to tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to at least share time with my son? My attorney has plenty of reasons as to why it's a waste of time and money to try to get shared physical custody. I have yet to hear one legitimate reason as to how it's best for my son to spend a majority of his time with his mom. I'm his father, I want to be his father, don't force him to only get to spend time with me on the weekends.
To those mom's who disagree all I can say is either your childs father must be a bad guy, or you are too selfish to ever realize that the only reason thier father doesn't take more of an active role is because society won't allow it.
Good work on the new legislation. Good luck on getting the courts to actually care about kids. That would take too much work and too much state money cause too many Dad's actually want to have thier children.
Posted by: Meyerring at Aug 16, 2005 10:49:54 PM
TO NYMOM -
Why should Fathers and Infants be separated? Please, drop this idiotic mantra that mother's are better and should raise the children soley.
In a situation where divorcing or non-married parents have an infant, it is in the best interests of the child to have daily contact with both parents. As long as no physical harm or domestic abuse is an issue, then both fathers and mothers need to have contact daily with infants. It is in their best interests. Unfortunately, mothers look out for their interests in refusing to allow share physical care of their children regardless of age and the courts have sadly maintained a 1950's attitude toward fathers.
Posted by: Thomas at Sep 28, 2005 2:54:10 PM
To Meyerring:
I am in Polk County Iowa and I am unfortunately going to trial because my ex refuses to agree to joint physical care of my 7 year old son. She says she can't and will never be able to communicate with me so Joint won't work. She doesn't really give any clear reason. Just that Communication is a problem. We talk almost everyday about logistical issues without problem and only have had two fundamental disagreements about issues related to LEGAL custody. In my temporary agreement, I have my son nearly 50-50 (we split every other Wednesday) except that I have my son 2 days less per month than her. The bright side, I get a 25% reduction in Child Support. Big deal. She makes all the spending decisions.
I hear what you say about the lawyers and judges. Your lawyer is wrong. The law is quite clear. Your child's Mother would have to provide the Judge in your case with specific findings of fact that shared care is not in your child's best interests. Even though the law does not compel a judge to issue Joint Care, it does say may grant joint care, and refusal to grant this share care must be backed up wtih refusal with specific findings of fact that show it is not in the Child's best interest.
Your lawyer is probably saying to you, get as much time with your child as possible, that's as good as 50-50. No it isn't. Don't buy it. Period. She could move across country and you have no control. It's also fundamentally not in the best interests of the Child.
I recommend that you push forward. Your child needs you in his/her life and you clearly care. I dropped one lawyer and switched to another because he did not get it. My new attorney simply does what I tell him, or he's out. Take control, I did. Attorney's still want dads to fight the battle for sole physical care like a fight fire with fire approach (which father's will end up losing), or settle in mediation for as much "Visitiation" as they can get and get that 25% reduction in child support if you can for additional visition nights.
But....
A father's best legal strategy is to petition the Iowa County Court for Joint Physical Care with the Mother. (That's in the best interests of the child anyway). This forces the opposing parent (usually the Mother) to have to find these specific findings of fact to bring before the court. My first lawyer wouldn't give me the Joint Physical Care Ammendment - here is the link.
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/80GA/Legislation/HF/00000/HF00022/Current.html
The Iowa Law Says "If joint legal custody is awarded to both parents, the court may award joint physical care to both joint custodial parents upon the request of either parent. If the court denies the request for joint physical care, the determination shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the best interests of the child."
I cannot guarantee that the Judge will obey the law. In Polk County I hear the two judges are quite hostile to the idea and may take any lame reason as a reason to not grant the award.
If I lose I will petition the State Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus compelling the Polk County Court to abide by the Law. I will base my request on two fundamental problems with the Polk County process. 1) that the specific findings of fact were not actually sufficient to legally conclude that joint care is not in my son's best interests, and 2) that the Polk Co. Bar Family Law Committee's list of criteria is in violation of my equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution and should not be admissible to the Court (Story County may have something similar, I don't know). The process that I must go through to find these "findings of facts" in Polk County Iowa are clearly in violation of my Constitutional rights. Determinations of various criteria are used and reviewed by a social worker, counselor, or psychiatrist who is given the task to work on the process. Each one will view issues differently and come to very different conclusions. This process leading up to the actual adjudication is arbitrary and capricious.
Don't give up. Here is the Iowa Court of Appeals in affirmation of Joint Physical Care awarded to two unmarried parents still living with or relying heavily on their respective parents. Some good stuff for someone like you. These were, probably legal adults, but maybe 18 - 20 from the way it sounds. The Mother appealed the Pottawatamie Court's decision to grant joint physical care to the Iowa Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court upheld the County Court's decision. The Mother lost. Read the Court's ruling. Salmons v Booher 2005
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/appeals/opinions/20050209/04-0733.asp
This legal precedent should help your case. But you are also likely in a case like mine, where the mother simply refuses to want to cooperate. Makes you feel like, "then why should I be punished?" Of course it does. Ask the Court to compel her to work with you. That would be in the child's best interest. You are not asking for anything more than you are willing to give. In my case, I now have a year long track-record of cooperating on a nearly 50-50 basis. I feel strongly that I will win. I am also trying to argue my case so that it helps to set a precedent for other cases.
Good luck and show this Pottawatamie Court Case to your attorney. He needs to pay attention. The Custody Battle Game is not the same anymore.
By the way. Contact the organization that does the Children in the Middle Class for divorcing parents in Ames. In Des Moines it is Mercy Hospital. It is required by State Law. I was given a pink booklet written by two child psychiatrists who state that Judges are mistaken to believe children having two homes is bad for them. It's actually worse for them to be shuffled every other weekend to a home that is not really theirs. They also note the need for both parents to share in physical care even when the child is an infant and toddler. It's good stuff and part of the State of Iowa's message to divorcing parents. So, your honor, is the State of Iowa wrong?
Also, send a letter to Governor Tom Vilsack. His office will reply with a very good letter showing you his intent by signing the law. It is also good evidence to submit to help your case.
GOOD LUCK!
Posted by: Thomas at Sep 28, 2005 3:08:58 PM
"...He was born and again I asked to raise him..."
Oh and just like that she should hand over a child that she carried withn her body for nine months and bonded with...
Sweated blood to delivery him for anywhere from 10 hours to two days and now YOU just 'asked to raise him" after contribuing what exactly? About 2 minutes to inseminate her. Yet you feel it's fine to expect her to just hand her child over, just like that..
Well good luck on that one...you've got an awful lot of nerve...
Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 28, 2005 7:03:57 PM
"Why should fathers and infants be separated."
Because if you are not married to or living with the child's mother a decision must be made about who that child is going to spend most of their time with...and since in every species, including our own, young infants spend MOST of their time with their mothers, we are not going to throw history, biology and plain common sense out the window now because men have decided they wish to embark on some grand social engineering experiment with children.
This is an an infant we're talking about, not a puppy who can just be passed aronrd back and forth taking his basket and a few toys to each residence. As long as he has food and water in his dish and a dry place to sleep, he's as happy as a lark...
Okay...
Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 28, 2005 7:10:38 PM
"A father's best legal strategy is to petition the Iowa County Court for Joint Physical Care with the Mother. (That's in the best interests of the child anyway)."
No it isn't...
It's in YOUR best interest so you can pay 25% less child support. You only mentioned that about 4 or 5 times in your reply but of course, it's not important is it...
Some would say you and this other fellow sound like a pair of stingy cheapskates...
Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 28, 2005 7:16:35 PM
Thomas, you spend your first paragraph griping about your ex, and talking about the "bright side" of getting your child support reduced. It's clear what your motives are. All your "strategy" is going to result in are high legal fees for you and your ex. Your "strategy" may also be considered harassment. The kind of tactics you propose are not in the best interests of the child. They are in the best interests of men who are not the primary caregivers of their children. They engage in those types of harassing tactics in order to keep their ex-wives in court over and over, and they do it to get a lower child support order. It's all about power and control. You are no exception. You have no interest in getting along with your ex. You are only concerned with "winning".
Keep in mind that although Iowa passed a presumption for joint physical custody, judges aren't necessarily abiding by it. A presumption for joint physical custody benefits only men who would otherwise be noncustodial fathers because they were not the primary caregivers of their children. It is definitely not child-centered.
Posted by: The Countess at Sep 28, 2005 7:26:12 PM
What a crass load of BS. Women are after the child support. Men, who according to statistics, earn more than women, will likely pay child support in a joint physical care relationship. Of course, there are cases when the female earns more income and the reverse would be true. Joint Physical Care takes the issue of who pays child support and how much out of the equation. Period. Child Support becomes simply an equitable mandate based on the income differential between the two divorcing parents. And that is fair.
NYMOM. Get out of the cave. We are not animals, and men need no longer hunt for food and stand guard for protection while you tend to the children. You like to have it both ways. Oh, daddy, you didn't do anything to bring this child in to the world so you can't see him. Just pay up. Why. Go it alone if we don't matter.
You didn't read my email very closely. A 25% reduction comes with a better visition schedule, not Joint Physical Care. You don't even know the damn law.
You care only about you and your bond to the child. Not about the Child's need, both long and short term, to bond with both parents. Your arrogance is that you feel a child's bond to a father is unimportant. You put your personal bias, man-hating ideology, above the best interests of the child. You unreasonable hypocrite.
A man asking for Joint Physical Care asks for no more than he is willing to give. Your mendacity is amazing.
It is in the best Legal Interests of Iowa Father's to tell their lawyers to go to hell and file for Joint Physical Care. Iowa's Bar Assocation and Iowa's County Bar Associations are hostile to the new law because it would make the vast majority of divorce cases and custody battles easier to settle. And that's not good for the pocket books of divorce lawyers. Period.
Get over your feminist arrogance. You demand alot. Men who wish to share custodial rights and care for their children ask for no more than they are willing to give. And when it comes to the fairness and equitable nature of child support in a joint care relationship, it is just that. Fair and equitable. That is not true when a parent with "visitation" (how insulting a term) must pay child support.
Countess, it's time to get over your falacious comment at the start of this string that the new Iowa 50-50 law is causing harm. Cases are upholding the Joint Physical Care law on appeal as we speak...and, for the most part, it is father's who are being given due process and equal protection under the law when it comes to custody rights. And I can assure you that my son will be so much better maximizing his time with both of his parents.
Posted by: at Oct 3, 2005 3:44:15 PM
Countess:
So, you think that all men who have to fight for custody rights were bad fathers? Didn't take care of their children? What a load.
Men who did not nor continue to care for their children are not being given custodial responsibility, even under this law. Such lack of parenting by the father would be considered a "specific finding of fact" and the judge can rule for the mother...legally. Under this law, a mother who simply refuses to share custody can't get away with it.
I was and continue to be a fantastic care-giver to my son. But that doesn't mean I am not forced to fork over legal fees and go to court. I am not the harrasser...I am being harrassed. I have asked for Joint Physical from day one. I have gotten every measure of harrassment from her attorney, they have attempted to scare me by making me spend money until I am broke...all to intimidate me and get me to "settle." I am not taking one thing away from my son's mother. In fact, I will likely pay more in child care expenses because not only wiill I have to pay child support since I earn slightly more, but I will now have to pay for half his clothes, school lunches, day care, medical bill, etc. A father with visitation simply hands over a check and pays for nothing else. This is not about money. It's about having the role of caretaker in your child's life. For both parents.
Even good dad's have to fight for their rights. Iowa's law is working and those judges who put forth shabby anti-50-50 rulings are now seeing their rulings over-turned on appeal.
I am not harrassing anyone. I would have preferred to have simply begun to share care with my ex from day one and never waste money on rediculous legal wrangling. She is harrassing me. Period.
Posted by: Thomas Rial at Oct 3, 2005 4:10:06 PM
Custody should not be about what is "fair" for men. It should be about what is best for children. Every study out there has shown that children do not fare well in joint custody situations when there is conflict between the parents. Beyond that, children must contend with interferences with their personal schedules, their ability to handle the shunting back and forth between two homes, and their general ability (or lack thereof) to deal with joint custody. Custody arrangements should not be about a vaguely defined "equality" between men and women but what is in the best interests of the child. Most parents on their own don't choose joint custody, and it would not be right for states and courts to unilaterally order joint custody against their wishes, to affect all parents just to please a minority of angry men who demand it. A cookie cutter approach doesn't work, and it does not take individual family dynamics into consideration. Each family should be looked at on an individual basis. The form of custody that is appropriate for each one should be the one selected. When parents and children are able to handle joint custody and want to try it, by all means they should. It shouldn't be ordered when it is inappropriate.
Posted by: The Countess at Oct 3, 2005 4:33:19 PM
Countess...you are wrong. You need to read the research a bit more. Children have far worse problems shuttling to an every other weekend home than if they have two places to call home. My son has toys, clothes here and at his mom's. If I had him everyother weekend, then we would be shuttling a bag back and forth. You know very well that children exhibit far more self-esteem problems when fathers do not have an active role in their upbringing.
This is not about equity. Its about maximizing the time spent with each parent for the CHILD's sake. Which IS about the children. You just don't get it.
Your right. It isn't good for kids to be put in the middle of parents who are not able to maturely communicate. But that is true regardless of the custodial arrangement and you know it. It is absurd for women to cry wolf and claim they just can't communicate with their ex as a way to stop joint physical care. In some cases its warrented. In my case and in many others it is an absolute sham. Women seeking revenge or spite. Women thinking they know better what is best for their children. Women wanting a maintenance check to spend as they please. All of this instead of sharing in the raising of a child.
That child may have been in your womb. But you brought the child into a world where you demanded a father to help raise the child. You can't demand it during marriage and then turn around and say its not important if the marriage goes through a dissolution. Get off your high horse. Stop harrassing men. Stop damning men for wanting to be in the lives of their child. I have on my witness list 6 women who would have loved to have had me as their ex. They raised kids whose father was absent because he chose to be. A once a month check is not what single mothers need to raise a child. They need the other parent to help.
Take the battle over child support out of most divorces and you will see alot more cooperation among divorcing spouses. And two people able to get on with their new lives quicker.
Stop the double-speak and hypocracy.
Posted by: Thomas at Oct 3, 2005 5:49:00 PM
There are no studies that show that children "have far worse problems shuttling to an every other weekend home than if they have two places to call home." In fact, the opposite is true. Dr. Judith Wallerstein, who is one of the pioneers regarding the study of joint custody who has studied it for over thirty years, found that the children's needs are often ignored when people talk in favor of presumptive joint custody. Joint custody asks a lot of children. It is harmful to children who cannot handle the restrictive schedule. Many of them cannot handle the shunting back and forth between homes very well. They also must keep track of which home they are to be in on a given day, which is stressful for them. They lose track of their friends, and their extracurricular activities suffer when parents pay too much attention to when the children are to be with them. They miss birthday parties, sleep-overs, and evening school activities because their parents are too concerned with the joint custody schedule. Many children like to join theatre groups, bands, and sporting events that are unfairly subjected to the joint custody schedule, where their parents focus more on when the children are supposed to be with them, than on what their children would like to do with their own time.
In the cases where joint custody has worked, the families had these qualities in common: the parents had an amicable relationship, their divorce was amicable with little or no conflict, they had higher-than-average incomes, they had only one child, neither parent (especially the father) had remarried, they lived within close proximity of each other, they had flexible job schedules, the child could handle the joint custody arrangement, and the parents chose freely between themselves to try joint custody and they chose to make it work.
Joint custody is no panacea. It should not be ordered in a cookie cutter fashion across the board to affect all parents.
Posted by: The Countess at Oct 3, 2005 5:54:57 PM
By the way, I didn't hear one thing in your comment that actually related to what is best for children, except for some lip service in your second paragraph. You talk about "women who cry wolf [...], women who cannot communicate with their ex (as if men never have a problem communicating with their ex's) [...], women seeking revenge or spite. Women thinking they know better what is best for their children. Women wanting a maintenance check to spend as they please." You cite your own case as an example, which shows that there is conflict in your own case. Your main concern seems to be women seeking revenge or spite, etc., not what is really best for children. This issue is not about men or women want for themselves. It is about what is best for children, and only under certain conditions will joint custody work well for children. It should not be ordered in a cookie cutter fashion across the board to affect all families. Each family should be looked at on an individual basis to determine which form of custody is best for them and their children. If they choose joint custody, more power to them. If they do not want it, or if one parent does not want it, it should not be forced on them out of some weak obligation to be "fair" to fathers.
Posted by: The Countess at Oct 3, 2005 6:07:31 PM
That's right. What is in the best interests of the child. Not the mother. I am not advocating for a second that Father's should take away children from mother's (unless its warranted).
If joint care won't work the court is not forced to give it by Iowa law. But if they deny it when one spouse has actually "officially" requested it, the judge must site specific findings of fact that caused sole custody to be given to one or the other parent. Usually the mother. Nothing is tying any judge to granting care to one parent or to both. But they better have good reasons as to why they didn't grant joint care. This will force parents who "just don't want to work with the other" to grow up, accept the new situation and move on to raise the children.
Obviously it is about what's in the child's best interest. Joint Care isn't ordered across the board under Iowa law. It's not even the starting point unless specifically requested. Parents can still fight it out for who is better. Women, however, win regardless 90% of the time. But I guess you think 90% of fathers are indeed bad. Iowa law does not force joint care. But, it does force the courts to do more than what has been the easy way to deal with custody. Give the kids to the mother.
Why are you so afraid of co-parenting on an equal footing. No one's rights above the other. Don't give me hogwash about a child's personal schedule. Don't you think that every-other-weekend dad's don't have to adhere to the kids' baseball or soccer schedules? Brownies or cub scout events on his weekend? You can never get away from a need to co-parent regardless of the kid's schedule.
The new Iowa law gives men equal footing with women. At least now you have to prove we are bad for our children rather than some rediculous assumption that we are guilty until proven innocent.
Hell, you probably think its ok for women to move out of town or across country to be with there new boyfriend or husband or even to pursue their personal career advancement and take the kids with them and away from dad. Is that in the child's best interest?
If my ex does that having sole care...she is legally able take my son. If we share jointly, neither of us can do that without giving up care to the other. I would never do that to my son anyway.
That is fair to parents and in the best interests of the child.
Enough with this ludicrous presumption that women are better parents in general so it must hold true for all cases before the law.
Total rubbish. And totally anti- what's in the best interests of children.
Saying those words doesn't mean that is what you have in mind.
The Iowa law language is written up above. It doesn't force this down anyones throat and don't damn me for defending my rights to my son in court. It is not in my son's best interest to see me every other weekend or on some other limited vistiation schedule. That's why I am fighting and encourage every guy to fight for the same reason.
So I am a good father and my ex is a good mother. You say she shouldn't be forced to deal with joint custody. So. Should I be punished? Should I get sole care? Should she be an every other weekend mom?
There have been cases in which both parents are great, but neither want to share care. Here in Polk County Iowa a judge order shared care AGAINST both of their wishes. He said, and I agree, "get over it and work together." Now that's in the best interests of the child.
I assume you pick the women in a tie. Right?
Posted by: Thomas at Oct 3, 2005 6:37:18 PM
"What a crass load of BS. Women are after the child support."
Really.
Well I hate to give you the bad news but LONG before western man even thought to invent child support MOTHERS have been raising children in every species and every society, including our own.
So if you want to be honest, fathers wanting to be involved is the new equation here and that just started with the advent of child support guidelines and stricter enforcement...
So it's men behavior that has changed, not women's...
Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 3, 2005 6:42:03 PM
"Take the battle over child support out of most divorces and you will see alot more cooperation among divorcing spouses. And two people able to get on with their new lives quicker."
Fine...
BUT remember who started that battle over child support....MEN trying not to pay it...you want to base child support SOLELY on income. Fine. Actually that's what the PA ruling Colonna vs. Colonna was about essentially.
But quess what: most of the people fighting you on that will be men who do NOT want to pay child support if they get 50/50 custody...as men are STILL the higher earners in most situations and they are NOT willing to go along with child support by income even WITH 50/50 custody for most people...
So you'll see you are wrong...
Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 3, 2005 6:49:57 PM
"I assume you pick the women in a tie. Right?"
Of course, what a silly question.
As God, nature, evolution, whatever PICKED WOMEN as the bearers of life...and thus the female of every species, including our own (with the exception of a few Disney clown fish and other oddities) should have the right, responsiblity and obligation to raise the young they bring forth IF THEY SO CHOSE.
That's the bottom line.
We are not going to be doing all this gender neutralized social engineering because a few radical feminists want an adrogynous society and men would like to pay less child support.
Please get over it...
Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 3, 2005 6:59:31 PM
t? That's right. What is in the best interests of the child. Not the mother. I am not advocating for a second that Father's should take away children from mother's (unless its warranted).
Sure you're not. You just think that "women who cry wolf [...], women who cannot communicate with their ex (as if men never have a problem communicating with their ex's) [...], women seeking revenge or spite. Women thinking they know better what is best for their children. Women wanting a maintenance check to spend as they please." You're position is very clear.
By the way, I never said anything about what is in the best interests of the mother. You did, right here. I've talked only about what is in the best interests of the child. You, on the other hand, talk about appeasing men's demands. You give lip service to children's needs. That's nothing I have not heard before.
Thomas: If joint care won't work the court is not forced to give it by Iowa law. But if they deny it when one spouse has actually "officially" requested it, the judge must site specific findings of fact that caused sole custody to be given to one or the other parent. Usually the mother. Nothing is tying any judge to granting care to one parent or to both. But they better have good reasons as to why they didn't grant joint care. This will force parents who "just don't want to work with the other" to grow up, accept the new situation and move on to raise the children.
Your last sentence is incorrect. From Dr. Judith Wallerstein:
"Only a minority of our families--about 30 percent were able to establish cooperative coparenting relationships. Spousal disengagement, which essentially involved parallel parenting with little communication had become the most common pattern about a quarter of our families remained conflicted at the end of three and a half years."
(Page 277 in Dividing the Child)
From Dr. Paul Amato's "Contact With Non-custodial Fathers and Children's Wellbeing": "In a large California study, Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that joint custody is sometimes used to resolve custody disputes. They found that joint custody was awarded in about one-third of cases in which mothers and fathers had each sought sole custody. And the more legal conflict that occurred between parents, the more likely joint custody was to be awarded. Three and one-half years after separation, these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent. This demonstrates that an award of joint custody does not, in and of itself, improve the relationship between hostile parents. Consequently, it would appear to be undesirable - from the child's perspective - for courts to impose joint custody on unwilling parents."
Thomas: Obviously it is about what's in the child's best interest. Joint Care isn't ordered across the board under Iowa law. It's not even the starting point unless specifically requested. Parents can still fight it out for who is better. Women, however, win regardless 90% of the time. But I guess you think 90% of fathers are indeed bad. Iowa law does not force joint care. But, it does force the courts to do more than what has been the easy way to deal with custody. Give the kids to the mother.
In most cases, courts don't decide that mom gets custody. Women get custody 90% of the time because most cases settle out of court with the parents deciding between themselves that mom should have custody. They decide this because they recognize that mom had done the bulk of the childrearing and childcare from day one, and that it's in the children's best interest for her to continue in that fashion. Most fathers do not want custody, be it sole or joint. Only less than 10% of custody cases must be decided by a judge. In most cases, both parents decide on their own, without legal intervention, that mom will have custody.
Thomas: Why are you so afraid of co-parenting on an equal footing. No one's rights above the other. Don't give me hogwash about a child's personal schedule. Don't you think that every-other-weekend dad's don't have to adhere to the kids' baseball or soccer schedules? Brownies or cub scout events on his weekend? You can never get away from a need to co-parent regardless of the kid's schedule.
What makes you think I'm "afraid of co-parenting on an equal footing"? You can't fool me, Thomas. I recognize "co-parenting" as nothing more than fathers' rights jargon for presumptive joint custody. That has already been proven to be detrimental and inappropriate for most children (see Wallerstein).
Thomas: The new Iowa law gives men equal footing with women. At least now you have to prove we are bad for our children rather than some rediculous assumption that we are guilty until proven innocent.
What makes you think that a man who does not get custody of his children is "bad"? That's your assumption, not mine. The new Iowa law it not being followed because most parents aren't choosing joint custody, and because judges and lawyers see that the cookie cutter approach to custody in ordering joint physical custody for everyone is not in the best interests of children. Fathers' rights activists are angry about that. Let them be angry.
Thomas: Hell, you probably think its ok for women to move out of town or across country to be with there new boyfriend or husband or even to pursue their personal career advancement and take the kids with them and away from dad. Is that in the child's best interest?
Off-topic trolling bashing women. Makes me wonder... did your ex try to move with your son?
Thomas: If my ex does that having sole care...she is legally able take my son. If we share jointly, neither of us can do that without giving up care to the other. I would never do that to my son anyway.
You described what you think about your ex in an earlier comment. You wrote "But that is true regardless of the custodial arrangement and you know it. It is absurd for women to cry wolf and claim they just can't communicate with their ex as a way to stop joint physical care. In some cases its warrented. In my case and in many others it is an absolute sham. Women seeking revenge or spite. Women thinking they know better what is best for their children. Women wanting a maintenance check to spend as they please. " Did your ex cry wolf and claim she can't communicate with you?
Thomas: That is fair to parents and in the best interests of the child.
The fathers' rights slogans supporting "co-parenting" don't fly on my blog. It's not "fair" to anyone, especially children. Presumptive joint physical custody benefits only the fathers who demand it. Don't try to pass that off here as being "fair" to "parents" and "in the best interests of the child". You won't get away with it here.
Thomas: Enough with this ludicrous presumption that women are better parents in general so it must hold true for all cases before the law.
Please quote where I wrote that women are better parents in general so it must hold true for all cases before the law.
Total rubbish. And totally anti- what's in the best interests of children.
You can't get away with this kind of nonsense on my blog. Fathers' rights propaganda doesn't fly here.
Thomas: Saying those words doesn't mean that is what you have in mind.
It's exactly what I have in mind. You're the one pretending you are concerned about what is best for children.
Thomas: The Iowa law language is written up above. It doesn't force this down anyones throat and don't damn me for defending my rights to my son in court. It is not in my son's best interest to see me every other weekend or on some other limited vistiation schedule. That's why I am fighting and encourage every guy to fight for the same reason.
So then why are you so upset? Is it because you want to see presumptive joint physical custody passed in every state, and the one state that has it doesn't enforce it, much to the rage of fathers' rights activists?
Thomas: So I am a good father and my ex is a good mother. You say she shouldn't be forced to deal with joint custody. So. Should I be punished? Should I get sole care? Should she be an every other weekend mom?
I have no doubt that you are a good father. The problem is that you hinted that your ex didn't do things your way, even though you say she is a good mother. You wrote: "It is absurd for women to cry wolf and claim they just can't communicate with their ex as a way to stop joint physical care. In some cases its warrented. In my case and in many others it is an absolute sham. Women seeking revenge or spite. Women thinking they know better what is best for their children. Women wanting a maintenance check to spend as they please." Your ex "cried wolf" and claimed she can't communicate with you? She didn't want joint custody, yet you forced the issue anyway?
Thomas: There have been cases in which both parents are great, but neither want to share care. Here in Polk County Iowa a judge order shared care AGAINST both of their wishes. He said, and I agree, "get over it and work together." Now that's in the best interests of the child.
All the studies out there show that joint custody does not work in cases like that. Please reread what I wrote about Amato's study. He has shown what is already well-known - that when judges order joint custody to resolve custody disputes that several years later the families are worse off. Things don't improve for them. Joint physical custody does not inspire parents to behave.
Dr. Paul Amato, in "Contact With Non-custodial Fathers and Children's Wellbeing": In a large California study, Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that joint custody is sometimes used to resolve custody disputes. They found that joint custody was awarded in about one-third of cases in which mothers and fathers had each sought sole custody. And the more legal conflict that occurred between parents, the more likely joint custody was to be awarded. Three and one-half years after separation, these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent. This demonstrates that an award of joint custody does not, in and of itself, improve the relationship between hostile parents. Consequently, it would appear to be undesirable - from the child's perspective - for courts to impose joint custody on unwilling parents."
Posted by: The Countess at Oct 3, 2005 7:35:14 PM
this is long blog...but i got some questions about what the doctors say and what we presume to be true.
1. "They decide this because they recognize that mom had done the bulk of the childrearing and childcare from day one, and that it's in the children's best interest for her to continue in that fashion."
Is this your opinion, or did you read it some where? I don't think anyone thinks it's in the best interest of their child to be raised by the divorced mother. Do you?
2. "Please quote where I wrote that women are better parents in general so it must hold true for all cases before the law."
Why do you advocate so adamantly for a presumption of mother custody if you don't think mothers are better parents than fathers?
3."He has shown what is already well-known - that when judges order joint custody to resolve custody disputes that several years later the families are worse off. Things don't improve for them. Joint physical custody does not inspire parents to behave."
If you don't think forced joint custody works, and we know that sole mother custody is a catastrophe, then what do you suggest? Shared parenting?
"Presumptive joint physical custody benefits only the fathers who demand it."
I know there has been a presumption of mother custody for decades. But when or where has there ever been a presumption of joint custody? And why would a father demand something that he presumes he's already going to get?
Posted by: ben dover at Oct 3, 2005 10:54:25 PM
I didn't make up that 90% of divorces settle out of court. Nolo Press is one site that says as much.
I don't advocate for mother custody. I advocate for the best interests of the child. I also believe that each case should be looked at individually, not treated in a cookie cutter fashion that presumptive joint custody would do.
Uh, we don't know that sole mother custody is a catastrophe. That's your opinion. Most children do very well in sole mother custody. There is no presumption for mother custody. I've already written that most parents (90%) settle out of court without the need for a judge to decide for them, and they decide on their own that mom should have custody. Most fathers don't want custody.
Posted by: The Countess at Oct 4, 2005 8:03:40 AM
Countess, you intermix joint custody with joint physical care.
Your statement from Dr. Amato is about custody not care. Of course they have problems. Joint legal is assumed in most cases...only where serious issues exist will either parent fight. I can certianly see why this still causes problems "3 years down the road." It is the legal wrangling that creates as much a problem as anything.
Yes...most cases are settled out of Court. Many men probably have no problem giving up caretaking. But not all. And most settle because the law favors women and it has been no use fighting unless you can prove the Mother is unfit. That is rarely the case for either men or women. RARELY. The difficulties in divorcing couples are exacerbated by the legal wrangling. HELLO. Have you ever gone through this process?
Yes...my ex started applying for jobs 2 hours away near her family. Mine lives 8 hours away and I would never take my child away from his mother.
Again your wrong about the Iowa law and how it is being implemented in the courts. You are obviously not from here, or monitoring the cases in progress or recently completed. You need to study a bit more. 50-50 is being done and anti-share care rulings are being overturned on appeal.
Sorry. Wallerstein is wrong. Most parents have to have some level of co-parenting regardless of the visitation schedule. Give both parents a role and they do not have problems. It is the vindictive father angry that he has to pay child support or the vindictive mother who wanted to control the child and recieve a bigger check that causes most of the antagonism.
Co-parenting is not "father's rights" jargon. That would be like me saying that "sole physical care" is feminist women first ideology.
You clearly don't understand the best interests of children when you assume that shared care only benefits the father. What a load of crap. You JUST DON"T GET IT.
Iowa is enforcing the law. If judges at the County level are not abiding by it then every man or women harmed by bad adjudication should appeal. And they are starting to win. Hell, I have met a number of people her in Des Moines who wonder why I have to fight. They finished there custody agreements in mediation because they thougth the law was shared care. But then again...they settled without lawyers pushing them to fight and waste money.
No. I am not trying to control my wife. Quite the opposite. There are a number of issues that need to be joint under joint legal custody. Such as my son's religous education and mental healthcare. She has already violated the law and unilaterally moved forward. I have been forced, not once but twice to request a hearing on these issues. The second issue will go to a hearing, wasting everyone's time and money if she doesn't start abiding by the law. This has NOTHING to do with joint physical care. Even if I had my son every other weekend, she is in violation of the law and our jointly agreed upon temporary custody arrangement. Please. Stop assuming all the control is done by men. What a bunch of crap. I suppose you think that I am threatening and intimidating her because I have to request a hearing when SHE VIOLATED THE LAW.
Finally, one last time. Your Amato study is about legal battles related to Joint Legal Custody. We are talking about Joint Physical Care. Your study is irrelevant to your argument. Which, by the way is totally baseless.
I have Joint Legal Custody with my ex. She has no problem with it. Except that she often fails to abide by it. That's her doing, not mine.
Get the two straight. No ex couple would even be discussing Joint Physical Care if Joint Legal Custody isn't part of the equation.
Posted by: Thomas at Oct 4, 2005 12:00:09 PM
The State of Iowa has a booklet co-authored by two child psychologists that show the problems of low self-esteem and that it is counter-factual that children having two homes is a problem. My son has two homes, has a consistent schedule and is invovled with activities at school and with friends. Only bad parents would not maintain basic part of their kid's life. It is bad parents not joint care that causes that problem. Joint care assumes that you are part of their life in total...not just the time that they are with you. Men who see their kids every other weekend will be hard-pressed to let them go off to a slumber party when they get to see them so rarely.
Get a clue. Maximize the child in both parents lives and the kids will be happier, show higher levels of self-esteem, and not feel abandoned.
Posted by: THomas at Oct 4, 2005 12:08:47 PM
Thomas, I'm not mixing joint physical custody and shared care. You can't legislate good parenting. It's up to the parents to do that. The only thing the courts can and should do in that minority of cases where parents can't decide on the custody form best for them is to come up with it for them, and that means physical placement and visitation. The court can't make the parents act like good parents. "Shared care" is nothing more than a euphemism for joint physical custody. It's up to the parents to do right by their kids.
I'd rather trust Wallerstein's established three decades of authority on custody, divorce, and families than your personal opinion. Divorce and custody don't give parents parenting roles. They have already established their parenting roles before the divorce. It's those established parenting roles that should set the course for the proper form of custody for that particular family. Most parents - the 90% who settle out of court - already recognize the parenting roles that they have taken on, and they most often prefer to stick to that. That's why moms most often get custody of the children. In the 10% of cases where the parents can't decide on their own, it is up to a judge, and those families should be looked at on an individual basis. One form of custody, such as "shared care"/joint physical custody, should not be ordered across the board because a loud minority of fathers demands it.
Your opinions are clearly based on your dissatisfaction with your personal experience. I am well aware of how both joint legal and joint physical custody (and that "shared care" you talk about) operate around the country. Your own comments show how joint physical custody is not being enforced in Iowa. People are wasting lots of money in legal fees in their fights to get their way. I'm sure the lawyers, judges, mediators, guardians ad litem, custody and psychological evaluators, and parenting coordinators are laughing all the way to the bank due to the dust that has been stirred up due to the increase in litigation because some parents will keep blowing money on court cases until they get what they want - and in the end they still aren't happy with the outcome.
Posted by: The Countess at Oct 4, 2005 1:45:21 PM
Your wrong. Joint Physical Care is not being ignored in Iowa. Judges you fail to show specific findings of fact are finding themselves overruled on appeal. I have yet to lose. The fact that I have to even go to court to defend myself on this is not my doing.
You are also wrong on the study from Amato. His study is Joint Legal not Physical care. Is there really a difference between my current 2 less wednesday nights per month than join physical care where I would have my son two more wednesday nights each month? I just don't get it. What is the true substantive difference...escept that my ex will get $400 more per month and I am not responsible in anyway for the cost of his day care, clothes, shool fees, soccer uniforms and fees, etc.
This is about women controlling the money, the kid and the courts. That's why it is good that judges have to at least justify why men are shoved out the door when it comes to caring for children.
Bitch all you want, but us "father's rights" neo-naziesque wife intimidators are winning. And your left whining.
Posted by: Thomas at Oct 5, 2005 3:33:36 PM
"[U]s father's rights" neo-naziesque wife intimidators" - your words, not mine. Very revealing.
Thank you for admitting exactly what you've really been up to. I'm glad you lose hundreds of dollars in court fees in order to bully your ex into doing things your way. It's clear that your fight is about getting your demands met in court. It's also about how much child support you would have to pay. You seem to talk about that a lot and not what is best for your son. I hope that your son doesn't suffer too much down the road.
Presumptive joint custody/"shared care" is getting rejected around the country and around the world. I provided testimony in California, Maryland, Colorado, and Massachusetts to help prevent it from passing.
You may think your type is winning, but you're really not. Your drive to get a presumption for joint custody has caught the attention of divorce and custody "experts" who make their money from those kinds of cases. It's no wonder the costs of divorce and custody cases have skyrocketed over the years. A burgeoning business has formed, and you have fallen right into it. You're stuck having to pay hundreds and thousands of dollars to "experts" who make their money from divorce and custody cases. Most dads who go that route in their fight for "shared care" don't see their demands met, and they are out lots of money that could have been put to better use elsewhere.
All of the reputable experts who study joint custody do not support a presumption for it, including Amato. Amato's findings support what I've been saying - that when courts order "shared parenting" to resolve court conflicts that three and a half years later those families are worse off.
Thomas, you've been conned, and you are too full of yourself to even realize it.
Posted by: The Countess at Oct 5, 2005 6:23:43 PM
"All of the reputable experts who study joint custody do not support a presumption for it, including Amato. Amato's findings support what I've been saying - that when courts order "shared parenting" to resolve court conflicts that three and a half years later those families are worse off".
Face it you guys, as long as there is a presumption that mother's should get custody in divorce, your kid's are screwed, unless you're somehow lucky enough to get custody yourself.
If you agree that you're kid's should live with their mother, she's going to say you don't pay enough child support and you don't see your kids enough.
If you try to get joint custody, you're a Dad who is harrassing his ex-wife and kids, to out of paying child support.
"You're damned if do and damned if you don't".
Posted by: ben dover at Oct 5, 2005 9:52:58 PM
I just read a post on another website that pretty well sums it up. Moms want men to be DisneyLand Dads. They want you guys to do everything they can't get someone else to do for them, and don't want to do themselves.
It's ironic, because these women only want to do things that you can hire some illegal immigrant for $4.25 an hour to do for you.
Posted by: ben dover at Oct 6, 2005 12:22:18 AM
This is about women controlling the money, the kid and the courts. That's why it is good that judges have to at least justify why men are shoved out the door when it comes to caring for children.
Thomas, you got it backward. The judges control the money, kids and courts. They don't have to justify what they are doing.
We got hundreds, even thousands of people like the countess justifying why and what the judges are doing. The judges don't have to justify what they are doing. Look at all the books written over the last hundred years justifying that judges give custody to mothers. I bet you cannot name one single author, politician, professor or anyone that hasn't bought into the bs that mothers should get custody in divorce. It's prevalent. We live in a matriarchal society.
Posted by: mike hardchisel at Oct 6, 2005 12:58:00 AM
MIke,
We are fortunate enough to live in a country with a Constitution, Rule of Law, and new laws like Iowa's that are finally, one year later, showing results that give father's hope.
It isn't the men or the judges or the law in Iowa that cost everyone money...its the lawyers, who recommend that men fight for sole physical care. Why? They'll never get it unless the mother is unfit. And in most cases that isn't any where near the truth. Decent lawyers will urge you to get what you can and get out, but the law has now changed all that - at least in my state. Thank God. Thank God for our Legislature and Thank God for Governor Tom Vilsack.
Posted by: Thomas at Oct 6, 2005 1:52:59 AM
Countess....you may not want to continue relying on your friend Wallerstein.
Myths of Divorced Dads Revealed to Boston Audiences
Divorced Moms are Favored, Although Kids Need Both Parents
Massachusetts News
By Curt Lovelace
July 2--Most dads do not prosper from divorce and most divorced moms do not suffer catastrophic financial setbacks, despite popular opinion to the contrary.
This was discussed at several stops in Massachusetts last month by Dr. Sanford Braver, author of Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths.
Before a crowd of about 100 people in West Newton, Braver, a psychology professor at Arizona State University, said that his 15-year-long research showed that most of the time-honored beliefs about divorced fathers are “either severe exaggerations or the exact opposite of the truth.” Braver said that myths about divorced dads include the following:
* Divorced dads are deadbeat dads.
* Divorced dads are runaway dads.
* Divorce impoverishes mothers and children while enhancing the lifestyles of dads.
* Divorced dads tend to get the settlements tilted in their favor.
* Divorced dads have an easy time, emotionally.
* Most family breakups are initiated by dads.
The most pernicious of these myths, according to Braver, is the one which says that dads tend to prosper as a result of divorce settlements. This myth is based upon a study published in 1985 by then-Harvard researcher Lenore Weitzman. Her study showed that following a divorce, the average mother suffered a 73% decline in her standard of living. This was compared to a 42% gain made by the average father.
Harvard Researcher Got Math Wrong
Politicians, academics, and social workers grabbed at this statistic and would not let it go, said Braver. He called Weitzman’s statistic, “The most influential social science data of the past 20 years in terms of law enacted.” In other words, he said, policy makers loved the statistic because it told them what they wanted to hear, and most divorce and child custody-legislation of the past decade has been based upon this set of data.
The research, however, is wrong.
Other researchers could not reproduce Weitzman’s findings. When they sought to review her data, she was less than forthcoming. Most researchers found that the 73% decline for mothers was more like a 26% decline.
Finally, Braver said, he had a telephone discussion with Weitzman. He asked her if, perhaps, she had interpreted the data backwards. This would indicate a 23% decline—more in line with other researchers’ findings. She had no answer.
It was a mathematical mistake. Weitzman has officially recanted. But much damage has been done.
Not only was Weitzman’s thesis wrong, but when Braver factored in such items as taxation differences between custodial and non-custodial parents, he found what most divorced fathers in Massachusetts already knew: custody is a financial prize. That prize is usually awarded to mothers in Massachusetts.
Hope for Divorced Dads
Statistics aside, Braver had a few words of advice for the men—and women—in his audience. Recognizing that Massachusetts has “probably the harshest child-support regime in the nation,” he nonetheless said that “the winds are changing.” That his studies have been federally funded to the tune of “several million dollars,” Braver said, shows that the government is interested in change.
“Don’t despair,” he said, explaining that he had done his job. He had given them facts and figures, he said, adding that now they needed to be activists. “As activists, you can do a world of good,” he said.
Even the word “custody,” may soon be a legal term of the past, Braver said.
“There is a movement afoot in many states, like Arizona,” he said, to get rid of that term, which denotes ownership.
Reverting to his role as psychologist, Braver advised his listeners—many of whom are in the midst of legal and emotional battles with spouses and ex-spouses—not to give up. “Children need both parents,” he said.
When asked which parent is more important to children—the mother or the father—Braver answered with a question of his own: “Which would you rather be without, your heart or your lungs?”
“Why aren’t fathers involved in their families?” Braver then asked. They are often driven out of the active life of the family by angry and well-armed ex-wives, he said. With all the tools of a compliant state at their disposal, mothers can make it very difficult, if not impossible, for fathers to have any meaningful involvement with their children.
Non-custodial parents, usually the dads, get angry at the system. Many are “fueled by rage,” said Braver.
“To those of you on the brink,” Braver said, “that’s not what’s good for your child. Your child needs you. Overcome your anger and frustration. Don’t abandon your children. The children of America need their fathers.”
Voice of Sanity
Braver’s words were like a voice of sanity for the crowd, members of which said that they’d already put his findings to use in what they see as an uphill battle for post-divorce equality. The Fathers and Families group, which sponsored Braver’s talk, is a relatively new organization. It is a growing rapidly, however. In the 16 months since it started, according to President Ned Holstein, it already has a membership of 1,100. It recently mustered a group of 100 to appear at a hearing of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary at the statehouse. Many testified before the committee regarding the issuance of restraining orders.
Holstein told Massachusetts News that the reason for the existence of the group is to advocate for children to have two actively involved parents. “This is not a gender warfare organization,” he said. “Mothers should not be cut out of the equation, either.”
In addition to the talk in West Newton, Braver’s book tour in Massachusetts included a radio call-in show, a meeting with the Department of Revenue’s Child Support Enforcement Unit, and discussions with two groups of Massachusetts judges.
For more information, write Fathers and Families, P.O. Box 1484, Boston, MA 02117 or call (617) 357-4832.
Curt Lovelace is a correspondent for Massachusetts News.
Posted by: at Oct 6, 2005 3:26:08 AM
Braver is a fathers' rights apologist. I take his "research" with a grain of salt. The speech he gave in that article was in front of a fathers' rights group. He told them what they wanted to hear. I trust Wallerstein's reputable research over Braver's garbage any day.
The Weitzman news is old, and it's long ago been corrected.
The standard of living argument started with Lenore Weitzman's faulty statistics: Women's standard of living drops by 73% and the man's standard of living increases by about 30%. In several studies following Weitzmans (who used her sources -- she did provide the basis on which she reached her conclusions), it was found that the womans' standard of living dropped by about 40% rather than 73%. The man's standard of living rose about 15%. Women fared better than men five years after the divorce primarily if they remarried. Their standard of living overshot their ex-husbands about three years following the divorce. If she didn't remarry, she didn't fare as well. I believe this applied especially to divorced mothers.
There are numerous sources which show that women's standard of living drops after divorce, while men's rises. The gap between mothers and fathers greatest at highest and lowest ends of the income spectrum. One source is Joyce Arditti, Women, Divorce and Economic Risk, 35 Fam. & Concil. Ct. Rev. 79 (Jan. 1997).
These studies compiled by Lynn Hecht Shafran show that the standard of living goes down for custodial mothers:
Advisory Committee on Women in the Courts, "Report on the Financial Impact
of Divorce in Rhode Island" (November 1991)
Baker, Barbara, "Family Equity at Issue: A Study of the Economic
Consequences of Divorce on Women and Children," Alaska Bar Association,
Alaska Women's Commission (1987)
Bell, Rosalyn B. "Alimony and the Financially Dependent Spouse in
Montgomery County, Maryland," 22 Family Law Quarterly 225 (Fall 1988)
Brett, Leslie J., Sharon T. Shepela and Janet Kniffen, "Women and Children
Beware: The Economic Consequences of Divorce in Connecticut" (Summer
1990)
Garrison, Marsha, "Good Intentions Gone Awry: The Impact of New York's
Equitable Distribution Law on Divorce Outcomes," 57 Brooklyn Law Review
621 (1991)
Gerval, Jean M. and Carelle Meullner Stein, "Spousal Support in Minnesota:
Where Are We Going?" 6 Minnesota Family Law Journal 29 (1993)
Hammer, Heather, "The Economic Impact of Divorce in Hawaii," Preliminary
Report to the Hawaii Supreme Court Committee on Gender Bias and Other
Fairness (December 1993)
McGraw, Robert E., Gloria J. Sterin and Joseph M. Davis, "A Case Study in
Divorce Law Reform and Its Aftermath," 20 Journal of Family Law 443 (1982)
(Cleveland, Ohio)
McLindon, James B., "Separate But Unequal: The Economic Consequences of
Divorce for Women and Children," 21 Family Law Quarterly 351 (1987) (New
Haven County, Connecticut)
Rowe, Barbara R. and Jean M. Lown, "The Economics of Divorce and
Remarriage for Rural Utah Families," 16 Journal of Contenporary Law 301
(1990)
Rowe, Barbara R. and Alice M. Morrow, "The Economic Consequences of
Divorce in Oregon after Ten or More Years of Marriage," 24 Williamette Law
Review 463 (1988)
Wishick, Heather, R. "Economics of Divorce: An Exploratory Study," 20
Family Law Quarterly 79 (1986) (Vermont)
Posted by: The Countess at Oct 6, 2005 9:10:15 AM
Yes, you're right Trish.
Women's standard of living does drop after divorce. It just wasn't by as much as Lenore Weitzman's numbers had shown. But subsequent studies corrected for her error and they still showed women's income had dropped.
Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 6, 2005 1:23:33 PM
"Thomas, you got it backward. The judges control the money, kids and courts. They don't have to justify what they are doing.
We got hundreds, even thousands of people like the countess justifying why and what the judges are doing. The judges don't have to justify what they are doing. Look at all the books written over the last hundred years justifying that judges give custody to mothers. I bet you cannot name one single author, politician, professor or anyone that hasn't bought into the bs that mothers should get custody in divorce. It's prevalent."
Well custody for ALL kids is an entirely new phenomen anyway.
Previously it was only kids who had property or an estate of some sort to manage that made care, custody and control of ANY kid a legal issue. You can see this especially in Texas with their word designating custody which is "conservator" or something like that, a term generally connected to managing an estate or will of some kind.
Previously, before the federal government stepped in to 'reform' child support guidelines, most kids were worth no money and their mothers got custody of children by default really in the event of divorce or abandonment... NOW, however, that every kid is worth something as long as they have a healthy parent who can work, we are seeing where EVERY child has to custody assigned to someone and that is the person entitled to receive the monies from either child support, governmental benefits, insurance proceeds, etc.,
So to me this whole issue of custody fights, wars, abductions, complaints against VAWA (since restraining orders are now being freely used as the 'first strike' equivalent that we saw threatened so effectively during the Cold War) all of this will be settled when we solve the Child Support problem. Since child support is too high and that is what is causing all this uproar...
The rest of this is all sideshow...Solve the child support issues and it will all fade away...
As generally I find when children aren't worth any money to anyone, the only people really interested in them are their mothers (with some few exceptions)...
Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 6, 2005 1:52:31 PM
For some reason this blogsite run by The Countess is all about making unmarried women, especially unmarried women with children, look like they're totally inept when it comes to intimate relationships. And ignorant about raising their kids. It seems because she's in monogamous relationship she thinks she is superior to divorced and single mothers.
"it was found that the womans' standard of living dropped by about 40% ......"
"Women fared better than men five years after the divorce primarily if they REMARRIED. Their standard of living overshot their ex-husbands about three years following the divorce."
"The new Iowa law it not being followed because most parents aren't choosing joint custody, and because judges and lawyers see that the cookie cutter approach to custody in ordering joint physical custody for everyone is not in the best interests of children."
"In most cases, courts don't decide that mom gets custody. Women get custody 90% of the time because most cases settle out of court with the parents deciding between themselves that mom should have custody."
"Consequently, it would appear to be undesirable - from the child's perspective - for courts to impose joint custody on unwilling parents."
"If she didn't remarry, she didn't fare as well. I believe this applied especially to DIVORCED mothers."
"I don't advocate for mother custody. I advocate for the best interests of the child."
See what I mean? Being married women means you're good. Getting divorced, you're a loser.
Posted by: mike hardchisel at Oct 6, 2005 9:17:10 PM
Take your studies above and hit the shredder.
Joint Custody Study by Judith Seltzer
Does joint custody help to reduce conflict between parents or is it simply that more cooperative parents are more likely to agree to joint custody arrangements in the first place? Many studies have demonstrated that joint custody arrangements lead to much better compliance in financial child support and greater parental involvement. But opponents of joint custody have claimed that these benefits occur only because the more cooperative parents were the ones that chose joint custody. A new study by Judith Seltzer, University of Wisconsin-Madison, provides strong evidence to refute this claim.
Seltzer used data from the National Survey of Families and Households, a survey of over 13,000 families that collected data in two waves, 1987-1988 and 1992-1994. Because the NSFH included data on the quality of family relationships, it was possible to study the effects of joint legal custody while controlling for pre-separation family relationships. Seltzer identified data on families that had separated or divorced between the first and second survey periods. The results clearly indicated positive effects for joint legal custody: "Controlling for the quality of family relationships before separation and socioeconomic status, fathers with joint legal custody see their children more frequently, have more overnight visits, and pay more child support than fathers in families in which the mothers have sole legal custody."
Remarkably, Seltzer found that the level of conflict before separation had no impact on the prospects of parents obtaining joint legal custody at divorce. She says, "My findings show that neither conflict nor marital happiness before separation affect the likelihood that parents will acquire joint legal custody at divorce."
The fact that children benefited from joint legal custody even after taking account of the quality of family relationships and economic resources before separation provides further evidence that these positive effects are not simply the result of more cooperative parents choosing joint custody. Seltzer proposes a "role oriented" explanation for the benefits of joint legal custody. She says that "By clarifying that divorced fathers are 'by law' still fathers, parents' negotiations about fathers' participation in child rearing after divorce may shift from trying to resolve whether fathers will be involved in child rearing to the matter of how fathers will be involved." [emphasis in original]
Seltzer concludes that children's advocates appear to be right: "At least on the dimensions of increased contact between nonresident fathers and children, joint legal custody may, as advocates claim, make the lives of children after divorce more similar to their lives before divorce or to the lives of their peers in two-parent households." Seltzer's report is entitled "Father by Law: Effects of Joint Legal Custody on Nonresident Fathers' Involvement with Children."
The report can be obtained through the internet at http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/nsfhwp/home.htm or from the Center for Demography and Ecology, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, 4412 Social Science Bldg., 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison WI, 53706-1393.
Posted by: Thomas at Oct 8, 2005 6:08:14 PM
Thomas, you miss a couple points(from the other side).
Mothers getting sole physical control of their kids far at weighs the child support issue. They feel that men should have to pay child support no matter what. That's why we have a welfare system. We, the taxpayers, have to pay child support in the form of welfare to millions of mothers a year and they aren't even our kids. So they don't give rat's ass if the sperm donor gets to see his kids.
Point 2. They don't care about fathers having better relationships with their children with forced or cooperative joint custody. It's not about the kids with them. If it is at all a burden or discomfort for mom they're against it. They don't care if benefits the kids.
We live in a sexist society where a lot of people look at women as nothing more than grown-up children.
Posted by: mike hardchisel at Oct 8, 2005 6:56:40 PM
I disagree with the statement above regarding the "myth" that divorced dads have it "easy." I have known LOTS of men who planned to treat their wives poorly after the children arrived for this exact reason - so they would be playmates, not real fathers.
As for the change in the standard of living, SOL is not about how much money you have, but what you do with what you have. I have known women whose SOL went up after splitting from their husbands because they were no longer subsidizing a drug or gambling addiction. And I have known men whose SOL went up because they got custody of the kids and the former SAHM had to pay child support. (Justified custody, BTW.)
Posted by: kohoutekdriver8 at Oct 8, 2005 8:22:56 PM
kohoutekdriver8, I think you're getting standard of living and quality of life confused. SOL is basically how much money you have. That's the argument lawyers use to make ex-husbands pay alimony and child support. The husband is responsible to financially maintain the woman and kid's life style. He's not required to maintain their 'quality of life', but their standard of living. That's why so many men get mad when they have to pay alimony and child support. The ex-wife will squander the money. Then she go back to court and say he didn't give her enough money. But it's like the more you indulge a child, the more spoiled they get, not more wiser.
Posted by: panderlust at Oct 8, 2005 8:47:29 PM
Thomas: [Quoting Seltzer] "Many studies have demonstrated that joint custody arrangements lead to much better compliance in financial child support and greater parental involvement. [...] Seltzer used data from the National Survey of Families and Households, a survey of over 13,000 families that collected data in two waves, 1987-1988 and 1992-1994."
Thomas, you neglected to point out that those early joint custody studies from the late '80s - early '90s involved a minority of families that chose to try out joint custody on their own. Those families tended to be wealthier than most families, and they had only one child. They also had amicable and low-conflict divorces. Neither parent had remarried. They lived near each other and were able to work together. They chose joint custody and intended to make it work. Subsequent joint custody studies have shown that it does not work when there is conflict between the parents. As I have already commented, Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that three and a half years down the road, conflicted families that had joint custody ordered by the court had experienced more conflict and less cooperative parenting.
Now please stop posting entire articles here. Just post an excerpt and a link. If you want to extol what you think are the benefits of joint custody/"shared care", start your own blog.
Posted by: The Countess at Oct 8, 2005 8:49:18 PM
Thomas, according to the countess if a divorced mother cooperates with her ex-husband all is well. It's when she won't get along with him, crap hits the fan! She wants us to believe that most divorced women with kids are inept with these kinds of relationships, and that's why joint custody won't work.
Posted by: mike hardchisel at Oct 8, 2005 9:44:22 PM
"See what I mean? Being married women means you're good. Getting divorced, you're a loser."
That doesn't make any sense as she was divorced. The Count is her second husband. You just haven't been hanging around long enough to know all the history here...
In other words you don't know what you're talking about.
Just like when you made the comment about somebody posting as a man when they were a woman because you misunderstood that the name of the person follows their post, it doesn't come before it...
Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 9, 2005 10:06:34 AM
And I have known men whose SOL went up because they got custody of the kids and the former SAHM had to pay child support. (Justified custody, BTW.)
See this is my basic problem: I don't see a moral justification here (that whole natural law versus artificial constructs of justice) of how or why a former SAHM should EVER have to pay child support???
That's my basic problem with this.
A SAHM has already made her contribution and sacrifice. NOW you expect her to make DOUBLE the contribution and sacrifice...
What is the moral justification here????
Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 9, 2005 10:13:40 AM
"I think you're getting standard of living and quality of life confused. SOL is basically how much money you have. That's the argument lawyers use to make ex-husbands pay alimony and child support. The husband is responsible to financially maintain the woman and kid's life style. He's not required to maintain their 'quality of life', but their standard of living. That's why so many men get mad when they have to pay alimony and child support."
Another basis problem I have is that I have NEVER known any woman, and I've known plenty who have divorced, who ever have gotten this alimony????
Most don't even get child support for months as, at least in New York State, custody must FIRST be established THEN child support follows from a separate hearing. I don't know how other states do it but I never heard of a woman going down to court and filing for custody and coming out with a child support award UNTIL that custody is adjudicated...
Now, the census states that ONLY 15% of people (that includes men as well as woemn) even GET awarded alimony and only half manage to collect it.
I can even accept that maybe MOST of that estimated 7% who manage to collect alimony MIGHT be women (I can accept that); on the other hand maybe men need to accept that the total dollar amounts of alimony awarded are skewered by a few high profile millionaire divorce settlements.
BUT what I don't understand is that for something that happens so rarely to anyone, why ALL men are making such a big issue out of it?????
Awarding alimony is RARE...RARE...most Judges don't award it anymore, only in very high profile millionaire cases or long term marriages (over 10 years) and even then it's not certain or permanent...no matter a woman's age, health or career potential...
It's seems like men are making much ado about nothing and most of the biggest complainers are men who are not paying alimony...
Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 9, 2005 10:29:58 AM
My friend is looking for legal advise. Atleast before putting his dollars to what is trully a legal battle in my eyes. A year and half ago he was convinced by his ex that his son was just going to visit his family outside the country with the grand ma for three months. He even saw the child off at the airport signing some consent to allow the grand ma to travel with the child. It became apparent after the kid had left that he was not going for three months. the ex started talking about school/careers. she was starting a nursing program. Not sure how long that takes...but that is not the issue. It has been a year and a half now. He is the legal father and is on the birth cert. At first he did not believe it was his child. He says he dreams and thinks about him everyday. His mission is to atleast establish he is the father beyond just being on the birth certificate and play a fatherly role there after. This is in IOWA. Any ideas.
Posted by: Ben at Mar 18, 2006 5:41:58 PM
My name is Nichole, I'm 19 and 6 months pregnant. I am not married to the father of this child, and we dont get along. I dated him for 3 months and ended up pregnant in the secound month. I am very new to all of this. He does know that i am pregnant with his child but he thinks it could be someone ealse but at the same time he tells me that he wants to be in his childs life. I would like to have full custody.I have asked him if i would have full custody that he can see this child WHENEVER he wants and he wouldn't have to pay child support if he could let me have full custody. But he told me no, and that he would fight me for it. I am at loss with words, and i dont know what to do. I feel bad that this happened. I did ask him three times before i got pregnant, that i would like to stop having sex,(it made me feel bad) but he threaten to brake up with me. At the time i was kicked out of my moms house and had no where to go. And now that i am pregnant his moved on to another girl who barely turned 18 and still is in high school. I am trying to get all the legal edvise as i can. I'm now working and back at my moms house. I would of never knew that mothers knew best like i do now...... How can i get full custody? What should i do?
Posted by: blue skys at Mar 28, 2006 12:37:33 AM
Blue, pardon me honey, I do not want to sound harsh, but your note here seems to actually place blame on everyone ELSE for your choices.
I am sorry that you are pregnant by someone you can't get along with. But, I am sure that you knew that having sex with your boyfriend could end up getting you pregnant.
I know that right now you may think you really mean it when you say that you will let your b/f see your child anytime he wants to. But I know from experience that you will eventually change your tune because it will become increasingly less convenient for you to do so. And if your b/f doesn't have some kind of agreement in writing with you, should you decide just to stop letting him see your child, he will have no leg to stand on. And somewhere down the line you WILL decide you need child support. If you don't get along with him now, I am sure that will not get better if you don't both grow up. And, you will find a lawyer who tell you that you are owed BACK child support for all those years he didn't pay because you told him you wouldn't ask him to.
No, I know it's not fun to hear the truth but here it is: You made a LIFE ALTERING decision when you decided to have pre-marital, unprotected sex with this guy. You tied yourself to him for the rest of your life like it or not. He is that child's father 100%, just like you are that child's mother 100%. Put your personal feelings about him aside, and think about what your child needs, BOTH a mother and a father. Do you want to have to answer your child when he/she is 12--"Mom, who is my dad? Where is he?"
Don't do anything you will regret later. You have done enough of that. It's time to think about the child's best interests.
Posted by: JC at Apr 2, 2006 12:06:32 AM
Countess, do you have children? It doesn't sound like you do.
Are you married? Doesn't sound like you are.
I hope you fall in love with and marry a man who is a wonderful divorced father with children that do not live him, and an ex-wife from you-know-where. Then, you WILL see the other side of things. I have been on both sides of the fence. I was a single mom for many years before I met my current husband who is an AWESOME dad. He is being treated like a second class citizen by the courts, all because his ex has become threatened by the wonderful life we have created here. Sad. If you are ever in my situation, you will see. You will see.
Posted by: at Apr 2, 2006 12:13:25 AM
JC, yes I am married with a son. I am a custodial mother. My son graduates from high school this year. I am married to a non-custodial dad whose son is now in college. I did the second wife thing since my stepson was about nine, but I didn't have any problems because I didn't create any. Neither did my husband. He didn't feel like a "visitor" or any of the rest of that fathers' rights nonsense. My husband also agrees with my point of view on these matters. I have been on both sides of the fence, too.
Posted by: The Countess at Apr 2, 2006 8:08:10 AM
Countess, I have read all of your posts here, and one thing stands ver clear to me. You enjoy antagonizing people into disputes. The only thing I can say about your comment concerning father's rights "nonsense" is that there is a lot of mother's rights "nonsense" out there.
Posted by: at Apr 2, 2006 3:10:28 PM
I don't antagonize people into disputes. They come here ready to bait me. I just don't take the bait. If they feel antagonized, it's not my problem.
What "mothers' rights nonsense" are you talking about? There is no organized "mothers' rights" movement, nonsense or otherwise. Please stop making stuff up. I'm sure you're going to say that some people believe that mothers deserve custody because they are mothers. That's not the position of my colleagues. That's the position of some people in the religious right movement, but not of people who agree with me.
And stop pretending to post anonymously, JC. I know that you're the only person who has posted on this post in the past couple of days, aside of me.
Posted by: The Countess at Apr 2, 2006 9:06:05 PM
I just want help since this seems to be an Iowa post site, . My son is eight years old and has never really known his father. We dated for years and I ended up pregnant due to once last "fling" after we broke up. We were both young and very unhealthy for each other. I have always encouraged my ex to have a relationship with my son, but he has never been there. He doesn't sends cards or calls or anything. I have remarried and moved to another state, with my ex's permission. We correspond by email and he never asked how my son is doing. My frustration lies in child support. I have always wanted what was fair. Where I live it is more expensive. Child care along breaks me. I wanted to go back to school to better myself for my son, and requested an increase. I only get $300 a month, and even then it is not always on time. I only wanted enough to cover day care so I could go. He was laid off, which made the support stop, and I was forced to work. Now the increase request is in court and I am looking at losing money because he doesn't work and I make more than he did before he lost his job. My point is that it isn't fair tjat O a, having to change everything my son knows for money. I have always been home with him and now I work. I don't spend the time with him that is needed due to his learning disability. My whole point is why is it fair that a mother can have her support decreased when she had done her best to protect both sides. I feel that a father should be punished for being a dead beat and not paying support or making any effort to spend time or to acknowledge his child, not rewarded by paying less support because the mother is forced to work. As a parent I had to do what needed tp be dpme to support my child. I have waited tables and worked over nite to save of daycare. Why can't the father step up to the plate and work and extra job if he can't make enough money and one job to pay support. If I had to pay support to a child that I did not have custody for, I would pay what ever I could and then some to ensure that my child was well provided for. This is what makes me angry about the legal system, the father can afford and attorney to fight paying the mother support, but he can't pay for any past or current support?
Posted by: Melaine at Apr 4, 2006 12:27:03 AM
My name is Bryan Iehl and I am the founder of IowaFathers.com. We introduced HF2658 this year which created a "Rebuttable Presumption" for parents to receive joint physical custody either during the dissolution or through a modification process. The bill also put the burden of proof on a parent challenging an award of joint physical care as to why it is not in the best interest of the child. Lastly, the bill provided further safety measures to children in abusive situations.
The bill failed this year because of lobbying money from the Iowa Bar Association and because of misleading and inaccurate information from the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and the National Association of Social Workers. Each of the above mentioned organizations, persuaded most of the Democratic Party to vote against our bill and ultimately lead to the refusal for “Unanimous Consent” by the Minority Leader, Pat Murphy, which denied the bill a vote on the House Floor.
Rest assured we will be back with similar legislation again next year. If you would like more information, please visit www.IowaFathers.com.
Sincerely,
Bryan Iehl
Founder
IowaFathers.com
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, Iowa 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Posted by: Bryan Iehl at Apr 4, 2006 12:08:08 PM
I believe joint physical custody can work. But, as stated in so many reports it has to be honored by both parents.
A little background: Married for 12 years. We have a boy (10) and a girl(7), at the time of divorce(2 years ago).
I have always been very involved with our children. From the first baby pictures(inside the womb), each ultrasound, to church activities,shool activities and scouts. I have NEVER EVER missed a play, skit or recital either in school or church form preschool to present. I have NEVER EVER missed a teachers conferance.
I am a "fun dad", you know, the kind that goofs around, fishes with kids, bikes, hits golf balls, plays catch, camps and makes up silly songs. I love to wrestle with the kids and one of our favorites is taking 2-3 bags of flour and have a flour fight. We have even had a whipped cream fight. So yes, I am one of those fathers that has fun with the kids. Am I a Disney land dad?? NO way!!! I am a Disney World dad and proud of it!!!! The kids and I have an absolute ball. But, what I also try to instill with the kids to try and follow the path of Jesus, to be honest as possible, ask forgiveness if you hurt someone, self respect, confidance, self responsibility, ownership, kindness to people and God's creatures, respect for other people, love of life and the beauty of God's world, and that all actions whether verbal or physical have a consiquence.
You see, the first 6 years of my sons life and 3 of my daughters, I cared for the kids as much as their mother. We had 92 days a year that the other parent worked, so sole caring by that parent. We had 67 days a year the children were at day care since we both worked on those days. Lastly, 103 days a year off together with the kids. After 6 years I wanted her to go part time so those 67 days would be further reduced.
Like so many spouses I had no idea the divorce was comming. The day before me she gave me a valentines and we had a great romantic night. The next day she said she wanted a divorce. She told me I was not Christian enough for her and that I was out in the yard or garage to much. (I am a homebody but I do like piddling in the dirt or changing oil in a car). She pomised me and the children(right in front of the kid's grandparents) that she would never ever take the kids out of the school district they had been in since birth. She said and I quote" I will never move these kids from West Lyon school, trust me. I promise, please have faith in me, please have blind faith.. How could I not believe that??The kid's grandparents were right here whome the kids adored, the kid's Golden Retriever whome they loved, their friends, school, church, huge back yard that we can hit golf balls and baseball in.
So, since we lived in a small town with a great school district I did not fight anything, nothing because she told me the kids would be able to walk over any time they wanted. She asked for primary custody and I went with that. During this time she told me "Kevin, I need to get a way, but the door is not closed, just give me some time. So, she moved into an apartment in town. A bit over a month afer, she moved the kids from town into a city of 150,000. They had lived in the same house since birth, in a town of 700.
Of course I got a lawyer then, actually 1 week before the move. My son told me "dad, mom is going to move us!."
He told me he did not want to move...The judge said that she could move but over the summer we would have joint physical care so niether parent had an advantage.
In court I asked that the kids stay in their school district. That I would help getting them to and fro for her as much as possible. (she move 20 miles away). I asked for joint physical or sole custody. I stressed that joint could work if we both worked on it. I hired a lawyer for the kids and also hired a home study. The home study gave no preferance as who should get custody. She stated both parents are equal caregivers and both excellent parents.. My daughter wanted to be with me only, while my son said he liked the way the summer was. A week with mom and a week with dad.
The kid's lawyer who only talked to them once at 40 minutes, stated the kids both want to be with the dad(same as the home study), but feels they should stay with mom and be moved.
Now during that time of waiting for the decision, I heard I drank alot of beer, I always yelled at mom, and I wanted to take the kids away from mom for good. My kids knwo better. That "coaching" will bite her someday.
Oh yea, the money. Some woman have mentioned that men go for custody or joint physical custody for the money savings. Don't even bring it up to me. I told her to keep the child support but let the kids go their school that they love and I will help with the transportation. Also, at the time of court, she had racked up over 40,000 dollars in credit. The judge ordered me to pay 10,000 of it because it was furnature for the kids bedrooms. 10,000 for bedroom furnature!! Wow!! So, the money is not the factor here.
What is, my kids still want to be back at their school.They both tell me they want to be with me. But now that we are going to try mediation, because (thanks to the Court of Appeals), I now have joint physical custody. Even thou she has not honored it even after 6 months.
Just yesterday I took the kids fishing and my son who is 12 now said " dad, you and mom are going to talk stuff over right?" I said yes. He then said " mom said if we go back to West Lyon then whe wont be able to get us there and it wont work."
So there you have it. Instead of realizing that joint physical is going to happen, she is putting herself ahead of the kids. Its her problem, not the kids. I have told both them from the get-go that no matter where they go to school I will support them, and be proud of them. For 2 years I go to the school my daughter is in and have lunch and about half the time stay in class for an hour also. Of course, I have to do recess each time I am there for lunch!!
My son, I took him to lunch not as much last year. He would pick the day when he wanted me there. This year, he is in middle school and no way, to embarresing dad.... My daughter, still once per week..
So thanks to the court of appeals for the chance to make it work. I will make it work on my end no matter what school they go to. I am proud to be a parent, I thank God for the chance and opportunity to be a parent. There is no greater joy than to be a parent. I can look into the mirror and be proud, happy and honest with myself. I am doing the best for my children.
The kids have a right to be disgruntled, the parents split up, their mother promised them and broke it, she lied to them. She also dated right away while we were sererated and married right after the divorce. To a fellow that is a truck driver who is only home on weekends. ( dont get me wrong, nothing wrong with truck drivers, but, its ironic. I was always home but I was outside to much. Hmmm
Posted by: kevin at Apr 5, 2006 8:52:31 AM
Everything seems to going on the route that some father's are bad and only want to get back a their x for wanting a divorce. But what is being missed are the fathers that care. Here you decide.
I am currently going through a divorce and wanting to have joint custody of my son (3 yrs old). When I approached his mother to this idea, she blew up. Then came the "I am going to take you for everything that you are worth" speech, great move on that one. So I got tired of the fight and gave in. I signed the divorce agreement because she offered liberal visitation with a set schedule, also joint legal. I later found out that she is planning on moving away when she is done with college, well there goes that liberal visitation. So, now I find myself getting ready to do battle again with her and this time force her to prove to the court that I am not a suitable farther and that I lack the qualities needed to take care of my son.
Here is the deal. She is severly Bipolar and on medication, she has no source of income and yet is on food stamps (might have some fraud there, will have to check in on that).
My deal, I stopped going to college to take care of my family, which lead me to working odd jobs with odd hours. These jobs and times were both agreed by the both of us. So I became a weekend warrior. Her main arguement that stated why it would not be good for me to have joint custody is because I worked a job that kept me past midnight. Well, I have quit that job and started another that gives me the better working hours (8am-6pm), so that is out the window. I am providing my son with medical insurance, paying child support ($280) a month. Plus, when I have days off from work I play with my son, she on the other hand puts him in day-care on the days that she is not in school (and not to do homework). She has also asked for my permittion to allow my son to go visit his grandmother in Germany for 6 months for next year. This all does not sound like a mother that is looking out for the best interest of her child.
If anyone has any advice as to what I should do, or that I have a strong case here, I am willing to hear you out. Whether it is negative or positive, I don't really care, info is all that I am looking for.
Posted by: Limitation82 at Apr 5, 2006 1:13:49 PM
can anyone tell me what a joint physical care ammendment is? And if it can be applied in Mississippi?
Posted by: Limitation82 at Apr 6, 2006 9:58:12 AM
I am not placing the blame on anyone but myself. I know what happens when you have unpretected sex. We thought his sprem was bad. On top of every thing else, I really dont need his money, i have a support system of my own. And i mean what i say when he can visit the child whenever he wants. But his not my BF anymore and i plan on marrying someone else .... What i am looking at is trying to go for FULL CUSTODY ... but i was asking how!!!!
Posted by: blue skys at Apr 6, 2006 2:16:45 PM
Oh, and about the baby ... I care very much for my son and his not even born yet!!!! But with experience ... kids don’t need there fathers. Yes it’s nice to have one if needed. I have been without a father my whole life so far, and don’t plan on needing one either. Single mothers can do the same as couples can do. It sounds like you think there should be both parent’s evolved only because that’s your belief. I only blame MYSELF for dating a complete ass hole. But I don’t regret my son. With all my life changes and experiences, my son is the best thing that’s ever happened to me. I just want what’s best for my child. I don’t see that happing if the father has custody over him at all. The father is a very jealous, anger tempered young man. When I do try to marry someone else, he has threatened me that he would go missing. For the best of my son, I need to file for full custody!!!! I just need some LEGAL EDVISE.
Posted by: blue skys at Apr 6, 2006 2:48:59 PM
Blue skys, I'm sure this was not your intention, but your story demonstrates exactly why so many people today are convinced that fatherlessness IS a harmful thing.
Posted by: Anne at Apr 6, 2006 3:37:23 PM
This guy is a loser tho ... I am pretty sure not all guys are like him other wise I wouldn’t have to go tho this. The thing is, if I have to tell my son of why his father is always messing up or ending up in jail. I don’t see the need for him to have custody of this child. I don’t care much of telling you people of exacted situations that have happened that show the need for me to get full custody. Just take my word for it … Like I said before … instead of sitting up here giving your opinion about something I didn’t ask for. I just need legal devise !!!!!
Posted by: blue skys at Apr 6, 2006 4:50:44 PM
EDVISE!!! lol
Posted by: blue skys at Apr 10, 2006 6:32:22 PM
What is joint physical care?
Joint physical care is when both parents share physical placement of the child(ren). Simply defined, joint physical care allows the child(ren) to live with each parent 50% of the time during the year. Research has shown that child(ren) need equal access to both parents and joint physical care accomplishes this challenge. Parenting schedules are established to determine when each parent has the child(ren) living with them. The most frequent joint physical care schedule is one week at moms, the next week at dads, and holidays are usually alternated. The State of Iowa, allows parents to determine what parenting schedule best meets the needs of their child(ren). Joint physical care is established in Iowa Statute 598.41(5)(a).
Sincerely,
Bryan Iehl
Founder
IowaFathers.com
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, Iowa 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
http://www.IowaFathers.com
Posted by: Bryan Iehl at Apr 13, 2006 1:56:29 PM
Here is the skinny that I am sure that all of fathers are wanting to know.
1) If you are going through the divorce and it is going to be slated as a no fault then the chance of you receiving joint custody of your children if the mother is not showing things that would be considered dangerous to the childs well being and the mother is not will to have shared costudy of the children with the father, then you are what common folks refer to as screwed. It is terrible to think this way about your self, but it is unfortuantly true. These are some things that you as a father can do to show that you are better in the eyes of the judge:
1) Look at your living situation...are you living somewhere that allows your child(ren) to have their own bedroom, is it a dump...and so on
2) Are you taking the child(ren) to church, partaking in school functions...and so on
3) What is your schedule like? Both business and social. If your job does not allow you to see your child(ren) and you can afford to do it, take a pay cut until the divorce is final, go back to school and finish that degree, or throw caution to the wind and quit the job all together. Just make sure that you can still provide for your child(ren) at the end.
The biggest rule of thumb to remember is this....you do not sign anything that does not benefit you. Unless of course you are the one asking for the divorce then whatever. But if you are the one that is on the receiving end, again do not sign a single thing...talk to your lawyer about what you should sign and what you should not. That is what they are paid for.
Note: If you are going through a divorce that involves your spouse getting some of your money, hide that money. Find someone that will be primary on the checking and savings account, and have them set you as secondary. This does not have to enter as an asset because it is not your account. Also, how much money do you have in your retirement fund? If you have a lot well, then you may have to do without half of that or have a good lawyer to fight that. If you do not have a lot of money in it, pull it out and pay off debit and lawyer fees, they cannot pull where there is no handle. Stocks and Bonds, sign them over to the person that is primary on your bank account. The goal is to hide your money you have now, and to get rid off the money you cannot hide.
Anyone that does not agree to these, may know more about your state law restrictions, so yet again get a lawyer, sign nothing, set yourself up for success, and hide that money. When all else fails use the Court of Appeals, that is what they are there for.
Posted by: Limitation82 at Apr 13, 2006 6:24:06 PM
Can someone explain to me some things that can come up if someone is using habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. As many examples of such would be great.
Posted by: Limitation82 at Apr 26, 2006 1:28:43 PM
I'm new to this but how about this situation.I married someone from iowa.we seperated about three months after we got married.at this time we found out she was pregnant.I told her i was there for my son nomatter what.i moved to utah and a short time later she asked if we could reconcile.she tried this for all of 6 weeks.during this process she (supposedly)became pregnant again.so now there are 2 boys involved.they are now 2 and 3 years old.now keeping in mind that this is in this best interest of the kids, when i call she isnt home. she told me that she felt uncomfortable sending the boys to me for a visit because it was to far.but she saw no problem sending them all the way to florida to see her dad.and ofcourse there is the support question.how is it that in iowa even on thier own web sight that it is said that iowa wants equal paticipation of both parents, but when it comes to both parents supporting the children the courts actually make it very simple for mothers to sit on their butts as long as the checks roll in.at one time i had my first three children from a previous marriage.and at that time i needed help with medical.i didnt ask for money or food stamps.just medical.i was told by the dhs that i needed to get a second job. ok what happened to fair.fact is i dont care about the fact she carried for nine months.she didnt lay on her self and get herself pregnant.so if we are going to be equal then lets do it across the board.sad fact is in the state of iowa and many other states there is a mentality that poor women are victims in this whole thing.so we all bow down and give them sympathy.when this country thinks that just because you have boobs and ass that you are assumed to be some super parent then there is a problem.fact is i pay my support.and i give more then i really can afford.while my ex has lost job after job so she can stay in the system and play the victim.so lets all really think about this assumed fairness.fathers can be great parents.and this thinking that women are somehow in need of special treatment is all bs.we as parents brought these kids in the world together and these laws that mostly slander fathers need to take this into account.and for those femenists who think that these women are stand up and take a stand type women.think about this.you cant be independant if you live off someone elses funds...that im sorry is being depend.iowa has a welfare reform program going on.this needs to move thru the support system also.right is right,wrong is wrong, and equal is equal.stop the insanity and the victim mentality.all of our children suffer.
Posted by: ROBERT JIRON at Apr 26, 2006 1:53:37 PM
Just so all of you know, shared parenting just failed in New York. I'm happy to hear it. Shared parenting places the demands of the fathers' rights activists who want it over the welfare of children. Fathers' rights activists have tried to get shared parenting passed in New York for more than a decade, and they have failed every year. I'm sure the bill will be reintroduced next year. I hope it fails again, and continues to fail.
Posted by: The Countess at Apr 26, 2006 2:19:58 PM
You know this talk of shared parenting wanting to fail is BS. Shared parenting can work, if women would allow the father the right. To say that a child is harmed by this is simply idiotic. Get off your asses, take out a psyc book, or look on the net. There is information out there that proves that consistent contact by both parents with the child(ren) is much better. It is the women that make it so damn hard. So before anyone goes all heels up with the issue of joint costudy, think before you start typing away. Parents need to start pulling their heads out of there ass, and start think of the child and not there own selfish reasons for not allowing a very good thing to work. All the women out there that do not agree can go to hell. And that statement goes even double for jackass fathers as well. My son deserves the best, and where one parent fails the other is there to pick it up. So no more of this crap about shared costudy not working, make it work, but yourself through the ringer, it is after all, and what everyone claims as doing the best things in their child(ren)s best interest.
Posted by: Limitation82 at Apr 27, 2006 9:21:43 AM
Limitation, shared parenting (joint physical custody) HAS failed. It just failed again in New York. It has failed to pass in California, Colorado, Maryland, and Massachusetts. It has failed to pass in the U. K., Australia, Germany, and New Zealand. It IS failing.
You wrote: "Parents need to start pulling their heads out of there ass, and start think of the child and not there own selfish reasons for not allowing a very good thing to work."
Project much? It's the fathers' rights supporters who support shared parenting for their own selfish reasons. They want the lower child support order. You even recommended dads quit their jobs or take a pay cut when divorcing. That does not benefit kids. That's one way some men think they can lower their child support obligations. It doesn't work. You recommended men hide their money in divorce so that their wives can't get their hands on it. What does that have to do with the welfare of children? Nothing.
Men like you want the ability to meddle with childrearing decisions they had left to their wives while married. It's not about children at all, and New York is the latest state to recognize that fact. Please take note of this quote by NY Assemblyman Adam Bradley: "The best interest of the child would no longer be the focus if this bill is approved. This moves in absolutely the wrong direction."
It's clear what fathers' rights advocates want with shared parenting, and the welfare of the children is farthest from their minds. None of your "advice" was about children. It was about hiding money and assets from your wife so you could keep as much of it for yourself as possible. It's all about money for fathers' rights activists like you. You've made that clear in your comments here.
Posted by: The Countess at Apr 27, 2006 9:41:46 AM
What's the deal Countess? You disagree with my view so you remove my post?
Again, anyone wanting facts about joint physical care can visit www.jointphysicalcare.info.
Sincerely,
Bryan Iehl
Founder
IowaFathers.com
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
www.IowaFathers.com
Posted by: Bryan Iehl at Apr 27, 2006 11:09:42 AM
No, Bryan. I didn't remove your post because I disagreed with you. I removed it because you came here to use my blog to advertise your web site. If you want to advertise your web site, start your own blog. Mine is not a platform for fathers' rights.
If anyone wants the facts about joint custody, shared parenting, joint physical care - whatever you want to call it - you go to these pages on my web site:
Robert Bauserman and Joint Custody - Bauserman has long ago been discredited.
My Testimony Against Presumptive Joint Custody In California - the bill failed.
My Testimony Against Presumptive Joint Custody In Maryland - the bill failed.
I'm hearing from a lot of fathers' rights activists over the past couple of days. They must be upset over presumptive shared parenting (presumptive joint physical custody) failing yesterday in New York. Good.
Posted by: The Countess at Apr 27, 2006 11:47:40 AM
NoteL All of the items mentioned in previous post by me, were in a way to help farther's that are being treat wrongly by an outdated system. These items were mentioned by me to help those fathers that are good in make sure that they do not get screwed in the legal system that favors house wives, not the working class women of today. Just because I have a penis does not in anyway give me less of a parenting stand point. I am for fathers right to a point. I do not care how much my x needs in order to support our child, that is not my concern. My consern lies more in the fact that too many women are using their x husbands for supporting them and not the child(ren). In other words women are using the system and are the ones that are causing a changing in the system to fail. Women not men are the cause of this. Women want equality, fine let them have it. But if they are to have the equal treatment that they so want and need it has to go all the way across the board. It cannot be held up when a father wants more rights with their child(ren). That in my minds eye is not ethically sound. I myself, am not trying to take my son away from my x. I would never do such a thing to take away his mother. As a matter of fact, I am trying to keep things as civil as possible, she is the one that is wanting to make things ugly. And to further object to your statements, her lawyer has stated that the things that I am going for in the divorce are very reasonable. Yes, I said her lawyer. So what I suggest is that you look at the issues of the areas and countries that have shown joint custody as failing and look at the evidence in the cases and see if the man was an achololic, always between jobs, beats or verbally abuses the child(ren), things of that nature, and then look at how many did not work, when the father was a stand up guy and a good father. Get those facts straight and the send your rebuttal.
Posted by: Limitation82 at Apr 27, 2006 12:18:16 PM
Countless,
What material from the post yesterday advertised my website? I simply stated my opinion and identified who I was for credibility reasons. I already have a message board but I encourage the opposition to post their views without removing them unless language or threats become an issue because it creates dialog.
Sincerely,
Bryan Iehl
Founder
IowaFathers.com
Posted by: Bryan Iehl at Apr 27, 2006 12:19:37 PM
Bryan, take your presumptive joint custody nonsense elsewhere. It's not welcome here. And I took special note of your name-calling, insulting me with a slur. Fathers' rights activists are angry now that their efforts to get presumptive joint physical custody passed in New York have failed. Good. I"m glad it didn't pass.
Now take your crap elsewhere. I won't tolerate it on my blog.
Posted by: The Countess at Apr 27, 2006 12:55:29 PM
Limitation, you had recommended that fathers quit their jobs, take lower paying jobs, and hide their money in order to get lower child support orders. It's clear what your position is. It isn't welcome here. What you recommend has nothing to do with what is best for children. It is to help men keep as much money to themselves as possible. That's what presumptive joint custody is about for you - keeping as much money in your pocket and away from your ex as possible. Not the least bit child friendly. Your comments are all about money, not children.
Take it elsewhere. Your fathers' rights conniving is not welcome here.
Posted by: The Countess at Apr 27, 2006 12:59:19 PM
you don't even know me, so save your judgement for a higher power. Second of all I am for not just fathers but mothers as well, the child(ren) are the main concern, nothing else matters. just because I give advice on issues that impact good fathers, does not mean that the advice that I give are not sound for a good mother. You are clouding the issue with the battle of the sexes. You are the one giving your point and are not willing to look at the other. An open mind is what is needed in good debating. If you cannot look at both sides, and make a response that would better both people, then you are only finishing half the task. I Give advice to whom ever seems to be the more fit person that is seeking the well being of the child(ren). Where as you could care less for the interest of both parents. So don't tell me that I am unwelcome because you cannot debate the issue, and bring up conclusive factual information to state your claim. In actuality divorce is a no win situation for anyone both parents and child(ren). To state other wise is turning a blind eye on the main issue that no one is bring up which is why is it so easy for people to get a divorce, why are the children not included in the making of a good agreement. So don't tell me that I am for farthers rights solely on me using the term farther in my post, would I like to see farthers have more rights, sure, and why not. But ultimately I seek what is best for those that have no voice, the children. And by the way, you are the one that is getting angry, and getting upset, and I could care less about some bill or what happened in NY.
Posted by: Limitation82 at Apr 27, 2006 2:10:42 PM
ok guys i got to get in on this.sad fact according to the u.s census people there in washington there are some facts that some here havent read or chose not to.firstly on child support do you realize that the percentage of women ordered to pay comparative to men is low(this is expected)but fathers willingling pay more support then women ordered to do the same.also in almost all 48 states there to date is no pro-active program to even try to help mothers on the state assisted programs to become more self sufficient in any way. so we have this mind set that we must make fathers responsible(ok i can almost go for that), but what if the father dies?did anyone bother in the best interest of the child to think about what to do after that?fact is the majority of mothers who have become dependent on child support now have no way to support their children.and guess what ladies....they go to the welfare system. and then the tax payers of every state can support them.and lets not even go into welfare reform.that is a joke.so in the process instead of being responsible parents and americans in general we choose to teach a victim mentality. we choose to promote dependency instead of self-reliance.what a great system.and heres another stat for you. do you realize more child abuse is the direct result of the mother and/or her family or new partner. you noticed i said mother not father right.very interesting.and this is in the best interest of the child.i have many more stats for those who want to know.all verifiable by are U.S goverment.you can choose to disagree but the fact is it is verified in the us census.and no dr who wrote a book can fight fact.and i saw a comment about the mother carrying the child for nine months and bonding..ok what is that about.like it or not it took 2 to make a baby and it takes 2 to raise it. anyone who doesnt have the common sense to see the is living on another planet.if you truely feel that there is some kind of super human bond with mothers and that fathers cant possbly have that bond then let me ask you this?why is it that mothers ask for support at all? if you truely dont see that parents, not just mothers or faters, but parents are both responsible for the child emotionally,physically,and FINANCIALLY then why ask for support?it seems to me that if our purpose is to minimize a fathers duties then why dont mothers and these femnazis groups demand that fathers not include themselves.fact is they cant.why you may ask.ill tell you.firstly child support recovery unit has a money making system here.not just from fathers but mothers also.also if we dont have mothers on the system then how can we possibly justify creating programs that we dont promote so out goverment has more money to play with.fact is guys there is a much bigger picture here.this was never a fathers against mothers fight.but this cat calling and bs about all this stuff really dilutes what the focus should be on and that is the children that suffer with our inability to to find a midway point.and our courts ,and representatives dont rule anything that we dont let them.so lets get focused here.joint custody lets get real unless someone out there has the ability to concieve thru immaculte conception it a joint effort to create the kids, and common sense and any amount or moral compass says that it takes 2 to raise them.beyond that its a bs.we need one rule,one law, and if we truely want equality we need to be equal.lets try that...then we can fight over who pees farther and who pees more accurate.
Posted by: ROBERT JIRON at May 19, 2006 10:49:56 PM
