[ekm]100x100[ekm].jpg)
« Talk About Biting The Hand That Feeds You | Main | More eBay Fun »
February 07, 2005
Ontario Puts Limits On Joint Custody
An Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled against joint custody, opining that "warring couples shouldn't be awarded joint custody of a child unless they can show they're able to co-operate as parents." This is an important ruling, insofar as joint custody in conflicted cases has become a "disturbing social trend." Toronto family law lawyer Deidre Smith said that "joint custody has been on the rise. It's become an increasingly popular thing. and there has been this underlying assumption that if one of the parents wasn't parenting well, that joint custody was a way to improve parenting. But if parents can't co-operate, let's not experiment with their child."
Let's not experiment with their child. Finally, some sound reasoning about joint custody, especially the presumptive joint custody favored by fathers' rights activists.
Dr. Judith Wallerstein wrote this in her book "Second Chances." Bold emphasis is mine.
"Joint custody can be helpful in families where it has been chosen voluntarily by both parents and is suitable for the child. But there is no evidence to support the notion that "one size fits all" or even most. There is, in fact, a lot of evidence for the idea that different custody models are suitable for different families. The policy job ahead is to find the best match for each family. Sadly, when joint custody is imposed by the court on families fighting over custody of children the major consequences of the fighting are shifted onto the least able members of the family--the hapless and helpless children. The children can suffer serious psychological injury when this happens."
Paul Amato noted the following in his article "Contact With Non-Custodial Fathers and Children's Wellbeing," for "Family Matters," No. 36, Dec. pg. 32-24 for the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne Australia. Bold emphasis is mine.
"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."
I've been saying for years that joint custody is not appropriate for "warring" parents. The leading researchers in the field have long said the same thing. Joint custody does not reduce conflict. It increases it. A presumption for joint custody will not "fix" conflict. Fathers' rights groups in Canada have been petitioning for joint custody for years, and this ruling will no doubt displease them.
This is the second time in less than a month that joint custody has been rejected in Canada. Specifically, presumptive joint custody has already been rejected. Hopefully it's a trend that speaks well of the future.
Posted on February 7, 2005 at 12:49 PM | Permalink
Comments
This just so reminds me of that story where God suggests they cut a baby in half or something! Only in this story, the people involved say, "Yes, slit 'em right down the middle!"
(Mind you, I'm saying this from totally outside the issue, having no personal experience in joint custody matters.)
Posted by: Chloe at Feb 7, 2005 5:18:56 PM
What was that story anyway??? I only remember that it was... probably Jewish? The Old Testament?
Posted by: Chloe at Feb 7, 2005 5:21:05 PM
LOL... I did an internet search for that story... And it was King Soloman of Israel who suggested cutting the baby in half.
At any rate, this also came up in my search:
So I decided to read it.
You see, I wasn't sure what the story was about.
I thought at first... "oh wow, somebody else has wondered the same thing as me!" haha.
In that, I always wondered why the authorities or whoever make prospective adoptive parents jump through hoops in order to adopt a child... when any joker could have children the natural way.
In order to adopt a child, I've heard that people have to pass rigorous background checks. Like sometimes the prospective parents' pasts have come into question at times, not just their current situations.
Yet the financially irresponsible, the lawbreakers, the ex-cons, the active alcoholic addicts, the mentally ill, are all free to reproduce, legally, at will without such preventions in place like those that pre-screen adoptive parents.
But of course the linked story was actually a complaint about adoptive parents favouritism - that adoptive parents are inclined to get donations from strangers & government substidies.
I wonder if anyone pointed out to the writer that in order to get those things with natural reproduction, the law might put some stringent limits on natural childbirth. haha.
Upon continuing the reading of the story, there seemed to be a bit of that "blame the system for deadbeat fathers" 'logic', so I really can't recommend their assertions. (That said, it was presumably by a college student.)
Posted by: Chloe at Feb 7, 2005 5:53:30 PM
"This is the second time in less than a month that joint custody has been rejected in Canada. Specifically, presumptive joint custody has already been rejected. Hopefully it's a trend that speaks well of the future."
Then that means people who cannot settle will have to go to litigation. Women do not do well in litigation. If favors the party who has the most money to spend and cares the least about the outcome; so there is no limit on the chances they will take or the money they will spend...none
The party who doesn't give a sh*t if they win or lose; nor how much money they spend doing it has now been given a bigger club to go after the parent who does care enough and probably would have been willing to settle for 50% of something rather then take a chance in front of a Judge and wind up getting nothing, if they lost...
Even the psychology of men versus women would show you who is going to lose by this...
Frankly I see Joint Custody as the lesser of many, many, many, evils that can befall women and children...
So ultimately, this decision will mean more mothers will lose more children...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 7, 2005 6:27:18 PM
NYMOM, if that's the case, why would "father's rights" people be more in favour of Joint Custody? It sounds like you're saying they shouldn't, based on their aims.
Posted by: Chloe at Feb 8, 2005 2:20:33 AM
As I have argued here before, I have never been convinced that joint custody is the true agenda of the FR movement. For the abusive personalities that predominate in these groups, sole custody is often the goal, and sometimes their websites will admit this. Sole custody gives them the power over their ex's that they crave (and often accuse their ex as having. It's classic projection of your pathology on to others.) They often express admiration for 19 century slave-holding America, or other beacons of human rights and democracy, like Saudi Arabia, that automatically give fathers custody.
Failing that, at least 50/50 can get you out of child support in some cases. Obviously, sole does too, and you can get out of even taking care of the kid if you dump 'em on your mom and dad, like the Highland Falls daddy that's been in the news. The one who allegedly knifed his own kid to death after getting custody.
And don't accuse me of sexism. If a mom with dad's history of violence was granted custody by a court and then killed her kid, I'd have no sympathy for her either. I'm disgusted by any parent that kills a child, but when that parent was basically deemed a fit parent by a state court or agency that's supposed to be analyzing these things, it really angers me.
Posted by: silverside at Feb 8, 2005 10:30:28 AM
"As I have argued here before, I have never been convinced that joint custody is the true agenda of the FR movement."
No...but sometimes if they aren't paying child support BECAUSE they have Joint Custody on PAPER that's enough to shut a large percentage of them up. It's like buying time until your children are older or maybe your life situation stabilizes, or they fall off a bridge into the river, whatever...Actually as you know Silverside and we're discussed this before how many fathers down here in the city get Joint Custody, pay NO child support and rarely follow though on the parenting plan...but there is nothing you can do since once it's signed off on you can't go back to court for a year maybe two unless abuse or neglect is involved...
I mean I've often said I support Joint Custody as the lesser of many evils for women and children...since men are NOT going to stop litigating just because they can't get Joint Custody, instead they'll litigate for Sole Custody and many will get it...it's that simple...
I just don't understand why so many supporters of women don't see this...when you can't get Joint Custody, you'll litigate for Sole...what do they think, men just turn around and say okay, forget it, Judge said he won't award Joint with litigation, so I'll just go home now...They'll just litigate for Sole Custody instead of Joint, which is far worse for women who have less resources to fight these things with...
"They often express admiration for 19 century slave-holding America, or other beacons of human rights and democracy, like Saudi Arabia, that automatically give fathers custody."
On yes, those Saudis were their heroes PRE-9/11...
They don't see them as quite so 'cute' anymore that they pulled that stunt...but they love all those Saudi rules which favor fathers...and if bin Ladin hadn't been involved in 9/11, they would have ALL been the best of buddies...him, Falwell, Robinson...the whole FR bunch...one big happy group of patriarchs probably having brunch together...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 8, 2005 1:34:01 PM
"As I have argued here before, I have never been convinced that joint custody is the true agenda of the FR movement."
Ooooh... Okay then. That makes more sense. I thought it was some kind of agreement that the FR movement was pro-joint-custody or something.
I apologize for not realizing this if it's been discussed before... but I admit I haven't read every comment ever posted to this site. ;) And I admit I'm NO expert on what the FR movement wants, by any stretch of the imagination.
"For the abusive personalities that predominate in these groups..."
This I find very interesting. It does seem as if this is the case. But WHY?
And yeah, I totally know about narcissistic personality disorder, and abusive people, and all their tactics of manipulation where they blame (or perhaps truly see) the other person of doing what they are actually doing. (That's so typical of that dog-eat-dog always have to have a one-up on another person worldview.)
And I don't think you sound sexist silverside. I understand that whoever does something like that is heinous.
But I wouldn't be surprised if there are less incidents where mothers fight tooth & nail for their children, and then abuse them & kill them.
I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of men go through custody battles in order to control their ex-wives. It seemed almost preposterous to me until I had some small first-hand experience with someone like that. Some people will continue trying to control their exes even after they've found a new partner, re-married, or whatever. And I think most of them don't even realize what they're doing, or why, or how it comes across. Again, and this had been in some literature I read, they're stuck in a type of dog-eat-dog control-or-be-controlled perspective of relating.
I've come to refer to this mentality as "The Arena". And if you try to tangle at all with a person in The Arena, you yourself must enter The Arena... because they're not going to come meet you at the Diplomat's Dinner. ;)
Anyway, this all leads to my pet speculation on the matter...
That "joint custody" works for cooperative couples, because neither of them are in "The Arena". They have a system in place, of cooperation, that makes it comfortable for the kid to have 2 full residences.
In a hostile joint custody situation, the parents are likely vying for control of the child, because they're both stuck in The Arena (one probably by nature, the other by default). The child must endure possibly diametrically opposite conditions and rules at the seperate residences, on top of just having 2 primary residences, which is difficult.
In that sense, I understand that joint custody could not be an ideal solution. And really does seem to me like cutting the kid in half like King Solomon suggested!
On the other hand, a situation where an abusive parent is given full custody simply because he/she has enough money to go to any lengths to get custody... Is, well, a problem with the SYSTEM. Not a problem with the motive of seeking full custody.
So I think the original point of "moving away from joint custody" is a hopes that the problems (sometimes disasters) that happen because of "full custody" will more likely have to be improved, rather than just using flawed joint custody as a band-aid. ??? (I'm just guessing on this, of course.)
Posted by: Chloe at Feb 8, 2005 2:04:04 PM
"Actually as you know Silverside and we're discussed this before how many fathers down here in the city get Joint Custody, pay NO child support and rarely follow though on the parenting plan...but there is nothing you can do since once it's signed off on you can't go back to court for a year maybe two unless abuse or neglect is involved..."
HOLY COW - I hadn't seen this before I posted my comment. (Got side-tracked, never re-loaded the page.)
Isn't "not following through on the parenting plan" most certainly NEGLECT???? I mean, not going halfsies when you've agreed to by law certainly sounds like neglect to me!
But again... if that's the goal of joint custody for some men - why would some of those men go for full custody... Then there'd be no way for them to neglect their lawfully granted duties at all, would there? I mean, do men with full custody just then drop the kid off at the mother's and still refuse to pay child support? Or what?
And don't even get me started about Saudis. Many years ago I had a pen-pal in Saudi Arabia. A teenage American girl whose mother married a Saudi when she was just 9, and moved her to Saudi Arabia. The ensuing tale... Well, I absolutely would not post the details here, for privacy reasons of the great young woman, who was truly incredibly courageous, resourceful, and the kind of person who had no trouble turning lemons into lemonade. (Who I've been trying to get in touch with, but haven't found in several years - long story). But anyone's free to use the contact page on my web site to inquire after more details of this wild true story - which to this day is burned into my mind, and probably has an effect on a lot of my opinions which persist to this day.
Posted by: Chloe at Feb 8, 2005 2:24:52 PM
I've been following the subject of "presumed joint custody" for some time now.
My own personal situation is that I see my daughter every other weekend and every Wednesday night. My ex and I split summer and major holidays down the middle.
The net result is that my daughter spends, oh, about 30-35% of her time with me, and the majority of the time at her mom's house.
Would I love to see my daughter more? You bet I would! Is it because I see it as a way to reduce child support? Of course not: my primary desire is so that I can be more of a PARENT to my daughter. Do any of you who rail against joint custody actually KNOW what it is like to not be able to parent a child you brought into the world? Didn't think so. Do I like paying hundreds of dollars a month in lieu of being a parent? Only an idiot would.
Anyway, the thought of fighting for a more 50/50 arrangement has crossed my mind several times. But in the end, I leave things be. It's a tough choice: my daughter loves me very much, and I can tell she really respects me as a parent (she'll slip a lot of "my father says..." into her essays at school -- being looked up to gives one a warm fuzzy feeling, doesn't it?). Our time together goes by WAY too fast. Plus, I sometimes have to travel for work and that forces me to miss my Wednesdays.
But my daughter regards her mother's home as "HOME", and I respect THAT. I can't imagine what it would be like for a child to bounce back and forth all the time. Sure, I've read reports that claim 50/50 is best for a child, because they get as much influence from BOTH their parents as possible, contrasted with a LOT of one parent and not so much of the other. But still, I know my daughter well enough to feel that there is some risk in trying to sway the balance such as it is.
Let's face it, folks: there's no way that divorce can EVER be an easy, cut and dried solution to life's problems. There are always going to be situations where something has to be given up, something is missed. That's the sadness of it.
However, I can certainly understand the desire for men to push for "presumed joint custody". I do understand where these guys are coming from: the ones who find themselves shoved to the margins of their childrens' lives by the courts, claiming that it's in the "best interest of the child" to do so.
It's an imperfect solution to a no-win situation. If you were to reduce/eliminate the bias of the courts/society on the "best interest of the child" aspect and bring daddy into the picture more and more that would be great on one hand, but I'm afraid the child/ren would be totally unsettled, having to bounce back and forth between parents.
As I said, I don't think my situation is perfect. But I'm not sure I have a better idea. So, we do the best we can with what we've got. So far, I do have a beautiful, smart daughter who loves BOTH her parents AND her step-parents. And we go from there.
Posted by: Scarbo at Feb 8, 2005 4:58:11 PM
"Do any of you who rail against joint custody actually KNOW what it is like to not be able to parent a child you brought into the world? Didn't think so. Do I like paying hundreds of dollars a month in lieu of being a parent? Only an idiot would."
Yes Silverside knows NOW as she's being going though this for years, as did I (in the past) since I was non-custodial parent of one of my daughters for ONE ENTIRE YEAR...
Okay...so we know what it's like...
Okay...and it's far worse for women then for men...you don't get judged for your custodial status by family, neighbors, people at work or your church, etc., not to mention the emotional trauma of it for mothers which is worse then for men, don't tell me it's not...
AND btw, you don't parent in lieu of MONEY...you see that the problem with that kind of thinking...YOU PARENT AND SPEND MONEY...it's not either/or...it's both at the same time and this is what has LED to our present situation....Men keep thinking they can either parent or spend money and I hate to tell you but it's BOTH and at the SAME TIME...
Anyway, I personally think any man who fights for custody (unless abuse or neglect is involved) to be abusive by definition...especially if he's thinking he exchanges parenting time for spending money...as I spent money on my daughter when she was with me and when she wasn't...I mean WTF, just because your kids aren't with you, don't you want them to have nice things and have a certain standard of living whereever they are?
I never heard of anything so silly...that you parent, so you don't spend money...or vice versa...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 8, 2005 7:41:48 PM
"However, I can certainly understand the desire for men to push for "presumed joint custody". I do understand where these guys are coming from: the ones who find themselves shoved to the margins of their childrens' lives by the courts, claiming that it's in the "best interest of the child" to do so.
It's an imperfect solution to a no-win situation. If you were to reduce/eliminate the bias of the courts/society on the "best interest of the child" aspect and bring daddy into the picture more and more that would be great on one hand, but I'm afraid the child/ren would be totally unsettled, having to bounce back and forth between parents."
Well see I think that men are selfish when fighting for Joint Custody if they know children have to bounce back and forth between parents... Don't tell me that's not selfish...as you yourself just admitted it's unsettling for children...and I agree...yet you'll argue in other places with other men saying Joint Custody should be mandatory...BUT you don't want to expose your daughter to it, as you know it's confusing, but you'll support some other poor kid to have to go through the confusion...
I mean if it's not good enough for your daughter, why is it good enough for someone else's...
Like I said before I support Joint Custody because I know many men will not give up until they get it and if the fight continues long enough eventually they will change the fight for Sole Custody and get that...so I support it as the lesser of many evils that could happen to mothers, if they continue fighting in court...
It's really interesting to me however that many of the advocates of all these weird custody arrangements either have no kids or would NEVER dream of having their kids shuffling back and forth like this between parents dragging their clothes and a toothbrush in a plastic bag every couple of days...it's just everybody's else kids who should be forced into these arrangements...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 8, 2005 8:15:49 PM
"On the other hand, a situation where an abusive parent is given full custody simply because he/she has enough money to go to any lengths to get custody... Is, well, a problem with the SYSTEM. Not a problem with the motive of seeking full custody."
No...it's a problem with the motive...as I think any man who fights for custody is by definition abusive...unless abuse or neglect is already present in the mother/child relationship...
I mean losing custody of her children has the potential to literally destroy a mother's life, thus I have to presume that you have no children of your own if you think that we would be okay with this, as long as it's seen as a just, fair, unbiased legal process where the 'best person wins' and everybody just walk away shaking hands afterwards...
Whether it's legally 'fair' or NOT, for mothers it's ultimately a life-altering, earth-shattering, soul-desroying experience to lose a child like that...
Which it's why it's so easy for us to be abused in these situations as obviously the person who cares the least can go to any lengths since they just don't give a crap about the outcome. It's the one who cares the most who is most open to manipulation by the other parent...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 8, 2005 8:40:12 PM
"But again... if that's the goal of joint custody for some men - why would some of those men go for full custody... Then there'd be no way for them to neglect their lawfully granted duties at all, would there? I mean, do men with full custody just then drop the kid off at the mother's and still refuse to pay child support? Or what?"
Exactly...that's exactly what they do...which is why I HATE these enabler idiots as they are the lowest form of life...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 8, 2005 8:43:11 PM
"And don't even get me started about Saudis. Many years ago I had a pen-pal in Saudi Arabia. A teenage American girl whose mother married a Saudi when she was just 9, and moved her to Saudi Arabia. The ensuing tale... Well, I absolutely would not post the details here, for privacy reasons of the great young woman, who was truly incredibly courageous, resourceful, and the kind of person who had no trouble turning lemons into lemonade. (Who I've been trying to get in touch with, but haven't found in several years - long story). But anyone's free to use the contact page on my web site to inquire after more details of this wild true story - which to this day is burned into my mind, and probably has an effect on a lot of my opinions which persist to this day."
I'm afraid to read it...
It's like someone told me when they got back from Desert Storm, they assumed they hated the Saudis because of ignorance, not knowing them...Sadly after she went over there and got to know them a little better, she discovered she really loathed them...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 8, 2005 8:47:25 PM
NYMOM, I've said it before, and I'll remind you again: please stop putting words in my mouth and assuming you know my actions and motives. You are wrong about both. So knock it off.
Posted by: Scarbo at Feb 8, 2005 9:48:30 PM
"NYMOM, I've said it before, and I'll remind you again: please stop putting words in my mouth and assuming you know my actions and motives. You are wrong about both. So knock it off."
Is this some kind of bait & switch racket or something with you?
I mean you post something, I respond to it, then you accuse me of 'putting words in your mouth'...
This weekend you pulled similar crap on another blog with me and btw, got me semi-banned now due to you and your MRA associates...
For future reference, I think I'm just going to ignore everything you or any of your associates have to say...which isn't really very much anyway, so it won't be too hard to do...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 8, 2005 11:43:04 PM
For me the difficulty with a "one size fits all" solution is that it doesn't recognise the facts of a child's upbringing. So I wouldn't go for 50/50 residence in every case.
However if there was a pattern of shared care - even if 70/30 - where both parties had shown competence then I think there should be a presumption that shared care should continue.
Further, I take with a pinch of salt this suggestion that a child cannot have 2 physical homes: if some kid lived 4 days a week in downtown manhattan and spent the other 3 at the hamptons no one would begin to suggest there was an issue to make out of this.
Also, I think we could get round the "dragging toothbrush and clothes" around argument by buying another toothbrush and set of outfits. Not rocket science.
The problem is that once you subscribe to the kind of thinking expressed by other posters above (shared care is basically abuse or some such stuff)you pass from the realm of the practical realities of modern childcare (where both parents do their bit) to some politically-corrected neverland where people throw their catchphrases around and seek to resolve their own beefs with the world by hurting other people (fathers in this case) including children.
The law must reflect reality and maintain justice: a man who fathers a child, raises it in his home, does his share of the childcare, has every reason to expect that the government will protect that status quo. A lot of politicians say that parents have no "rights" in respect of their kids, only responsibilities. I accept that to a certain extent but with the qualification that as parents we should have a "right" that takes precedence over any right sought to be asserted ahead of us by some meddling politicians or state appointed flunkey with the effect of ousting our involvement from our children's lives.
Posted by: Steve at Feb 9, 2005 5:40:21 AM
This weekend you pulled similar crap on another blog with me and btw, got me semi-banned now due to you and your MRA associates...
I don't know what you're talking about. You may be mistaking me for someone else.
Posted by: Scarbo at Feb 9, 2005 9:36:26 AM
Further, I take with a pinch of salt this suggestion that a child cannot have 2 physical homes: if some kid lived 4 days a week in downtown manhattan and spent the other 3 at the hamptons no one would begin to suggest there was an issue to make out of this. Also, I think we could get round the "dragging toothbrush and clothes" around argument by buying another toothbrush and set of outfits. Not rocket science.
Of course it isn't rocket science to provide two physical homes. I have done exactly that with my daughter. But I know that she regards one home as more of a home than the other. I can't imagine what it must be like to grow up like this, it must feel pretty bizarre. I was lucky, I had one home.
In a nutshell, how the ultimate arrangement affects the kids should be of paramount importance. I'm sure some kids could thrive quite well in a 50/50 arrangement: kids are all unique and different, and they sure are resiliant as all get out.
Posted by: Scarbo at Feb 9, 2005 10:01:37 AM
Scarbo: "Do I like paying hundreds of dollars a month in lieu of being a parent?"
If parents were still together, wouldn't the parent be paying hundreds of dollars a month AND being a parent?
I'm with NYMON, I don't think child support money is a replacement for parenting.
The only reason that the primary custody parent doesn't have to pay child support, is because it's assumed that the primary custody parent is constantly forced to spend money on the child, as the child is right there present, in need of direct financial support, and the custodial parent is paying all sorts of bills for the household in which the child is living.
Financial support is necessary for children, no matter what, because they can't survive without money, and they can't make money of their own. Therefore parents are responsible for supporting their children financially, regardless of divorce or living arrangements.
Indeed, even if a parent is found to be abusive, and barred from any visitation, they are still financially responsible, aren't they? And I don't think this is unreasonable. Though many mothers deal with dead beat dads by barring visitation until they pay the child support - that doesn't mean men pay child support as payment for seeing their children. They pay because it's their financial responsibility as a parent.
And it's not determined by "halves". Because what if some mother movie actress made 12 million dollars a year. But the father had custody, but was disabled and only had an income of $25,000 a year in disability?. Does that mean that the child is only entitled to the living standards of a disabled man on assistance, and a secretary mother? Obviously a film star should be expected to pay more than a secretary - you would think they'd want to!
Scarbo: "Plus, I sometimes have to travel for work and that forces me to miss my Wednesdays."
If someone can't even make their 30%, how would they be able to handle 50%?
I'm not saying traveling to work occasionally makes someone a bad parent, not at all.
My point is that I have friends - a married couple with 2 small children... For a few years, the mother was a stay-at-home-mom, while her husband worked 10-14 hours a day 5 days a week. In that situation, the mother obviously spent a LOT more time with the kids.
To think of him demanding "equal time" with his children would seem preposterous. Yet it's reasonable for divorced fathers to push for joint custody?
Later this same couple switched positions, when the father was laid off, the mother went to work and the father stayed home with the kids for several months. But I never heard her say that she was working in leui of parenting!
Like it or not, primary custody, (whether it's halvsies or not), means that when your children are with you, they come before your job. (A concept men often don't seem to "get".) That means, if your child is sick, you need to take them to the doctor or stay home with them, and risk losing your job. There's no "missing your Wednesday" because you have to travel for business when you're a single primary custody parent. You miss your business trip, or you PAY MONEY to have someone else look after the kid while you work. That's all there is to it.
That said, in a healthy divorced parents relationship, one would think that if someone had a business trip they needed to attend, they could ask the other parent to "switch off" on some of the child care time, to accomodate situations that arise.
But I can easily imagine... Like I'm not saying this personally about anyone here... But I can imagine some father who is supposed to see his son on Sundays, calling off every 3rd Sunday for whatever reason, and the mother getting sick of the bullshit, and not being so willing to work things out and accomodate the other parent's erratic schedule.
And no, not even work is really a legitimate excuse for parental neglect... because single mothers constantly jeopardize their jobs because they must take care of their kids when things come up. And it's not safe, nor legal, to leave a 3 year old home alone while you go to work. So work is no excuse.
NYMOM: ("do men with full custody just then drop the kid off at the mother's and still refuse to pay child support? Or what?") "Exactly...that's exactly what they do...which is why I HATE these enabler idiots as they are the lowest form of life..."
Holy cow! I can't even believe someone would have that audacity. And then what happens if they do that? Is there any legal recourse? That's totally insane.
NYMOM: "I'm afraid to read it... It's like someone told me when they got back from Desert Storm, they assumed they hated the Saudis because of ignorance, not knowing them...Sadly after she went over there and got to know them a little better, she discovered she really loathed them..."
To be fair, some of the story was similar to stories of people in the U.S., of course. But the laws in Saudi Arabia are such that it provides a legal environment where things can happen, with no recourse for the victims. And people can become literally trapped.
I don't think it's about prejudice against Saudis. I have nothing against Saudis as a people, generally. I have a problem with those people who are rotten there, and the laws, legal and social, in that nation, that continue to oppress women and make them subject to the whims and control of men.
Being a single woman who lives alone, I can't help but object to that kind of oppression. I would not be able to have the lifestyle I have in Saudi Arabia - it would be impossible there. Mind you, I'm not saying I would mind it if I was happily married to a man, or that I would absolutely loath living with my step-father (as my father is dead)... I just think that should be a choice not my only option. And I believe in Saudi Arabia, there are no other options for women - they must have a male protector (read: master).
Steve: "Further, I take with a pinch of salt this suggestion that a child cannot have 2 physical homes: if some kid lived 4 days a week in downtown manhattan and spent the other 3 at the hamptons no one would begin to suggest there was an issue to make out of this."
There's a BIG difference between having a vacation cottage or something, and having TWO PRIMARY residences.
Steve: "as parents we should have a "right" that takes precedence over any right sought to be asserted ahead of us by some meddling politicians or state appointed flunkey with the effect of ousting our involvement from our children's lives."
Steve, "state appointed" agents are ARBITORS. When you have 2 people (parents) who both have rights, which are in conflict, there needs to be an arbitor.
Are you suggesting anarchy, and whoever's got more physical might, or financial clout, gets the kid? No civil arbitration?
If we lived in anarchy, a father with a sexual relationship with his child, who makes child pornography films, would probably have enough power & money to keep the child.
Oh yeah, that's Utopia all right.
Posted by: Chloe at Feb 9, 2005 10:10:52 AM
Scarbo- I would have no problem with accepting that a child regarded one of 2 homes as it real "home". What I have more difficulty with is the idea that there is something inherently bad about shared custody on the "geographical" basis that a child cannot live in one place part of the time and in another for another part. This was summed up by our UK Labour Party in a maxim "you can't share out kids like the CD collection." To which I would ask, well what about all the people who have a weekend house where they might spend 3 nights? No-one could surely suggest this is harmful to the kids? Or to weekend at grandpa's? As you say children are resilient and provided an understood routine existed I don't see a problem (in theory- of corse if in practice this was detrimental I would accept it should not continue). I think saying the arrangement would be "bizarre" is putting it a bit strongly. I think the real political objection to shared custody is that it removes the justification for imposing upon the man an obligation to provide a second house for the woman since he needs his own house to do his share of the parenting. Neither the state (who end up in some cases paying for housing mom) nor some feminist women who think a child justifies immediate equalising of assets to right the wrongs of evil pro-male society) want a man to be able to say, "I do my child care, I provide a home for myself and my child, I have done my bit, leave me alone".
Posted by: Steve at Feb 9, 2005 10:21:22 AM
"Anyway, I personally think any man who fights for custody (unless abuse or neglect is involved) to be abusive by definition..."
This would make sense if everybody followed the traditional division of labor within the family, but that's not the case--even if most families do, there are many that don't. Don't you think a blanket statement like this ignores attachment theory, primary caretaker presumption, respect for established parenting patterns and all the other things that most people around here favor? Is a father who has been a primary caretaker, or equal caretaker, to his kids necessarily abusive if he fights to have the existing arrangement maintained? Is a mother in such a case abusive if she fights to uproot the children from arrangements to which they are accustomed? Family dynamics just seem too diverse and complex to me to fit into these narrow "definitions."
Posted by: Anne at Feb 9, 2005 12:02:01 PM
"...the practical realities of modern childcare (where both parents do their bit)..."
Oh yeah, and grandparents, aunts, neighbors, daycare, and everyone and everything else--and I'm not talking about dumping kids off, it's survival. Parents are busy these days trying to make a living, and while I favor a primary caretaker presumption in matters of custody, a lot of the time there isn't just one. That's why you HAVE to look at the child's upbringing when deciding custody, and to keep in mind that even if one parent has been a stay-at-home, full-time caregiver, it's extremely rare for that person to be able to continue as such after a divorce, and that parent needs to be open to the other parent having an expanded role if at all possible.
Posted by: Anne at Feb 9, 2005 12:29:11 PM
Thats right Anne. Moms cannot expect Dads to opt into the whole shared childcare message-particularly where both parents work and do their part of looking after the kids part of the time- but then when there is a separation mom can act the 1950's stay-at-home mom and completely oust the father from any kind of meaningful role. If the parents have decided that shared care is in the childs best interests pre-separation there is something inherently unsatisfactory about either party coming back upon separation and arguing a different position. The UK appeal judges seem particularly wretched on these issues: (a) where the mom was the worker bee and dad at home (during about 10 years I think) mom got sole custody and went off to live on a remote island leaving dad with no kids and no career nor financial provision from her; and (b) where the charming Ms Vernoica Thorpe was allowed to take her 5 year old twins to live in Argentina because after 25 years of living in England she now fancied returning to her "home". Local judges are making the right decisions but once the appeal courts become involved and decisions become politicised decent men and their children have no chance of a fair result.
Posted by: Steve at Feb 9, 2005 12:32:05 PM
"Neither the state (who end up in some cases paying for housing mom) nor some feminist women who think a child justifies immediate equalising of assets to right the wrongs of evil pro-male society) want a man to be able to say:
"I do my child care, I provide a home for myself and my child, I have done my bit, leave me alone".
Well the state doesn't have the luxury of JUST worrying about ONE situation like you do Steve. It has to worry about ALL of its citizens and future citizens and if everyone followed your formula I could see a drastic drop in the birth rate throughout G. Britian which I don't think your society can afford...
I mean when would a woman have children, following the same career path that you did to become a lawyer? AND she would NEED to follow that same career path if men are going to all become like you and refuse to share the assets accumulated during a marriage after divorce...Marriage is either a partnership where everything, financial assets as well as children, is shared or it isn't...I mean are your rights to your children prorated according to your actual contribution to bringing them into the world? If not then why should mothers' rights to marital assets be prorated because she didn't actually make any money during the life of the marriage; as she was having and raising the children of BOTH of YOU...
Marriage is a partnership...and society likes it that way, even if you and some small portion of individual men don't like it...
BTW, lawyers and other professions have very few children YET use up vast amounts of resources in western societies...I read somewhere that high income professionals are like welfare recipients in that regard...on either end of the bellshaped curve, using much and contributing little back...
Think about it Steve...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 9, 2005 1:11:10 PM
"Thats right Anne. Moms cannot expect Dads to opt into the whole shared childcare message-particularly where both parents work and do their part of looking after the kids part of the time- but then when there is a separation mom can act the 1950's stay-at-home mom and completely oust the father from any kind of meaningful role. If the parents have decided that shared care is in the childs best interests pre-separation there is something inherently unsatisfactory about either party coming back upon separation and arguing a different position. The UK appeal judges seem particularly wretched on these issues: (a) where the mom was the worker bee and dad at home (during about 10 years I think) mom got sole custody and went off to live on a remote island leaving dad with no kids and no career nor financial provision from her; and (b) where the charming Ms Vernoica Thorpe was allowed to take her 5 year old twins to live in Argentina because after 25 years of living in England she now fancied returning to her "home". Local judges are making the right decisions but once the appeal courts become involved and decisions become politicised decent men and their children have no chance of a fair result."
AND we both agreed that if ALL the facts in that case were as YOU SAID they were, then the Judge was WRONG to do that...
We both agreed on that...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 9, 2005 1:14:06 PM
Steve: "To which I would ask, well what about all the people who have a weekend house where they might spend 3 nights? No-one could surely suggest this is harmful to the kids?"
A WEEKEND HOUSE IS MANAGED BY THE SAME PARENTAL AUTHORITY!
When a kid is forced into 2 primary residences, between 2 divorced parents, it's more than just a geographical location.
Each household may come with any or all of the following differences (examples in parentheses):
= different authority figure in charge (mom, dad, or step-parent)
= different parenting style
= different rules
= different amount of household members
= different economic situations
= different level of supervision
= different lifestyles (one may be entertaining all the time, the other not)
= different setting (ie: one rural one urban)
= different neighborhood (ie: one place the kid can play outside, one they may have friends, or not)
= different atmosphere (one loud, one quiet, etc.)
= different activities available (ie one they have a computer, the other not)
= different family members (in one household they might have siblings the other not)
= different dietary menu
And the list could go on.
That's a LOT more differences than just spending at a vacation cottage, believe me!
So I think that argument is wholly moot.
Posted by: Chloe at Feb 9, 2005 1:45:03 PM
"When a kid is forced into 2 primary residences, between 2 divorced parents, it's more than just a geographical location.
Each household may come with any or all of the following differences (examples in parentheses): different economic situations..."
Well, of course...
This is why many states like California now are basing child support in Joint Custody on income NOT visitation or parenting time because sadly too many parents see parenting time as an exchange for money and it's NOT supposed to work that way...(and PA just had a landmark ruling where their highest court ruled that a disparity in income can even come into play in Sole Custody situations, see Colonna vs. Colonna) since children need to have the same standard of living at both houses, not living in a middle income neighborhood one day with all the comforts of a middle-class existence and then relegated to a trailor eating corn dogs the next...
UNLESS we just want to operate on the assumption that the BEST parent, by definition, just has the biggest check book balance AND then we don't even have to bother with custody trials...just do an income and assets sheet and award custody based upon that...the other parent will just catch as catch can for a visit once in a while...
This is the kind of atttiude I'm getting from Steve...and this is NOT good for children...it really isn't...as children shouldn't be made to feel that one parent is 'better' then the other because of a disparity in income.
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 9, 2005 5:26:43 PM
Chloe:
I won't bore you with the details on how my child support was calculated. Suffice to say that the State of Missouri has a calculation procedure which my ex and I agreed to follow.
I'm not sure how I confused people with my statement about child support payment in lieu of parenting. Of course everyone has expenses, even me. I provide a whole bedroom in my house for my daughter. I'm going to pay for more than half her college expenses. Et cetera. But what I was trying to say in my initial post was that I'd much rather SOMEHOW have more parenting time than to write a check to her mother, for three reasons: because I think my daughter would benefit from it, because I think the relationship I have with my daughter would benefit from it, and because I think I would benefit from it.
[Now, don't go thinking that I begrudge my ex the money. Sure, she wastes it on stupid stuff (like the time a month ago when my daughter came home from school with flyer on a new fund-raising activity for school: magazine sales. My daughter didn't have to pound the pavement to sell them, because my ex bought FORTY-FOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS), but you know, there are more important things to worry about at this stage than the money. I'm still able to provide a comfortable living for myself, my current wife, my daughter when she's with us, etc.]
"To think of him demanding "equal time" with his children would seem preposterous. Yet it's reasonable for divorced fathers to push for joint custody?"
You know, divorce changes a lot of things. Have you gone through this? You know what it did for me? It gave me a pretty good kick in the head, that's what. I didn't value my relationship with my daughter nearly as much before as I did after. I've grown a lot as a result of the experience. And it's all for the good, I might add. I'm not ready to broad-brush all dads fighting for 50% as mean and vindictive. I'm sure some of them are, in fact I'd bet on it, but I wouldn't go so far as to say all of them. Because I can see from my own experience how much your viewpoint of your own LIFE changes when you go through a divorce. I believe there certainly ARE dads out there who may be waking up and saying to themselves, for instance, "My drive to succeed led me to put my career first and my family second. My wife got tired of it and we grew apart, and now I've lost them. I've got to make the best of it. My kids need ME as well as her. I need to be there for them, spend time with them, help them grow up."
How many of these dads just took things for granted when they worked until 8 PM every night and came home only to see their kids off to bed? It's so easy to fall into a pattern and assume everything is OK when it's not. Believe me, I know. And once you get that WAKE UP CALL, you have to decide for yourself "what should I really be doing with my life?"
So, no, I don't think it's preposterous for dad to want 50%. The whole family apple cart has been upset, and it needs to find a new place to operate, a complicated one. The kids need both parents, that's for sure. They all need to figure out a way to make it happen that the kids can deal with, that the parents can deal with.
Like I said, this is not a simple task. I'm merely listing the competing feelings/interests here. I don't have a one-size-fits all solution.
And again, even the "presumed 50/50 joint custody" wouldn't have to be viewed as a one-size-fits all. Since it is a REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION, it would be either party's perogative to do exactly that, to REBUT it.
Steve: "I think saying the arrangement would be "bizarre" is putting it a bit strongly."
I stand by that characterization since I haven't gone through it myself, and can't imagine what life would have been like had I grown up that way. Yes, kids are resilient. But you're sounding too cavalier about the subject. You probably grew up in one house, one bedroom, didn't you? Can you imagine having to constantly go back and forth to two households? I sure can't.
NYMOM: "Anyway, I personally think any man who fights for custody (unless abuse or neglect is involved) to be abusive by definition..."
You know, I've seen you mention this opinion of yours several times. It was well-debated on Gonzo's blog. Well, all I can say is that of course you're entitled to your opinion, but my comment on your opinion is that it really makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Your opinion allows nothing for the dad who is either about to be shut out of his kids' lives by a vidicitive ex or a stupid biased judge, or a dad who truly, honestly, from the bottom of his heart wants to spend more time with his kids. I don't understand how a man who truly feels that should be characterized in such awful, negative terms.
Posted by: Scarbo at Feb 9, 2005 5:27:35 PM
Chloe: "That "joint custody" works for cooperative couples, because neither of them are in "The Arena". They have a system in place, of cooperation, that makes it comfortable for the kid to have 2 full residences."
Early studies from the '80s about joint custody pointed all that out, too. The studies found that the cases where joint custody worked (and there weren't many) had the following factors in common: the parents got along and were able to cooperate with child-rearing, they had only one child, they were more highly educated than other parents, and they had higher incomes. Joint custody is more expensive than sole custody. Child support awards are also either eliminated or lower than sole custody awards. The problem is that those early studies were misrepresented by fathers' rights activists and professionals interested in conciliation work. They wanted to award joint custody to families in conflict, thinking that the joint custody award would force them to cooperate with each other. It didn't happen. In fact, three years later, those families were in worse shape than when they started out.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 9, 2005 6:25:13 PM
Scarbo: "You know, divorce changes a lot of things. Have you gone through this? You know what it did for me? It gave me a pretty good kick in the head, that's what. I didn't value my relationship with my daughter nearly as much before as I did after. I've grown a lot as a result of the experience. And it's all for the good, I might add. I'm not ready to broad-brush all dads fighting for 50% as mean and vindictive. I'm sure some of them are, in fact I'd bet on it, but I wouldn't go so far as to say all of them. Because I can see from my own experience how much your viewpoint of your own LIFE changes when you go through a divorce. I believe there certainly ARE dads out there who may be waking up and saying to themselves, for instance, "My drive to succeed led me to put my career first and my family second. My wife got tired of it and we grew apart, and now I've lost them. I've got to make the best of it. My kids need ME as well as her. I need to be there for them, spend time with them, help them grow up."
A custody award isn't supposed to be about rectifying decisions a dad had made during the marriage that he regrets when faced with a divorce. Custody is supposed to be awarded according to what is best and appropriate for the child. If a dad put his career first and his family second, why should the court be allowed to step in and fix this for him, at his request, ignoring the relationship the child has already established with him and the primary caregiving role the mother had established during the marriage? A divorce isn't the time to suddenly decide to be a more involved dad. The time to do that is during the marriage, and if there had been truly equal and cooperative parenting during the marriage, the parents are free to choose joint custody upon divorce. It should not be forced by the court upon divorcing couples because a dad who wasn't there as much as he thought he should be suddenly wants to be more of a part of his children's lives. Don't experiment with the kids.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 9, 2005 6:40:39 PM
"A custody award isn't supposed to be about rectifying decisions a dad had made during the marriage that he regrets when faced with a divorce. Custody is supposed to be awarded according to what is best and appropriate for the child. If a dad put his career first and his family second, why should the court be allowed to step in and fix this for him, at his request, ignoring the relationship the child has already established with him and the primary caregiving role the mother had established during the marriage? A divorce isn't the time to suddenly decide to be a more involved dad. The time to do that is during the marriage, and if there had been truly equal and cooperative parenting during the marriage, the parents are free to choose joint custody upon divorce. It should not be forced by the court upon divorcing couples because a dad who wasn't there as much as he thought he should be suddenly wants to be more of a part of his children's lives. Don't experiment with the kids."
EXACTLY...
Not to mention that it's a not so easy to change from being a stay-at-home mother for the past ten years or so into career women with brief case making enough salary to keep a roof over you and childrens' head because Dad suddenly decides he'd rather spend the time, then money on the kids' now...
I mean the bottom line is that no matter how much time you spend on your children sometimes you have just GOT to spend money on them too...there is no getting away from it even if you're with them 24/7...
YET, all things considered I would STILL support Joint Custody as the lesser of many evils for women and children since these things we talk about here are just talk...the bottom line is that if your husband decides to stop paying the mortgage and grocery bills and you don't have a way to do so, you are just sh*t out of luck as far as getting custody of your children...
You could wind up right out in the street with nothing, not even your kids, just owing a child support bill to your ex-husband...it's that simple and it happens to thousands of mothers in American everyday...so I do support Joint Custody for that reason...and it IS the lesser of many evils...
Just my opinion, others obviously feel differently...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 9, 2005 8:07:48 PM
A custody award isn't supposed to be about rectifying decisions a dad had made during the marriage that he regrets when faced with a divorce. Custody is supposed to be awarded according to what is best and appropriate for the child.
And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? What's best. So we're going to say that the amount of dad after the divorce should be the same as before, even though it was known to be less than desired (from the kids' perspective)? That seems more like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, to me. If anything, the divorce DOES provide the opportunity to change some things for the better.
A divorce isn't the time to suddenly decide to be a more involved dad.
Then when is the time, Trish? Look, what's done is done. Looking backward doesn't do anyone any good. And perhaps if what you're saying is that custody awards carry a bit of punishment for good ol' misguided dad, then it's no wonder dads get upset with this subject.
Custody arrangements, as well as the rest of the things worked out in the divorce decree are about looking FORWARD, not backward.
Seems to me the parable of the Prodigal Son applies here. In that parable, what is celebrated is what was thought to be lost but is now found.
Posted by: Scarbo at Feb 9, 2005 10:54:45 PM
Scarbo: "And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? What's best. So we're going to say that the amount of dad after the divorce should be the same as before, even though it was known to be less than desired (from the kids' perspective)? That seems more like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, to me. If anything, the divorce DOES provide the opportunity to change some things for the better."
Changing things for the better in whose opinion? The dad who is unhappy with his visitation? You don't experiment and placate a dad who has regrets over child-rearing choices he made in marriage during a divorce. No, we're not saying that the amount of time dad gets after divorce is the same as before it. It's about recognizing the parenting patterns established by both parents of their own free will during the marriage. When you get down to talking about specific time alottments, parents turn themselves into accountants.
Trish: "A divorce isn't the time to suddenly decide to be a more involved dad.
Scarbo: Then when is the time, Trish? Look, what's done is done. Looking backward doesn't do anyone any good. And perhaps if what you're saying is that custody awards carry a bit of punishment for good ol' misguided dad, then it's no wonder dads get upset with this subject."
It's interesting that you see custody awards that give dads visitation that you don't like as "punishment." It's not punishment. The focus is supposed to be on what is best for the child, not on what dad wants for himself over and above the childrearing roles he and mom had already established as well as what is best for the child. Not getting what you want in divorce does not mean that you have been "punished." It doesn't mean that the courts are stacked against dads. A divorce-bed conversion is not the time to suddenly decide you want to play daddy more often. You do that during the marriage.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 10, 2005 8:56:08 AM
Tsk tsk, such a cynical outlook, Trish. You're automatically assuming that the dad fighting for more time with his kid(s) is doing it out of selfishness. You've totally ignored what I've been saying about the situations where dad's fight IS for his kids. Wanting to spend time with your children so that you can parent them isn't a selfish act, it's an UN-selfish act.
Am I to get the message, Trish, that my desire to parent my daughter more is all about ME, and not about what I judge to be in my daughter's best interests? You mean I'm the one being selfish here, NOT her mother?
Wow, I had no idea I was so misguided...
Posted by: Scarbo at Feb 10, 2005 9:30:09 AM
Scarbo: "Am I to get the message, Trish, that my desire to parent my daughter more is all about ME, and not about what I judge to be in my daughter's best interests?"
It's been all about you the entire time you posted here. You just throw in your "desire to parent your daughter" to throw everyone off. That's fathers' rights-speak. It doesn't fool me. No one is stopping you from parenting your daughter. Just because you don't get the visitation you want doesn't mean that the courts are stacked against you. You can't have a divorce-bed conversion and make demands that benefit you alone, ignoring your ex-wife's status as primary caregiver and what is best for your child.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 10, 2005 9:48:14 AM
Well, you got me, Trish. I'm just a big-time schemer and scheister. You're right, I have no one's interests at heart but my own. I'm just a big selfish pig, trying to blame everyone including the courts, women, etc. for my problems.
Dang, you're perceptive! Gotta hand it to ya. Sure thought I could "fool you".
Seriously, though, I don't think you've really read all I've written. I'm pretty insulted that after all I've written you somehow end up thinking that I've got something up my sleeve here, or that my motives aren't sincere.
Well, they are sincere. You can choose to believe that or not, I guess.
Frankly, I think I've been quite honest, open, and frank. I've shared my own experience so that this board just might benefit from the experience and feelings from someone who's gone through it. I've also taken the opportunity to muse and wonder what other men might feel when they're going through it. I think I did a pretty fair job of presenting an opposing viewpoint. It does seem to me that you've got some pretty cynical blinders on there, and that's too bad.
Posted by: Scarbo at Feb 10, 2005 12:43:46 PM
"It's been all about you the entire time you posted here. You just throw in your "desire to parent your daughter" to throw everyone off. That's fathers' rights-speak. It doesn't fool me. No one is stopping you from parenting your daughter. Just because you don't get the visitation you want doesn't mean that the courts are stacked against you. You can't have a divorce-bed conversion and make demands that benefit you alone, ignoring your ex-wife's status as primary caregiver and what is best for your child."
Excellent...
But the other issue is why not follow the California or even PA's rules now...which are that you can have more visitation and parenting time BUT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT...IF there exists a disparity in incomes between the households large enough to justify it...since it's not fair to the child to be living at one standard of living with one parent and then drop down from it when she goes to other parents' household...
That's a good idea too...it's makes the whole parenting versus child support issue moot as it won't matter how much you parent, you'll still have to pay child support...and, of course, it will help all those fathers too who keep complaining that they are kept away from their children so as not to lower child support if visition goes up...this way EVERYONE is happy as parenting time and child support have no relationship to one another...
AND a number of other states are looking into this manner of allocating child support as they are sick and tired of having every single divorce or separation involving a child turn into a long-winded custody dispute...Our family court system can't handle it...nor can law enforcement being overwhelmed with these never-ending disputes over visits, phone call, school records, pickup times, etc.,
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 10, 2005 12:46:03 PM
NYMOM: "But the other issue is why not follow the California or even PA's rules now...which are that you can have more visitation and parenting time BUT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT...IF there exists a disparity in incomes between the households large enough to justify it...since it's not fair to the child to be living at one standard of living with one parent and then drop down from it when she goes to other parents' household..."
I don't know offhand which states aside of California do this, but some are severing the tie between visitation and child support to prevent men from applying for more visitation time or joint physical custody in order to cut down on one motive for them doing it - they are trying to lower or eliminate their child support obligations.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 10, 2005 1:21:59 PM
Scarbo: "Seriously, though, I don't think you've really read all I've written. I'm pretty insulted that after all I've written you somehow end up thinking that I've got something up my sleeve here, or that my motives aren't sincere."
I never doubted that your motives are sincere. I don't think you have anything up your sleeve. However, you don't understand that getting divorced doesn't entitle you to suddenly demand more time with your child because you realize, after all these years and in the midst of a divorce-bed conversion, that you haven't been the father you should have been. If you were not getting divorced, would you have done something to change that? I highly doubt it. It seems that too many dads suddenly want more time with their kids when a divorce is on the horizon, yet they didn't act to correct their own mistakes that they've created themselves while still married.
You aren't the only person affected by the divorce. Your ex and children are also affected. You can't step on a primary caregiving mothers' toes - the mother who had done the bulk of the childrearing throughout the marriage - simply because you now want to be a better father. You can still be a better father. No one is stopping you. However, the court should not be placed in a position to help you become a better father on your terms alone. That's what you fail to understand.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 10, 2005 1:26:56 PM
Oh, I should also say that my beliefs about paternity in relation to marriage probably are related to the fact that I'm staunchly against "legal marriage". I believe firmly that it should be domestic partnership under the law - and treated as a legal contract - instead of the "marriage" thing, where plenty of people go into it thinking "hey we're just making some religious vows to each other"... I think if people were forced to have a civil union, in addition to church marriages, the truth would hit home with more people that they're entering a legal contract as well. I really believe that's a problem. I also think this would clear up the gay marriage issue. And it would prevent religious morals being forced upon people entering into a partnership with someone, and allow the law to focus on public good, contracts, and fairness.
I'm sure you can see how these views of mine impact the "assumed paternity" of a husband issue.
And the adoption thing fits into there too... Upon adopting a child, I believe both parents are required to seperately (not just because they're married) take the responsibility of parenthood of the child, specifically. And I think that's A Good Thing. (So I'm actually in favour of default paternity testing at birth.)
(As you can see I've thought long & hard, and studied the matter - through public stories, scientific studies, and personal anecdotes... I intend that if I ever marry & have children, I will be covered! hehe. Which is probably why I haven't married or had children yet! lol.)
Posted by: Chloe at Feb 10, 2005 9:58:21 PM
"(As you can see I've thought long & hard, and studied the matter - through public stories, scientific studies, and personal anecdotes... I intend that if I ever marry & have children, I will be covered! hehe. Which is probably why I haven't married or had children yet! lol.)"
I think you said it better then I or anyone else EVER could...
LOL...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 10, 2005 11:11:13 PM
NYMOM- what about the woman who lives in a trailer park and the dad wants no access to the child?
Does she get trailer-park lifestyle level of child-support or dad-standard-of-living (if higher) child support?
Also, what if mom lives in low-value housing and dad in a trailer park. They share custody. Does mom give dad money to level out their living standards?
Posted by: Steve at Feb 11, 2005 5:28:20 AM
I am fighting for custody of my 2 boys. Their father has
taken from me in a custody battle 2 years ago. The
psychologists recommended for my sons to live with their and
he only spent 30 minutes with me. That was all it took for
him to make this decision. Now Day is on SSD and collecting
child support. I have a daughter who reside with me that I
solely take care of, but the child support officer did not
consider and left me and my daughter with just 850.00 month
to live on. Because I work I do not qualify for any
government subsidy. Dad now can barely walk to his back
problem, but he will not give me my sons back. It has been
very hard for me to see them frequently because of the
gas prices and extra groceries that I have to purchase, but I
do my best to see them every week. Dad is also trying to
alienate them from me by saying to son that because your mom
is going to pick you up I cannot take you to get a haircut and
could not celebrate your birthday because your Mom is picking
you up (and pick them up on Thursday after 5:00) I mean
the man had time to celebrate our son's birthday. I am very
optimistic in getting them back and the sooner the better
that way my son's won't be influenced by Dad's agenda on
alienating them from me. I can imagine what I can do for them
because I will be financially more able to do it and sign them
up for softball, football and basketball. Their father has
never encourage extracurricular activities with them and as
a matter of fact they haven't had a physical during the whole
time that Dad had custody of them. It wasn't very easy for me
when I heard the Judge say I am giving custody to the father
but I had supportive people in my life, including my
supervisor who encouraged me to fight back for them.
Posted by: Mildred Estrella at May 20, 2005 1:04:17 PM
Fathers are only allowed to love their children in Disney Movies like Finding Nemo and Lion King. Even when the mother is a speed freak stripper junkie whore fathers are still 2nd place. I hope you all choke on yur feminist bullshit. No wonder so many little girls grow up and become man hating white trash sluts like their mommies, feeding off welfare like parasitic mammals, spending their weekends in the bar while drunk maternal grandma babysits the latest paycheck baby.Oh and if Dad decides to intervene at some point, well,, then we all know what comes next, "He Hit Me", bang , slammer, 2 years legal wranglings supported by the governments prosecute with "Vigor" agenda. All of the sudden a womans word is worth its weight in gold, and the "violent,obssessive man" trying to be there for the saftey of his children is treated like he was called "witch" in Salem. You should all be ashamed.
Posted by: Everyman at Oct 3, 2005 6:39:16 PM
"Also, what if mom lives in low-value housing and dad in a trailer park. They share custody. Does mom give dad money to level out their living standards?"
Short answer: yes, mom, as the higher earner, gives dad money to level out disparities in household income...
Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 3, 2005 7:03:51 PM
Good luck Mildred.
I've seen this frequently in New York as well. Many parasital life forms collecting SSI who get custody claiming they are stay-at-home dads. (which SSI even gives checks for drinking and/or taking drugs now, as that is considered a disability).
Since when did some drunk who can't work because he drinks all the time suddenly morph into a stay-at-home dad. I think the government is just looking to throw the expense of these useless men off on their wives and children (by draining child support from the kid's mothers)...
Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 3, 2005 7:09:40 PM
"Even when the mother is a speed freak stripper junkie whore fathers are still 2nd place."
That's a lie...
Everybody supports fathers getting custody from abusive or neglectful mothers.
Actually those are the EASIEST cases to decide.
It's all the other ones where neither parent is bad that make for the difficult choices...
Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 3, 2005 7:14:09 PM
1. Fathers are only allowed to love their children in Disney Movies like Finding Nemo and Lion King.
2. Even when the mother is a speed freak stripper junkie whore fathers are still 2nd place.
3. I hope you all choke on yur feminist bullshit.
4. No wonder so many little girls grow up and become man hating white trash sluts like their mommies, feeding off welfare like parasitic mammals, spending their weekends in the bar while drunk maternal grandma babysits the latest paycheck baby.
5. Oh and if Dad decides to intervene at some point, well,, then we all know what comes next, "He Hit Me", bang , slammer, 2 years legal wranglings supported by the governments prosecute with "Vigor" agenda.
6. All of the sudden a womans word is worth its weight in gold, and the "violent,obsessive man" trying to be there for the saftey of his children is treated like he was called "witch" in Salem.
7.You should all be ashamed." Posted by: Everyman
Sorry, Everyman. You're not going to find any sympathy for kids, here.
Posted by: ben dover at Oct 3, 2005 11:34:17 PM
