[ekm]100x100[ekm].jpg)
« We Had A Pleasant Wednesday | Main | An Update - We're Still In Trouble »
May 31, 2006
Shared Parenting Fails In Tennessee
I've learned today that a shared parenting bill has failed in Tennessee. The bill's sponsor pulled it the day before it was due to be heard. I read about this on a men's rights mailing list, and as usual, the guy who posted about it was livid. He complained that the bill was yanked because of "the Feminist and their supporters." The fathers' rights activist complained that the bill was originally held by the Joint Commission of Children and Families because it believed that shared parenting would cause problems for the custodial mother. I haven't read the bill, nor do I have knowledge of the workings of the Commission for Children and Families, so I don't know if that's what they really said, or if this guy is just speaking through his fathers' rights filter that blames custodial moms for everything. Of course, the fathers' rights activist said what the Commission did was "bull".
The guy also had to throw in false allegations, of course. Fathers' rights activists always do that. He whined that charges should be "filed upon those women who file false allegations, just to discredit the father and to destroy his chances of gaining anything other than visitation in court." That makes me wonder if his ex had filed abuse allegations against him. These guys usually complain about the very things they do all the time.
So, that make Tennessee and New York that have recently rejected shared parenting. That's good news. "Shared parenting" is fathers' rights-speak for "having control of the ex through the kids" as well as a means for the guys to avoid paying child support.
Posted on May 31, 2006 at 09:13 PM | Permalink
Comments
It makes me wonder sometimes how people can't look at the big picture.
I firmly think that women do make false allegations of abuse against their spouse's so that they get the upper hand in the family court system.
It's just the way to play the game. I'm sure that some of the allegations are true. As soon as a judge sees a PFA he will automatically award custody to the mother and it saves her and her atty. allot of time and allot of money. I also think that without a fathers influence on his own children has an everlasting affect on them throughout their lives. Of all the media and newspapers I've never seen a father that tied up his own daughter and raped her repeatedly, beat her and practically left her for dead.
Usually it's the boyfriend or step dad. I would think that if a woman is the custodial parent she should be the one that should be under scrutiny because of the trends in molestation and rape. If anyone looks at these trends you can clearly see that it's not the fathers that are the one's that do these horrible things. Needless to say, the vast majority of rapes and molestations do occur by men, but it should'nt have an affect on fathers. Just because men do it more often, it doesnt and shouldn't have a profound affect on fathering like it's doing now.
Posted by: Jim at Jun 1, 2006 8:31:54 AM
In my analogy, I would also think that if men are such horrible people that we can't even HELP raise our children through shared parenting, then why are 99.9% of the rapes, molestations and beatings done by someone else to our children and not the father. If fathers beat the kids, rape their own kids then I could see, but they don't. But still we are labeled as men and not fathers. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Posted by: Jim at Jun 1, 2006 8:43:36 AM
While I appreciate your comments, Jim, they have nothing to do with my post. My post was about shared parenting failing in Tennessee. I just found out about it. I had no idea that shared parenting was even being considered in Tennessee. I knew that it recently failed in New York. Some women's activists had been harassed by fathers' rights activists when they were opposing shared parenting in New York. Some legislators even received harassing messages from fathers' rights activists regarding shared parenting. The harassment spoke a great deal as to the behavior of major fathers' rights activists in New York.
Lots of children have difficulty dealing with the shared parenting schedule. They feel like they're being treated like dayplanners. Rather than focus on the demands of adults who want shared parenting, the focus should be on whether or not children can handle it. Even when there isn't abuse, lots of children can't handle the schedule. They miss sleep-overs and birthday parties with their friends. They can't keep track of their friends. They miss out on extracurricular school activities like sports and drama club that require lots of after school time for participation. Shared parenting isn't about what is best for children. It's about appeasing the demands of adults. Also remember that most parents don't choose shared parenting. Most of them decide on their own that mom should have primary custody. They come to that decision without needing the help of a judge to make it for them. If they and their children are amenable to shared parenting, courts have the ability to help them try it. Nothing is stopping parents who want to try shared parenting from trying it.
Who said that men are horrible people? I certainly didn't. I don't believe that men are horrible people. Far from it.
Jim, while some women make false allegations of abuse, false allegations are actually very uncommon. I have plenty of information about that on my web site. False allegations aren't any more as likely to happen in the context of a divorce as they are in the general population. When they happen, they should be dealt with.
There is also an assumption that only women make false allegations of abuse. Men also make false allegations of abuse, and I've seen a study that indicated that men do this more often than women. I've personally seen only one case of bona fide false allegations of abuse, and it involved a man who lead a fathers' rights group. He used to call CPS on his ex-wife every time he was due to return the kids to her. He had no reason to call CPS. He was doing it out of spite. They had joint custody. There's another case where joint custody didn't work. I know it sounds like I'm turning this into a man vs. woman thing, but I'm not. I'm just stating the results of research. Fathers rights groups tend to lump unfounded/unproven cases in with outright false allegations. That's the only way they can get the high numbers they come up with. Lumping all of that together misrepresents the outcome of abuse cases.
Researcher Robin Fretwell Wilson found that divorced and single parents - both moms and dads - are especially vulnerable to predators. She did find that girls are prone to sexual abuse from stepfathers, but stepdads aren't the only predators who seek out girls. Boys tend to be sexually abused by acquaintences and friends of mom and dad, not mom's boyfriend or new husband. Keep in mind that most boyfriends and stepdads don't abuse the kids. Wilson (no relation to me) found that friends, relatives, and acquaintences of both mom and dad could be a threat to the children. Rather than blame moms and their boyfriends/new husbands for abuse (which does nothing to protect children), think about educating divorced and single moms and dads regarding the predators that could prey on them and their children. That includes (especially male) friends, relatives, acquaintences, teachers, youth counselors, others who work with children, and other unrelated males. This isn't to say that those who work with children abuse them. I'm saying that predators are attracted to those professions because they will have access to children.
Here's more from Wilson:
"Sociologists have long recognized the risk to girls in stepfamilies. Studies of girls who grew up in stepfather households consistently find an elevated risk of sexual abuse, with multiple studies finding that roughly half of stepdaughters report sexual abuse by their stepfather or another adult. Research findings also confirm that stepfathers represent a greater proportion of abusers than their incidence in the general population would suggest.
Daughters living in their father's custody are equally at risk. A national survey of sexual abuse risk factors found "markedly higher risk" for girls following their parents' divorce, "particularly when living alone with [their] father." In that study, fifty percent of female children residing only with their father reported sexual abuse by someone, although not necessarily their father. Similarly, studies of households in which a mother is absent due to hospitalization, death, or mental illness, also report significantly elevated risks of sexual abuse. These studies of fractured families differ in their estimates of the percentage of girls molested during childhood. However, regardless of whether the precise number is fifty percent or even half of that, the rate is staggering and suggests that girls are at much greater risk after divorce than previously imagined."
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 1, 2006 9:53:23 AM
Thanks Trish, I value your input. I didn't know that Tennesee was looking at a shared parenting bill. I think that's two states so far?
Isn't there another state that passed it though? If shared parenting bills start popping up in the other 47 states then I would think that that in itself should tell society that something is causing it.
Jim
Posted by: Jim at Jun 1, 2006 10:05:48 AM
On my end here, I have my daughter almost 1/2 the time and she's adjusted well. Actually, her mother and I are more friends now than we ever were, and it's a great asset any child can have. I think shared parenting is for some and not for some. There's two sides, fathers want shared parenting because they want lower support or none, and women mothers don't want it because they would rather want the money.
Posted by: Jim at Jun 1, 2006 10:09:39 AM
Hey Trish,
"Shared parenting" is quite a good term for the concept of letting children have two parents--not just in name, but operationally. If this phrase is "fathers-rights speak" (love that sarcasm), fine. What would a more accurate term be for letting children have two parenting parents in their lives after divorce? You tell me.
My kids had their contact with me severely curtailed by the courts--they were scared, sad-looking boys in their childhood. They had had their lives torn apart by an ill mother and a judge who was highly sensitive to political pressures from women so enraged at men they could pay no attention to children.
Now my sons have grown up. That's good news, right? It's not so great. They are significally damaged, one more than the other. They are depressed, mentally disorganized, having trouble getting work, concentrating badly in school. (They will probably eventually repair themselves--because they are out of the trap they were put in and could not defend themselves from when they were only four and eight: an alcohlic female-headed household.) But it will take a long time. My 26-year-old is ten years late in his development: he has the maturity of a 16-year-old. This mostly happened, in my opinion, because he was deprived of father-contact and trapped with an alcoholic and incompetent female parent by a court.
My younger son, 26, needs serious psychiatric help to overcome what was done to him--but he can't afford it. He's limping along.
I wonder if you have thought about the damage that happens to children? My kids now have damage that is going to be lifelong. No one gained from their being trapped with the incompetent woman--but the woman. She got the child support money.
If you do feel compassion for these damaged young men in their late twenties, men who would, in my opinion, be much more solid if they could have lived with me two weeks a month--I'd like to hear it expressed.
Posted by: orwell46 at Jun 1, 2006 11:56:32 AM
Orwell, I think that they would have been more solid. I think that if shared parenting was in place b4 your divorce things could have been different. Without shared parenting in your case, it leaves the blame on the mother, if it was in place at that time there woudn't be anyone to blame but both parents. I think that if shared parenting should be in place so the blame game doesn't happen any more, and when it does the CP, usually the mother will automatically go on the defensive. Again, if shared parenting was in place upon your divorce and YOU got you sons and they still were under-developed, would you take the blame.
Posted by: Jim at Jun 1, 2006 12:25:18 PM
Trish, I can't see what the hell I'm writing! 1/2 of it is cut off. Any ideas? That's why I write like a retard.
Posted by: Jim at Jun 1, 2006 12:26:53 PM
Jim, shared parenting and joint custody (they are the same thing) bills have been popping up in states for at least a decade. Fathers' rights activists sometimes find legislators that like their views. All of those bills have failed so far except one presumptive shared parenting bill in Iowa. All states have joint custody/shared parenting legislation available for parents who want to try it. So it's not like states are hostile to shared parenting/joint custody. It's just that the states thus far have not wanted a presumption for it. A presumptive ignores the established parenting patterns of the parents. It also is harmful in child abuse and domestic violence cases. Plus, it caters to adult demands rather than address what is best for children.
Your comments are coming out okay. You don't write like a retard. I think you might have experienced a momentary Typepad glitch. Happens all the time.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 1, 2006 1:39:32 PM
It is not true that all states have joint custody legislation, New York state has no joint custody legislation and in fact no legislation regarding child custody after divorce.
If I'm wrong, please point me to a web source for NY's joint custody legislation. In fact I dont' think the term "joint custody" can even be found in NY case law. I've never researched that, but it was told to me by a NY family law attorney.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 1, 2006 1:49:40 PM
Jim, you've made an excellent point - most fathers don't have a shared parenting arrangement in place when they are married. I'm glad you admitted that. I know you were talking about Orwell, but you continued to talk in general about fathers sharing parenting during marriage. That was their choice to not have a shared parenting arrangement. They agreed that their wives should have primary responsibility for the children, and they recognize that with their own choices and the choices of their wives, their wives were the primary caregivers of the children from the beginning. That the two of them agreed that mom would have primary responsibility for the children enabled dad to take on salary increases, job promotions, overtime, travel, and other work-related responsibilities that mothers are unable to take on because they have primary responsibility for the children. These dads provided input in childrearing, and that' s important, but they left most of the responsibility to their wives. They gave their wive their blessing and their support. That's the way most families operate, and it reflects in the custody arrangements they have upon divorce.
So why would fathers who did not share parenting in such a way while married be rewarded with shared parenting in the event of a divorce? Why should a dad who did not take on job losses, loss in salary, and loss of opportunity the way mom did be rewarded by getting shared parenting? Mom can't recoup those losses. They last a lifetime. These fathers have done nothing to deserve shared parenting They were not equal parents before the divorce. They can't suddenly demand shared parenting because of a divorce-bed conversion. Most parents recognize that mom was the children's primary caregiver who had primary responsibility for the children while married, and that's why they agree she should continue in that capacity upon divorce. These fathers gave their wives their blessing for that arrangement. They can't suddently want to uproot everything already established because they want more input than they have had all along. If dads want shared parenting, they should become more involved in parenting while married. The way parents "share" childrearing during marriage should reflect the way they "share" parenting upon divorce. Divorce-bed conversions just don't cut it. Most parents don't want shared parenting, anyway. It's only a small percentage of contested custody cases that involve fathers who want shared parenting. The minority should not dictate the majority, just to keep a few angry dads happy.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 1, 2006 1:53:12 PM
Here's a link to a site that outlines joint custody legislation in all 50 states. Trish, both of your points were inaccurate. Iowa is not the only state to legislate the preference and there are several states which have no joint custody legislation whatsoever.
http://www.gocrc.com/research/legislation.html#ks
Also, I understand what your saying about sharing parenting before the divorce and I agree to some extent. However, the problem as I see it -- as do many divorced fathers I know -- is that when one gets into the family court system, the fact that there was a shared parenting arrangement during the marriage seems to have little bearing on the custody arrangement. It's still the cookie cutter every other weekend "visit" and full child support.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 1, 2006 1:59:08 PM
Orwell, children already have two parents. Who is dad when he's married to mom? Not a real parent? Why is there such a focus on shared parenting only when a divorce is on the horizon? Why don't fathers' rights activists talk about sharing parenting when married? Why don't they encourage fathers to become more actively involved in their children's lives and provide more input, take on more responsibilities, and take on career and salary sacrifices that mothers take on while married? The only time fathers' rights activists talk about shared parenting is during divorce and custody hearings. You never hear them talk about dads taking on the primary caregiver role while married. That's because they know that most dads were not the primary caregivers of the children while married. They know that most dads gave their blessing to mom to take on the major responsibilities of childrearing. Until dads take on the sacrifices and the majority of the responsibility for childrearing that mothers take on, they have no reason to demand shared parenting upon divorce.
I can cite lots of cases involving custodial mothers who raised children who turned out fine. I'm one of them. My son graduates from high school in less than a week. He's going to start college soon. I'm a custodial mother. I know of plenty of married couples whose children have not done well. Their kids become alcoholics and drug addicts. Their kids become juvenile delinquents. Their daughters become pregnant out of wedlock. These are married couples with dad present in the home. Dads mere presence doesn't guarantee that the children will turn out fine. You're talking about correlations, and correlation does not equal causation. Dads mere presence or absence alone doesn't guarantee how children will turn out. In your case, living with your alcoholic ex probably caused your children's problems. Just know that the mere presence of a dad in a child's life doesn't guarantee that that child will turn out fine. There are lots of factors that determine well-child outcomes. The mere presence or absence of a father isn't a deciding factor.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 1, 2006 2:03:20 PM
Dirk, here's what divorcenet had to say about joint custody in New York. Joint custody could refer to both legal and physical custody. Most states differentiate between the two. Judges have been known to order shared physical custody in New York.
http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_york/nyart27
Joint Custody
Joint custody means joint legal custody, and not how much time the child spends with each parent. Joint custody gives both parents equal decision making authority. Joint custody will allow both parents an equal role in rearing their children, provided both parents can work together to make joint decisions. However, equal authority also means that each parent has an absolute veto over the decisions of the other parent, meaning that complete deadlock on decisions involving the child will result if a mutual agreement cannot be reached. For this reason, courts in New York have held that joint custody is appropriate on consent of both parties, but is not appropriate after a hearing.
---
Come to think of it, fathers' rights activists say they want more child rearing responsibilities and the ability to access their child's school and medical records upon divorce. That actually falls under joint legal custody. They talk about wanting to have more input in major decisions in their children's lives, but they don't lobby hard for joint legal custody. They lobby for joint physical custody (shared parenting). Why is that? Joint physical custody is only about the amount of time a child is with a parent. It's about residence and time, not responsibilities. With the higher amount of time (especially overnights) that is common with joint physical custody comes the lower child support order. Too many men, especially fathers' rights supporters, who demand shared parenting are really after the lower child support order. In some states, they can qualify for the lower order if they have as little as 35% of the time with their children. The California Gender Bias Report included tales of fathers standing with their lawyers in hallways, wanting to know the minimum amount of time they needed to get that lower child support order. So, it's true that many men who demand shared parenting are really after the lower child support order.
If dads want more responsibility and input, why don't they focus more on joint legal custody? They don't. In fact, fathers' rights activists have said that they see joint legal custody as useless. That makes no sense, since joint legal is the one that gives them the right to view school and medical records. It gives them more responsibility for their children. They don't want that. They want the timeshare, and the lower child support order. Fathers' rights groups have admitted that the lower child support is one reason they fight so much for shared parenting. The Alliance For Noncustodial Parents Rights is one group that wants to help fathers completely avoid or lower their child support obligations.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 1, 2006 2:17:03 PM
I think you're somewhat dancing around my claim. You stated that all states have some form of joint custody legislation. That I know of, the website "divorcenet" is not admissable in court as legislation.
In New York, joint custody is a term used to characterize a contractual agreement between the parents where one has custody and the other liberal "visitation" with the right to see medical and school records.
Until you show me otherwise, I will stand by my claim that you are incorrect when you say that every state has joint custody legislation.
New York doesn't even have a family law code! How could they have joint custody legislation?
Again if I'm wrong I'll stand corrected, but it's hard for me to believe that someome like you who's so studied in these subjects doesn't know that there's no joint custody legislation in New York.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 1, 2006 2:26:35 PM
Trish said,
"They lobby for joint physical custody (shared parenting). Why is that? Joint physical custody is only about the amount of time a child is with a parent. It's about residence and time, not responsibilities. With the higher amount of time (especially overnights) that is common with joint physical custody comes the lower child support order. "
That statement is also inaccurate with regards to New York. Go ahead and google Bast v Bast and you'll find that New York, like many other states, doesn't alter the child support guideline based on time spent with each parent. In fact they found that since the guideline only accounts for a custodial and non-custoidal parent, they don't even have the power to depart from the guideline regardless of parenting time.
The father's rights people in NY didn't even have lowered CS on their radar when they were fighting for A330.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 1, 2006 2:42:11 PM
Here's a link regarding the Bast decision:
http://www.sarilaw.com/articles/art27.htm
It's from Sari Friedman's website and I'm surprised you don't know about this decision since Sari's pretty active against father's rights as well.
A quick quote:
"CALCULATING CHILD SUPPORT WITH 50/50 JOINT CUSTODY
By Sari M. Friedman, Esq.
General Counsel, FRALI and FRANY
In an earlier article we wrote about the Court of Appeals decision in Bast v. Rossoff 91 N.Y.2d.723. In this case, the Court held that shared custody arrangements do not alter the scope and methodology of the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA).
The act, passed in 1989, states that the three step statutory formula for calculating child support must be applied in all shared custody cases."
Again i must express my surprise that someone as studied as you in these subjects and who is quite active in NY state isn't aware of any of this information which just took me three minutes to find on Google.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 1, 2006 2:45:30 PM
Ergo, those father's rights nuts in New York were in fact only lobbying to INCREASE their financial and practical responsibilities.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 1, 2006 2:46:59 PM
Correction:
I meant to say Sari Friedman bills herself as a father's rights attorney.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 1, 2006 2:50:57 PM
Dirk, that's a URL to a page from the Children's Rights Council, a fathers' rights group. It's inaccurate. It misrepresents state law, and it takes it out of context. Most states have preferences or sometimes presumptions for joint legal and physical custody if the parents agree to it. I have already stated that. Joint custody is available in most states for parents who want to try it. It is not forced down their throats. Iowa now has a presumption for shared parenting regardless of whether or not both parents agree to it. It's the only state with such a presumption. Fathers' rights activists have been lobbying hard for presumptions for shared parenting that would override all other forms of custody all over the country, and would override the wishes of the parent who doesn't want it, and so far they have failed. No state except for Iowa has an outright presumption for shared parenting regardless if both parents do not agree to it. Most states include "frequent and continuing contact" language that only requests that parents work together for their children,and encourages contact with both parents. That language does not mean that a parent who demands joint physical custody will get it over the wishes of the other parent.
Kansas only lists custody in order of preference, not presumption. Washburn Law Journal related the following:
-----
From Washburn Law Journal:
The new section on custodial arrangements not only defines four types of custody, but also lists the arrangements in order of preference. Joint custody is preferred, followed by sole custody, divided custody and non-parental custody. The statute does not limit custodial awards to these four but allows any custodial arrangement that is in the best interests of the child.
Joint custody is defined as both parents having equal rights to make decisions concerning the child. This differs from sole custody where all the decisions concerning the child are made by the sole custodial parent and the visiting parent does not have any legal say in the raising of the child. Under joint custody, both parents continue to have equal rights of decision making, just as they did before the divorce.
The joint custody provision also allows the court to determine whether the child's residency shall be divided equally between the parents or whether a primary residency should be ordered. Advocates of joint custody severely criticized the primary residence provision of the new amendments because it was perceived as a form of de facto sole custody. However, because joint custody requires flexibility, it would be unwise for the statute to require that the child's residency be divided equally between the parents. Even if the statute did not mention the power of the court to designate a primary residence, the court would have this inherent discretionary power. Although the court has the power to determine the primary residence of the child, the court need not do so, particularly if the parents have agreed upon a workable custodial arrangement without designating a primary residence.
The last two sentences in the joint custody provision did not appear in the original draft, but were added by the legislature. The first addition allows the court to order the parents to submit a plan for joint custody if the parents are suitable. In addition, the parents, on their own initiative, can submit an individual or agreed upon plan for joint custody at any time before the court makes the final custody order. This provision was added because the legislators believed plans for joint custody, whether submitted individually or in concert, would help the court decide on a workable joint custody award. If the parents reached an agreement on implementing joint custody, then the success of the arrangement was more likely than if the court ordered joint custody to unwilling parents. Courts should encourage the parties to negotiate a joint custody plan. Even if the parties fail to reach an agreement, the court can review the individual plan of each parent and resolve the areas of disagreement.
According to the second legislative addition to the joint custody provision, if the court does not order the preferred joint custody, the court must support its decision with specific findings of fact.This provision was added to make certain the court was applying the joint custody preference by requiring the court to list specific reasons for not awarding joint custody. However, the statute does not give the court any guidelines for determining when joint custody is inappropriate and what evidence will overcome the joint custody preference.
-----
The best interests of the child is paramount in custody decisions in Kansas. While Kansas may prefer joint custody, it will first consider the best interests of the child in any custody decision. Kansas does not guarantee joint custody for fathers who demand it. CRC misrepresented Kansas' custody law.
That CRC page made it to Australia. I had to explain to women's activists there how inaccurate it was. Joint physical and legal custody are not accepted widespread in states except when both parents agree to it. Most parents don't want it. If both parents do want it, I don't think anyone should stop them from having it. If they want to make it work, more power to them. A presumption for shared parenting, equal parenting, shared physical custody, shared residence, or whatever you want to call it forces all families into a cookie cutter. Families should be assessed on their own merits, not forced into a one-size-fits-all form of custody. The courts today do look at each family individually when the cases make it to court, and the court helps to decide what form of custody is most appropriate for each individual family. That's as it should be. Most parents do not choose joint custody. That's why mothers overwhelmingly are the custodial parents of their children - that's what the parents decided on their own without needing any help from a judge.
I don't think that there should be any presumptive form of custody because it would treat all families as if they are the same. I would support a primary caregiver presumption because that would recognize the existing family arrangement held by most parents. The ALI rules support a primary caregiver presumption. However, that's not politically popular, so it's unlikely to pass now. Maybe in time.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 1, 2006 2:54:03 PM
Dirk, fathers' rights activists in New York harassed women's advocates and even some legislatures when the shared parenting bill was being heard. These men - and they were leaders in the movement in New York - were not thinking of the best interests of children in their actions. Their harassment spoke volumes about where they really stood. New York rejected shared parenting, for good reason. It doesn't take most families' situations into account, and it favors adult demands over the best interests of children.
I'll address the rest of your comments later.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 1, 2006 2:58:39 PM
By the way, I'm not active in New York state. I'm only famliar with the New York shared parenting bill that had failed because I know people who had worked on it. That was my focus.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 1, 2006 3:07:56 PM
My mistake, Dirk. New York doesn't appear to have legislation about joint custody, but there are cases where parents choose to try joint custody in New York. The child support guidelines you quoted address joint custody, although joint is not included in the calculations. Still, most states have language that allows for joint custody if both parents want to try it. So, as I said, states aren't hostile to joint custody. However, they are rejecting an outright presumption for shared parenting/joint custody that would override the wishes of the parent who does not want it. That's what fathers' rights activists are after - a shared parenting presumption that would override all other forms of custody. The only state thus far with such a presumption is Iowa.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 1, 2006 3:14:17 PM
I think you're correct Trish. Let me explain. I have shared legal custody of my daughter and it has been a blessing in many ways. First, my daughter knows darn well that I look at her report card closely and we discuss her strengths and weaknesses, and from there we build goals. She loves it when I do this with her! 2nd, If something were to happen at school where she would need medical attention, I am the one they call along with her mother.
I could bet any amount of money that if I had to go to the hospital to see my daughter in an emergency, she would love it and it would be something she would never forget it that Daddy came to see her with teddy bears and such. I guess 50/50 legal isn't all that bad after all. My daughter needs braces and I get to watch them put them on! These small examples are just a tip of what I can do, and I'm satisfied with it. 3rd, is my ex and I don't even go by the court order anymore because I have showed interest in my daughters life, I go to her games, Dr's appt., school PTA, you name it. Once my ex knew I could be trusted and not be a fucking jerk everytime I came around her I was able to LITERALLY have shared custody without the courts involved. Now that's what every parent should concentrate on.
Posted by: Jim at Jun 1, 2006 4:41:56 PM
I still think you're dancing. Over the last several months I've read many poasts by you talking about how father's rights acitivists in NY only wanted to harass their ex-wives, though the legislation made accounting for domesitic violence which includes harassment.
I read you make statements that characterize these guys as only wanting to lower their child support payments, though it's clear that law wouldn't have done that. Far rom it, it would have put more financial responsibility on these men. Bast says that in shared parenting arrangements, the parent with the higher income is deemed non-custodial for the purposes of child support calculation.
I then read you saying that joint custody is a legislated option in NY so what's the problem?
At every turn, each of your points has been highly inaccurate where custody and child support law stand in NY.
Also, yes I read in my local paper about the so-called harassment by father's rights activists who you say are "leaders in the field."
So I guess that means you know who made the calls. To date I haven't seen one shred of evidence or even an alleged name connected with any of these calls. So it's time to pony up. Where is the evidence that any of the harassing calls were made by actual leaders or even members of any father's rights group? And which father's rights group do they belong to?
I'm willing to bet that there is no sound evidence that exists to connect any of these groups.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 1, 2006 4:47:57 PM
Please name the leaders of the father's rights movement in NY state and what evidence you have to name them, who harrassed these women's groups.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 1, 2006 4:49:35 PM
Clearly the nail was hit on the head when it was said that the best solution is one that is best for the children. I was at the anniversary showing of Kramer vs. Kramer in L.A. when the Director was talking about making a film about how no one questioned that a child should go to the mother in divorce, and that he wanted to make a movie for adults to discuss just this. Instead, the overwhelming response came from an audience he hadn't considered: the children of divorce. They were deeply affected by the playing out of their parents bad decisions on the big screen. The fact is that people don't know the impact of having children on their romance, even though they are adults they don't choose mates based upon logic, and both sides, men and women, can be poor parents and providers.
Posted by: Rachel Bondi at Jun 1, 2006 4:55:07 PM
Yes, Dirk. I know who made the calls. There were also e-mails sent. I know what was going on with the shared parenting legislation in New York. I will not name names because that business is not finished yet. Do not order me around, demanding that I name names. I don't take orders from you or anyone else. I will not name names, but that does not mean I am lying about knowing who these people are. I know quite well who they are, and the entire business is getting the proper attention.
Fathers' rights activists in New York portrayed themselves as only interested in having more time with their children and "being good dads", but their background actions showed their true colors. I wasn't surprised in the least. They were livid when shared parenting failed. They are also not happy that shared parenting failed in Tennessee, which was what this post was about in the first place.
I made only one mistake, Dirk, which was when I said that all states made some kind of provision for joint custody. I was wrong about New York. That's the only thing I was wrong about.
One reason that fathers' rights activists want shared parenting is to lower their child support payments. I did not cite New York. I was talking about most of the other states, Many states have provisions that allow for the lowering of child support when the parent who would otherwise be non-custodial is able to get a certain amount of time with the children. It does not have to be 50%. In some states, it can be as low as 35%. I've already described California, where dads were overheard talking in courthouse hallways to their lawyers wanting to know what was the minimum time they needed in joint custody to get the lower child support order. I was not wrong about child support. You have misrepresented what I said.
Another reason fathers' rights activists want shared parenting is to have the ability to interfere in the lives of their ex's - women they had formerly given their blessing regarding being the primary caregiver of their children. This is especially the case regarding men who have histories of abuse. They use to court system to further abuse and harass their ex's and the children.
While there are likely men who want shared parenting because they want to have more time with their children, most likely those men did not take on the career, salary, and life sacrifices that mothers take on when they (the moms) take on the primary responsibility for the care of their children. These men gave their wives their blessing to take on that primary role, and they followed their wives' leads regarding the children. They provided input, as fathers do. The kind of parenting patterns "shared" between the parents in marriage should reflect the kind of custody they will "share" upon divorce. A divorce-bed conversion by men who suddenly demand to have more responsibility and time with their children simply doesn't cut it. If dads want "shared parenting" upon divorce, they need to take on the salary, career, and life sacrifices that moms take on every day. Those moms cannot regain those losses throughout the rest of their lives. Once dads take on the primary caregiver role and the sacrifices that go with it the way mothers always have, then they will deserve "shared parenting". As things stand now, they did not earn "shared parenting" because they had never worked towards that goal while married. Most states are realizing this truth when they decide against presumptive shared parenting bills fathers' rights groups support. Each family should be looked at on its own merits, not forced into a cookie cutter that would be presumptive shared parenting. Courts do look at each family individually when custody cases come before them, and they try to figure out what would work best for each individual family. Most parents settle out of court, and decide on their own that mom should have sole custody. That's because they know that mom had taken on the primary caregiver role and the sacrifices that go along with it from the very beginning. That accounts for the vast majority of divorces. A small group of angry dads who demand "shared parenting" should not have the ability to decide how custody will be granted to the vast majority of divorcing parents.
Granted, there are problems with courts awarding joint custody (or shared parenting) over the wishes of primary caregiving mothers. There is a burgeoning cottage industry that has made money from contested custody cases. These professionals order parents to pay for parenting classes, GALs, custody and psychological evaluations, and parenting coordinators who construct parenting plans for them. That's just the beginning. There is a lot of money to be made in shared parenting cases, and moms AND dads are paying thousands of dollars in fees for these extras. The reason this cottage industry has taken off so much is because the experts who make money from custody cases and shared parenting heard the lobbying of fathers' rights activists who demanded shared parenting. They jumped on the bandwagon in support of shared parenting because they knew there was a lot of money to be made with it. And they are making lots of money now. Money that could be better spent on the children. Fathers' rights activists have only themselves to blame for this burgeoning cottage industry.
Shared parenting does not reduce parental conflict. Maccoby and Mnookin found that "[o]nly 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."
Paul Amato found the following: "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." Those problems with such joint custody orders exist to this day.
New York did the right thing in rejecting shared parenting. Apparently, shared parenting bills have been introduced in New York for many years, and each year they are defeated. Good. A presumption for shared parenting is not in the best interests of children, and it ignores the previous, established contributions of the primary caregiving parent, most often the mother.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 1, 2006 5:41:11 PM
Jim, legal custody can be good when it's appropriate for the parents and the children. Legal custody is what gives parents who would otherwise be non-custodial access to records and other responsibilities. I'm sure your daughter would love to see you when she's in the hospital, if that ever happens. You sound very proud of your daughter. I'km sure she gets much pleasure from having you in her life.
Lots of couples with a traditional mother custody/father visitation arrangement also have no problem with both mom and dad having access to school records, medical records, dental records, school activities and schedules, knowledge of extracurricular activities, and the like. The key isn't the form of custody. It how well the parents are able to get along and treat their children well. Please see my previous post citing Amato, Maccoby, and Mnookin regarding how an order of joint custody will not resolve conflict between parents. A few years later, those parents were still having problems, and the children suffered for it. Sometimes the problems became worse. It's backwards to think that joint custody or shared parenting will force parents to get along. Joint custody works best when both parents have an amicable relationship, have had an amicable divorce, and are able to keep their children's welfare in mind in all of their actions and decisions. Those were three qualities common to successful cases of joint custody in the '80s when a minority of parents voluntarily tried it. Joint custody and shared parenting isn't for everyone. It shouldn't be made a presumption.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 1, 2006 5:48:23 PM
I haven't seen Kramer v. Kramer in years, Rachel. I can't remember much of the movie except for the fighting. Merle Streep is such a wonderful actress, though, isn't she?
Yes, the paramount issue of importance is how the divorce affects the children. Too many adults are too busy thinking about their own demands and needs, and they forget about the children. A good book to read on this issue is "The Custody Wars" by Professor Mary Ann Mason. It's a great book that talks about how divorce affects children, and how too many parents (and courts) are so concerned with their own issues that they overlook what the children need.
I think that all custody orders should take into consideration what children need at a given time in their lives. Legal professionals need to be educated regarding the stages of development of children. Children need different things at different times in their lives. Their level of maturity and development should be considered when deciding a custody issue. Too often the adults in a custody case, including the parents and the professionals helping them, focus too much on adult demands and desires and ignore the children in the process. Children have no representatives in court, save GALs, and GALs don't always work well on their behalf. Another good one to look to for information about children, their stages of development, and their needs is Dr. Judith Wallerstein. While I don't agree with her about everything, she makes some very good points about children's needs and child development.
I think that most divorcing parents try to do the best by their kids. Yes, they screw up. They're scared and confused. Divorce is a major changing point in their lives, and sometimes I don't think they are aware of just how monumental a change it is. It's very expensive. It's stressful. It's scary. It's an unknown, and parents have to deal with the fear of the unknown. It may require moving. They'll be living alone, or with their parents, or with a roommate. That requires adjustment, and it isn't always easy. They will likely need to rely on a single income (their own) to support themselves and their children. The children feel caught in the middle. They may feel that they need to take sides, and parents should avoid that as much as they can. Surprises can arise, such as a car repair bill they didn't expect, or the adjustment their children may need to make to a new school or new neighborhood. There are all kinds of changes that can be overwhelming. Children's ability to cope with those changes is important. A responsible court will take their needs into consideration. Too often, the children's needs, fears, and development are overlooked by courts. Mason talks about that in her book. I highly recommend it.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 1, 2006 6:26:36 PM
If the parent's can't get along now, how the heck is any legislation supposed to be supported with Shared anyway? I was pissed off as all hell when my ex got custody and my money, but me complaining about it only made problems worse. I later realized that money is just money and being a father is what's important. I've calmed down 110% because my conclusion was my daughter needed me, my ex knew, and still knows that she does. Either I can abide by what rules are in front of me and be civil. Later don the road now it's like there's no court order at all, she and I don't go by it. Now, if I want to be a dick and bad mouth her in front of my daughter, harrass her, then I gaurantee she'd go back to the black and white. The black and white literally keeps me in check. The resentment and vengence is only the cowardice way out. I don't know what the majority of men are bitching about, really. I do understand that some get screwed, but I'm sure it's a small percentage. I did the right thing in my situation and so can allot of other fathers. I also would like to say that I'm sure that there's a VAST majority of women that want the bio dad involved, but when fathers act like dick heads you do nothing but close another door.
Posted by: Jim at Jun 1, 2006 6:31:58 PM
Hey Tris-
I'm not ordering you around, I'm simply asking you to back up a pretty onerous claim. I notice that you're not using a term like "alleged." You're saying that leaders in the father's rights movement in NY (I'll take that to mean connected to specific groups) threatened and harrassed members of the opposition and the legislature.
It may be unfinished business, but you're not presenting it that way. I've been hearing these claims for over a month now, but not a single shred of evidence has been brought out to support the claim.
I'm not saying that the calls and threats didn't happen, what I'm saying is that I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe it was anything but a crackpot. Until I do, I don't think you really have solid ground to slander those people.
Someone called me last night and asked if I had Prince Albert in a can. I'm convinced it's a high level leader from the National Organization for Women!
Doesn't mean it was does it?
So let me ask this: if you can't say anything regarding any specific evidence, what was the nature of the evidence?
My guess is this will evaporate just like the Genia Shockome controversy did when she was no longer a strong rhetorical point.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 1, 2006 6:50:45 PM
Alright I'll drop that for now.
But in the meantime, a serious question:
I understand why you and NOW favor the primary caregiver standard for custody determinations and while I don't necessarily agree, it is on its face a valid argument.
But following from that, do you then believe that if parenting is shared during the marriage that custody should be shared after the marriage. I mean, I guess what I'm saying is that if both parents are primary caregivers during the marriage your standard means that you support shared custody in that circumstance.
And one more: what if for some reason one of the parents objects to shared custody even though both shared parenting during the marriage?
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 2, 2006 9:22:24 AM
Briefly, responding to several things said.
First, I was the primary caretaking parent during the marriage. In particular, the four-year old spent twice as much time in my company as in his mothers. I fed, diapered, took to pediatrician, etc. I was, in effect, his bonded parent--his "Mom." That didn't matter to the court--I simply didn't have the $10,000 it would have taken (20 years ago) to mount a very big presence in a trial and prove it.
So the kid is taken from his close parent by a severely dysfunctional woman (personality disordered woman) who can afford better legal help than her husband.
She had no care for the kid--could never be reached with any talk of compassion for the children. And the lawyer--he had no compassion for the kids. It was just a case to him--a fight in front of a judge that he had to win. The kids--he couldn't have cared less. I cared, and I was alone.
Blame is not the point, Trish. Blame fixes nothing. Of course I would take the blame if my kids turned out bad in my care--in fact I do take the blame now. I blame myself for not being savvy enough to hire good lawyers and protect them. I blame myself severelyfor failing to protect them when they were relying on me. I was the good, attentive parent and their mother was nuts, and I couldn't protect them. I was smart, but not streetwise enough to know the game that was going on around me in court. I just was out maneuvered, by a sick wife and a mean lawyer and an unfeeling judge. My youngest kid, especially, was really damaged, and I feel deeply to blame. There is nothing I can do now, though, but try to help him recover through gentleness.
You take a four year old who spends six hours a day in his father's company, and make him go for 12 days in a row without seeing the father--that's incredibly damaging child abuse. None of this would have happened if there had been a presumption of 50-50 custody.
This is what motivates those who want the presumption changed. These cases and these damaged children.
Posted by: orwell46 at Jun 2, 2006 9:32:15 AM
Um, excuse me, but what kind of irresponsible idiot has a child with somebody he describes as "a severely dysfunctional woman (personality disordered woman)"? Don't tell me she was the picture of emotional health until the day you tried to get custody. Chances are, the key responsibility not taken in Orwell's case, above and beyond all else, was personal responsibility.
And don't paint me as the enemy (how tedious) simply because you're a man and I'm a woman calling you on your behavior. I've written columns on father's rights and paternity fraud. I'm for justice and fairness -- regardless of whether the person asking is a man or a woman.
And finally, it's a pity you need a license to cut hair and only working ovaries or testicles to bring a kid into the world. There are far too many irresponsible, under-evolved assholes procreating. And it's the kids who suffer.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at Jun 4, 2006 2:58:45 PM
Amy said,
"Um, excuse me, but what kind of irresponsible idiot has a child with somebody he describes as "a severely dysfunctional woman (personality disordered woman)"? Don't tell me she was the picture of emotional health until the day you tried to get custody. Chances are, the key responsibility not taken in Orwell's case, above and beyond all else, was personal responsibility."
There are a lot of reasons why people end up in relationships with others who are abusive, but often the primary reason is their family of origin in that they simply had chaotic childhoods with parents who resemble the abusive person they end up getting mixed up with.
This seems to me to be pretty widely understood by now.
My question is why do we seem to have a lot of compassion for women in this situation, but none for a guy like Orwell? What is it really that makes him any differetn than the women we try to help with shelters and legal aid organizations or even a simple drop of compassion?
Why is it that you don't level the same criticism against any of the women from PBS's "Breaking the Silence?"
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 5, 2006 8:17:22 AM
I agree Dirk! Very good point. If a man is put in the same situation he has no alternatives, but with a mother she has choices?
Posted by: Jim at Jun 5, 2006 12:05:37 PM
Your idea that the parenting patterns "shared" before separation should effect those "share" afterward is nothing short of supremacist.
Men have absolutely no rights to become the primary caregiver, or even an equal parent, against the wishes of the mother. If you had my child you would automatically become the primary caregiver. I could only take that position against your wishes if you abused the child or became too ill to take care of it yourself.
The idea that "men gave their wives their blessing to take on that primary role" is bunk. Women gain the primary role by default, men have no way of overturning that situation without their wives explicit consent.
Posted by: alex at Jun 5, 2006 12:12:56 PM
I think we must operate under extremely different definitions of the word
"supremacist."
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 5, 2006 1:07:32 PM
Dirk - in what way don't you think it is a female supremacist doctrine.
Courts used to automatically hand custody to the mother, on the basis that the mother was intrinsically more fitted to care for children - the "tender years doctrine". Thanks to feminism that's now unsustainable and has been been done away with. But is a "primary caregiver standard", where the mother is by default the primary caregiver, and gets to veto the father taking that place, really that different in practice?
Posted by: alex at Jun 5, 2006 1:28:10 PM
I think I simply misunderstood the perspective of your previous post.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 5, 2006 1:38:11 PM
Trish-
Do you think you'll ever answer my question regarding shared parenting?
Here is is again in case you missed it:
Based on the idea that custody should go to the primary caregiver upon divorce, do you think that if parenting was shared during the marriage that custody should be shared on divorce since both parents then are primary caregivers?
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 8, 2006 10:24:11 AM
Actually, your characterization of people who end up in abusive relationships is not true at all. While persons who grew up in abusive families of origin may be at higher risk, most abused women at least did not grow up in a dysfunctional household at all. Most abusers are skilled manipulators and are infamous for turning on the charm when they need to. (That's one reason they're so effective at winning allies). Hardly any woman would go on a second date with a guy who took her to fancy restaurant, threw her into the waiter, and called her a fat bitch. What happens is he starts out very nice. Some women never see anything different until they are married or pregnant. Than he seems to "suddenly change." Well, he doesn't suddenly change. He's just calculating and "spontaneously explodes" when it's time for him to establish or extend his power and control over his partner.
Posted by: silverside at Jun 8, 2006 11:11:11 AM
I think you're wrong.
Here's a link to a Google search that you can peruse at your leisure.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=family+of+origin+abusive+relationships
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 8, 2006 11:29:07 AM
Trish,
I believe that you are attributing the worst of all possible motives to the men involved in custody disputes, and the best possible to the women. Of course, in reality it's all over the map for both genders. And I would think that joint physical custody automatically includes joint legal custody, but I am not an attorney. Have you ever seen a case of joint physical custody where there is also sole legal custody?
In any event, from what you have written above, it seems as if you consider the custody arrangements to be either a reward or punishment of the parents (as in "why reward the father for his own choices?"). It is not a matter of rewarding anyone. The only consideration should be the best interests of the children involved. Would you agree?
I truly am sorry about your financial difficulties, and I hope that you do not run afoul of CSEA. I don't know what the Count's obligation is, but from your current position, can you imagine a scenario where there is a very large obligation and a poor NCP out of resources and unable to get it reduced? It does not make him a deadbeat if he just doesn't have the money to pay and he has tried everything to get re-employed. I just wondered if you might have a bit more compassion for those in such a fix now.
Best of luck to you.
stanton
Posted by: stanton at Jun 8, 2006 9:22:19 PM
I have only read some of your comments on false allegations of abuse. I do not know statistics of how many are truly filed; however my husband and I have been accused of abuse on our own daughter 2x by his ex-wife. The accusations were not ever about my step-children. These false allegations ruin lives and hurt people and their is no punishment for those that file the false charges. The case worker even documented in her report that there were no findings of abuse of any kind and you know what - The 2 unfounded reports that were filed on us in Iowa go on record with the county attorney for 5 years!!!!!!!!! Thanks, Crystal Larson
Posted by: Crystal Larson at Jun 9, 2006 5:12:56 PM
Dirk, please don't start a debate with a false premise. In no case are parents "equal" in marriage. They do not do exactly the same things when it comes to raising their children, nor are they exactly equal in the way they parent. They do not make the same life, salary, and career sacrifices. I've already explained how most parents "share" parenting, and the way they "share" results in mothers most often being the primary caregiver. There are no cases where both parents are equal primary caregivers. You have set up a straw man argument that has no basis in reality. I'm not falling for it. You've set up a straw man argument only to give support to fathers getting joint physical custody upon divorce, when in the vast majority of cases, they have not earned it.
By the way, Silverside is right about how abusive relationships escalate.
Stanton, The Count no longer pays child support. His son is an adult in college. Thanks for wishing us well in our current financial slump. We're still having problems, but I have a feeling this will be temporary. I just don't know how long it will last. I do not ascribe ulterior motives to men who want shared parenting. You are reading things into my statements that I did not write. Some fathers really want to spend more time with their children. It's the fathers' rights movement that has ulterior motives when it come to lobbying for presumpitve joint physical custody. The questions are, is joint physical custody appropriate for the family, and in particular, is it appropriate for the children? I've already explained how the way parents "share" parenting during marriage (including the life, career, and salary sacrifices primary caregiving parents (mostly mothers) take on) should reflect the way they "share" parenting upon divorce. I believe I've also explained how joint physical custody may not be appropriate for children, including cases where conflict is involved. I haven't the time to read through my previous comments to see if I had addressed that last point.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 9, 2006 5:17:15 PM
Crystal, bona fide false allegations of abuse are rare. Allegations of abuse in the context of a divorce or custody case are no more likely to be false than they are in the general population. I too have heard of a few cases of bona fide false allegations of abuse (including some made by fathers against mothers). However, I am aware that bona fide false allegations of abuse are rare.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 9, 2006 5:26:59 PM
I misunderstood about the CS order. My state required college support payments as part of CS, up to age 22, I believe. I know some states do not. You are fortunate in not having to deal with a fixed order based on imputed income. Courts are very unsympathetic to such situations. Ten years ago I was laid off from a very well paid job, and my support order was not changed. Ugly story.
I have to say that it bothers me how you keep referring back to the idea of "earning" joint custody. You did ask the question of whether it is appropriate for the children, but then went right back to the "earning" bit. There is no merit contest here - or at least there shouldn't be. The best interests of the children should be the ONLY consideration - no matter how the work was split up prior to the separation. Now of course, that division of responsibility can be taken into account in determining the best thing for the children, but that has nothing to do with merit on the part of either parent. At present, the active presumption in divorce cases is that one parent (nearly always the mother) gets full cutody and the other parent gets visitation (unenforced). Is this is a superior arrangement to the proposed alternative? There needs to be further study, I would guess, but whether or not some parent might undeservedly obtain additional parenting time without paying his proper dues should get no attention at all in the research.
You said, "Too many men, especially fathers' rights supporters, who demand shared parenting are really after the lower child support order." My experience with Father's Right's supporters does not support the "especially" part. How did you determine that this is especially true of them? I have worked with many divorced parents, including "deadbeat" Moms and Dads. The parents who are such slackers that they hope to save some bucks by increasing their parenting time do exist, but they are generally too lazy for social activism. Most of the actual activists I have known have been men suffering the separation from their children very deeply, and the women who observe this suffering (their mothers and second wives in particular). Many have nothing to gain personally, because their children are grown (I'm one of those). They just don't want other children to suffer the way theirs did.
Anyway - I know you will hang in there and get through this rough spot. And congrats to the graduate!
Posted by: stanton at Jun 10, 2006 12:14:19 AM
"There are no cases where both parents are equal primary caregivers. "
So from your response it appears to me that you're going to refuse to answer the question probably because you don't like the answer. What I can say about your statement above is that it's just not true. I know it's not, because I live it.
My wife and I both work full time, however, my job pays all the family bills. I've made some huge career tradeoffs in order to parent my daughter as a fully involved parent. Until I recently started a new job and have had to begin saving personal time over again, I'd NEVER missed a single doctors appointment, school event or anything else like that.
When she was little I fed her and changed at least as many diapers as my wife did. I do all of the kitchen duty, half tha laundry and the rest of the housework comes out fairly evenly too.\
If one were to follow my family around for a month, you'd have an impossible task of choosing a primary parent.
That last response you made to my question was incredibly revealing. I'm glad you answered as you did since now I know a lot better where you're coming from and what you're about. I'm kind of sorry you did because, with all due respect, you just chickened out bigtime.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 10, 2006 5:42:56 AM
Dirk, I'm not surprised you claim you are an "equal' parent, and even possibly a primary parent. Most fathers' rights supporters claim that they are. You are certainly not the first fathers' rights supporter who claimed to be a primary parent. However, they (and you) have confused primary parenting with a tally of "chores" done around the house and stating that both parents work outside the home. For some reason, fathers' rights supporters love to state how many diapers they have changed, as if that makes them primary parents. It doesn't. Anyone can change a diaper. Paid employment does not determine primary parent status. Primary parents take on social, career, salary, and psychological characteristics and sacrifices that non-primary parents do not take on. I wouldn't be surprised if you enlisted your wife to comment here in support of your claim that you are both equal, primary parents, or that someone off the street wouldn't be able to determine which of you is the primary parent. If you ever divorce (not saying you will, just saying for argument's sake), and both of you decide to try joint custody, more power to you. That would be a choice between both of you. However, if you divorce and you want either joint custody or sole custody (since you claim to be an "equal" parent), and she doesn't want that, you'll have a long, hard road in court ahead of you. It never ceases to amaze me how many subsequent wives who had supported their fathers' rights friendly husbands, especially in his battles with his ex-wife, change their tune when they end up getting divorced themselves. Their husbands, whom they had supported in their battles against their ex-wives, give them the same treatment they gave their ex-wives when they end up divorcing the guy. I've seen far too many subsequent wives who change their minds about fathers' rights rhetoric when they experience the same ugly treatment from their soon-to-be-ex-husbands that both of them had given his ex-wife.
The fact is that the vast majority of fathers are not their children's primary parent. There is only one primary parent in a family, and that role is most often overwhelmingly taken by mothers. There are very few fathers who are primary parents of their children, despite claims made by fathers' rights supporters like yourself who so often cite making dinner and changing diapers as "proof" that they are primary parents.
This is a description of the primary parent from one of my colleagues.
WHAT IS THE "PRIMARY PARENT"?
"Both parents change diapers!"
The primary parent changes more diapers, changes "problem" diapers, counts diapers, notices when supplies are low, purchases diapers or selects and arranges for diaper services, determines when a child's diaper size has changed, knows where the new bag of them is, recognizes when a child's needs change or a child is "toilet-ready," makes a point of being educated in the subject, was the parent who considered the pros and cons of what kind of diaper and style diaper bag to use, purchases the diaper bag supplies, knows or finds out what caused and will cure the child's latest incident of diaper rash, makes sure adequate supplies are on hand for trips, doesn't have to ask what to do if there are no more baby wipes, can tell you why it's corn starch not talcum powder, makes inquiry of the child's pediatrician regarding changes in the child's elimination habits or the appearance of stool, keeps track and makes mental note of the young infant's "schedule" for purposes of health monitoring, adjusts the child's diet or medicines accordingly, buys the toilet-training book or video and little seat, thinks these are issues worth discussing with third party caregivers and raises them, cleans up the linens and clothing after those accidents, can tell you the various ages the child reached this or that stage in development, is the parent who more often initiates discussions on this subject with the other parent, didn't hand the baby to someone else when he needed changing during the neighborhood barbeque, is the parent the child calls for when he needs toilet assistance now, and isn't making snide comments about now having reached this point of this web page.
"Both parents prepare meals for the child!"
The primary parent prepares more meals, shops for the bulk of the food, selects and keeps track of the household food supplies and cooking supplies and food servingware and kitchen cleaning supplies, thinks about the subject, decides what brands to purchase, considers the child's nutritional needs, monitors what the child has eaten, discusses the child's eating habits with the pediatrician, initiates more discussions about the child's diet with the other parent, reads those recipes in parenting magazines, thinks in advance about what will be prepared for the child to eat, becomes educated on vitamin supplement needs and purchases them when necessary, decides when the infant is ready for introduction to table foods and what foods, asks the child's babysitter what the child ate that day, considers and advises the child's other caregivers on what the child may eat or prefer, as well as the location of food and supplies, does the remembering of what fill-ins need to be purchased and picks these up on the way home from elsewhere without being prompted, can tell you what the child ate yesterday, bought the child's bottles and first sippy cup and utensils, decides whether the older child will purchase lunch at school or bring lunch, suggests and serves snacks, packs food and snacks for family trips, determines the frequency and timing of children's eating schedules, cleans up after meal preparation and sees to (does it or oversees) the overall cleanliness of the kitchen, including oven, refrigerator and other food preparation appliances, keeps track of food prices and budget, and is the parent, who upon reaching this point in this web page is likely to be thinking something along the lines of "wow I really do all this without even realizing I'm thinking about it," whereas the other parent... well, didn't think about it.
"Children impact BOTH parents' lifestyles!"
Which parent always announces (again) a departure from the home while on the way out the door, following a prior announcement and schedule check with the other parent or caregiver, and an inquiry to make sure that the other is fully aware that that parent will be temporarily unable to supervise the child, and that the other has affirmatively recognized the need to switch priority attention and become aware of the child's whereabouts and needs?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in households in which fathers stay home and put in more work-time hours caring for the children, and thus are characterized (usually incorrectly) as the "primary caregiver," studies show that these men do NOT perform all of the functions required to provide a home environment and complete nurturant care for their children.
See, e.g. http://www.slowlane.com/research/FAMJOU.html
[A] comparison of the nurturing roles in primary caregiving father and primary caregiving female families revealed marked differences between mothers and fathers. In the primary caregiving female family, the child most often turned to the mother for nurturing. In the primary caregiving father family, the child utilized both parents for nurturing, but still turned more often (56% of the time) to the ostensibly "non-primary caregiving" mother. The study's author fudged this a little: "While primary caregiving fathers may be 'capable' of nurturing, the child preferred the working mother as often as the primary caregiving father when both were available. As a consequence, the working mothers were providing an equal share of the nurturing in primary caregiving father families. "
Frank, Robert A. (1996) "Is the male in child care role changing? Primary caregiving males demonstrate the changing family structure: Implication for social work practice."; Frank, R. A. (1993). The role of the primary caregiving father. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Loyola University, Chicago.; Frank, R. A. (1995). Who's watching the children? Unpublished report. http://www.slowlane.com/research/index.htm
"[W]hen the working mom comes home, she tends to move back into her traditional role. For example, she might help with dinner, and she does the bath and the bedtime routine."
"Working mothers tend to know what their child?s schedule is (i.e., classes they take) even though they are at work all day. Traditional fathers generally don't know what their child's schedule is."
"63% of the at-home fathers felt somewhat isolated, compared to 37% of the at-home mothers."
http://www.slowlane.com/research/laymen_research.html
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 10, 2006 9:07:05 AM
Dirk, admit it. You set up a straw man argument. There are no two "equal" parents in any family. No two parents take on the same sacrifices and childrearing, identical down the line to make it difficult if not impossible to determine which parent is the primary parent. In MOST families, the mother has always acted as the primary caregiving parent, with all of the career, salary, and life sacrifices that go with the role. Those sacrifices cannot be regained years down the road. Fathers overwhelmingly do not take on those sacrifices. Yes, they may be very involved parents, taking on some of their own sacrifices, but they do not take on the same level of sacrifice and caretaking that mothers take on. That is the reason that mothers most often get custody of the children upon divorce. Most parents decide that mom should have custody on their own, without the need for a judge to make that decision for them. That's because they recognize which parent had acted in the role of primary caregiving parent from day one. Presumptive joint physical custody (shared parenting) ignores the contributions and sacrifices of primary caregiving mothers.
More on the primary parent:
WHY IT'S THE WAY IT IS: THE PRIMARY PARENT
"Since pregnancy doesn't take 18 years, as does raising kids, perhaps the question needs to be, why should a woman have to choose to lose earning potential to raise a family and men don't?"
Women shouldn't have to "choose." And, I don't believe they actually do.
I don't think women cognitively plan or "choose to lose earning potential" so much as, once they have children, they prioritize their children in their lives. This priority conflicts with how the world is set up to fit men's standards as to how to work and earn.
If women routinely could do it all, simultaneously, and while maintaining a reasonable lifestyle, without the children having to sacrifice, and without killing themselves as superwoman, they would.
The question to me isn't why do women prioritize their children, but why don't men? I think biology is in there, at least *initially,* helping to set an entire subsequent course of events into action.
Women cannot avoid being the ones who have to take notice, slow down, drop back and take off time from work and life because of pregnancy. Post-partum recovery is not instantaneous; and breastfeeding frequently continues for months. Even if women *don't* take off from work more than the absolute minimum, this does not mean that they will be able to function up to par from late pregnancy through months afterward. This is a minimum, and doesn't include possible pregnancy disability or complications, none of which can be foreseen, and which are not at all rare.
Additionally, most families who have any children, have more than one child, so this "slight" interruption repeats itself one, two or more times.
Finally, it's simply not in the best interests of babies to be continually separated from their primary attachment (caregiver) who will be, most of the time the mother, simply from the standpoint of biology and the fact that the other parent usually cannot *also* stay home for the first months and years.
Why do mothers "choose" to take *any* time off from work? They do it because that is what their babies need, and because most (not all, but MOST) mothers of babies and very young children, under a few years of age, crave being with them and overseeing their welfare directly in ways that most fathers Just Do Not.
They may do it after that "recovery period," in whole or by cutting down, again because that is what a child, by now strongly attached to the mother as primary, *needs* for optimum development. It starts out as a biological connection through pregnancy/hormonal differences post birth, including where applicable, breastfeeding. Socialization and expectations are a *factor,* but not the whole of it.
But what happens because of biology in the very early months sets in motion a different kind of attachment of the infant to the mother that, while it *will* shift as the child ages, still requires an amount of effort to overcome and hurry along over to the father. It's an effort that is pragmatically unreasonable to expect from most people. It's not just a coin toss, absent the question of who earns more, as to which parent will be the one to whom the baby, then small child has primary bonds.
"The issue isn't the bearing of children; it is what happens after they come out, and the mother recovers."
Birth? When's that end? Do you think the two bodies involved, mother's and infant's, suddenly forget nine months of attachment as soon as an umbilical cord is cut? There's no instant separation there. Birth is a process.
Following delivery, a rather traumatic first upheaval in the infant's life, the baby optimally needs to reassert a very secure attachment with one caregiver. Usually, that will be the natural mother, because right after birth, she's the one who is most attached herself to the baby, and the one who has the hormonal urges to hold the baby and breastfeed it.
It's not a question of arbitrary choice, it's NATURE. It's natural. It's the way it is. You're looking actually to buck biology to expect most mothers who have just given birth to prefer to hand over their babies to someone else!
The post-partum bonding period is not just a question of a medical recovery, although that alone -- having to be the one who takes off from work and stays home the first months to recuperate and is with the infant the most -- adds even more to the usual outcome. That aside, there is just no denying how strongly most mothers of newborn infants feel compared with the fathers.
Notwithstanding the social pratter, post-birth, to most new mothers, if they were to be honest, it's THEIR baby. Has been their baby in their very body for nine months, and that certainly hasn't changed following the *additional* unilateral effort, investment and exertion she puts into the outcome of labor, delivery and post-post-partum lifestyle changes. These feelings don't usually manifest negatively (cf post-partum depression!) toward the father's beliefs that he's equally a parent, simply because he's usually the person the mother loves most dearly, the person who has been the most help and support to her, and the person toward whom she feels most generous. (Compare when that is *not* the case.)
If men felt as strongly as women about their babies, however, we'd be hearing about the abusive ones beating up on women who didn't let them do the bulk of the baby holding and care at least as often as we hear of the violent ones who go berserk over relationship jealousy, or because she didn't cook dinner the way he wanted it.
Women *do* get, to varying degrees, but usually, really strong maternal hormones and feelings about their babies (that change over time as the child grows), and men's feelings are *different.* Not the same, and not as strong, and because their bonding with the baby only first starts at birth, it's behind what the mother already has, and for a time, the gap also widens.
I don't believe we should set out ideals about what women "should" feel or want to do that most women aren't going to be able to live up to. Women shouldn't have to become and function and feel "just like a man" in order to optimize their lives in this world.
We make a huge mistake to tell women that an experience as huge as pregnancy is "irrelevant" and nothing much, because it's not.
And certainly, we are only setting the stage for mothers who find themselves dearly attached to their infants, milk letting down, etc. to feel bad about themselves, as if they are doing something wrong, or something's wrong with them that they feel so strongly about their babies, rather than going right back out to work. (In fact, these are the *best* kinds of parents that a newborn infant can have!)
It's not "controlling" or "stupid" or "gatekeeping" or "choosing not to work" or "being forced not to work" (notwithstanding that that historically *has* played a role), or any other negative.
That's not affirming of women at all, but denigrating of women, their unique biology, their different experiences and lives.
It's one thing to say "this is what women can do if they want to," and quite another to tell women(yet again) how they should feel, what they should do, and what their reproductive lives are about. OR, that if they simply function as women, as mothers, as it may feel natural to them, they have made some kind of stupid or selfish or shortsighted choices for which the penalty is economic subservience for the remainder of their lives.
"If women *choose*, in the first place, men who would be in a position to change their career expectations, then when the time comes for *raising the children*, the men would be the ones doing more of it."
I'm not so sure at all that it's a given that, just because a man makes less money, he will suddenly put the child's needs before his own and become a nurturer. And I'm not sure at all that what kind of feelings and desires a person will have, what kind of parent they will be -- man OR woman -- once they have a baby, is predictable by another person or even knowable by the very person in question about themselves!
The criteria for being an optimum nurturer and parent isn't based on some kind of inability or lack of motivation or desire to earn or do other things. There is no connection here that ipso facto the spouse who can't earn as much or achieve as much or more doing other things is the best choice for primary parent. It just doesn't work that way.
To assume that the *sole* or substantial reason that women are usually the ones who stay home with the children is because of lesser abilities in other spheres is also denigrating of women and their feelings about their children.
Women aren't getting stuck with the "scut work" of housekeeping or the child care (the two go largely together -- it's nesting) because they're less competent than the father to do other things.
They aren't choosing to do the child care because they are the frivolous ones who don't want to work hard or do something "serious" in the outer world. And they are not prioritizing their children, either, out of some acknowledgement that they, as between the parents, are the less capable, smart, or ambitious in other respects.
Prospective respective earnings as between the two parents is just *one* factor affecting all of this.
What a newborn baby needs is a *mommy.* Many men, regardless of their wage-earning ability or lack thereof, simply will not do this, simply will not nurture in the same way. They are very different with babies and around babies, exceptions noted. It's not just a difference of kind or degree of caregiving, but also a difference in motivation and desire. When that baby cries and a mother's milk lets down, along with a panicky kind of urgency to get to that baby immediately, there is just no claiming that men feel or behave the same way. Most do not.
Lots of men also have told me that, while they loved their babies (in the sense of protectiveness and wonder and pride of possession), they didn't honestly *enjoy* being with them, certainly not for unending hours on end, until they were a few years old. That's just not how most mothers feel. Many women pre-children aren't that way either *until* those very real, actual hormones that are there, as well as pre-bonding for months during the pregnancy, *do* change their urges in this regard.
Even women who are not "baby crazy" usually feel very differently when it's *their* baby. This is not to be confused with the erroneous notions that once the child gets to be a couple, three years old, women don't start getting really bored with doing nothing else. Lots, most, perhaps, do. Also not to be confused with needing a break, time off, etc.
We make a real mistake setting up "solutions" that don't look at the realities of life. We make a huge mistake denying that any differences at all between the sexes exist, because to the extent they do, denying them means those differences will not have been addressed, which means no allowances for them will have been made, which means the solutions based on flawed predicates ultimately will fail.
It's quite one thing to understand that there will always be exceptions to any rule, to allow for the occasional exceptions, and for the individuality of individuals; it's quite another to preach that these exceptions themselves now "are" or "should be" the rule.
Additionally, if we take the punitive attitude toward strongly bonded mothers, a *good* thing for children (!) that they will have to suffer consequences down the road, how is it a solution to "decide" that fairness will be if half the men take this route?
If women "shouldn't" want to do it, why would men?
If the situation that currently stymies many women because they have children from optimizing their lives is wrong for them, it won't be any more right to make primary parenting a deed that just gets equal-opportunity unjust desserts.
"Pregnancy is mostly irrelevant, because though it takes time and can be an impact, it goes away, and the childrearing is there for 18 years if not more and is way more labor and time intensive than the carrying was in most pregancies."
Pregnancy is simply not "irrelevant."
Women are not merely containers, and then -- spit -- out comes a baby as to which the mother and father experience equal feelings and thoughts. Nix. Birth is a process. The baby may no longer be physically attached inside the woman, but remains attached for nurturing, emotional and psychological development. As Does The Mother!
Some medical literature has theorized that human infants, being the only ones among mammals that are nonambulatory at birth, and looking at other developmental factors, actually aren't "completely born" until about six months of age.
Not all mothers feel irresistably bonded, but many, probably most, do. I don't think I'm interested in working toward a world in which a strongly bonded parent, devoted to her children and prioritizing them, is considered pathological, underachieving or deserving of some booby prize.
Moreover, babies *need* that consistent, devoted caregiver.
It is only over a period of years, about three, as the child becomes ambulatory and social, that it can be said that the child actually has disengaged to the extent that the attachment is similar in strength to both parents and perhaps others. And then, of course, another child or two comes along.... the actual period of normal career interruption, or at least interference, can easily be a decade or more.
The interruption will remain there, whether or not the woman works the bulk of these years, even full time. It sneaks in in little subtle ways: inability to have the freedom to work certain hours, travel without extensive planning, "head" conflicts instead of single-minded concentration on work, sick children, during the day phone calls and scheduling, etc. This is a hard one to shift over to someone else, since it can't be easily "seen." It's psychological, and mental, it's the added thought-energy of the added responsibility, it's a subtle thing that starts when the child is born and is very difficult for someone else to take on "cold" and for the mother to give up "cold," that can't be done "in part" or shared because of the nature of it (at best it would be two persons duplicating the effort.)
*One* of the parents ideally should be with the child from the moment of birth, more or less continuously, for three years, and then gradually separating longer and longer thereafter for optimal emotional, physical and intellectual development of the child. *More* women than men will *always* be that parent because one parent alone is the one who must get pregnant, take off time to recuperate, and breastfeed, and because pregnancy and hormones also create a stronger natural bond from the git-go.
And once the pattern is set in motion in the very early stages, it's just not realistic to expect that most, or half, or even a large percentage of parents will make, or would even be able to make, the huge efforts required to alter the situation, or that it necessarily will be feasible to do so for them down the road. Some will, but not that many.
Even if there are very strong motivations for the father, he just won't feel the same way about the baby in the beginning (there are rare exceptions.) And unless the father also earns *considerably* less than the woman, there just won't be the strong enough economic motivators to overcome the psychological and biological ones. Just because factors can't be seen, doesn't mean they are not there and very real.
From a psychological standpoint, it would be reasonable to plan for a shift in caregiver from mother to father as the children age. However, because of the way our employment sectors and society currently are set up, by this time in the children's lives, the mother usually is so behind the father out of the starting gate, and he's so entrenched in his career, that economic factors will dictate that a switch in who is the primary caregiver, also cannot be reasonably expected to be the norm for most couples.
Also, once the children are in school and the child care needed is such that women have more time available to work, the primary parenting STILL continues in the double shift sense. Mothers by this time are in the "habit" of doing the child care thinking and having the head-trip responsibility, and it's near impossible to shift attitudes and thought processes of people absent tangible changes in their lives, and actions aiding the learning curve that go along with them.
That constant on-the-mind stuff is the result of learning -- after the mother has been the one to go for months while pregnant during which time she can never not be away from the child (and maybe multiple times), and then spends a period of time during which the children's whereabouts must be on her mind 24 hours a day, attitudes of initiative and responsibility toward the children's needs aren't going to be something one just "assigns" to this or that person suddenly and arbitrarily.
It is a learned thing, but it's learned because of inalterable factors that *are* biologically based. Yes men *could* do it, and yes some do, most often when something happens that removes the mother from the scene altogether. But even then, some men just shift the responsibility onto another woman.
liz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staying alive: Evolution, culture and women's intra-sexual aggression
Anne Campbell
Psychology Department
Durham University
South Road Durham DH1 3LE
http://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/bbs.campbell.html
a.c.campbell@durham.ac.uk
"The large endocranial size of our species together with a narrowing of the birth canal caused by bipedalism meant that infants had to be born relatively immature with a correspondingly longer period of dependency (Foley 1996; Lancaster & Lancaster 1983; Peccei 1995).
"In all societies, woman take primary responsibility for infant care (Ember 1981) and though this is doubtless a product of lactation, it extends beyond weaning and continues with solid food provision by the mother (Lancaster & Lancaster 1983).
"The primary attachment by infants is to the mother rather than the father (Kotelchuck 1976) and infants show greater fear of strange males than of strange females (Greenberg, Hillman & Grice 1977).
"There are no known cultures where mothers voluntarily abandon their children at the rate at which fathers do (Browne 1995) and mothers experience greater grief than fathers at the loss of a child (Zeanah 1989). The mother is the principle carer and protector of the infant."
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 10, 2006 9:14:47 AM
Stanton, thanks for the congrats on my son's graduation and the kind words about our financial troubles. I just sent off a resume this morning to a company, and it looks pretty good. I also sent off an article to a magazine yesterday. I'm aiming to become a regular writer because regular writers as opposed to once-in-a-while freelancers are paid more.
Regarding these statements by you: "I have to say that it bothers me how you keep referring back to the idea of "earning" joint custody. You did ask the question of whether it is appropriate for the children, but then went right back to the "earning" bit. There is no merit contest here - or at least there shouldn't be. The best interests of the children should be the ONLY consideration - no matter how the work was split up prior to the separation. Now of course, that division of responsibility can be taken into account in determining the best thing for the children, but that has nothing to do with merit on the part of either parent."
The only thing we have to use to determine child custody is the past. What were the parenting patterns already established by the parents? Looking at those parenting patterns and the attachment of the children to their primary parent (most often mom) IS in the children's best interests. Children need stability, and they get that in their attachment to their primary parent. Endorsing presumptive joint physical custody (shared parenting) creates a false "equal" playing field where none had actually existed. Presumptive joint physical custody ignores the child's attachment to the primary caregiving parent (most often mom), and it ignores the established parenting patterns freely chosen by both parents. It's not about merit. It's about what kind of parenting relationship the child is already used to, and providing for the child support and stability following the breakup.
Here are some facts about attachment and children:
"While the relationship with the non-custodial parent is important to a child's long-term well-being, the relationship with his or her primary caregiver may exert the greatest developmental influence" (Gordon v. Goertz, 1996)
[Regarding relocation] "Although relocation may disrupt a child's relationship with his or her non-custodial parent (MacDonald & Wilton, 2004; Davies, 1997), an interrupted relationship with the primary caregiver is likely to be more detrimental due to the considerable stability such a relationship provides." (Gordon v. Goertz, 1996)
"Perhaps the 'most important single protective factor [for children of divorce] is the quality of the relationship with the residential custodial parent' who is most often the child's mother." (Hetherington & StanleyHagan, 2000, p. 63; Wallerstein, 1991a)
"Insufficient mother-child contact leads to insecure or ambivalent attachment such that the child is uncertain, fearful, or socially inhibited (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Willemson, 1995), as well as anxious or avoidant of motherly interaction." (Dehart et al., 2000)
"Following divorce, children and adolescents generally experience healthier psychological, emotional, and behavioral adjustment if a close relationship is maintained with the mother in particular." (Felner & Terre, 1987; Maccoby et al., 1993)
"Youths living with their fathers, particularly adolescents, may adjust less well to the post-divorce situation than those living with their mothers or in a dual residence." (Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1992; Maccoby et al., 1993)
The fact is that mothers are overwhelmingly their children's primary caregivers. They have taken on that role with the blessing of the fathers. Recognizing this role, and the attachment children feel for their primary caregiving mothers, is important to consider in custody determinations. Ignoring established parenting patterns and children's attachment to their primary caregiving parent in favor of a false "equality" of presumptive shared parenting will harm children.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 10, 2006 9:37:34 AM
I don't have much more to say in this debate, mainly because I'm just not in the mood. I did want to repost some of my comments that fathers' rights supporters have ignored. They are about whether or not children can handle a joint physical custody arrangement. Their ability to handle the shunting back and forth between two homes must be taken into consideration when parents and/or courts consider joint physical custody. To often, adult demands regarding joint custody get the attention, and what children actually need is ignored. I thought that my previous comments were worth repeating.
"Lots of children have difficulty dealing with the shared parenting schedule. They feel like they're being treated like dayplanners. Rather than focus on the demands of adults who want shared parenting, the focus should be on whether or not children can handle it. Even when there isn't abuse, lots of children can't handle the schedule. They miss sleep-overs and birthday parties with their friends. They can't keep track of their friends. They miss out on extracurricular school activities like sports and drama club that require lots of after school time for participation. Shared parenting isn't about what is best for children. It's about appeasing the demands of adults."
"Yes, the paramount issue of importance is how the divorce affects the children. Too many adults are too busy thinking about their own demands and needs, and they forget about the children. A good book to read on this issue is "The Custody Wars" by Professor Mary Ann Mason. It's a great book that talks about how divorce affects children, and how too many parents (and courts) are so concerned with their own issues that they overlook what the children need.
I think that all custody orders should take into consideration what children need at a given time in their lives. Legal professionals need to be educated regarding the stages of development of children. Children need different things at different times in their lives. Their level of maturity and development should be considered when deciding a custody issue. Too often the adults in a custody case, including the parents and the professionals helping them, focus too much on adult demands and desires and ignore the children in the process. Children have no representatives in court, save GALs, and GALs don't always work well on their behalf. Another good one to look to for information about children, their stages of development, and their needs is Dr. Judith Wallerstein. While I don't agree with her about everything, she makes some very good points about children's needs and child development.
I think that most divorcing parents try to do the best by their kids. Yes, they screw up. They're scared and confused. Divorce is a major changing point in their lives, and sometimes I don't think they are aware of just how monumental a change it is. It's very expensive. It's stressful. It's scary. It's an unknown, and parents have to deal with the fear of the unknown. It may require moving. They'll be living alone, or with their parents, or with a roommate. That requires adjustment, and it isn't always easy. They will likely need to rely on a single income (their own) to support themselves and their children. The children feel caught in the middle. They may feel that they need to take sides, and parents should avoid that as much as they can. Surprises can arise, such as a car repair bill they didn't expect, or the adjustment their children may need to make to a new school or new neighborhood. There are all kinds of changes that can be overwhelming. Children's ability to cope with those changes is important. A responsible court will take their needs into consideration. Too often, the children's needs, fears, and development are overlooked by courts. Mason talks about that in her book. I highly recommend it."
I really don't have much more to say on the subject. I'm not interested in getting into circular arguments and knocking down straw men. The most important consideration in a custody case is to pay attention to the child's development, and what the child needs. Presumptive joint physical custody (shared parenting) ignores what children need, what children can handle, and it ignores their levels of development. Presumptive joint physical custody (shared parenting) places adult demands (in particular, the demands of fathers who would most likely be the non-custodial parent) over what is best for the children.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 10, 2006 12:26:57 PM
Trish-
Thanks so much for taking what appears to have been an awful lot of time to respond to my statements and questions. Aside from the fact that your first one is downright insulting to a man who's just traded off an entire career to see his daughter grow up, the wealth of information you've just listed will come in very handy.
Whenever my friends are skeptical that there really are people who are so maternally chauvinistic that they have a real difficulty accepting men as equal partners in parenting I can send them to this site.
It's worth an hour of discussion to show them exactly what I mean.
Thanks Trish.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 10, 2006 6:05:55 PM
Dirk, if you want a bogeyman, you could do a lot better than Trish Wilson. A while ago there was a commenter here who kept blabbering, with no evidence, about the mother-child bond and how men and women were different. What Trish does is very different from that: she produces evidence that in practice, families where the roles of father and mother are the exact opposite of the traditional situation are very rare. I don't see any man-hating there, and I'm saying this as someone who has objected to certain feminist practices that intimidate potential male supporters.
Trish, when you say that a child needs a primary caregiver, do you mean there's evidence that when both parents contribute an equal amount of effort the child suffers?
Posted by: Alon Levy at Jun 11, 2006 3:22:55 AM
Trish adequately describes some of the inconveniences of divorce, like having to move between homes to be with mom and dad.
But to imply that this is the end of a child's realm and too hard to do is far from the truth.
What Trish is really saying is that "birthday parties wth friends" are more important that a regular relationship with Dad. See how the radical feminists dismiss the importance of fathers.
Ah Trish you are so transparent!
Trish Said...
"...lots of children can't handle the schedule. They miss sleep-overs and birthday parties with their friends. They can't keep track of their friends. They miss out on extracurricular school activities like sports and drama club that require lots of after school time for participation. Shared parenting isn't about what is best for children. It's about appeasing the demands of adults."
Posted by: Charlie at Jun 11, 2006 4:37:35 AM
I'm just going to make a couple of more points and then I'm out.
Alon-
It's not so much that I think Trish hates men. Not at all -- she obviously loves her son and husband very much. What I'm pointing out is that there is a general belief in our culture, which I see Trish's views supporting, that obscures the emotional realities of men and consequently those of their children as well.
Charlie-
I only asked Trish to answer a hypothetical question, not a straw man. It was insulting that Trish characterized my parenthood without knowing me. All I can say is, she's dead wrong.
But the other thing is that she immediately takes it a step further assigning problems to each and every shared parenting situation when we haven't even gotten that far. It's tough for the kids to go back and forth, etc.
But what I'd say is that every successful shared parenting situation I've ever seen, both parents live close enough together that the kids can walk back and forth between homes in just a few minutes. I'd say that a situation like that is pretty necessary in order to make shared parenting practical.
But everyone hides behind best interest of the child and the child's needs as though it's something they're unwilling to comporomise.
But everyone, including Trish, is willing to compromise it to some extent in order to pursue their own self-interest. I'm not saying that's inherently wrong, but rather a matter of degree.
If we were all, including Trish, putting the needs of the kids first and foremost unflinchingly, the most common wituation would be that the family keeps the home and the PARENTS have to come and go while the kids stay put.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 11, 2006 7:13:19 AM
Alon: "Trish, when you say that a child needs a primary caregiver, do you mean there's evidence that when both parents contribute an equal amount of effort the child suffers?"
Oh, no, not at all. Children do benefit from two parents who love and support them. What I was saying that has been twisted by fathers' rights types now and in the past is that there is only one primary caregiver, and that's usually mom. Sometimes dad is the primary caregiver, but that's very uncommon. Those statements don't denigrate dads. They are merely the truth. Both parents may provide a lot of effort, but their efforts differ in type and degree. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's "equal" effort because their efforts differ. They don't do exactly the same things or take on the same sacrifices. The articles by my colleague described some of those differences. Those articles pointed out how the mindset, sacrifices, and efforts taken on by primary caregivers differ from the mindset, sacrifices, and efforts taken on by non-primary caregivers.
What matters is the quality of the time and effort. It doesn't denigrate dad at all to point out the truth that usually it is mom who is the primary caregiver. For some reason, fathers' rights activists see that truth as a zero-sum game. When someone like me points out that moms are most often the primary caregivers of their children, fathers' rights activists have a knee-jerk response that we are saying that dad's contributions are not important. That's certainly not what we are saying, and it certainly isn't true. Sometimes I think fathers' rights activists who make that knee-jerk response are reacting more to their own feelings of inadequacy and insecurity than to anything I had actually written. There are also the father's rights activists who are reacting to their own overblown senses of entitlement who think that people like me are saying that dads don't matter.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 11, 2006 7:25:51 AM
What Trish is saying is that father's effort is not primary care-giver effort; so fathers can work hard to provide for their family and make the honorable sacrifices to go to work, but in the end, their efforts count for nought and they should be denied an equal relationship with their children. Trish ignores the fact that work and care arrangements are dynamic and apt to change. The arrangement that suited that couple before the divorce is usually not appropriate after divorce. Trish denies the obvious changes to routine and work and care-giving that divorce brings, plus the opportunity for Dad to spend more time with the children. What's so wrong with that Trish?
In an attempt to pre-empt the protests of fathers being denied an equal relationship with their children Trish dumps on them... Fathers are categorized as "fathers' rights activists"; wanting to be with your children is now a "knew jerk reaction"; she claims father's act out of feelings of inadequacy and insecurity (so grieving the loss of one's children now becomes inadequacy and insecurity - I hardly think so). So fathers wanting to know and see their children is "their own overblown senses of entitlement". Trish, you wouldn't disparage mothers like that so why the contempt for men?
Trish you know the real reason why father's protest the primary care giver cliche. The inference is that she is and he isn't, a primary care giver when in reality, the children have two primary parents and their right to an equal realtionship with both parents should not be abused by polarising the debate with stereotypes of who is and who isnt a worthy parent. Children deserve and need both parents. Now why would you be against that fundamental truth Trish?
Posted by: Charlie at Jun 11, 2006 10:54:55 AM
Charlie: "What Trish is saying is that father's effort is not primary care-giver effort; so fathers can work hard to provide for their family and make the honorable sacrifices to go to work, but in the end, their efforts count for nought and they should be denied an equal relationship with their children."
Charlie, you have just proven my point when I wrote "For some reason, fathers' rights activists see that truth as a zero-sum game. When someone like me points out that moms are most often the primary caregivers of their children, fathers' rights activists have a knee-jerk response that we are saying that dad's contributions are not important."
One thing that really bugs fathers' rights activists about "shared parenting" is that they know that most fathers have not taken on the lion's share of childcare responsibilities and sacrifices that most mothers have taken on during the marriage. They also know that mothers are most often the children's primary caregivers, and that role that both parents had supported while married reflects the kind of child custody that most parents have after divorce by their own choosing. That's what they can't get around. They know that I'm speaking the truth. They know that "shared parenting" creates a false sense of "equality" between the parents that didn't exist while they were married. They know that parents are differently situated when it comes to childcare and primary caregiver status when married, so to disguise that reality in a way that they think benefits them, they create the false "equality" of "equal parenting" and "shared parenting". That creates a scorching case of cognitive dissonance for fathers' rights activists who talk about "equal parenting" and "shared parenting", because they know deep down that neither reflect reality. That's why they get so angry whenever someone like me points out the truth to them when it comes to parenting roles undertaken willingly by the parents during marriage, "equal parenting", and "shared parenting". That's why they attack me personally, misrepresent what I write, and take what I write out of context.
By the way, Charlie, when I talk about fathers' rights activists, I mean fathers' rights activists, not fathers across the board. The rest of what you wrote is so far off the mark that it's not even worth a response. You really need to read what I actually write, and not import meaning into it that I never made. You also need to stop projecting your own issues onto what I write.
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 11, 2006 12:05:33 PM
Trish, you too would have a "scorching case of cognitive dissonance" if you couldn't be with your children. More so if someone patronisingly valued your "important contributions" in one breath and then dismissed your parent-child bond in the next.
Trish Wrote "...and that role that both parents had supported while married reflects the kind of child custody that most parents have after divorce by their own choosing."
Ha! No Trish, not by their own choosing. You know full well that Divorce Courts distort custody by assigning the children to the mother in the formulation of a sole-parent family. Courts routinely order that single parents do the work of two, often plunging them into poverty.
Trish you know too that couples settle in the shadow of court precedents and fathers accept unsatisfactory orders because they rarely prevail in the feminist jurisprudence of the Divorce Court.
Trish you can be generous and understanding to the hilt without fear of losing the children or parenting time. Nothing ventured nothing lost.
Trish said, ""shared parenting" creates a false sense of "equality" between the parents that didn't exist while they were married."
Actually Trish you under estimate the major child care and home making contributions of many fathers who are already sharing the parenting equally. You stick to the paradigm of the single parent model after divorce when the child had two involved parents before the divorce.
As for "parenting roles undertaken willingly by the parents during marriage"...understandably they get angry when you deny the inevitable changes brought on by divorce in order to justify denying the children equal access to their father.
In short, many mothers' rights activists use the primary carer arguement to garner total care and control of the children for econonmic gains and to punish and control their ex husbands. This kind of malicous behaviour of revenge is prevalent amongst women whose clandestine adultery is discovered. You well know that the maternal deprivation theory and primary attachment theory have all been superceed by the acceptance of multiple attachments, but in particular the primary attachments to mother and father.
Trish nothing in your arguements against shared parenting is supportive of children and their need for ongoing relationships with both parents.
Posted by: Charlie at Jun 11, 2006 1:31:33 PM
I see Charlie is so uncomfortable with the truth about how most moms and dads parent in marriage that he's getting angry again. I'm not surprised to see that.
"Trish, you too would have a "scorching case of cognitive dissonance" if you couldn't be with your children. More so if someone patronisingly valued your "important contributions" in one breath and then dismissed your parent-child bond in the next."
You're doing it again, Charlie. Saying that I say that dad's contribution isn't important, which you know isn't true. That's the second time you've said that. At least you're predictable.
"Trish Wrote "...and that role that both parents had supported while married reflects the kind of child custody that most parents have after divorce by their own choosing."
"Ha! No Trish, not by their own choosing. You know full well that Divorce Courts distort custody by assigning the children to the mother in the formulation of a sole-parent family."
Reality check, Charlie. 90% of divorces settle out of court with both parents agreeing between themselves, without the need for a court to make the decision for them, that mom should have sole custody of the children. I've mentioned that several times in my comments here. Courts don't "distort custody" by routinely awarding custody of the children to the mother. It's a popular father's rights myth that courts discriminate against fathers by routinely awarding sole custody of the children to the mother. Most cases aren't decided by a judge. Most parents who settle recognize mom as the primary caregiver, and they believe that she should continue in that capacity upon divorce. Yes, there are fathers who are unhappy that they have been told that they are unlikely to be awarded custody, but that is because they most often were not the children's primary caregiver, not because there is rampant bias against fathers in court. Besides, when dads make an issue of custody, they get some form of it more than half the time. Most often they get joint legal custody, which fathers' rights activists don't like. I find that interesting, since joint legal is the form of custody that gives them more decision-making power. I thought father's rights activists wanted to have more say in their children's lives. If that were really true, why don't they fight as hard for legal custody as they do for physical custody? With legal custody, they get access to school and doctor records. They get to make decisions about religious instruction. They get to make decisions about sports, band, dance, and other activities that parents often sign up their kids for. But, no, father's rights activists don't think that's good enough. They don't fight for legal custody at all. They think it's useless. How revealing. They want the timeshare, and it's no accident that a certain amount of timeshare leads to a reduction or elimination of child support in many cases. Dads on average pay only about 19% of their incomes to their children's households, but even that is far too much for fathers' rights activists. Getting rid of the child support is a popular platform with fathers' rights activists.
As I said, dads who make an issue of custody get some form of it more than half the time. So, no, there isn't rampant bias against dads in court. Not getting your way in court does not mean that the court has discriminated against you. Fathers' rights activists refuse to accept that.
Fathers' rights activists also must learn the difference between "I changed diapers and cooked meals too!" and the role and sacrifices taken on by the primary caregiver who is most often mom. For some reason, father's rights activists love talking about how many poopy diapers they changed. Changing poopy diapers doesn't make them Superdad. Actually, I suspect they do know the difference between a litany of things they have done like changing diapers full of explosive diarrhea, and what it means to be a primary caregiver, but to admit that means that they'd have to admit that their "shared parenting" and "equal parenting" rhetoric is the hollow nonsense that it is. That's where the cognitive dissonance comes in, and then their heads explode.
"In short, many mothers' rights activists use the primary carer arguement to garner total care and control of the children for econonmic gains and to punish and control their ex husbands. This kind of malicous behaviour of revenge is prevalent amongst women whose clandestine adultery is discovered."
Good Lord. That was so funny I just had to repeat it. Yeah, moms get great economic gains from those couple of hundred dollars per month they usually get in child support. They can then fund their trips to the Bahamas and get their nails painted on all that child support. That's really funny. Typical fathers' rights badmouthing of mothers. I think Charlie is projecting here. Again. ;)
Posted by: The Countess at Jun 11, 2006 3:23:22 PM
Trish, you must be getting rattled to provide such a lengthy response but there is no honor in giving a multitude of trumphed up reasons why fathers shouldn't have equal access to their children. But then you've made a living (I mean blog) of discriminating against children being with their dads on an equal basis.
Trish said, "Yes, there are fathers who are unhappy that they have been told that they are unlikely to be awarded custody, but that is because they most often were not the children's primary caregiver, not because there is rampant bias against fathers in court."
Thanks for illustrating the problem, the bias of legalistic notions of a primary parent when children don't discriminate - they just love their mom and dad and want to be with them. Trish you love to use repetition in your arguements so read my lips...children have two primary parents and have that primary right.
Trish said, "Most often they get joint legal custody, which fathers' rights activists don't like. I find that interesting, since joint legal is the form of custody that gives them more decision-making power. I thought father's rights activists wanted to have more say in their children's lives. If that were really true, why don't they fight as hard for legal custody as they do for physical custody?"
Oh really Trish, is your readership really going to fall for that one!!! I say if the shoe fits, wear it. By your statement Mothers should be happy to have joint legal custody only and not be concerned with physical custody, that is, spending time with and living with their children. Trish you've set up a strawman here, fathers fighting only for the right to decision making when living with your children and enjoying time together is what makes relationships.
"Fathers' rights activists also must learn the difference between "I changed diapers and cooked meals too!""
I see Trish, you're switching again. Your inference is that fathers contribution is token only. Belittling fathers with stereotypes that belong in sitcoms depicting bungling dads is an insult to the fathers and fathering.
"Changing poopy diapers doesn't make them Superdad".
More of the same put-downs and general rubbish for your readership.
Lastly Trish, as I said before, fathers know that unless they wear a skirt they can't prevail in court. They know this and every lawyer tells them this. They settle for a lot less time with their children begrudgingly. The feminist jurisprudence and best interests of an adversarial court make sure that outcomes are kept lop-sided as an enabler for more litigation and more money in lawyers pockets.
Posted by: Charlie at Jun 11, 2006 6:59:27 PM
Trish said,
"There are also the father's rights activists who are reacting to their own overblown senses of entitlement who think that people like me are saying that dads don't matter."
I think you back-pedal when it suits you. If you really think that dads matter so much, then why do you so often quote sources like the Liz Library which is basically a warehouse of information all of which points at what little contributions fathers make?
http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/is_motherhood_i.html
Trish also said,
"Dirk, I'm not surprised you claim you are an "equal' parent, and even possibly a primary parent. Most fathers' rights supporters claim that they are. You are certainly not the first fathers' rights supporter who claimed to be a primary parent. However, they (and you) have confused primary parenting with a tally of "chores" done around the house and stating that both parents work outside the home. For some reason, fathers' rights supporters love to state how many diapers they have changed, as if that makes them primary parents."
This was the passage that I found personally insulting. You know, Trish, I've respected you enough here that I basically take what you say about yourself at face value. I don't sit here and question what you say about yourself or how you characterize your motives. But I find the presumptiveness of that passage aboove very personally insulting.
Please enlighten me: how the hell do you know enough about me and my life and my involvement with my daughter to basically presume that I'm not honest or accurate in my assessment of my own life?
We're not talking statistics here. We're talking about my life.
The arrogance of that presumption is maybe something you should think about.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 12, 2006 9:38:26 AM
I'm going through a divorce currently. Please just help me understand...
First a sidenote - my wife and I have not had a good relationship in YEARS. By that I mean 6, 7 possibly 8 years now... We *never* fight, but we don't show any affection toward each other. We are more like good friends that happen to share a house with our 2 kids.
ok...
We have 2 beautiful little boys (5 and 7). Our roles as parents have swapped places several times over the years depending mostly on our current work status. There was, for an extended period of time, roughly 3 years ago that my wife was working in another city and putting in extended hours. It was not uncommon at all for her to arrive home after 8:00 pm or 9:00 pm. I really enjoyed setting up a routine with my kids - getting them up in the mornings, getting them breakfast, packing lunches and getting them off to school. Then picking them up, making dinner and seeing them off to dreamland. They had a very strong routine, and I enjoyed this time with them and really enjoyed giving them a structured schedule. My wife has had trouble adhering to or creating a structured schedule for our kids, so it felt good to have the opportunity to do this.
However, when the roles swapped again recently, there has been no adherance to any solid schedule. Her idea of putting the kids to bed is to let them stay up until 9 or 10 and even then when they are in bed, letting them watch TV to fall asleep by. She would always let the boys play video games before school (early in the morning - which just puts them in the wrong frame of mind to start a school day). Also, she is very, very, very messy. Not just clutter, but I mean uncleanliness. I don't even want to give details here, but I just think it is disgusting and unsafe for the kids.
Anyway, here's where I'm scared and confused. I have no desire to take the kids from her - but I want to make sure they are in a safe and consistent environment. There's no doubt in my mind of her nurturing and ability to take care of the kids (because we are in the role that she is currently doing a lot of it) but she only really started getting her act together in the last couple of months when she filed for divorce.
She's wants sole custody. I want sole custody (but will settle for joint decision making, and as much face time with my kids as possible - because the parental things i enjoy about raising my kids such as creating a solid schedule, helping with homework, etc. requires being there and setting the example)
I have not met with my attorney on this particular part of the divorce (custody and parenting plans) But being the father, I know that things are skewed a bit toward the mother. I understand why this is, and I don't dispute it. However, I don't understand why there is not some middle ground *besides* joint or shared parenting. Admittedly, it looks like joint custody is not the ideal solution for parents who don't get along enough that they must get a divorce. I just don't understand why it's either sole custody (which is MOST of the time with the kids), joint, or the most common, which I pray won't happen, which is "standard visitation" that ends up being every other weekend with a few extra days thrown in here and there. I can't stand the thought of that! I currently see my kids *everyday* and influence and take part in their upbringing and caring for them on a daily basis. (I still help with preparing meals, giving baths, solving problems, teaching, etc.)
So is there something in-between? Why is it all or nothing? (I'm thinking joint is not a possibility because she does not want it - Although if there was a way to do it that wouldn't require the kids switching residence all the time it might make more sense and provide more solid structure for them) Why is there not a 60% - 40% or 70% - 30%? or is there, and I'm not aware?
I DO see the need for a primary residence...for stability and security, but I DON'T agree with only seeing my kids a few days per month. I will ask for sole custody because honestly, that's what I'd prefer...but barring that, what is the alternative to the typical 'standard visitation'?
Hope that made sense...I'm just so confused and worried.
Thanks
Posted by: scared and confused at Jun 13, 2006 1:35:29 AM
Come on Trish; let the guy down lightly. Give him reasons why he can't have his kids. You know, like you usually say to men.
Posted by: John at Jun 13, 2006 2:37:30 AM
Hi,
I have been thru such a messy divorce and I will tell you that the Father's rights groups are
are a bunch of liars, malipative con artists. Sorry for the name calling, but story goes
deep and I found out the hard way they will do nothing to get what they want! It is not
about the children at all but their control. They secretly stick together and I am sure
we have no idea what they are capable of. There are attorneys and judges who are working
them. I cannot go into much details because I am still very afraid. It is all about control
and the money. Nothing else. Us women having been staying at home raising the children
for generations and some of those men are just jealous or probarly gay cause they want our
female jobs> And yes mostly these men are abusive and some still get the kids. The south
is backwards and needs to get real! Tennessee is second in the nation for domestic abuse!
Why is that? They just don't want to do their jobs anymore! A stay at home mother would
have to be paid like $175,000 for what she does! She does much more than the 9-5er! Get
life men!!
Posted by: Mary Jane at Jun 15, 2006 9:09:55 PM
God, Trish, you do get the trolls, don't you?
Posted by: ginmar at Jun 15, 2006 10:18:26 PM
Where are you Trish?
What's the matter, why don't you gender stereotype as you normally do? truth is that women want to control their man and use his children for child support and as weapons against their father. This is the essence of radical feminism. Lazy women who blame men as an excuse not to accept full responsibility and accountability for their lives.
Posted by: Dave at Jun 16, 2006 1:15:13 AM
God, asshole, try harder. I think you missed a stereotype or two in your screed about women.
Reminds me of the way these assholes bitch about Bush, whining that it's an insult to call him for what he is. Meanwhile, Trish, your trolls see as an insult anything which doesn't get them what they want.
Posted by: ginmar at Jun 16, 2006 8:46:14 AM
To ginmar,
What kind of trollop?
Check out this definition ginmar...if the shoe fits then wear it.
Never ceases to amaze me how many words so aptly describe the many faces of woman. In the wisdom of the ages, the culture learned what to expect and the language adapted accordingly.
trollop
n 1: a dirty untidy woman [syn: slattern, slut, slovenly woman] 2: a woman adulterer [syn: adulteress, fornicatress, hussy, jade, loose woman, slut, strumpet]
Posted by: Ben at Jun 17, 2006 9:41:30 AM
How can you have a child with a "severely dysfunctional women"? Someone asked me that.
How can I be honest here? I do indeed regret having made a bad marriage decision. But when we married at 23, my wife was just a little immature. she seemed pretty normal. She began drinking, and as far as I can tell, turned alcoholic after having a miscarriage at age 30. (She had a dad who I know understand was an alcoholic, but I didn't get that when I was only 23.) She then had a breakdown at age 34--unfortunately, she was not hospitalized. . A mere nine years after the start of the marriage, then, the woman was a mess. But it happened over time.
Realism requires that we not pretend we can go back. My problem when I got to court was that I was being sued for divorce by a woman who was a little cracked, but every month the case when went on she became worse. The courts and her lawyers really encouraged her childish intransigence and irrationality. They rewarded it. And the kids, my vulnerable and scared sons, could not be taken care of.
I had been the primary Mom. I really had done most of the child-care--but as someone said earlier in this discussion--prior arrangements usually mean nothing when you get to court. I didn't know that then--I fantasied that judge were wise, detail-oriented and full of caring feelings for kids. (I suppose I thought Family Court judges were something like pediatricians--that they loved kids.)
Men marry the immature all the time (so do women). The problem is how can the kids be taken care of down the road, once what's done is done? In my case, and in many men's cases, the judges are far more afraid of having their easy jobs interrupted than of anything else. That's why they rule for women in almost all cases. There's no men's group likely to screw with their careers--at least not yet. But the women's groups and women's bar groups--they can be powerful and nasty. They screw judges over and f**k with their reappointments. So Judge Smith does what's best for his own security, and puts the kids with the mom--even when the Mom is a really bad bet as a parent. (Alcoholic, etc.)
It happens, it's sad, it's a tragedy for children. and it's going to change.
Posted by: orwell46 at Jun 20, 2006 12:29:53 PM
