Spittin' on a house fire.

In other words, your father isn't the guy who visits.

If parents divorce, daddy shouldn't be excommunicated from his kids' lives.
-------------------------------------------
Perfectly said Amy.

This is driven by two powerful groups.
The attorneys who make a killing off the " family courts." And the domestic violence man hating women crowd. When ever we go and try to get these laws changed to presumptive joint physical custody, these are the two groups who show up to lobby against it in our state.
The attorneys want to continue to line their pockets through encouraging acramonious family court decisions and the domestic violence crowd portray every man as a potential abuser so they can receive more and more money for this imaginary epidemic. Think VAWA.
When you counter the domestic violence crowd with "not all men are abusive." They braoden abuse to if you ever raise your voice, say no to her spending money or basically not letting her have her way with evry decision. If you ask them if the same standards apply when the roles are reversed they look at you like you just arrived from another planet.
I thought about telling one woman that infered that, all men have the potential to be abusers, that all women have the potential to be prostitutes, as they have the equipment for it. Maybe next year will be my year to use this line on her.

Then there's the flip side of that coin - the father who is given every opportunity possible to spend with his kids, and doesn't take it. I have begged and pleaded with my ex to even just call the girls more often than he does, which falls on deaf ears. He has not worked in over 9 years now, and still has never even endeavored to come to visit the girls on a school holiday, or even after school to take them to a movie or the mall or anywhere. Now that #1 has her own laptop (which Gramma and I paid for), he IMs her more often than not, but does he call the younger one? No. She just got her own cell phone (she started freshman year, and I figured she needed one, that, yes I paid for) and he only just asked for the number last weekend. BF and I are planning on going to the Bloomsburg County (PA) fair on Sunday and Monday (the girls have no school that day, it's Yom Kippor), and I suggested that Ex take them overnight last Satuday until Sunday so that the girls could come with us, and he wouldn't miss "his" day. Of course, since he still lives with his parents, they stayed there, but seriously, it's been like pulling teeth to get him to take them overnight on any other occasion. He has his Sundays with them and makes no effort at all to see them any other time, unless I suggest/insist. It gets maddening, until I realize if that's all he's capable of, so be it. It's his loss, and his parents', that they don't spend more time with the girls. They will know in the long run who's been more supportive.

The problem with "shared parenting" is that it doesn't always result in the best outcome for the kid(s). It's great when you have parents who are friendly with each other, live in close proximity, and can be flexible when the kid left a toy or school project with the other parent and needs to go get it. Unfortunately, this very rarely describes two people who are divorcing. When any of these factors aren't present - huge distances (meaning lots of upheaval in terms of school and friends), lots of rigidity ("it's my night with the kids and I'm not taking them back over to their father's/mother's without a court order!"), and constant hostility - a lot of shared custody arrangements end up being extremely traumatic for the kids. They get shuttled around and don't feel like they have a secure home base (often to the detriment of school and extracurriculars) and they feel like they're causing additional tension between their parents.

Now, I certainly think that we should strive to avoid situations like the horror stories where loving parents are deprived of contact with their children, but to assume that the answer is some 50-50 split in custody is to ignore the best interests of the child. There's a bit of a trend on this board to embrace theories of evolutionary biology when they confers some privilege on men ("of course men are going to look at porn/other women/etc., they're visual creatures programmed to seek out signals of fertility") but to reject them out of hand when they result in women being advantaged in some way ("it's outrageous that more women than men end up with custody of their children, despite the fact that it makes perfect sense on a biological level"). I'm for equality before the law in every way, don't get me wrong - it's critical that we not legally discriminate against individuals by denying them rights. But we all know that equality of opportunity doesn't mean equality of outcome; I don't think anyone here believes fire departments are inherently sexist because more men than women serve as fire fighters.

In addition, this focus on horrible stories involving fathers being deprived of their children doesn't seem to match up with what I saw during the year I worked in family law. There are a lot of uninvolved fathers who are more than happy to cede custody (plenty of mothers feel this way too, unfortunately), and plenty of malicious ones who fight for full custody despite never having been very involved in the kids' lives pre-divorce, just as a tool to hurt their exes. Plenty of bad behavior to go around.

What could possibly be bad about a presumption of shared parenting? The child sees both parents equally, they can both share in the child's life,, and the battles in court end. The folks against shared parenting (the attorneys, and the women who would normally get custody) are only against it for one reason: money. Money for the attorneys to draw out a life-long legal battle, and the ex-wives who think they are entitled to get the child, the money, the control, the power, the entitlements.

Don't let anyone fool you, money is the driving force behind this. That child support check is such a gigantic carrot...otherwise, why get divorced at all???

Shared parenting will destroy the divorce rate in this country.

Since I won custody of my 8-year-old from my ex in trial, she has been sweet as pie!

Flynne,

Maybe your ex is depressed because of the huge child support burden he has hanging over his head. Believe me, when my ex had custody and I was sending that $800.00 CS check every month, I was depressed too. But, it is not about the money, it is like this: "Wait a minute, I have to pay money to someone I hate, all for the privilege of seeing my child less?"

It was this that prompted me to continue the fight. I believe that most men with custody are 100 times better at getting along with the ex and making sure she can see the child whenever she wants. I had to go to court so many times for her keeping my son on my weekends.

Now....I have custody and she can come up and see him anytime. And she pays ZERO in child support.

LOLOL!!! Maybe your ex is depressed because of the huge child support burden he has hanging over his head. LOLOL!!!

You have got to be kidding! My ex pays me $69/week for 2 kids! That was my whopping child support "award"! Know why? Because when we got divorced, I was making more money than he was! And, when he quit his job at CompUSA, because he didn't like the way his supervisor drew up his work schedule, he decided he didn't want to go back to work. His mommy and daddy have been giving him a monthly allowance ever since he stopped working. They also bought him a car and a condo. Depressed? Nah, I don't think so! Guy lives the life of Riley, does what he wants when he wants, and I get to be the repsonsible one. But again, I have always always made sure he had access to his children any time he wanted it. That he never took us up on it is on him, not me.

I'm sorry you went through what you did, but it doesn't even come close to my circumstances.

My point was NOT that men can't be excellent parents or that women are fundamentally better suited to child care, so Hrdy isn't really relevant here. Rather, it's that one cannot infer sexism or unfairness just because more women than men receive primary custody of their children. It's just the reverse of the dynamic that results in fewer female than male law firm partners. It's not that women aren't just as good at practicing law, it's that, in the aggregate, they often make different choices that result in work taking a backseat to other obligations. The same forces are at work when it comes to men and custody of children. Men often prioritize their careers and allow the spouse to be the primary caretaker of the child. There's nothing wrong with this, of course, but surely it seems logical that the primary caregiver is going to enjoy an advantage in custody determinations.

Rather, it's that one cannot infer sexism or unfairness just because more women than men receive primary custody of their children. It's just the reverse of the dynamic that results in fewer female than male law firm partners.

Bullshit. It's coded into the process. With most families being two-income (i.e. both parents work outside of the home) then by your logic custody should go to the daycare center or the grandmother.

No, in most states the assumption is that the mother is the proper place for custody to go, and it often takes proving gross incompetence to change that.

Anecdote: person I know went through a particularly nasty divorce with a psycho. She got custody of both of their kids. Did some horrible shit to them. It wasn't until she crashed the car at 110 mph with both kids in it while stalking a cop that the state finally took the kids from her.

There's a "presumption of competence" granted to the woman simply because she bore the child[ren].

Flynne: I'm sorry to hear about the situation you have with your ex. I don't know why a man would ever not want to be involved in his childrens' lives. I'm sure you realize, though, that this isn't the sort of thing a law can fix.

I grew up in a shared parenting situation. It wasn't quite 50-50, because my mom had us whenever school was in session. Because of that alone, it's pretty much a necessity that no shared custody arrangement is ever going to be a perfect 50-50 split; you don't want the children having to split their time between two different schools. However, that doesn't mean that one parent should be reduced to the role of weekend visitor. My dad had us during the summer, plus spring break and part of Chirstmas. So we spent significant time living with both parents, and they both had opportunities to do real parenting, including punishment when necessary. (I'm not saying how often it was necessary...)

And it's not like my parents were best buddies during that time. My mom had an affair and the divorce was very acrimonious. Right away my mom married her lover, and for years my father refused to speak with my stepfather. But somehow they always managed to cooperate when they needed to for our best interests. Although there were residual effects, my brother and I got through high school and college and we've since both done pretty well for ourselves. I still think it worked out better. My mom went through a severe depression period for a couple of years when I was a teenager, and my stepfather had a job that kept him on the road a lot, so if I hadn't had my dad to lean on, it would have been a really bad situation.

...I think what parents need to remember (BOTH OF THEM) is that when they brought the child/children into the world it ceased to be all about them. Children's worlds are destroyed by divorce, and the least parents can do is try to maintain a civil relationship with each other and stay as closely involved in their kids' lives as possible.

I have a good friend who gets to see his little 7 year old boy only a few times a year because he is stationed in D.C. and his XW remarried and moved out to Arizona a few years ago. It's unfair when mom (or dad) moves so far away becuase of a new spouse and now the distance becomes an insurmountable hurdle in allowing father and son to spend time together...the ONE silver lining in my custody order was that the judge ordered him to remain within a 30 minutes drive of me. If not for that, I have no doubt that he'd have moved back to his old stomping grounds several hours away, or up to NY where we're both originally from. I got extremely lucky in that regard.

Parents should be prepared to make sacrifices for their kids--that's what it's all about. And in situations of broken homes, even more unselfishness ought to be on display as parents put their kids first, ahead of their "dreams" and new romantic relationships, especially. Sadly, the opposite is often true...parents let their spite for each other get in the way of doing the best for their kids. Or, give up on the situation--the "all or nothing" mentality.

Long time lurker, but I have to weigh in on this argument. Yes, I will agree that oftentimes Dad does get the shaft in child custody and support issues. My parents divorced when I was 15 but our Dad went out of his way to be in our lives - he was then and still is now.

My daughter, however, has had her children taken from her by her ex who hired a crooked lawyer. He had her followed by a private detective (who even sat outside my house in a car one everning just to see what we were up to), lied on the witness stand and hid his income. The "judge" who heard the case was the best friend and golf buddy of his attorney's father. Even though my daughter's attorney tried to get the judge changed due to conflict of interest because he knew his attorney personally, the judge refused to recuse himself. He then gave full custody to the father, who never showed a bit of interest in his children beforehand, and ordered my daughter to pay so much child support that she had to move into a tiny basement apartment and has $10 left over to feed herself for a month.

Before the split up her ex had beaten her up, withheld her children from her by "hiding" them at his mother's house, and had her locked up for assault after he threw her down the stairs. He also drank heavily, used various drugs and cheated on her.

Please do not preach about how bad Dads have it when this piece of crap did everything wrong, my daughter did everything right, and he still got the kids.

You can't have it both ways, Brian. Either sexism "coded into the process" (a phrase that is itself code for "something that I'm claiming exists, without any actual evidence") matters, and we need to make sure there are just as many female law partners as male, or it's that disparate results like this are often just a result of broad gender-based trends.

Just because families are two-income doesn't even remotely mean that both parents are equally involved in care-giving. In the situation you describe, one of the parents is still the one who investigates and chooses a daycare, or schedules things with Grandma, etc. And where is your evidence for the claim that in "most states" the assumption is that the mother is the best place for the child to go? In most states that I know of, the standard that the courts adhere to is "the best interests of the child."

Thanks, Cousin Dave, but it's okay. At least, it's getting there. The divorce came about because of ex's over-inflated sense of entitlement and because he wasn't an active particpant in the girls' lives when we were married. He left it all up to me, to do pretty much everything where they were concerned. He never even gave either of them a bath. It was like pulling teeth to get him to change a diaper, or give them a bottle and put them to bed. I knew it would just get worse. (We were living in a trailer park at the time, and when I asked him where he saw us in 5 years, he said "oh we'll be here for the next 15 years, or until my parents die and we get their house.") I had to fight with him just to get him to take out the garbage. He didn't want a wife and a family, he wanted another mother. And she was not me. Even now, he and his parents treat them more like little trophies to show off to their friends. I guess they love the girls (as much as they are able to, anyway) but none of them were ever really "hands-on" the way me and my parents are. And the girls seem to be okay, except the younger one has some anger issues we've been working on, and she's gotten a lot better at expressing herself with words rather than just lashing out. So there's that. I've offered to let them go live with their father at various times, and they look at me as if I've got 3 heads. I've done everything I can to give them a sense of stability and continuity in their lives, and my parents were very supportive of me when they were younger, and my BF is very supportive of all of us right now. There's only ever been a bare minimum of legal intervention, and that was due to visitation and child support issues (his lack of consistency, mostly). We've been pretty lucky, all things considered.

Really maryland? To punish other men in efegy of you SOB SIL you'd argue against a presumption of shared parenting even though it would have prevented, and if implemented would stop your daugters situation?

Kinda short sighted dont you think?

And who the hell are you to condem men you've never met and dont know to the same hellyour daughter is in just because you're angry?

Its harpys like you, with your pathological need to 'get even', even if thru vicarious means, that created the framework that fucked over your daughter.

Almost karmic wheh you think about it.

Flynne,

Personal sympathy aside, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

You apparently would deny all men the chance at equal justice because YOU picked a "bad apple."

Sad.

You apparently would deny all men the chance at equal justice because YOU picked a "bad apple."

And just exactly where did I say that, Jay? Because I most certainly did NOT. Nor would I ever. I would never deny any man the chance at equal justice. You should see what my poor neighbor is going through with his nightmare of an ex! I've stood up for him at every turn, watched his boys for him (he finally won custody, but it's taken a horrendous toll) any time he asked, and even gotten his wife thrown off of a mail route because of her behavior. I am all for fairness. Some people just don't deserve it. Gender doesn't mean squat as far as that goes.

PS HE (my ex) picked ME. Just so we're clear on that.

Gee Lujlp you sound like the angry one, calling me a "harpy" and all. I was relating by daughter's situation to show that Dads don't get shafted. Did you even read the part of my post about how my dad stayed involved even after my parents divorced? How did I argue against shared parenting? Shared parenting is great when it works. It does not work if your ex is hell bent on making you suffer through your children.

It just breaks my heart to see this happen. My daughter is suffering, her children are suffering and have told her repeatedly that they hate living with their dad. And guess what? He still doesn't spend time with them, leaves that all to the 2nd wife who has two standards, one for her kids, another lesser standard for his.

In principle, the idea of shared parenting sounds like the right thing to do. But for those gentlemen here who have been shafted, I'm curious how they would have seen that working in their case. Does this mean one week with mom and one week with dad? How does that work for kids when parents live in different neighbourhoods? How does that work when the ex-wife, who shafted you, is clearly a shrew? I know everyone should put the kids first and cooperate, etc. but as CB suggested, I don't think most divorces are very amicable.

To make 50/50 shared custody work the court would have to require parents live nearby each other -- close enough that kids can maintain their school, activities and friendships week to week. The court would have to set time limits on coming to parenting decisions: school, medical, discipline, etc. and then monitor it. Arbitrate when it fails and maybe set a number of "strikes" allowed when a parent renegs on the decision where they would lose their share of custody. Visitation would still apply and should be generous but the decision making and primary residence would cede to one parent.

Of course, I've got my own anecdote of shared parenting that forces me to question the practicality of the ideal. The kids spend one week with dad and one week with mom and decision making has to be shared. She is one of those crazy bitches who can't move on, doing everything in her power to get back at dad and its all to the detriment of the kids.

She's been through at least 15 lawyers in 8 years -- they quit because she disobeys court orders. She moves, unannounced, at least once per year because she quits paying rent -- and to various parts of the city well away from the dad. She doesn't take the kids to their extra-curricular stuff on her weeks. She takes one of the boys off his ADD meds on her week, ignoring pleas by doctors and teachers showing evidence that he can actually perform in school when he's on them. She doesn't show up for scheduled doctors, teachers, tutoring or psychologist appointments on her weeks. She's been thrown out of court a half dozen times. She's been caught lying about working to keep her child support payments up, so then she quits...for awhile. She doesn't pay a cent for the kids clothing, schooling or activities. Numerous social workers, doctors, teachers, psychologists and police officers have given up trying to arbitrate -- she agrees one day and then refuses to follow through. It's crazy -- to the point social services is threatening to put the kids into foster care -- rather than just give them to dad! Shared custody is now the law here so until she actually physically hurts them, the system can't seem to make a reasonable decision.

I hope whatever shared custody laws are being put in place, they have taken into account the potential for stupidity and spitefullness of divorcing couples. And I know either side or both can be guilty of this.

...even gotten his wife thrown off of...

should read gotten his EX thrown etc...

Sorry. Didn't want to confuse anyone.

Late call to work — I look forward to returning to mock everyone's sincerest beliefs later today

Maryland, you were the one who said 'dont tell me fathers have it rough becuase my daughter was screwed over'

Given that it hapend pimarily to men the feminist stranglehold on fmilly court doenst give a shit about the incidental casualites like your daughter.

Only by highlighting the inequalites born primarly by men can we call for a change, and only once that change is implimented will your daugher get relif.

Therefore by implying that you dont care that men get shafted you are purpetuating the same system that is harming your daughter and your grandchildren, souds harpish to me

"The problem with "shared parenting" is that it doesn't always result in the best outcome for the kid(s). It's great when you have parents who are friendly with each other, live in close proximity, and can be flexible when the kid left a toy or school project with the other parent and needs to go get it. Unfortunately, this very rarely describes two people who are divorcing. "

If people are aware of the presumption of shared parenting form the git-go, before the mariage and before the divorce, aot of this never gets going in the first place. It removes the incentive for a lot of this drama. Both sides knw that once they have kids together, they are going to ahve to work together for however long it takes all the kids to reach 18. It's like knocking two sqaubbling kids' heads together.

Flynne - God, you have my sympathy. That's a serious loser. Not really representatvie of the rest of us, but what difference does that make in your particular case? You do a good job of being strong and not getting bitter and man-hating.

"To make 50/50 shared custody work the court would have to require parents live nearby each other -- close enough that kids can maintain their school, activities and friendships week to week."

If people know that is a feature of the law going into marriage, sure. That's what they're buying when they sign the license.

The rest of your story makes another point - a PRESUMPTION of shared parenting is just that, a presumpttion. The sociopath you are describing requires a remedy byond the general presumtion. She should not have any custody at all.

Maryland's example of the wicked step-mother is another example of a parent , the father, who has made it clear that the general presumption does not apply in his case.

And pre-emptively - Crid's witty-in-his-own mind comnents from someone who's never had a chick or a child are just someone with no home training trying to interrupt the adults, and count for about that much.

"I was relating by daughter's situation to show that Dads don't get shafted."

And what precisely do you mean by this statement? That men get what they deserve in terms of family courts?? I'm sorry for your daughter, that experience is downright evil and does show how there are a few crooked people in high ranking positions, HOWEVER, she is the exception, NOT the rule.

How precisely do men NOT get shafted? I'm not really sure how people don't think that courts don't assume a mother is a better care giver than a father by default, but do to this assumption, men get it up the ass. Maybe you need to take another look at your story to see some of the issues which lie within. This story is repeated over and over again in North America, but the difference Maryland, is that there are no crooked Attorneys who perjur themselves, no Judges who are obviously guilty of collusion, and no need to assemble a crack team of liars and cheats in order to pull one over on jurisprudence.

Why is that, because when the genders are reversed, none of it is necessary, comprende? Most guys can do everything right and the woman would have to virtually bomb a building before her character is questioned. I can think of two guys right off the top of my head who have gone through what your daughter has, one of these guys has an ex just like the woman Moreta mentioned, lots of fun in the sun let me tell you.

While I'm not saying that your daughter deserved it, I do get a little steamed at the fact that you seem to minimize what regularly happens to men as nothing simply because it happened to your little girl. It's a crime either way.

heh, a thread like this is kinda an analog to divorce court, no. lotsa different POV's and opinions. telling my story is irrelevant to an actual point, which is Presumption.

If you presume that the parents should BOTH be responsible, you can work out the details on a case by case basis.

The importance of that can't be undersetimated. Making specific caselaw about some of this stuff is inviting disaster. For example, requiring both parents to stay within 30mins of each other is fine until one gets transfered. Having a parent move away ISN'T the best thing, however if it's the choice of that or losing your job and having to look for another one for a year? It's a decision that would have to made by the faminly and the individual... but internally. If you make it a LAW, it is inflexible. It cannot take into account the ebb and flow of life. This is especially imortant for people who have careers, because this can really cause problems with child support. If a career person loses a job, the paycheck hit is often quite hard, but the child support is inflexible. Even in this recession, there are plenty of people who lose their jobs, and the family court refuses to change their CS requirement. As if somehow they can force you to get a job that isn't there.

This is why you set a basic guideline, and then give lattitude to make changes. Sometimes even then it doesn't help, but humans aren't perfect, and neither are their courts.

That is WHY the argument against the PRESUMPTION of co-parenting is ringing hollow. If you assume that the kids should go with the mother unless proven otherwise, then the exception is an extreme case.

If, on the other hand, you assume that custody is joint by default you will make the case where it isn't the extreme case.

Even so, having joint custody doesn't necessarily mean that the kids split their time living equally between parents. It's just a start. Once that step is taken, THEN it can be decided if the live with one person more, and who that is.

If the base expectation is equal, than the case where it is not becomes the outlier.

It's a start anyway.

So there I am, in the shower just now, thinking about how I'm going to kneecap some of you fuckers in a blog comment... The soap was bubbly, and the water was warm... And I BEGAN TO SING!!

Dooooon't You (da dutdut da dah dah dah)
Forget About Me!

Y'all be sure 'n check this space tomorrow, y'hear?

See you then!

Lujlp and Amax I certainly do believe that many men do get shafted. I left a word out of my reply, what I meant to say is that Dads don't always get the shaft - my own father didn't. My parents acted like grown-ups and always put our needs first. I really feel for the good men out there who get over by screwed by women and the court system, it is not right, never will be.

My husband and I married when my daugher was very young and she has been very lucky to have him show her by example how a real man takes responsbility and does what is right. I am not now nor ever have been a feminist, just a grandma who misses her grandchildren and has had to listen to her daughter cry on the phone because she misses her kids so much.

My typing skills once again elude me. In my last post, I meant to say that I really feel for the good men out there who get screwed over, not over screwed.

(slinks away to take remedial typing)

For most of my post-divorce childhood, my parents lived about two hours apart. Long-term transfers only took place twice a year, when we went to my dad's for the summer, and when we came back to my mom's for the start of the school year. Shared parenting shouldn't mean that the kids keep shuffling back and forth. Weekly transfers are too disruptive even if the parents live close by each other. At any given time that the child is at one house, he'll want or need something that's at the other house. If the parents live close enough that the child can attend the same school while at either residence, then once a month is probably appropriate; then it's more practical to move most of the child's belongings with them.

And if one parent is wacko, then yes, sole custody to the other parent is appropriate. Presumption of shared parenting doesn't mean that it applies in ever case. It amazes me how poor a job the family courts do at spotting clearly unfit parents. It almost makes you think they're doing it intentionally.

"Don't let anyone fool you, money is the driving force behind this. That child support check is such a gigantic carrot...otherwise, why get divorced at all???"

Not to mention the truckloads of money bled out by the lawyers in whose interest it is to preserve and perpetuate this ugly system.

The other day I was watching the almost-7-year old son (by his previous wife) of a friend of mine, and this boy basically only spends some weekends with his dad, most of the time he's with his mom. And he's a good kid, but he's really worryingly too much of a 'wussy girly-boy' - which he definitely doesn't get from his dad, who is as 'cowboy' as they come. Seems obvious to me this mom isn't raising him with any of the specific parenting activities and lessons that a *boy* absolutely needs, e.g. exercise right and eat right to grow properly and gain confidence, learn to fight and defend himself, learn to play sports and so on --- his dad tries, but he can only do so much in the little time he has with him. The boy clearly needs a solid, manly, male role model in his life a lot more ... so the thought occurred to me that maybe, if a split must be made, that they should try have boys spend more time with fathers and girls more time with mothers, as boys basically need to learn to be men and girls must learn to be women. Or do they already try do this?

Dooooon't You (da dutdut da dah dah dah)
Forget About Me!

Yeah, Crid, spanks for the earworm. "Knee-cap", indeed!

o.O

Why do you have to move the kids at all?

All this shuttling back and forth just seems so pointless and stupid, particularly when the non-custodial parent with three kids ends up living in a one bedroom apartment.

Why don't the kids stay put and the PARENTS shuttle back and forth between their respective apartments/parents/vacations?

I've seen it work, and the kids remain in their own homes, with their own stuff, feeling loved and secure.

It's not a perfect solution for everyone, but it makes sense for the less acrimonious divorces. But why have I never heard of anyone else doing that?

"I am not now nor ever have been a feminist, just a grandma who misses her grandchildren and has had to listen to her daughter cry on the phone because she misses her kids so much."

Thank you, Maryland, for bringing up a related subject - grandparents in a child's life. This nulcear family stuff is wonderful, but it isn't a full family. Kids need their grandparents.

When WA State passed a law to ensure that grandparents wouldn't get left in the dust, the drooling idiots on the SCOTUS struck it down. they said it would interefere with a preant's right blah blah - hello, that was exactly the point of the law, to balance that ONE selfish and malignant parent's right aginst those of all the other stakeholders, including the child's.

"It's not a perfect solution for everyone, "

Or anyone who can't afford to pay for three houses at a time. How do you divide up the payments for the house the kids are in?

When you counter the domestic violence crowd with "not all men are abusive." They braoden abuse to if you ever raise your voice, say no to her spending money or basically not letting her have her way with evry decision.

This reminds me of an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged. (I'm paraphrasing) It is impossible for government to control an honest man. If the government is unable to control who it wants, it just creates more illegalities to keep the population under its thumb. Sound familiar?

-Julie

I've seen it work, and the kids remain in their own homes, with their own stuff, feeling loved and secure.

I don't get how that would work. I mean, my BF and I live here and pay the mortgage and all the utilities, etc. Ex doesn't pay for ANYthing to do with this house. I get $69/week child support. That's it. I should let him stay here? Uh, no. I don't want the ex here when I'm not, because I don't want him going through all my crap. Yeah, it's just crap, but it's my crap. And he would through it. He waltzes in here on his day to pick them up like he owns the place. BF's daughter lived here for a little over a year after she got out of college, and he'd walk up to her door and look in her room. Creepy. He takes the girls to his parents (they sold the condo in order to keep giving him an allowance, from what I hear from the girls, but they still have their condo in Florida, to which they go every winter), which is maybe 20 miles from here. As far as I'm concerned, that's fine. He doesn't need to have carte blanche at my house while he's got it at his parents'.

Flynne - looks like you got involved with a certified loser(worked at CompUSA, fu**en serious????) and lives with his parents into his 30s... How pathetic and YOU bore 2 of his children, which makes YOU even more pathetic.

Crid writes: "So there I am, in the shower just now, thinking about how I'm going to kneecap some of you fuckers in a blog comment... The soap was bubbly, and the water was warm... And I BEGAN TO SING!!

Dooooon't You (da dutdut da dah dah dah)
Forget About Me!

Y'all be sure 'n check this space tomorrow, y'hear?

See you then!"

You know what, Crid? You're all right....thanks for giving me a chuckle!

Yeah, Crusader, and you're an asshole, but I was smart enough to get DIVORCED, and you're still an asshole. There's no vaccine for stupid.
Besides, the 2 awesome daughters I got out of the deal more than make up for the few years that I endured his bullshit.

@Crusader:

You know, I'm sure Flynne is quite capable of defending herself on this blog, but your comments to her were unnecessarily harsh. There is not one of us on this forum, or anywhere, for that matter, who hasn't made mistakes when it comes to matters of the heart. You can't possibly distinguish, without the benefit of hindsight, and some maturity and experience, who the "pathetic losers" are and who are the good guys/gals. Flynne obviously did wise up and made some hard choices when she came to that realization. But bearing his kids makes HER pathetic? Come on! Insulting her and effectively her kids as well is simply uncalled for...

Lobster said "The boy clearly needs a solid, manly, male role model in his life a lot more ... so the thought occurred to me that maybe, if a split must be made, that they should try have boys spend more time with fathers and girls more time with mothers, as boys basically need to learn to be men and girls must learn to be women. Or do they already try do this?"

No Lobster, they don't take gender in consideration, even though that would make sense.

Funny, my ex, under oath, way before I finally won custody, was asked if she thought her son needed his father in his life. Her answer, which I will never forget, was this "Well, I do think he needs a male role model." Notice she did not say "his father", she only said "a male role model".

so the thought occurred to me that maybe, if a split must be made, that they should try have boys spend more time with fathers and girls more time with mothers, as boys basically need to learn to be men and girls must learn to be women. Or do they already try do this?

Lobster,

Not even close. And there has been quite a bit of research that shows both boys AND girls do better with BOTH parents involved.

Joint/Shared custody should be the presumed standard. Divorce should in no way make a parent a visitor in their childs life. It's BS that you are fit to be a parent up until a divorce, but then you have only (on average) 7 days a month?

If the states didn't get federal funding based on the amount of child support they bring in, this wouldn't even be a question. mike stated above about following the money, was right on. Anyone who believes the court is doing anything in "the best interests of the child", has thier head up thier ass.

Family court does what the court wants to do. And to hell with who they screw over.

Thank you so much, Beth, you're very kind. I did what I thought was necessary at the time, in order to save myself and my children from a life of being called "trailer trash", for one thing, and I do not regret my decision. My life is so much better now that it's almost scary! My own home (5 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, lovely kitchen, living and dining rooms and a large backyard beats a puny 3-bedroom trailer any day), 2 beautiful daughters, awesome BF, good car, and even though I haven't found another job yet, we're getting by rather well, all things considered. For all I know, maybe Crusader lives in his mommy's basement and looks like Kevin Smith in "Live Free or Die Hard".

(Apologies to Kevin. He's a brilliant guy, but the overweight-geek-in-mom's-basement persona really needs to get a makeover!)

Flynne - I apologize if you feel offended.

Don't apologize because I feel offended. That's a back-handed bullshit apology if ever I saw one. Apologize because you are wrong, or don't apologize to me at all. I don't need your apology. I'm just fine. That you thought you could appease me with that bullshit you tried to pass off as an apology insults my intelligence, and just proves that you're an asshole.

For all I know, maybe Crusader lives in his mommy's basement and looks like Kevin Smith in "Live Free or Die Hard".

I don't know Crusader's living situation, but he asks a good question (in an obnoxious way, but a good question all the same), and it is a question I think of each time someone here talks about the psycho-ex-spouse who acts as a pimp to the kids, takes meth, and has sex with a goat in the back yard. What made y'all think this person was marriage material? What made you look at the pimp/druggie/animal abuser and say "I want to spend the rest of my life with this person"?

We are all responsible for our own actions, including the horrible ex-spouses. However, that means that we are also responsible for our own mate selections, and one has to wonder what would make a woman who (as you iterated)
* is capable of supporting her own large house with a back yard,
* can create a healthy relationship with a great boyfriend, and
* can raise two wonderful, smart, joyful young women

choose to legally tie herself and permanently tie her offspring to an out of work compUSA checker who never moved out of his mom's basement?

If we are going to use your life example as 'proof' that men are scum and presumption of shared legal and physical custody after divorce would never work, then why can we not evaluate your example more explicitly?

-Julie

My best friend's parents divorced when she was still a toddler. Right up until she was 18 her parents, who hated each other, lived in the same city and split custody in a three days here/four days there arrangement. Besides being subjected to her parents' constant disparagement of each other, my friend had to deal with not feeling like she was as much a part of either of her families as her stepsister and half-sister (dad's) or her half-brother (mom's) who got to live in their own homes full time. There was also the occasional pulling her out of school and enrolling her elsewhere in order to fuck with the other parent. It was awful. So as far as "a presumption of shared legal and shared physical custody following divorce, where a family court determines that both parents are fit to care for their children," I would add , "and where a family court determines that neither of the parents is a selfish douchebag incapable of putting his or her child before his or her own need for revenge." And hey, good luck with that.

What made y'all think this person was marriage material? What made you look at the pimp/druggie/animal abuser and say "I want to spend the rest of my life with this person"?

I don't think there's one answer to this, but if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say poor judgment and lack of self awareness. Making a mistake doesn't make anyone pathetic, though, and judgment and self-awareness can be learned.

The question is, what happens after the mistake? Do you stay with this terrible person because you're too ashamed to get out? Do you get out, then jump back into the same crap with someone else? Or do you figure out what got you into that situation and make better decisions from there? Sounds like Flynne chose the last one.

Flynne, sorry for what you're going through. My story is similar. My ex uses his visitation as a weapon. He has recently entered my home at 7:30 on a Sunday morning as I slept and thought that was ok. His answere was that he had to go to work and I have to be here when he works. My one son sleeps out at a friend's during his visitation and the other two are tired of being left with his girlfriend while he works overtime which he is building up so that he can retire at a higher pension.
Today I received a summons to appear in court because he wants the right to come to my home on Sunday mornings at 8. Imagine that a judge allowed him to serve such papers! And on top of that, yesterday he told me he is changing his days off again and they are different than the days he is going to court to maintain. I've been going through this with him for 8 years now.
He skips visitations regularly to travel with his girlfriend who has great travel benefits and does not call when it is not his visitation. He makes sure that when he does exercise his right to visitation that it never goes over his allotted 48 hours three times a month. All three kids are exhibiting physical problems from the stress of dealing with him. Last time we went to court, a judge allowed his visitation to continue despite founded CPS reports.
I know that not all men are not like him. In fact, most men I know are nothing like him and I feel bad for those that are not treated fairly by the courts, but I'm still waiting for fair treatment by the courts myself.

Julie, some men (and women) are great at hiding who they really are until they get permanently hitched. Then the sweet girl who loves sex and dotes over you can become the crone who thinks sex is dirty and thinks that you are just an asshole producing a pay check. Sadly some people are master manipulators at getting what they want

Well, Julie, since you asked -

When I met my ex, we were both working for a privately owned computer company. We had a brief affair, during which I got pregnant, and he asked me to abort. I declined, and absolved him of all responsibility. After I had daughter #1, he heard about her through mutual friends, called and asked to see her. I agreed, and he showed up at the door with $400 in hand, and a line about wanting to prove he could be a good father. So, I thought I would give him the chance, and entered into the relationship in good faith; we got married when #1 was 11 months old, and moved into the trailer that his parents procured for us, with the stipulation that we pay all expenses. He failed miserably, as a husband and father. As it turned out, I was the one paying all the expenses, and doing all the household work as well, while he slept until noon every day before going to his job at a one-hour photo shop. The company where we met had folded. I was working full time as an expediter for a cardboard box company, and my mother or father would drive up to our little trailer every day to watch our daughter while I was at work, so he could sleep until noon, which supposedly his insulin-dosing schedule "required" him to do. Can you say "enablers"? I knew you could! Once I realized that this situation was never going to change, and after he gave me that line about living in the trailer until his parents died and we got their house, I got the hell out. Best thing I ever did for myself and the girls. I won't go into the minute details, but when I left, he never did pay a cent to his parents for the trailer or anything else. They sold it, and he moved back in with them, until they bought him the condo. When they realized they weren't motivatiing him to be self-sufficient, they sold that and he moved back home yet again. He's 40 years old, and there he still is. At least the girls and I have our own place.

"some men (and women) are great at hiding who they really are until they get permanently hitched." Ron

c'mon, Ron, that's crazy talk. :rueful laughter:

It's not JUST that. You tend to see what you want to see, until it's late to worry over it. Coupled with the fact that people change anyway. We are taught to overlook foibles, but it is sometimes difficult to discern when they are a sign of problems.

I look forward to returning to mock everyone's sincerest beliefs later today

*crickets chirping*

o.O

Egads, Kristen, I'm not putting up with even half the crap that you are! You have my deepest sympathies. If I could ever help you in any way, please let me know. Amy has my email address, if you need it, ask her for it, seriously. NO ONE should have to ever go through the crap your kids are going through. Amy if Kristen asks, it's okay to give her my email address.

And thanks, Monica P for your support as well.
PS Cousin Dave, are you by chance related to Cousin Bill? o.O

Seriously, Crid. There are multiple crickets in my backyard, chirping away and they sound great, I just love them! Going to get the girls momentarily, and I hope our home team won! I'll let you know tomorrow - ooops, no I won't! Going to see Alice Cooper tomorrow, I'll let you know Sunday who won the game, and whether or not Alice does "Only Women Bleed"

....She cries alone at night too often,
He smokes and drinks and don't come home at all....

o.

"It's just the reverse of the dynamic that results in fewer female than male law firm partners."

The only way that sentence could be more snicker-inducing is if you actually worked in a law firm and you *still* held the belief that women don't make partner because of bias.

The only way that sentence could be more snicker-inducing is if you actually worked in a law firm and you *still* held the belief that women don't make partner because of bias.

Oh really? And they do because you have, in fact, irrefutable proof of this? Bring it, baby, bring it. Or shut the fuck up.

Really. You think everyone conforms to your world views? Thank the gods I'm not that naive.

Shared custody sounds great. In practice, it rarely is. Humans are not perfect and neither are situations. Kids do not grow up securely when they are shuffled back and forth. They become constant visitors in other's lives, and don't have one of their own. So yes, adults should do what's best for the child. And frequently what's best is the child is staying in their house, with the parent who stays up nights with them when they're sick, and stays home from work when they're sick, and knows all the details of their lives. 3 guesses which parent that is 90% of the time.

Which is not to say there shouldn't be frequent visitation. But there needs to be a homebase to visit from. Not just visit here, visit there, visit here, visit there.

@ Julie:

"What made y'all think this person was marriage material? What made you look at the pimp/druggie/animal abuser and say "I want to spend the rest of my life with this person"?"

I'll attempt to answer this one as briefly as possible. Most of the time, it's because

1) A person is YOUNG and STUPID and doesn't truly see the other person as they are/can be but rather with idealistic, rose colored glasses. The person is "in love" and blinded, oftentimes, to the red flags that should be indicators of trouble ahead. (I'll give a plug for our hostess here: this is the reason her columns are so invaluable, because she is objective and gives advice to those seeking it STRAIGHT and to the point. She could tell us how many bad matches have been avoided by her correspondences with her letter writers, but I'd say if it's even ONE, that is a priceless service to that individual.)

2) You don't really know the person you're marrying. Most people would agree that you are normally on your best behavior when dating and often after tying the knot, that's when it all just hangs out....You learn alot about your spouse throughout the marriage and even worse stuff during the separation and divorce process. What they're capable of, etc. It's like the worst of their character comes to the surface.

...this is of course derived from my own experiences....Julie, for you to ask such a question indicates that you've not lived through a nasty divorce and resulting fallout yourself. And that's a good thing--you obviously have made better choices (at least the first time around) than alot of us have. Good on ya for that. Many of us (myself included) learn the hard way.

And--I don't think that Flynne was trying to say that men are scum, using her own life example...neither gender holds the monopoly on being assholes... There are PLENTY of men, even on this blog (Ron?) who can relate to the gal who, by the time divorce is on the table, is a completely unrecognizable monster from that sweetie they fell in love with way back when. Am I right, guys?

"And frequently what's best is the child is staying in their house, with the parent who stays up nights with them when they're sick, and stays home from work when they're sick, and knows all the details of their lives. 3 guesses which parent that is 90% of the time." momof4

What's the big HOWEVER for your statement? Why DOES that person know all those things? Why do you stay home while your husband works? It is not in nature that it works out this way, it is expectation, it is societal construct. Amy pointed that out above and before:

"Anthropologist Sarah Hrdy writes in her book, Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species, that women are primary caretakers largely by circumstance (they breastfeed the thing -- the guy goes off to hunt wildebeest or earn a living in the meantime, and she just becomes the primary caretaker). She calls differences in male and female ability to parent "surprisingly minor."" Amy

What you say may be entirely true in practice. I know people who have done it both ways, split weeks, opposite weeks, and like me, every other weekend and an evening during the week. What's best is relative to a lot of variables.

It's implication that is the problem. I have joint custody as is common in CO, the living arrangements are a separate Q? But the implications cannot be avoided. My ex demanded that the kids reside with her, and she also demanded the house because of that. So instead of giving the house to the person with the job to pay for it, and having the kids stay in it...

they gave the house to the person who refused to work, and wrested the money to pay for it from the person who had a job. This happens a lot on the presumption that the kids should be with their mother. She gets the house and I get the studio apartment, so where should the kids live?

Where's the rub? Just like it's too late at the point you are getting divorced to choose a better spouse... it's too late to split parenting and work time equally when one person has been working outside the house for money, and the other has been working inside the house for the family for 10 years. What you say may be true about who knows what, though 90% is utter BS. But is that based on the nature of man or woman or what is socially constructed? I certainly have no problem putting my kids to bed, staying up with them when they are sick, or taking time off when they are sick. When they get sick at my house, it's not like they go running home to momma. When there is something I need to know about them, I figure it out, as I always have.

Bottom line is that if guys were expected to be equal partners with the kids, they would make it happen. But when confronted by a woman that will re-dress the kid because she doesn't like the clothes you picked out. Will throw away the food you made for the kid because she doesn't like what you fed them. Or who schedules their parent teacher conferences for when you cannot leave work to attend them...
The guy will eventually just leave it up to her to stop all the drama. Just like he stopped doing the dishes or vacuuming because he wasn't doing it the "RIGHT" way. There are many times when women make this work for themselves. That doesn't mean it's better, or that the guy can't do it.

"Why do you stay home while your husband works? "

Doesn't matter why women tend to be the caregivers. Custody deals with things as they are, not as they might have been or the way some think they should be. Short of the independantly wealthy, both parents can not stay home. One works, one knows the kids better. This si what the kids care about, and what courts should care about. Doesn't mean fathers-or mothers in reverse situations-can't be involved. It means one shouldn't make the kid uproot every so often so that parent can feel less guilty.

Do you think the spouse who stayed home and cared for them should have to move out and get a job and a studio apartment, while the kids stay with working dad and go to daycare? How is that best for kids? Not best for dad-we know what you think is best for dad-but best for kids?

And in my experience, the teacher sets the parent-teacher conference times. Not everything is a woman's conspiracy to oust men from daily life.

How about when the father is the SAH parent and the wife is given the house and custody?

On small thing momof4, custody varies by state, not sure how it is in TX. In CO, the custody isn't the same as where the kids live, that is a living arrangement. It is one step better when they presume here that custody is joint, however the living arrangements are another matter, and part of the old rules.

on the other matter, well that would be telling momof4... my own mother has said "well, what do people who work do?" My Mom, who has always worked. What percentage of married couples both work? IF the divorce happens, a woman is going to have to get a job anyway. How would that be different than if she had been working all along? Once the kids are in school the question is irrelevant anyway. Importantly, if she was not the person who was the defacto caretaker, than she would also have time to go to school, time to get a better job.

The "What's best for the Children" goes along with some other current attitudes about childhood. That kids are incapable of getting themselves to soccer practice, so they must be driven. That they cannot come home from school to an empty house in the afternoon.

Are we really sure that looking at this through the "for the children" lens isn't wagging the dog? I'm NOT saying their interests aren't a component, but why is it that this styling trumps all?

The question of how things would work if you HADN'T gotten divorced, is often similar to the question of why it works for one gender, but turning the question around is heresy. IF you lose your job, the family cuts back and makes things happen. If you are divorced and lose your job, you may get thrown in jail for failure to pay the child support. If you are married and the kid needs braces, the first Q? is 'can we afford that'? If you are divorced the Q? is a demand: "pay up or I will sue you." My ex-s imputed income would be greater than mine, except for the part where she is the mom, so obviously she can't go get a real job. Sadly, when I stop paying for the youngest kid? The ex will be 52 with no career. So. How has this all served her?

Kids deserve a loving mother and a loving father, people who are socially and intimately competent. When they get that, we don't have to worry about all these other weird outcomes.

It's obnoxious that a man could grow up, marry a bimbo, father a child, divorce the mother, and then petition congress for help in dealing with the woman, because after all "She's a psycho bitch, man!" Would such a man ever feel shame about anything? Would we ever be surprised that he'd have weird ideas about universal health care or cash for clunkers or any other way government might intrude in life?

(Works for both genders. Why did you do such a bad job of providing a parent for your own child? For the men: Why did you fuck this 'psychobitch'? For the women: Why did you spread your legs for this 'lying asshole'?)

Of course, this is often couched in the language of doing what's best for kids.... Though people who are really concerned with their kids don't so recklessly condemn them to broken homes.

This was going to be a much longer comment posted much earlier, but I lost interest because it's mundane.

OK then.... Have a great weekend! Don't forget the Grand Prix of Singapore tomorrow!

PS Amy- Weren't you the one mocking "dry drunks" a few years ago? How come that doesn't apply to Beck?

Everybody remember Singapore! Night Race!

OK, a statehouse isn't 'congress', but still. There's just too much divorce going on, especially with from people with children. People shouldn't pretend that for some reason, such an outcome was unforeseen in their case... The guy was too smooth a talker, or the woman's rack was too firm to ignore. Lileks covered much of this in an old post that stuck with me. (It happened to be about a gay man who walked out on his children. His children. His little princesses. Am I being clear?)

And now, fellow taxpayers are asking me to help grease the landing, to make things even smoother for people who've done this to their families. They want others to agree with them that it could happen to anyone, to give at least a backhanded approval to their incompetence.

But I'd rather be an asshole about it, because I know too many loving parents who [A.] chose their marital partners correctly and [B.] set aside (for decades) feelings of petty egoism to make sure their dear children grew in a setting made of affection and patience. These friends are not super-people. They just decided there were more important things than inflicting their petulance on the rest of the world (starting with their own kids.)

They just decided there were more important things than inflicting their petulance on the rest of the world (starting with their own kids.)

This was also my decision, Crid. That it wasn't my ex-husband's too really pissed me off, which is why I got out. He was too busy concentrating on himself and his friends to be an effective parent.

PS - Jonathan Law High School lost their first football game this season Friday night; their marching band, that my girls are in, won their first competition yesterday, and Alice did sing "Only Women Bleed" last night. But what the hell does he know? o.O

Those against shared parenting are those in favor of continuing the discrimination against fathers that’s seen today.

In 84% of contested-custody cases nationwide, the mothers are awarded sole custody. The statistics are even worse if one considers the other 16% of cases where the fathers have sole custody.

Understand that the 16% wouldn’t be so if some mothers (involved in the 16%) weren’t “AWOL”, incarcerated, deceased or addicted to drugs/alcohol to such extent that the pink elephant can no longer realistically be easily denied.

The horror stories of mom’s being railroaded and hatefully treated as most fathers are by the “Family Courts” only makes the shared parenting argument even stronger as others here have said.

I’ve pointed out the fallacy of the “primary caregiver” argument for some time, as it’s often times laughable when used to justify discriminating against fathers. Other adults (besides the parents) are those primaries from six weeks of age through pre-school, kindergarten, middle, junior and high school. Where’s mom? She’s at work.

Moreover, the stay-at-home-mom is she whom many of today’s statutes were written for, but who is also increasingly becoming a ghost of our past. One needn’t look further than current college enrollment and graduation rates to witness this undeniable truth:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-09-12-census-college-enrollment_N.htm

Also, penalizing a parent for supporting the household by working full time doesn’t diminish the value and importance of their role to their children. Don’t believe me? Just ask the children.

Arguing that mothers are better and “more fit” as parents simply because, presumably, possessing a vagina is an implied prerequisite for fit parenting is delusional, ignorant and plain stupid.

Statistics posted on Glenn Sack’s Blog explain the following about child abuse;

“Myth #4: Mothers are children's "first line of defense" against child abuse. In reality it is mothers, not fathers, who commit the overwhelming majority of child abuse, neglect, and parental murder.

According to the US Department of Justice, 70% of confirmed cases of child abuse and 65% of parental murders of children are committed by mothers, not fathers.

According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, adjusting for the greater number of single mothers, a custodial mother is five times as likely to murder her own children as a custodial father is.

A study of confirmed child abuse cases published in the Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect found that mothers abuse their children two and a half times as often as fathers. The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (1996) found that children are 88% more likely to be seriously injured from abuse or neglect by their mothers than by their fathers."

Stating that a presumption of shared parenting isn’t in the best interest of the children is an outright hateful lie. It’s defenseless, groundless and baseless and is an argument only against granting children equal access to both parents whom they equally love.

Those who say otherwise are emotional child abusers because they’re arguing for having children such as my nine year old daughter lie in their beds at night and cry, feeling empty and uncomforted, because they miss the other parent; usually their daddies. That’s wicked, it’s vile and it’s heartbreaking.

It’s painfully heartbreaking for the children, and equally so for the fathers and mothers who like me, lie in bed crying at night because we miss our children as much as they do us. How about we ask the children of divorce if they favor shared parenting? The truth hurts in more ways than one I suppose.

Please know that the forthcoming is meant to be thought provoking and in no way a wholesale indictment of mothers. Nor, is it intended to promote misogyny.

Finally, it’s not directed at good and loving moms who rightfully receive reasonable amounts of child support and don’t interfere with a father’s access to his children.

Society, speaking in terms of norms and mores is an absolute train wreck. Kids, at younger and younger ages are committing horrific crimes such as rape and murder.

Respect for others is increasingly being replaced with “it’s all about me” in young adults and in children. For example, store clerks, restaurant employees etc, have in many places replaced customer service with self-serving, arrogant and in some cases outright disrespectful attitudes.

Instead of the customer being “thanked”, they’re expected to “thank” using tip jars and words. How often are we as customers made to feel pressured not just to thank those who didn’t do their jobs, but to tip them for not doing so as well?

What changed? Divorce rates and court ordered father absenteeism is one. We live in a world where feminists have for the most part forced single fathers out of their children’s lives. Is the just reward for embracing the celebration of single motherhood?

Anymore, I can’t help but look around me in doctor’s offices, restaurants, rest stops, beaches, school functions, daycare centers and in front of me in line at the store etc; and count the number of single mothers.

Admittedly, I identify “single” by her ring finger, and the numbers are indeed very disheartening. It’s true that I don’t know the situation, but more often than not, if I were to ask her, “are you a single mom by choice?” she’d answer, “yes.”

Pondering that question is worse when observing her while she swipes her “child support” debit card to pay for her clothes, beer and cigarettes that were shamelessly and guiltlessly purchased for her. Add to it, her berating the children for suggesting that she buy them something with “her” money and it gets even more wretched.

The fact is, it “is” about the money and in more ways than one. Outside of the Social Security Title IV federal incentive match explained on my websites here:
http://www.ohiofathersrights.com/HR_1386_2007_Child_Support.html
http://www.ohiofathersrights.com/nav-bar-links/columbus-mystery-unraveled.html

It’s also about those “child support moms” who should be stigmatized instead of glorified for kicking the fathers out of their children’s lives. Equal rights mean equal rights. That includes equal parenting and sharing equally in the costs associated with raising children.

Look all around you, and if you will only look, you’ll handily see the price we pay for living in a world of “fatherless” children.
"You go girl!"

Tony Fantetti
Ohio Council for Fathers Rights

"They're heeee-yeeeerrrr....!"

Wow crid, great rebuttal. You would trash anyone who made such a simple post in response to something you said.

P.S. - That movie is why I hate clowns.

You don't bring nuclear submarines to a bitchslap; Besides, my aura precedes me.