How Divorced Dads Get Cut Out Of Their Kids' Lives
It's well-illustrated by a now-split-up lesbian couple's custody battle over their daughter Isabella, from a Glenn Sacks'/Ned Holstein column on MSN, "With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce":
It's not every day that America's conservative Christians rally around the cause of a lesbian. Yet numerous groups are providing support and expensive legal services for Lisa Miller. Miller's cause? To deny her former civil union partner Janet Jenkins any role in the life of the daughter they raised together....Miller, who became a Christian and renounced lesbianism after leaving Jenkins, even pushed aside Jenkins' parents, who Isabella adores and who live near Miller. Janet's dad Bucky, a retired firefighter who's been married to his wife Ruth for over 50 years, says, "The loser in the whole thing, of course, was the baby."
...Most of Miller's tactics are well known to noncustodial fathers. According to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington, D.C.-based children's advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have their access to their noncustodial parents interfered with or blocked by custodial parents.
Miller moved far way from Jenkins as a way to separate Isabella from her -- a common tactic in custody cases. Miller pushed Isabella's grandparents out of their lives -- at Fathers & Families we receive thousands of anguished letters from distraught grandparents who were excluded from their grandchildren's lives after their sons got divorced.
Miller made unsupported claims of abuse by Jenkins. Canadian jurist Bruce Pugsley recently wrote in an opinion that it's "commonplace" for the system to be manipulated by estranged spouses claiming abuse, "no matter how remote the assault may be in time or, indeed, how trivial the contact." Many legal experts have voiced similar concerns.
Children, heterosexual noncustodial parents and lesbian social mothers like Jenkins all need the same thing -- strong legal protections for parent-child bonds. This begins with a rebuttable presumption of shared custody after a divorce or separation.
Under this presumption, as long as both parents are fit, they will both have the right to share equally in raising their children. These presumptions do exist in some states, but they are generally weak and too easily evaded.
Moreover, courts need to enforce their own visitation orders, instead of allowing custodial parents to flout orders year after year with little or no consequence. When abuse charges are made, they need to be investigated seriously and quickly, and there need to be consequences for false accusations. Judges fighting overcrowded court calendars instead tend to "err on the side of caution" by upholding abuse claims. False accusers rarely suffer any penalty, while children must bear the loss of a parent.
People can fuss about this stuff all they want. And they have. And here we are. Do you like the way family courts looked last week? Do you think they'll be better next week?
> How Divorced Dads Get Cut
> Out Of Their Kids' Lives
I'm guessing that pattern #1 is, they divorce their childen's mothers.
After, oh, three or four generations of this shit, and with a handsome new President who has the will to micromanage our lives anyway, maybe we should stop dreaming of the day when government can step into these most personal realms and make us all feel fairly treated.
Chatter about "strong legal protections for parent-child bonds" is just inexcusably stupid. For fuck's sake, you might as well announce legislation demanding that lead CAN be turned to gold, and water into wine, and me into an NBA superstar.
Let's say this out loud: People who marry badly and then divorce, WITH CHILDREN, are less competent than parents who do it right. Do you seriously, seriously think that courts are going to make things go better? Should they have to? Is this not obviously all about a generation of parents who never grew up themselves?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 20, 2009 1:31 AM
"I'm guessing that pattern #1 is, they divorce their childen's mothers."
Um, I always hate wading in your world, but in this world, two thirds of divorces are initiated by the mother.
"Chatter about "strong legal protections for parent-child bonds" is just inexcusably stupid. For fuck's sake, you might as well announce legislation demanding that lead CAN be turned to gold, and water into wine, and me into an NBA superstar."
I think you're misreading what was written. They're not advocating some sort of water to wine parents must love their kids and vice-versa legislation, they are merely saying that parents should not be dealt out of a child's life merely due to circumstances of a divorce.
What Sacks and Holstein commonly advocate for is a rebuttable presumption of joint shared physical custody instead of the current defacto presumption of sole physical custody given to the mother with some amount of "visitation" assigned to the father.
jerry at October 20, 2009 1:54 AM
> two thirds of divorces are
> initiated by the mother
Is that "initiation" the point where the union failed?
> they are merely saying that parents
> should not be dealt out of a
> child's life merely due to
> circumstances
Right! The fact that airbags have deployed in a 70mph collision is no reason for the radio to be turned off... A really thoughtfully auto designer will compose the circuitry such that the voltage drop from the exploding air cartridges won't threaten the frequency response of the stereo, especially during critical percussion passages. Rock on, dude!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 20, 2009 2:10 AM
I wonder if Miller would be getting all of this "support and expensive legal services" from "America's conservative Christians" if she hadn't "bec[o]me a Christian and renounced lesbianism after leaving Jenkins."
Flynne at October 20, 2009 4:50 AM
Crid - with no-fault divorce, a man (or woman) can wake up one morning and find themselves divorced.
It may take two to start a marriage, but it only takes one to end it.
brian at October 20, 2009 5:06 AM
I wonder if Jenkins would be acting this way if Miller hadn't changed teams?
brian at October 20, 2009 5:07 AM
Marriage is the biggest cause of divorce.
Roger at October 20, 2009 5:13 AM
No one wins in divorce. The biggest losers are always kids. Yet all too often it is used as a way to get "even" or win with the prize being the child or children. I am divorced. I went threw a lot of grief to be able to see my kids regularly including moving half way across the country once. I think one of the folks commenting here has missed a point. Custody isn't about the parents at the end of the day, it's about the kids. Denying a parent the right to be involved with their kids hurts the kids. This isn't a perfect place and it never will be. But nothing ever changes or improves unless someone tries to change things.
Would the US be a better place if noncustodial parents all just disappeared from children's lives? I really doubt it. Have you ever thought maybe some of the problems we have now are a result of noncustodial parents not being involved? Should we simply not allow divorce? That would do wonders for the murder rate.
Sting was right in his song, "I'm so happy I can't stop crying"
Regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, this is supposed to be about what's best for the kids. The rest of it is simply distraction.
JD at October 20, 2009 5:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/20/how_divorced_da.html#comment-1673478">comment from JDExactly, JD.
Amy Alkon at October 20, 2009 5:29 AM
Crid - with no-fault divorce, a man (or woman) can wake up one morning and find themselves divorced.
It may take two to start a marriage, but it only takes one to end it.
Posted by: brian at October 20, 2009 5:06 AM
===========================
Bravo Brian.
This really isn't that difficult of an issue if people were given there 14th amendment equal protection under the law.
However 2 groups would lose out if the courts actually followed the 14th amendment, attorneys and females, both with extremely powerful special interest groups.
David M. at October 20, 2009 6:14 AM
Oh! And I forgot the other special interest group. Politicians.
David M. at October 20, 2009 6:19 AM
Well here you go. It's not enough to have marriages-where both parents are biologically attached to the child-getting divorced. Now we have to have this, where one parent has no genetic attachment to the child, and if they haven't bothered to adopt, no legal standing either. I don't really feel sorry for people who lose their kids because they were too lazy to cement their standing legally. And before anyone pops up with "that's what marriage does", the answer is no it's not. Stepparents have no legal standing unless they adopt either.
I feel terribly sorry for the child. I blame the adults. Not society for not allowing gay marriage-but the adult who put this kid in this situation through their own selfishness.
Don't blame the christians, either. She obviously wasn't born gay, or she wouldn't have changed. This is all on the woman who bred in this situation. Period.
momof4 at October 20, 2009 6:28 AM
Shared physical custody, of the sort Sacks wants, is not good for kids. They end up feeling like permanent visitors in both parents lives. They have no home base and are constantly picking up and moving around. All they notice-at both homes-is the things they missed out on while at the other place. It's not fair to put a kid through that simply because a dad or former gay lover wants to feel better. It's not about you. Should the noncustodial parent be involved? of course. I think Bruce and Demi are amazing, and a great guide for all divorcing parents. But it can't be forced by splitting the kid.
momof4 at October 20, 2009 6:34 AM
She obviously wasn't born gay, or she wouldn't have changed.
No one is actually born gay. Homosexuality isn't genetic ( pls so a search on the current research before you jump on me ). Of the biological correlates, only male homosexuality is identifiable.
Lesbian 'conversions' are actually very common. I suspect that they're even more common among women who wish to have children. So it's likely that these types of custody disputes aren't unusual.
Mike at October 20, 2009 6:53 AM
I'm aware people aren't born gay. But it's an argument made by many, and I was pointing out this refutes that contention.
I think there may be biological factors that can make a person more likely to lean that way. Straight sisters of gay men have much higher fecundity than the general population. There's speculation that may be linked somehow genetically.
momof4 at October 20, 2009 7:17 AM
momof4, I have to disagree with you based on personal experience. My parents divorced when I was 10, and I grew up in a shared-custody arrangement. There is some truth in the things you point out -- it did seem like I was always wanting/looking for something that was at the other home. And I sometimes missed my friends who were at the other place. And I grew tired of the transfers back and forth, which were always a logistical nightmare.
But there's a huge, overriding factor that mitigates all of that. I spent enough time with both of my parents that they were actually able to be parents to me. Consider: the arrangement was that my father had custody during the summer, Christmas, and some weekend visits. My mother was custodial parent during the school year.
I always hated those weekend visits. They felt clumsy and goofy, like my dad wasn't really my dad, but was just some guy that wanted to pal around with me while I'd rather be doing something else. There was no parenting taking place there. It was only during the summer, when I could get settled in to a routine at his place, that I really felt like my father was a father. I reveled in the ordinary-ness of those summers -- we did things together; I did things with other kids in the neighborhood; I did chores, and occasionally I got in trouble and received my just desserts. It felt like the way a parent-child relationship should feel, as opposed to the uncomfortable, awkward weekend and holiday visits.
Based on my experience, I'm convinced that you cannot parent a child unless you get to spend significant blocks of time living together. Weekend visits don't get the job done. And given that my father was a significant influence in my life, if I had grown up in a traditional custody arrangement, I don't think I would have turned out very well -- I would have grown up resenting my mother, and probably wound up having major problems relating to both career and women. That's why I think that shared custody should be the standard.
Cousin Dave at October 20, 2009 7:29 AM
I know we've had this discussion before, but my concern is that "joint" custody to so many infant parents seems to mean they get to shuttle the kids back and forth week to week. If they all worked liked Cousin Dave's arrangement, that's great. But the kids I see in joint custody today seem to end up in the middle of some tug-a-war, never settling into a routine anywhere as each week they are uprooted and switched back to the other parent.
moreta at October 20, 2009 7:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/20/how_divorced_da.html#comment-1673507">comment from moretaThere are things that need to be worked out so they're the best they can be for the kids. And although I blogged this, I think you owe it to your kids to give them an intact, happy home. You would if your life depended on it, right? Make it work with the person to save your life? Well, your kids' lives depend on it -- kids of broken homes have much worse outcomes in numerous areas.
If that sort of sacrifice doesn't work for you, well, use birth control.
The point of this article for me is that one parent shouldn't be shoved out of his or her kids' lives by another parent manipulating the court system and laws.
Amy Alkon at October 20, 2009 7:47 AM
I'm really uncomfortable with the "no fault divorce" thing. Being able to just dump your family feels wrong to me. Still, I don't see how we can chance it.
I know some people get divorced for legit reasons, abuse, misery, etc. I just don't think a vague feeling of satisfaction cuts it.
It seems extreme to me, like disowning a child or cutting off your parents. Yes, some people do that, but it's pretty unusual.
NicoleK at October 20, 2009 7:47 AM
Miller made unsupported claims of abuse by Jenkins. Canadian jurist Bruce Pugsley recently wrote in an opinion that it's "commonplace" for the system to be manipulated by estranged spouses claiming abuse, "no matter how remote the assault may be in time or, indeed, how trivial the contact." Many legal experts have voiced similar concerns.
Here in AZ a woman was just murdered by her ex, with whom she was locked in a custody battle. She's asked a judge for permission to move out of state with her child because she was afraid of the ex, but the judge denied the request and ordered them into counseling. People will burn this judge in effigy, I've no doubt. But judges hear bullshit claims of abuse by women intent on punishing their exes ALL THE TIME. It's so sad that this time, it wasn't bullshit and now a two-year-old is left an orphan.
Beth at October 20, 2009 8:17 AM
OK, Beth, one of us is going to need to add an initial or something to distinguish us...or I suppose I could just go by "The other Beth"
..Not sure of the blog etiquette in this situation...
:-)
the other Beth at October 20, 2009 8:39 AM
"I'm guessing that pattern #1 is, they divorce their childen's mothers. "
That clearly is only a guess. If you'd bothered to look at facts instead and to make a statement instead of a guess, you would have found that women initiate most divorces in the US, and in some states the difference is 75% or so favoring women. So it's not men divorcing women, it's then other way around.
But nice try at some pussy points for chivalry.
"Let's say this out loud: People who marry badly and then divorce, WITH CHILDREN, are less competent than parents who do it right."
Then again, here you are dead on the money. Once a child is born, the marriage should automatically pass into a different legal standard for dissolutuion.
jim at October 20, 2009 8:51 AM
Beth - was she really afraid of her ex, or was she using the court as a weapon?
Sounds a little too much like Mary Winkler if you ask me.
I knew that case was going to have repercussions...
brian at October 20, 2009 8:53 AM
Amy writes: "The point of this article for me is that one parent shouldn't be shoved out of his or her kids' lives by another parent manipulating the court system and laws."
Amy, I totally agree with this, and I think that in a sole-custody situation, it's all too easy for it to happen. Also, I think that if presumption of joint custody was the law, there would be less motivation for divorce.
Moreta, I get your point about the week-to-week thing. One of the points in my situation was that I remained in the same school all year, and from one year to the next. Clearly, a deal where the kids are bouncing back and forth between schools isn't going to work. However, even if both parents live in the same school district, I agree that it's too disruptive to the parent-child relationships to do weekly transfers. It takes a substantial block of time to maintain that relationship. As a guess, I'd say that each parent needs at least a month at a time with the child.
NicoleK: I think what happened is that the people who supported no-fault divorce back in the '70s got pwned by anti-family leftists. I support the idea of no-fault divorce if and only if both spouses agree to it. If a couple is childless, and they agree that it just isn't working between them and they both want to go their separate ways, then no-fault divorce makes sense. I recall reading some of the silly stories from the '60s of a couple that agreed to divorce, but in order for there to be grounds that would be acceptable to the court, one of the spouses had to go out and have an affair first and let themselves be "caught" by the other spouse. Then they could get divorced, but it made the whole process unnecessarily expensive and contentious.
However, what's happened is that no-fault divorce transmorgrified into unilateral divorce, where one spouse can file for divorce and there's nothing the other spouse can do about it. And looking back at some of the statements made at the time, it's pretty clear that the people who came up with the idea intended for it to be that way all along. The people who bought into the idea for the sensible case were used.
Cousin Dave at October 20, 2009 8:56 AM
Advice for young people: Be very, very careful who you marry. This should be the most considered decision of your entire life.
Accordingly, watch any serious candidates for a few years before you do marry them and have kids. If you ever see them treat other people poorly or unethically, then you are (or should be) fully aware that your turn will certainly come. And remember that mere procreation with you will not change that person in any material way, except making them have even less time and money for you.
Luck plays a role in what happens, sure, but your choice is vital. Don't minimize it.
Spartee at October 20, 2009 9:48 AM
> It may take two to start a marriage,
> but it only takes one to end it.
Better choose partners wisely then, oughtn't you? People don't seem to be doing very well at that. Many, many of these marriages were shitty from the start. I'm tired of society being sympathetic with this incompetence. I'm tired, as a taxpayer, of paying (both money and moral authority) for family courts that have to deal with this insane bickering. This is fucking LUNACY.
Man in court: "Your honor!"
Judge: "What?"
Man in court: "My ex-wife!"
Judge: "What about her?"
Man in court: "She's a real bitch!"
Judge: "So let me get this straight. You were rolling through your life. You met this woman, and you loved her deeply. And don't deny it: We have this marriage license right here, and we have the testimony of all your family and friends, saying that she was the one you wanted to build a family with."
Man in court: "Well, yeah..."
Judge: "And then you stuck your dick into this woman and made two babies in 22 months..."
Man in court: "Right!"
Judge: "And now, in the 23rd month, turns out you don't love her at all, and need the help of the STATE to protect your children from their mother."
Man in court: "Right! I need special consideration... I need the intrusive power of the State deployed for the sake of my kids!"
Judge: "And you're just a normal guy who had no reason to think that the 50% failure rate for marriages would ever apply in his own case? So we special laws for this typical incompetence?"
Man in court: "Exactly, your honor! Because she's a real bitch!"
____________________
> you would have found that women
> initiate most divorces in the US
Read the first responses again. Also, grow up.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 20, 2009 9:59 AM
> Advice for young people: Be very,
> very careful who you marry. This
> should be the most considered
> decision of your entire life.
Yes.
We don't give enough credit to romantic collapse in our culture. We tend to view it as sports, and people want so badly to win that they cheat.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 20, 2009 10:01 AM
I don't really feel sorry for people who lose their kids because they were too lazy to cement their standing legally. And before anyone pops up with "that's what marriage does", the answer is no it's not. Stepparents have no legal standing unless they adopt either. momof4
Exxplain then why men who are not the biological father of their wives children are held legally responible after a divorce if they didnt adopt their wifes lovers children.
lujlp at October 20, 2009 10:03 AM
"Explain then why men who are not the biological father of their wives children are held legally responible after a divorce if they didnt adopt their wifes lovers children."
If you're married to her, yes it's assumed it's yours. If you have reason to doubt, you'd better deal with it real quick, not years later. The reason for this assumption IS that it's better for the kids. The kid doesn't care if it's yours or not, if you're the one that changed the diapers and came to the little league games and now-ONLY NOW when you're looking at child support, all of a sudden don't want to be the dad.
Be careful who you breed with just asking a little too much?
momof4 at October 20, 2009 10:50 AM
Luj,
The law still presumes that any child conceived during a marriage is that of the husband -- DNA evidence (or the physical traits of the child) be damned.
This came from a desire to limit inheritance disputes, for the most part. The other side of the coin was that a child born to a woman not married to the father had no familial attachment, and thus no claim on the father's estate.
Now, since men's parental rights have largely been extinguished, this vestigial legal concept is just used to put the financial squeeze on men.
Jay R at October 20, 2009 11:02 AM
Crid says:
> I'm guessing that pattern #1 is, they divorce
> their childen's mothers.
Crid, you're missing the point. What the law says is important. If the rule of law were that fathers automatically got custody regardless, that would solve the problem of dad's getting cut out of their children's lives.
I'm not sure that anyone is recommending that this be the rule of law, but surely even you can see that the legal rules and procedures used by the courts can dramatically affect how involved dads can be in their childrens' lives.
People are simply advocating for a change in these rules and procedures to reduce the possibility of dads being cut out of their childrens' lives.
Snoopy at October 20, 2009 11:22 AM
Women's statistical eagerness to use THEIR children as weapons against the now-hated ex is one of the reasons fatherhood, and thus all of society, is on the decline. The encouragement of "heroic" single motherhood is another reason.
That society actually encourages this is inexplicable -- until one factors in the relentlessly anti-male, and especially anti-FATHER, attitudes fostered by feminism.
Where women don't block men's involvement with their kids, and the men aren't poverty-stricken, "dead-beat dads" are very rare. (Women are, of course, proportionately the worst "dead-beat" parents!)
These days, when 40% of kids are born to single mothers, does "motherhood" still deserve its honored place alongside apple pie? I am not so sure anymore ....
Unilateral no-fault divorce (borrowed from, but abandoned by, the Soviets) is a society destroyer because it is a marriage deterrent as well as a marriage destroyer. Ever hear of the male "marriage strike"? Just look at the statistical trends.
Things will have to change. For things to improve, feminism's continuing attack on men and fathers will have to be confronted, exposed, and defeated.
Who has the greatest incentive to lead this charge? Women, I think. In the end, they will be the biggest losers if they don't.
Jay R at October 20, 2009 11:30 AM
Crid writes: "Better choose partners wisely then, oughtn't you? People don't seem to be doing very well at that. Many, many of these marriages were shitty from the start. I'm tired of society being sympathetic with this incompetence."
Point taken. But there is such a thing as the sociopath; data indicates that they make up 5-10% of the adult population, and we know that sociopaths can be really, really good at hiding their true nature when they are in pursuit of something they want -- good enough that it's unreasonable for someone not trained in psychology to spot them in advance. I see no reason why they should have the luxury of having a spouse chained to them by the state.
Cousin Dave at October 20, 2009 11:48 AM
momof4, this gay couple were leaglly married, so why are you arguing against the 'presumption of parenthood for the good of the child even if there is no genetic connection" in this case?
lujlp at October 20, 2009 11:49 AM
Makes you wonder how all this will work when it's 2 guys that have adopted... Although if one of them used a surrogate, then he would be biological, I wonder if that makes his argument stronger. Humans are astonsishing creatures, their dark side no less so.
Interestingly, we will say, "you have to choose well who you marry." And they that take the matter seriously, will choose 'none'. The downside is simply too much. But that doesn't mean they won't procreate, even if they end up in an "accidentally on purpose" situation. If we have a generation where there are no bonds at all with men, how will that play. I think in some communities, particularly in the inner city, we already know the answer. With 70% absent fathers, we get a lot of crime, and a downward spiral. I think we would do well to really take into account the up and downsides of the various incentives/disincentives to marriage, and makin' kids... or we will end up with even worse outcomes.
SwissArmyD at October 20, 2009 11:51 AM
Because, looj (and I do feel sorry for the kid losing it's family-that's not right and it's both womyn's fault) that woman never thought it was her biological child. She couldn't have. She knew it wasn't, and did nothing to cement her standing, and now is whining to the rest of us to fix her laziness through the courts.
And come on, what the hell is a "social mother"??? Give me a fucking break.
momof4 at October 20, 2009 12:07 PM
momof4... if their names are both on the Birth Certificate, how do you cement that more? Social mother is just a creation, because they don't have a good word for it yet, when one is biologic and one isn't... but, what about the ones where it is one's egg, and then is implanted in the other? Is she some kind of surrogate, legally. It's a can of worms and no mistake.
SwissArmyD at October 20, 2009 12:18 PM
I wonder if Miller would be getting all of this "support and expensive legal services" from "America's conservative Christians" if she hadn't "bec[o]me a Christian and renounced lesbianism after leaving Jenkins."
Ding, ding, ding! The Christian right would not be supporting a still practicing and proud lesbian in this case! This is just more anti-gay hatred on display.
Crusader at October 20, 2009 1:17 PM
Is there, or could there be, the equivalent of a pre-nuptial agreement taking these possibilities into account? Not treating children as property to be divided or arguing about their religion, just something to lay out a "what-if" plan.
Probably a lot of people wouldn't do it because the possibility of a change of heart is inconceivable. I think of it as just a CYA policy, like a living will.
Pricklypear at October 20, 2009 1:20 PM
> If the rule of law were that
> fathers automatically got
> custody regardless, that would
> solve the problem of dad's
> getting cut out of their
> children's lives.
The dad is divorcing the children's mother. Jesus Fuck! Do you understand how insane this is? A father who moves away from his little girls has already risked or inflicted fantastic damage. And now you want to worry about the procedural minutiae by which some judge in a robe in a courtroom can decide how "involved dads can be in their childrens' lives".
I think real fathers aren't 'involved' with their children... They're FATHERS.
Unless they remarry, move to Florida, and fire up a whole new batch of little princesses. Here's one of the Onion's finest moments.
> But there is such a thing as the
> sociopath; data indicates that
> they make up 5-10%
Oh please. Oh please. EVERYONE in divorce court is going to make this argument. "You don't understand your honor.... This woman was a Queen bitch! A master manipulator! Sherlock Holmes wouldn't have spotted the clues!"
> I see no reason why they should
> have the luxury of having a
> spouse chained to them by
> the state.
The state chained them?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 20, 2009 1:25 PM
I mean, isn't that why you went to the state for the marriage license to begin with, so that you could be chained? The state didn't come to you, did it?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 20, 2009 1:26 PM
Ding, ding, ding! The Christian right would not be supporting a still practicing and proud lesbian in this case! This is just more anti-gay hatred on display.
Um, no, it's not. You're making an unsupported assumption and using that to accuse a particular group of people of something that they're not doing.
Yeah, were the mother in question still a lesbian, there probably wouldn't be as much support from whatever Christians are helping her. But that's not what's happening in reality, and we don't know for sure. You don't get to assume something and then call it an example of hatred when it's not happening.
Well, I guess you can do it, but it just makes you look like an asshole.
tekende at October 20, 2009 1:43 PM
"I mean, isn't that why you went to the state for the marriage license to begin with, so that you could be chained? The state didn't come to you, did it?" Crid
you should bronze that one...
SwissArmyD at October 20, 2009 3:00 PM
ummm, I guess I am in the extreme minority here who feels that gay couples raising children is not in the children's best interest to begin with. If they want to nurture something, they should stick with a puppy
ron at October 20, 2009 3:19 PM
Crid says:
> The dad is divorcing the children's mother.
> Jesus Fuck!
As many commentators above have said, actually it's normally the mom divorcing the children's father. Good fathers generally hang on to the crappiest of marriages simply because they don't want to lose their children (not to mention half their income and assets) as so often happens in divorce. Mothers don't have that same incentives and so find it easier to walk away.
Crid says:
> procedural minutiae by which some judge in
> a robe in a courtroom
Now the law regarding custody is simply procedural minutiae? Next you'll be arguing that the law regarding murder is simply procedural minutiae.
Snoopy at October 20, 2009 3:21 PM
"Judge: "And now, in the 23rd month, turns out you don't love her at all, and need the help of the STATE to protect your children from their mother."
The stats say you still have the sexes turned around. Crid, why are you always defending and making excuses for women?
"The dad is divorcing the children's mother. Jesus Fuck!
Which father are yuo talking about? Not in this particular story, not in most stories. Most times the children's "mother" dismisses the father. Please, please get a clue about rela life and real mariage. You might start by really getting married.
"If you're married to her, yes it's assumed it's yours. If you have reason to doubt, you'd better deal with it real quick, not years later. "
Indeed, momof4. So in practical terms that menas the father should have his newborn DNA-tested everytime. Each and every time. And if the mother has heartburn with that, that's all the more reason.
And now since the State is going after presumed fathers long after the fact, all newborns should be tested as a matter of course, especially when no father is present.
Jim at October 20, 2009 3:24 PM
I have no problem with testing newborns. Make it part of the heel-stick, why not?
momof4 at October 20, 2009 3:39 PM
> it's normally the mom divorcing
> the children's father
You guys keep saying that. It's ludicrous... The initiation of legal proceedings isn't where the marriage failed. If you're sincerely being confused by this point, consider the old African proverb: "Look where you tripped, not where you fell."
But I don't think you're being sincere. This is exactly, exactly the madness under discussion. No matter how many people get divorced, no matter how enormous the statistics, no matter how plain it is that someone should have seen it coming, they'll always pretend it was a complete surprise in their case. As above: 'Psychopathology isn't that uncommon, man.' It's a pride thing, and it's a stupidity thing.
Guys have about an 80% chance of dying of either heart disease or cancer: Are you going to dodge that fate too? Are you planning to die of being blown to death by supermodels on your 100th birthday? The common arrogance about immunity to divorce is no less arrogant or naive.
> Good fathers generally hang on
> to the crappiest of marriages
Really good fathers marry well, and give their children loving, well-loved mothers.
> law regarding custody is simply
> procedural minutiae
Having already seen the souls of the children maimed by incompetent parents –the people who should most be expected to shelter and nurture their loving hearts– it's very difficult to care about such things.
(Did you see the metaphor in the third comment? I bungled it with a typo, but I'm still kinda proud: The driver's just crashed his car, and he's upset that there's nothing good playing on the radio.)
> I am in the extreme minority here
> who feels that gay couples raising
> children is not in the children's
> best interest to begin with
You'll always have brothers, I promise.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 20, 2009 3:43 PM
> why are you always defending
> and making excuses for women?
Ask some of the divorced women around here if I've been making excuses for them.
Listen, this is a conversation, so we have to pick a gender, or every comment doubles in length. (So then the woman says to the judge or then the man says to the judge, "Listen, your honor...")
> Most times the children's "mother"
> dismisses the father.
What's with the quotation marks?
Competent men marry loving women who won't "dismiss" them.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 20, 2009 3:49 PM
It's been said that the single most important thing a father can do for his children is to love their mother. I believe this cuts both ways, but what happens when the one just stops loving the other, for whatever reason? Divorce, that's what. And stupidity and selfishness and all kinds of shit that forgets about the children while the parents are trying to decimate each other. And it sucks. Big time. So why should society be expected to fix it? Society is the mitigating factor that allowed it in the first place. Kate Hepburn had it right: "I think men and women should live next door to each other and just visit."
Flynne at October 20, 2009 5:12 PM
> You guys keep saying that. It's ludicrous...
> The initiation of legal proceedings isn't
> where the marriage failed. If you're
> sincerely being confused by this point,
> consider the old African proverb: "Look where
> you tripped, not where you fell."
Cool. So what other stat are you relying on then as proof of your point?
And to keep things on topic, even if you were correct, wtf does that have to do with reforming custody law so that it's fair. Even if every single divorce in the country were due to the husband and not the wife, what good does it do the children to deprive them of their father?
Snoopy at October 20, 2009 5:13 PM
> So why should society be expected to fix it?
> Society is the mitigating factor that allowed
> it in the first place.
Given that there is going to be a law about custody, all that's being asked is that it be a fair law and encourages both parents to be actively involved in their children's lives.
I agree with you to a certain extent - society shouldn't be expected to fix it in an ideal world. Ideally, there would be a mandatory prenup setting all this stuff out beforehand, and then if there is a divorce, the prenup is followed.
But given that prenups are not allowed to include agreements about custody, there has to be a law about it - why not make it a good one?
Snoopy at October 20, 2009 5:16 PM
Did you see the metaphor in the third comment? I bungled it with a typo, but I'm still kinda proud
I loved the metaphor. Excellent.
but what happens when the one just stops loving the other, for whatever reason?
What I think should happen is nothing. They should go on living together and being kind and considerate with one another. That's what they owe their children. They don't love each other anymore? Tough. When the children are grown, they're welcome to divorce.
kishke at October 20, 2009 6:24 PM
"reforming custody law so that it's fair."
Fair for who? You say that like there's some magic ideal that's just perfectly even and great for everyone. There's not. Fair for dad ain't gonna be fair for mom, and fair for either parent isn't fair to the kid, who really just wants mom and dad to slap a smile on and sit around the Christmas Tree together.
I mean really-have you had to split holidays? It fucking sucks.
momof4 at October 20, 2009 7:18 PM
> what happens when the one just
> stops loving the other, for
> whatever reason? Divorce, that's
> what.
One reason that's what happens is that we say "that's what happens", and then pretend the kids (and the rest of society) are supposed to be cool with it. Your own description of this is flighty and impulsive and nonchalant... Parents 'just stop loving each other for whatever reason'. Poof! A change in the weather, just like that Julie Andrews movie.* 'No biggie, child... It's just the end of your family.'
I think that kind of twitch is not honorable. I think little girls shouldn't be taught (and shown) that these grown-up impulses are so powerful that they're worth ripping open a little girls' heart for. (Or a little boy's heart. OK? Ever'body got that? Works both ways.)
I quoted this a couple times before, but really Lileks nails this to the wall:
| “I want to have sex with other
| people” is not a valid reason
| for depriving two little girls
| of a daddy who lives with them,
| gets up at night when they're
| sick, kisses them in the
| morning when they wake.
(And if you follow the quote, it's offered with respect to the consequences of gay love. How 'bout that?)
> Society is the mitigating
> factor that allowed it
> in the first place.
"Mitigating" is the wrong word– Nothing's being mitigated by a weak union. And the part of "society" that could be accurately accused of letting a bad marriage happen –the friends and family of the betrothed– are not the ones who are compelled to come in and wipe up the mess.
> what other stat are you relying on
No stats anywhere.
> wtf does that have to do with
> reforming custody law so that
> it's fair.
Those reforms aren't our priority.
> what good does it do the
> children to deprive them of
> their father?
That deprivation is essentially complete by the time things reach these judges. I mean, again, I can't believe you aren't reading this passage: The parents are getting divorced. M'kay? Dad's moving out. (Usually.) There may be all kinds of wonderful bonds and visits to Six Flags and all the rest, but the machine has been very badly damaged at that point.
May I refer you just once more to the metaphor of the car crash?... Fuck the radio, OK? There's glass everywhere, your brow's bleeding, and you haven't even checked on the passengers of your own car, let alone those in the other vehicle. At that moment, even Professor Blaupunkt himself is unconcerned with who your favorite bass player is.
> there has to be a law about it -
> why not make it a good one?
Because it sustains and perhaps encourages the belief that these outcomes are well-thought-out and acceptable. Fussing over such matters is almost by definition the obsessive province of people who haven't done marriage correctly. And furthermore, while family courts are indisputably a shitbath, I'm not sure that's a realm of public life where we want to be micromanaging the duties of the servants toiling within.
__________________
* Suddenly I'm wondering if that's what that hideous Disney movie was about.... I haven't seen it in about 45 years.. (Googling) Ah, Mary Poppins. All I remember of the film –besides a lot of loud colors and wanting to scratch Julie Andrews' warbling voicebox right out of her throat– was that this person would literally float into and out of family intimacies with tremendous caprice.
Maybe the plot's based on an an ancient storyline, some 15th-century Irish folk tale or something... But it seems possible that the moviemakers were vibing the newfangled explosion of American divorce in a sort of pre-Brady Bunch way.
But I won't investigate. I hate the film (and that woman) far too much for it to be worthwhile.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 21, 2009 12:43 AM
Are you planning to die of being blown to death by supermodels on your 100th birthday?
Count me in.
Also, I like the quote by Kate Hepburn about men and women being neighbors and just visiting each other. But that's kind of an elitist statement, given that most people can't afford to do that. It is, however, my plan for the future. As a single custodial father, I don't have any desire to create a mixed family. Most of the gals I've seen have kids of varying ages, and I'm not about to start some kind of Brady Bunch type of love-in. That shit made me sick to watch on TV, in real life it must really suck. The fact that I have decided to not marry has cost me a couple of relationships, but that's what I call weeding out potentially toxic relationships. Call me selfish, but I'm not losing any more houses or money because of a miscalculation in a potential partner's character.
sterling at October 21, 2009 5:40 AM
It was based on a book. In the book, Mary Poppins was much bitchier.
I don't recall the book feeling pre-divorcy. It was more like Narnia, they have this temporary magical experience before going back to reality.
NicoleK at October 21, 2009 5:43 AM
Crid, I'm not at all sure what you're on about, but consider my own case: my mom had an affair and, when confronted with it, she walked out of the marriage. Yes, just like that. (And I know because I was there and I saw the scene with my own two eyeballs.) What was my dad supposed to do to keep her at home, tie her to a chair?
Cousin Dave at October 21, 2009 6:50 AM
Sterling writes: "Most of the gals I've seen have kids of varying ages, and I'm not about to start some kind of Brady Bunch type of love-in. That shit made me sick to watch on TV, in real life it must really suck. "
Sterling, I lived that! My dad remarried and his second wife had two daughters, one about my age and one about my brother's age (he's three years younger than me). And you're right, it did suck. It sucked because my dad and my stepmom were never a team when it came to parenting. The girls were "hers", and she was extremely permissive with them: They were pretty much allowed to come and go as they pleased. They had no chores, other than to keep their own rooms picked up (which they didn't do that much). My stepmom would give them a credit card and let them go shop all day, and they'd spend $100 back when that was a lot of money. My brother and I had chores to do, and we had no money unless we earned it. I had summer jobs when I got a bit older. And we lived in an old house that always needed something fixed, and most of that fell to me.
Needless to say, it created a lot of jealousy. Then, in the middle of all this, my stepmom had open-heart surgery and was incapacitated for about six months. It wound up being my dad and I running the household, or trying to. My stepmom had told the girls before the surgery that they were supposed to take orders from me, since I was the oldest. You can imagine how well that worked out.
They divorced after I graduated from high school. The older girl got pregnant by some guy and they both ran away from home; I haven't heard anything of her since. The younger one became a professional golddigger; she married a wealthy guy in his 70s, and a few years later when he kicked off, she inherited a bunch of money.
Cousin Dave at October 21, 2009 7:03 AM
Cousin Dave: I lived that!
The theme that continues: mixing marriages and kids from previous marriages makes everyone miserable.
The step parent is always going to lose to the step child and biological parent, or vice versa. And it's hard for me to rationalize even trying to form a relationship that creates this type of extended/mixed family.
I have more friends my age (mid forties) that are from this type of dysfunctional family than not. And they talk about the misery and jealousy growing up. I just refuse to put my son through that Mary Poppins nightmare. It would be nice if single parents would consider this before making a bad situation worse.
sterling at October 21, 2009 7:54 AM
I want people to marry well.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 21, 2009 9:16 AM
Alcon: Nope, Crid is not any "easier" on divorced/formerly divorced women than he is on the guys....
The truth of the matter is that everyone loses in divorce, but most of all the kids. I hate, hate, HATE what my kids have had to live through and see when their father and I split up. I tried to protect them from the ugliness of it all, but when both parties don't commit to keeping the adult matters away from the kids, it doesn't quite work out.
Re: mixed families. Yes, VERY difficult to pull off with any degree of success. Crucial that both parents are on the same page when it comes to household rules and parenting. If not, friction ensues and the kids are again the ones that suffer--not to mention another major issue that will split up the couple...
Re: DNA testing. It's actually quite costly, so not sure just how practical it would be to order all infants to be tested across the board. It would likely become a matter of who's to absorb that cost....
the other Beth at October 21, 2009 9:26 AM
Also, sorry about "arrogance about immunity to divorce is no less arrogant". Sometimes we're in a hurry writing comments
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 21, 2009 10:27 AM
It's actually quite costly, so not sure just how practical it would be to order all infants to be tested across the board. It would likely become a matter of who's to absorb that cost....
I wonder if the cost is associated with human time or physical equipment. If the cost is associated with human effort, then unless there is a glut in the DNA technician market increasing the numbers won't decrease the cost. However, if the cost is primarily associated with the purchase of equipment, increasing the use of that equipment would reduce the overall cost per use making it more accessible. Assuming of course, the lab had the ability to depreciate the use over the long haul and there wasn't a finite number of uses per machine.
On the other hand, I can't imagine anyone believing the Houston Crime Lab if they ran paternity testing for all babies in Houston...
-Julie
Julie at October 21, 2009 2:20 PM
"> it's normally the mom divorcing
> the children's father
You guys keep saying that. It's ludicrous... The initiation of legal proceedings isn't where the marriage failed. If you're sincerely being confused by this point, consider the old African proverb: "Look where you tripped, not where you fell.""
Thank you, Crid! I have heard these statistics, too, but I think that for every shallow, bored housewife who tries to soak her hard-working husband for most of his paycheck, there is a lying sack of shit guy who cheated on his wife. Is the cheating husband going to initiate the divorce? Hell no! He'd love to be getting his nookie from both places! But if you're the wife and you have an ounce of self-respect, is it on you when you file for divorce?
I don't think those statistics about who "initiated" the divorce mean squat. There is plenty of immaturity floating around on the part of both genders.
Pirate Jo at October 21, 2009 2:44 PM
Pirate Jo writes: "I don't think those statistics about who "initiated" the divorce mean squat. There is plenty of immaturity floating around on the part of both genders."
Maybe, but if the stat was running the other way, you know good and darn well what would happen.
Cousin Dave at October 21, 2009 2:46 PM
I don't think women should be able to just kick out their husbands. I think no-fault divorce rules should be changed so that both parties need to consent. I don't think one should be able to throw away one's husband, or wife, like some used Kleenex.
The whole thing just seems so creepy to me, like a parent just dumping their kid on the street, or someone just deciding to stop speaking to their parents or siblings.
Am I just really old fashioned? Does blood and family count for nothing?
NicoleK at October 21, 2009 3:01 PM
"Maybe, but if the stat was running the other way, you know good and darn well what would happen."
Please elaborate, as I don't "know good and darn well what would happen" that would be any different than what happens now.
Pirate Jo at October 21, 2009 7:50 PM
"Am I just really old fashioned? Does blood and family count for nothing?"
You forget, NicoleK, that for some people, born unluckily, into really crappy families, it *should* count for nothing.
I'm with Crid that people should marry well, but I draw the line at being against no-fault divorce. Some people, because they have been brought up in fucked-up families, choose more of the same for themselves. If they figure things out, they should be able to get out of bad situations. However, I really hope these people haven't had kids. Hence my support for birth control in the water.
Pirate Jo at October 21, 2009 7:54 PM
PJ, what I meant was: If 75% of divorces were initiated by husbands, you'd be seeing weekly headline articles on CNN and in the New York Times bemoaning "what's wrong with men today", and a movement to tighten up divorce laws. I compare it to the turnaround in school performance for boys vs. girls. When the girls were behind, the headlines were, "What's wrong with our schools?" Now that the boys are falling behind, the headlines are, "What's wrong with boys?"
Cousin Dave at October 22, 2009 6:58 AM
Oh, also, I'll throw this in: I did a no-fault divorce with my first wife. And it truly was a mutual agreement. (And there were no children.)
Cousin Dave at October 22, 2009 7:00 AM
Yeah, but Pirate, those cases are rather exceptional.
NicoleK at October 22, 2009 9:57 AM
> "Yeah, but Pirate, those cases are rather exceptional."
NicoleK is correct; in only a small percentage of divorces initiated by a woman is any abuse or infidelity alleged. The ladies are usually just "unfulfilled" in the marriage -- if they aren't the one having the affair. Assuming that the husband must be an asshole or a cheater is just more reflexive misandry. Also, why do we ignore that in the 25-30% of cases where men initiate divorce, there is likely some female abuse, financial irresponsibility, and/or cheating going on?
We need to stop turning such a blind eye, and stop making so many excuses for women's irresponsible behavior in the name of feminist "empowerment." It makes them out to be weak and incapable of accepting true, equal, adult responsibility along with men. It's like the Special Olympics, or something. They aren't that, are they?
Hard to figure out sometimes ... .
Jay R at October 22, 2009 11:50 AM
> why do we ignore that in the 25-30%
> of cases where men initiate divorce,
> there is likely some female abuse,
> financial irresponsibility, and/or
> cheating
I want to turn a blind eye. I don't want to be bothered with people's sob stories and mutual accusations of bad behavior. Patting you on the shoulder and tilting my head and telling you that it's sad how that nasty lady did nasty things to you is not my function on this planet.
If you got all the way to adulthood, but still believe that the adjudication of such bickering is what the rest of society is supposed to do for you... Then maybe you didn't make it all the way to adulthood.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 22, 2009 12:09 PM
"The ladies are usually just "unfulfilled" in the marriage -- if they aren't the one having the affair."
You have actual, factual knowledge of this, or is this just more of your reflexive whatever?
"Assuming that the husband must be an asshole or a cheater is just more reflexive misandry."
No, no, my point is that, like Crid, I don't think it matters who initiates the divorce. Maybe the guy cheats, but it's because she doesn't put out. But maybe she doesn't put out because three weeks is the longest he's held down a job in twelve years, and he gets drunk every night. But maybe he gets drunk every night because she is a nagging shrew.
Who the hell cares? Sob stories indeed. Watch Springer if you find this kind of drama even remotely interesting. It's a complete circus, what people spend on weddings, divorces, lawyers, family courts, and that "starter marriage" has become a part of the national lexicon.
"Patting you on the shoulder and tilting my head and telling you that it's sad how that nasty lady did nasty things to you is not my function on this planet."
This. Exactly.
Pirate Jo at October 22, 2009 2:59 PM
"momof4... if their names are both on the Birth Certificate, how do you cement that more? Social mother is just a creation,"
Judges do in fact now allow "two moms" or "two dads" to be listed. Which means that judges are allowing what used to called false official documentation, a crime, to take place, because it makes them feel good and progressive.
Biology counts in child rearing. The evil stepmother myth, when researched, isn't really all that much a myth. Not to say that there aren't some good step mothers. But given a choice between tending to one's own biological child's needs, and that of the stepchild, guess who wins out?
Harold at October 22, 2009 6:18 PM
Pirate Jo: "You have actual, factual knowledge of this?"
Yes, although I have never personally been a woman who initiated a divorce, if that's your question. ;)
"If you provide a woman with an answer, you give her a moment of knowledge. If you teach a woman how to seek knowledge, you give her a lifetime of answers."
Get my drift?
By the way, on the general point of "choose wisely, or don't complain when you get screwed," I am in complete agreement. I just don't like the implication that divorce exists because men, and only men, are assholes. Everyone's shit stinks, after all, even the ladies'.
Somehow, we've come to need to be reminded of this.
Jay R at October 23, 2009 12:52 PM
Leave a comment