Deck chairs. If civilization were serious, children would have a "right" to a loving mother with a loving father, rather than a procedural guarantee of two regulation-addled fuckballs who think they're entitled to project their social incompetence across successive generations.

Thanks. No, thank you. Please... You're very kind. Yes, I've been practicing for many years. OK, thanks and have a great weekend. Night now... K'thxbai.

"Smart thinking"? For fuck's sake.

I think about it this way, the reform of divorce was no-fault divorce, reform of no-fault divorce is a rebuttable presumption of joint shared custody of the child. but that needs to come with an inexpensive fee-based way of getting before an agent of the court or a judge to provide oversight of how the divorce and parenting is coming along. But attorneys should not be involved. Just like in small claims court.

And sudden death no overtime, to violators of visitation orders.

Why don't they just make it equal time with both parents and no money transfer from one parent to another unless the parent who wants things not to be that way proves her(his?) case. The reason divorce happens is because the woman has nothing to lose and no one cares about the man anyway. If these judges respect the principle of my money, my business, divorce will just plummet. And if the woman has to get the guys money, maybe she can just take the pain of proving why she deserves his money and not the other way round.

"Crid, you've read me here -- I'm clearly not an advocate of divorce by parents, but as long as divorce exists, there need to be measures so kids aren't denied access to their parents."

And it seems like the one doing the denying is the least savory of the two.

But here's the slippery slope: yet another attempt to project rights, in that those supposedly with those rights have no idea what they are, much less how to fight for them - or, more to the point, how to pay for them by the exercise of the commensurate responsibilities!

Minors, endangered animals and invalids have guardians because of this, of varying degrees. That the process isn't really providing guardians worth a damn is just proof that the real world sucks in places and needs more work. The existing guardians aren't doing their job, actually exercising responsibilities.

The examples I know of personally are concerned mostly with money for themselves.

But what if one or the other parent is an abusive sort? You still want to make the kid spend time with that parent? I could see maybe doing this on a case-by-case basis, but you'd have to have someone that would monitor these situations. I'm lucky in that my ex is not in any way abusive towards me or the girls, but I know of other kids who aren't so lucky. In fact, one of #2's friends was telling me the other day that he hates having to see his father, because all the guy does is yell, drink and flick cigarette butts at him and his sister. Guy sounds like a class act, and I sure as shit wouldn't want the court forcing my kids, or any kid, to have to deal with that.

But what if one or the other parent is an abusive sort

Well, that has to be proved right? Currently the courts just assume the guy is abusive and the woman is not(even if the reality is not that way) and deny the guy his kids. If either of them is concerned about the kids they can very well prove the abuse. There is so much proof that can be accumulated before filing the divorce.It is not a one time unexpected think like an assault or rape or murder that one is caught unawares and not able to gather the proof of it. This is not soviet russia that the guy has to be treated guilty until proven innocent. The premise has to be innocent until proven guilty.

The biggest thing in a divorce is that the parents talk, at least somewhat civilly, about the kids and what they are doing.

I have heard too many stories from parents and kids of how the kids played their parents after the divorce.

The reason divorce happens is because the woman has nothing to lose and no one cares about the man anyway

Oh, please. The poverty rates for single mothers are ridiculously high. Even the middle- to upper middle-class women I know who get child support are struggling. Never mind the ones who have given up because the court hassle isn't worth years of their lives. And yes, many men have gotten screwed by the courts, too.

Once you force the courts to sort out the mess you've made of your personal life, don't expect to walk away a winner. Too many people see the money as the prize at the end. If you can keep that bitch from getting any of your money, you win. If you can suck that bastard dry, you win. Reality: You've both lost, no matter what the dollar amount ends up being, and more importantly, your children have lost.

Also, if you married her, she gets half of whatever you had when you were married. Just the way it goes. Marriage is in part a legal contract. I put more thought into the terms of my Netflix account than some people put into marriage.

The legal system doesn't *care* about anyone personally. It doesn't know you. The judges and lawyers don't know you, and everyone lies to them, so they don't believe you even if you're honest. I'm going to have to pay my brother $15,000 in a probate settlement just because he brought his complaint to court, and it was cheaper to pay him than to litigate it. The court doesn't give a crap about me or the personal reasons why my parents cut him out of the will in the first place. The court exists to keep us all from dueling each other to the death.

"But what if one or the other parent is an abusive sort?"

That's why it's a rebuttable presumption.

You go into court and both sides are assumed to be good parents and want their children. If you believe the other parent is abusive, the onus is on you to prove it. Which should be easy, through the testimony of doctors, teachers, neighbors, grandparents or other relatives, the police, text messages, e-mail, recorded phone calls, etc.

Right now you go to court, and you are assumed guilty. You have to fight just to see your kids every other weekend and four hours on Wednesday.

That's the starting point. That's the basis and that you have to fight for. It's completely unfair.

And precisely because, the stakes are so high, it's basically all or nothing, every incentive is there, for huge, incredibly nasty fights to win all or nothing. I get the kids you get nothing. You get the kids. I get nothing.

Which is why, I think it's analogous, no-fault divorce. Which is how we got away from stupid nasty destructive fights involving private investigators threats of violence, coercion claims about domestic abuse, worries over affairs, etc.

But all of that still there when it comes to child custody.

What is needed is a default fair starting position for both parties and the kids.

" The court exists to keep us all from dueling each other to the death."

This is pretty much true, except it also exists, to enrichen lawyers.

Pretty much every decision I've seen a court make, can be explained by placing the following thought in the judge's mind, who will pay the court costs and attorney's fees. In fact I've heard the judges say that explicitly in court.

And I've never heard a lawyer not say that family court was terrible, and yet, none of them will do a damn thing to reform it.

My father had read many studies that told him that children don't do as well without a father, so he made sure that he was a regular part of our lives even after my parents divorced. My mother was similarly aware that unrelated men are more likely to abuse children, so she waited until we were older to date. While divorce is sad, I am SO grateful my parents made these decisions, especially knowing peers who had absent fathers or mothers who let a parade of abusive damaging boyfriends into their lives. Let's just say I'm much better adjusted than some of these people.

"Smart".

Y'know what'd be "smart"? Here's what would be "smart".

What'd be smart would be if, when two self-righteous and cuntminded people paired incompetently, produced a baby, broke its heart, and then demanded further State adjudication of their infantile, egotistical pissfights, what would be "great" would be if the State took these fucktarded zombies out back and just beat the living shit out of them. I mean, really grind their sorry asses into the dirt. That would be "smart".

Eventually, after a few years of that, other people would begin to understand: Don't do that.

But today it's quite the reverse. In this discussion of the topic, and (by definition) every accountable one happening on the surface of the planet, only the adult perspective is being presented.

And these are adults who either (A) have their own bloodthirst resentments against the parents of their cohort who brutalized the family with divorce or (B) seek to maintain their white-wine cachet with the gay-marriage crowd or divorced straights. These people are grown-up in the worst possible sense: They'll do anything they can to make things more convenient for other adults, no matter how irresponsible and cowardly those adults might be...

Because the lesson they took from their own childhoods was that when an adult fucks over a child, even if the adult is the one most responsible for the kid's well-being, there's not a motherfucking thing the child can do about it.

So, whatever, right? Let's just give our grown-up friends, gay or straight, the illusion that their own shitpants impulses are the center of the universe, OK?

"Smart."

You should be ashamed for admiring this kind of wretchedness.

"You go into court and both sides are assumed to be good parents and want their children. If you believe the other parent is abusive, the onus is on you to prove it."

You'd think it was easily proven, but it isn't. Despite 2 independent agencies filing reports within 24 hours of each other and despite 3 kids who went to 3 separate schools (because of ages), speaking to different social workers and giving generally the same accounts of things going on inside a home, a judge felt that despite abuse being proven, the father's parental rights still outweighed the risk to the children. He ruled in favor of a restraining order but only when the children were with the mother. The father was still going to retain his visitation rights unsupervised for two full days a week. Despite pleas from the children that they were afraid of their father and that he was regularly abusing them and exposing them to pornography and sexual encounters with his then girlfriend. The father was not abusing the kids when they were with their mother but I supposed that was besides the point.

I know the above to be true because it was the case involving my children. While I keep hearing that the courts are prejudiced in favor of the mothers, it was not something I experienced. The Court and several different judges went above and beyond to be sure my ex's parental rights were protected. They did it at the expense of our kids. All I asked for, which was on the record, was that he agree to therapy and anger management. I was willing to attend therapy sessions with him.

People question abuse cases but don't know how much abuse is not always easily proven and when it is proven just how much you have to fuck up a kid before the state actually steps in. It's a shame because the kids are always the ones hurt the most and despite all of the parents crying that the court is out to get them, the kids, in the end, are the ones who get screwed.

"You'd think it was easily proven, but it isn't."

I don't know what happened in your case, but you did prove it, you say so yourself. What didn't happen was the judge ruled in your favor. That's completely different.

The alternative, what happens now, is that one side is presumed guilty, and then go try and prove a negative. You can't.

"Despite 2 independent agencies filing reports within 24 hours of each other and despite 3 kids who went to 3 separate schools (because of ages), speaking to different social workers and giving generally the same accounts of things going on inside a home, a judge felt that despite abuse being proven, the father's parental rights still outweighed the risk to the children. He ruled in favor of a restraining order but only when the children were with the mother. The father was still going to retain his visitation rights unsupervised for two full days a week. Despite pleas from the children that they were afraid of their father and that he was regularly abusing them and exposing them to pornography and sexual encounters with his then girlfriend. The father was not abusing the kids when they were with their mother but I supposed that was besides the point."

Jerry, it was a little more complex than I could fit here in a few paragraphs but my point was more that it took a lot to prove even a small part. Not all was proven and even with what was proven and the testimony of the kids, it still didn't go against him, and it should have. I wasn't trying to use the kids against him and I think the judge saw that as well because I asked for things to be put into place so that the kids would have their father in their life.

That kind of court case takes a toll, especially on the kids, and any parent who would make false accusations and put their kids through what my kids had to go through just to stick it to an ex deserves their own special place in hell.

Jerry, it was a little more complex than I could fit here in a few paragraphs but my point was more that it took a lot to prove even a small part. Not all was proven and even with what was proven and the testimony of the kids, it still didn't go against him, and it should have. I wasn't trying to use the kids against him and I think the judge saw that as well because I asked for things to be put into place so that the kids would have their father in their life.

That kind of court case takes a toll, especially on the kids, and any parent who would make false accusations and put their kids through what my kids had to go through just to stick it to an ex deserves their own special place in hell.

That kind of court case takes a toll, especially on the kids, and any parent who would make false accusations and put their kids through what my kids had to go through just to stick it to an ex deserves their own special place in hell.

I absolutely agree with you on this -- and of course, I wish you and your kids the best.

"The legal system doesn't *care* about anyone personally. It doesn't know you. The judges and lawyers don't know you, and everyone lies to them, so they don't believe you even if you're honest...The court exists to keep us all from dueling each other to the death."

This is so true, and people need to stop personalizing it. The court doesn't KNOW you, doesn't have time to get to know you, and the court is suspicious of claims of abuse because almost every warring couple makes those charges.

All the court knows is that these people who once professed to love each other enough to have children now despise each other for a multitude of reasons too complex and distorted to get into.

All the court knows is that the kids have a home, so it tries to keep them IN IT (even if that means "Daddy's money" pays for it). All the court knows is that a certain amount of assets were aquired during the marriage (even if Daddy thinks they're all "his" because he was working outside the home), so the court tries to divide them in such a way that maintains the children's way of life.

Honestly, it's not personal or really gender based. Men perceive they get screwed more often because men more often are the breadwinners, but the court views marriage as a partnership, which is as it should be. The court can't quantify each side's contributions or faults.

So, marry someone you trust. Don't have kids until you're absolutely sure you trust them and the marriage is on solid ground, and then if things still go wrong, accept your part in the matter and do what's best for your kids.

Actually, the whole 50/50 thing annoys me, as a child advocate and a parent. Too often, I see kids split down the middle in Solomonesque fashion - spending a half the week at moms, half at dad's. It works for some, but it's confusing and destabalizing for others.

Imagine if you had to have two homes like that. What if you longed to be in the more comfortable bed, or you wanted to see your kitty cat?

Parenting isn't 50/50. It never is, even when parents are together. Sometimes, a kid really needs to be with mom. Sometimes, a kid really needs to be with dad. Good parents work that out accordingly. They don't keep score and they don't watch the clock...because good parents understand than when a kid needs really needs one or the other, the time alotment isn't what counts. 15 mins with dad when it's REALLY needed can mean more than 24 hrs with mom when it isn't.

I find parents who obsess over the clock and absolute equality are usually the worst.

Thanks, Jerry. LS, I didn't take it personally. I understand that the court system has so much to wade through. Even in the absence of lies there is still two or three or even four sides to a story. My complaint with the court was how hard they worked to protect the parental rights of a man who was abusing his children. It was acknowledged that the Judge believed all of the allegations and that he sympathized with my kids for having to tell their story to so many different strangers over and over again. Yet, he still was going to send them back unsupervised to their father with no order of therapy, anger management or anything. I didn't take it personally but it still isn't easy to trust the system after that.

That's sounds like a terrible judge, Kristen. Did you have a guardian ad litem? Usually the courts bend over backwards to keep kids away from abusers if the abuse has been proven, which, if the judge believed the allegations, the evidence must've been there.

What's sad is that the false charges of abuse - those that are made out of spite or to try to win custody - make it tougher to prove the legitimate cases.

My point is that even when there isn't abuse, 50/50 isn't always best for kids. Usually, in every couple, one is the better day-to-day parent - or the "kid person".

I'm grateful my ex realized this person was me, not him. Divorce brings out the competitiveness in people, and he toyed with going after custody, until I called his bluff and said he could have them any time he wanted. Truth is, he didn't want them. It would've driven him (and them) crazy! In our case, it would've been terrible for the kids. They much prefer doing the fun things with him (taking trips, dining out etc), and having me be the hands on day-to-day parent.

If both parents are equally hands on and competent, then 50/50 can work, but I often see parents who weren't as involved before suddenly try to be super involved after divorce, and this is usually more about them, or keeping score with the ex, than what is best for the kids.

Yes, LS, we had a Law Guardian for the kids. I should clarify that initially, the Judge ordered the restraining order but was allowing unsupervised visitation. I appealed that and received the supervision. My ex fought it for 8 months and did not see the kids because in his words, he wanted to avoid any further "false allegations."
The Court really worked hard to protect his parental rights. I wasn't trying to take away his rights. I was trying to get him to not abuse our children. Unfortunately all of the anger management and therapy in the world doesn't help unless the abuser wants to acknowledge that he's an abuser and wants to change. Really, the courts can't force that part.
Still, as you say, there is a lot of score settling between parents and the courts get caught up in that. It is unfortunate because the kids lose out on having two parents who can both love them and be there for them.

@MonicaP:
Oh, please. The poverty rates for single mothers are ridiculously high. Even the middle- to upper middle-class women I know who get child support are struggling.

A divorce takes the resources that previously operated one household and splits them between two households. There is no way you can do this and not have every member of the previous family suffer a reduction in standard of living. And the family has the additional burden of legal expenses they would not have incurred had there been no divorce.

For women to expect to divorce their husband and still have the same standard of living as before is delusional. For most their new life will not be like the single women they see in movies. Unless they are a professional with a good income, they are going to be poor. And, unless their husband is a professional, he will be poor. Beyond that, your children's prospects are going to be less bright, and the lower your social economic status before the divorce, the more all these effects are going to be amplified.

People really need to think it through before they get married and/or have kids. Unless you are sure you want to live with that person for the rest of your life, don't do either.

The Hollywood/romance novel story where you get divorced and then have the carefree life of a single mom & cougar until you meet the hunky millionaire who saves the day is a fairy tale designed to sell tickets to gullible women. The quality man you can attract peaks in your early 20s and by the time you are 30 and have a few kids, your sexual market value has plummeted from that peak. Chances are, you can't do better than the guy you are married to now. If he has a job and is not abusive, he is the best deal you are likely to get.

"The quality man you can attract peaks in your early 20s and by the time you are 30 and have a few kids, your sexual market value has plummeted from that peak. Chances are, you can't do better than the guy you are married to now. If he has a job and is not abusive, he is the best deal you are likely to get."

That's completely untrue. It all depends on what one considers "quality". True, if a woman is looking for a handsome billionaire, it's likely unrealistic because she'll have much hotter competition (unless she's still quite hot herself - and there are those women), but a good man with a good heart and strong ethics can still be found.

My mother remarried a wonderful man in her 70s. They have such a sweet, loving relationship. I, myself, just remarried last year in my late 40s, and I've never been happier.

Telling women they're "unmarketable" is the type of tactic abusers use to keep women trapped in relationships, believing they can't do any better.

The reality is that almost anybody can do better these days if they're being mistreated or neglected, so spouses need to value each other, make their relationships the top priority, and work to make things satisfying. If most people invested half the time towards making their relationships better as they do making excuses for not doing so, there'd be far fewer divorces.