Here is the 18th in a series of Divorce Corp polls. Please vote only once.
[polldaddy poll=7999312]
And here are the results with accuracy +/- 3%
The old model of division of labor is fading away and being replaced with equality.
Get email notifications of
new blog posts and updates:
I just hate that arrogant psychologists and judges argue about splitting up the time they know nothing and need to just butt out and leave each good parent equal time.
Check out the research at LW4SP.org
If they are equally good parents, a parenting schedule wont matter. Being rigidly affixed to a schedule doolled out by outsiders is ridiculous.
I agree Mary! Parents who are equally sane and putting their kids first are not the ones ending up in court for years.
I agree but will not happen they make too much money off of these cases and even cause ongoing conflict and separation. Need to look at the grant funds being used in these cases.
The courts put some of the most inexperienced judges in domestic relations cases. The purpose is not to harm children, but rather, to help make wealthy a particularly greedy and typically dishonest, malevolent, trash-talking group of sociopaths (divorce lawyers). The more
parental conflict they create, the more money they make. Meaning, their income is in direct proportion to the harm they do to children. Don’t let a divorce lawyer alone with your young child for even a few seconds, especially if there are sharp objects or blunt instruments in the vicinity. I get the lawyers, and the custody evaluators (who earn up to $25,000.00 for trafficking and helping to harm a single child–i.e., by producing a boilerplate report, often where the reported facts do not at all warrant the conclusions or recommendations). What I do not get is why do the judges go along with the lawyers and the custody evaluators?? They receive plenty of pay (185k/yr.) and most are probably not being bribed by the firms. Are they dim witted and easily manipulated, or just malicious and sadistic??
Judges are not appointed by the court they are elected by the voters
When you go to vote, do you know anything about the judges on the ballot? Is information posted about them in the newspaper? Are they covered in the local news? No, you’d be hard pressed to find real information about these judges prior to their election.
In my experience, the nature of divorce is that at least one parent has decided that their own needs are more critical than the needs of their own children. “Caring” scenarios make it to court less frequently and need to fall down the list as a DC reform priority. Family courts are dominated by an entitled generation that needs concise, well defined rules to keep them in line.
That said, the best interest of a child is access to both parents. The amount of time with the parents is secondary to how safe, secure and loved the child feels. 50/50 is not paramount in scenarios where parental alienation isn’t occurring. However, family court is a dumb, brainless system many steps below the DMV and therefore needs oversimplified rules (like 50/50 custody) to reduce the havoc they are creating in people’s lives.
Well Said Patrick
Clay I’m sorry if the court system abused their power when you got divorce. In today’s court system the people getting the worst treatment are not the men. I am a handicap female paying child support to an airline pilot. I’ve been court Ordered to not talk to my children until they are eighteen years old
Everyone knows fathers are shit on in family court. Polls like this will do nothing. The only cure is to remove the money from the equation and until that happens, we are all ’tilting at windmills’. Money turns women evil and they use their own children to steal it with the help and support from the corrupt court system. They get a cut of all that money. Remove the money.
We MUST REMOVE THE MONEY FROM THEIR CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A poem for fathers:
Time Dripping
Any city park, Sunday lunch time.
Watch the single fathers with their children drag themselves through the false hours in a frantic panic of children’s activities.
The build up. The all-week anticipation, and then the excitement of finally being with them.
Time dripping-
Too fast. Decaying.
The countdown begins again at each reunion.
Watch the clock as every second is measured and weighed in the balance of loss, loosing, going away and fading.
Time dripping-
Everything must be crammed into this space.
Did I forget anything? Do you still remember me?
Time dripping-
Life in an hour.
Love in a measured fragment of state permitted time.
Feed the ducks. Again.
‘Mc-dad’ at McDonalds. Where else do you go?
Time dripping-
Fleeting like a hand waving from a train I want to be on, forever leaving this nightmare behind.
Life now divided not in chapters, but in precious few state ‘allotted’ minutes.
Time dripping-
Flickering like a candle. And what burns are the few minuets there are left.
Memories of yesterday still fresh on my mind.
We came here a lot. It made you smile.
Time’s up-
I’m forced to say goodbye again but I can’t.
Give you- back?? To whom? You’re already home!
Please remember, I love you…
Time dripping-
Again.
Once again my tenacity to the change this is crime and help our children is fortified.
Jamie I agree it’s a criminal what our legal system is doing. I’d be happy to help you. I think it’s time to take our children and country back. This situation can no longer be tolerated. Not only have our children been KID-napped, but the system is abusing them for money.
Shared
I believe that IF both parents are FIT and able to care for the kids… they should NOT need an order to be in place. Unfortunately the UNFIT parents see themselves as FIT… and that is how the lawyers and courtrooms jump in and financially and emotionally steal time and money from the FIT parents/children, and the in the end, the children suffer forever..
I’m with u, Stan….WHO had the right to make such a decision when both parents are willing and able? I am floored at the decisions some of these Judges make on the “best interest of the child”. We wonder why Family Court is an overburdened nightmare and this is why!!! Also, giving one parent power over the other parent is entirely unfair! NO parent deserves to go through this.
Absolutely Kelli, I agree….giving full authority to one parent over the other does not and cannot work. It instantly devalues that parent and teaches the child to do the same. And as the poll question states, if both parents are fit and loving and thinking of the best interest of their child, then there would be no need for a “parenting” schedule in the first place. However, in the real world, there is always one parent who is selfish and thinks or believes the child(ren) belong to them and they alone should have all say so….and the current court system supports and promotes that model. Once there is equal and shared custody and parental rights down the line, that levels the playing field and greatly reduces any vengeance fighting and underhanded tactics…once one parent realizes they cannot do harm to the other thru legal tactics, then that virtually eliminates the incentive to fight, which would inherently reduce court litigation, consequently reducing the need for judges, lawyers, etc….and well, we know they won’t give that up without a fight….its a sad time we live in.
I agree Kelly, but, it’s not just the Judges. The mediators, after their “so called thorough evaluation with Mom, Dad, and kids” come up with this crazy schedule and then usually the judge will rule on what this so called “Expert Mediator” recommends. I have about a 50/50 schedule….well it was 51% mom and 49% me??? I don’t get that, except it does give one parent a little more control over the other. Not Fair, and all decisions need to be made by both parents.
My schedule was so complicated, I have to rewrite my parenting time in my daily planner so I would know when I would be having my kids on a weekly basis, and, of course, all Holidays!!!
Thank goodness after 6 years post divorce 2 of my children decided to move in with me full time and mom didn’t object. I try to get them to spend as much time as they want, but they seem content with our new schedule. My 3rd children still goes back and forth. They are now all in high school and almost ready to be out in the real world and can make their own decisions.
Not all parents are equal and present. Unfortunately some parents are not capable of seeing nor able to put the needs of their children above their own which makes for disjointed parenting between two individuals. Children need consistency and structure. If two people can truly cooperate that would be optimal but rarely the case.
By default, the custody and parenting time should be 50/50.
Unfortunately, location is often a problem. When splitting assets and property, finding 2 homes in the same area that used to only provide for 1 home with combined income, can be very tricky.
So if the parents cannot find affordable housing in an area that allows them to get their kids to school and then get to their jobs within a realistic amount of time, it doesn’t make sense to go with a 50/50 plan. Both parents may be excellent parents, but the distance time income formula may cause the 50/50 time to become unrealistic. If children could go to 2 schools at a time and their grades and work were transferable, that would better allow for a 50/50 split when distance is involved.
Has anyone considered the children in this situation?
Right, what do the kids want. My children told me it wasn’t the divorce that bother them. In fact, they seemed quite ok with it. What bother them was they could not see each other much as a result. That’s what they thought sucked.
Some people believe its better for the kids to be most with one parent than the other. Some believe its better to be 50/50. Just from my own experience, I do believe the kids are more adjusted, are more secure about themselves when it is 50/50. In general, kids want to be with their parents, specially a parent that offers them security, love, protection, etc.
Having said that, there are multiple scenarios. I know people that just leave their kids and start their own life. Even when they get 50%, they just leave and go somewhere else. I also know some people who started with 50%, or anytime they wanted to see the kids. Only to see them get remarried, their new spouse hating the kids, so eventually the kids stayed away. I also know people who adore their kids, but can not see them because of this ridiculous rules.
In my case, my ex-wife remarried, and eventually kicked out my daughter. This is not regular kid, very moral, honor student, etc. So she came to live with me, and ex-wife gave her the cold treatment, not calling her, seeing her, or coming to her events.
We had a lot of family issues. Mediators attempted to resolve things by shoving things down my throat, bullying me with money issues, etc. But they were lawyers, they are trained to do that. They could careless about the family needs. I wanted an actual family counselor to resolve this issues, but of course lawyers did not allow it. Probably not in their best interest. Eventually even a judge told me having a toxic divorce was normal…
So in the end, family relationships are dynamic, but I think they should start 50/50, then go from there. Realizing things will change, and sometimes it will be 30/70, or 70/30, whatever. It depends on your situation. But starting 50/50 you give the kids a better shot at maintaining a good relationship with both parents, and having well adjusted and secure kids.
Both parents have to grow up, and put their kids first. But you do have some parents that are selfish and don’t want to do this. They want the kids, the money, and get rid of the other parent. In this case, it is obvious a parent like this should not have custody.
For the best interest of the children, and you can ask older children if this applies, and I can guarantee it does! When they have to pack up, move, drive, alternate it causes confusion and instability. If the primary care giver was the “mother” or the “father” it should remain that way. It doesn’t mean “custody” is taken from one or the other, it is horribly wrong to move and shuffle around, parents need to see this, but when you are dealing with an abusive spouse control is their game NOT the best interest of the children. Bottom line when shuffling becomes a normal, it’s not!
I know a number of parents who share custody equally without “confusion” for the children. Perhaps some families are not able to work it out, but for those who can, there is no “confusion”.
I have my kids a little more than every two weeks. They have a full wardrobe at my house. They only thing they bring is their school bag. There is no confusion, or shuffling.
You bring up the issue of a controlling and abusive ex-spouse. I think that IS an issue.
Nope. You are wrong. COMPLETLY WRONG DAMN IT ! How come you never hear a father say this crap???
Because, as a woman, it is to your advantage to keep dad at only 4 days per month right? Lots more play money coming your way every month.
Shame on you! Typical female and just one of the reasons why we have the corrupt court system. I’ll bet your ex would say that YOU were the abusive one and there is no doubt about it when you won’t allow the FAIR 50/50 split!
Unbelievable what you females get away with!
Neither is a good choice.
How about the kids stay in their home and the parents move out!!!
Let the judge set up a schedule of when each parent is responsible for
residing in the home and caring for the children.
If anyone should have their lives screwed up it should be ;the parents.
I think you need a third option on this questionnaire.
Probably so. But where do the parents live when they are not in the family home? Do they need 3 residences in total?
There would only be one marital home consistent with the marital income and lifestyle. It belongs to the children until the children are emancipated. Each parent would then need only a studio apartment, a room in a boarding house, to reclaim their bedroom in the grandparent’s home, or to stay with their new paramour when not parenting. This keeps the dating relationships out of the children’s house. When and if one parent feels that time with the new paramour is more important than parenting, the children are still in their own house and the other parent can be there more often. If the repartnered parent wants to live with the paramour – you now have 2 adults with presumably 2 incomes to now purchase a new residence and perhaps now “support” for the parent remaining in the marital home can be considered, if needed.
This is really very interesting, and probably a great solution for a number of families. But it probably would not work for everyone due to the added expense of the parents needing two extra places to live (and that would not be possible for the poor). But it’s a great idea and should be adopted by more people. Thanks
There is no way I would leave my possessions home alone in a house where my ex-wife lives. My items would be sold to pawnshops or on eBay so fast. Of course I would have to prove she took my stuff and I didn’t just lose it. No thank you.
I never thought of that, that’s a good idea let the kids stay in the house and let the parents shuffle around
I’m pretty sure if the courts stopped favoring women for child custody for payment…there would be way fewer women even wanting their children.
Absolutely for a fact…
I believe that we should teach men and women “what works and what doesn’t work” so that there is no more divorce, or at least aim for a much lower divorce rate. These parents get together and life is good, they pop out one or more kids and then they run into a few bumps and throw it all away.
All the bullshit that we’ve been fed about relationship over the past 60 years doesn’t work. It’s not that difficult to have a successful “Long Term Committed Relationship” and it’s sure a hell of a lot better for the kids. Forget the 50/50, 90/10, 60/40 split and who spends time with the kids, how about 100/100 until the kids are at least 18 yrs and they don’t need mom and dad anymore?
A poll is one thing but the reality is that it is a scientific fact based on hundreds of research studies that equal custody and time with each parent is far superior for children. Dr. Warren Farrell, after 13 years of research, proved sole custody is child abuse. Of course excepting physically abusive parents. Children in sole custody homes have 14.600% more problems – that’s 146 TIMES more!! Just a fact. Many of the statistics are here: http://fathersunite.org/statistics_on_fatherlessnes.html
What many don’t know is that all 50 states get kickbacks on child support under SSA Title IV-D. This federal funding effectively bribes every judge in the U.S. to separate children form parents to get literally BILLIONS annually from the federal government. That;s your tax dollars hard at work to create destruction of families and children. Teen suicide, crime, drugs, teen pregnancy, mass shootings, even over 50% of mental health are literally CAUSED BY judges granting as much as 91% (Massachusetts) sole custody! Call your U.S> Senator and Representative and demand this funding stop or only be given when equal custody is granted in the majority of cases.
My experience was 50:50, ruled only after a forced 730 eval, the judge’s knee-jerk ‘I don’t want to work at this and you have 10 minutes’ courtroom attitude, and though the other parent traveled so much for work that he asked me for SCORES of changes to the parenting plan for eight years until our daughter was like a Mexican jumping bean two days here, three days there. By the end of middle school she didn’t want to schlepp back and forth any more, carrying all of her school stuff, as she needed the peace and continuity of just one household. I’d been a SAHM all her life, was dealing with a dangerous and law-breaking N/P and most definitely still believe in the tender years doctrine for the real best interests of the child, as mine’s now living an entirely counter-culture lifestyle including drugs, truancy, slipping grades and reduced college chances. All in the name of buddy-buddy. And all because the only thing that ultimately mattered when she turned 14 was whom she liked more.
Nobody would expect that a parent should only see their child 4 days per month when they are married, society would say “You are derelict in your parental deities, the kids need their parents more than that”! Nevertheless, somehow, whenever a woman wants out of her marriage, everyone and I do mean EVERYONE (except the father and the children that is) are suddenly ok with Dad seeing his kids only 4 days out of the month?!?!? That is because he will have to pay mommy-support with that little amount of visitation time.
Come on people, you cant have it both ways JUST so you can get at Fathers money for the next 18 years! You really hate you kids that much to get at his money???
Nobody really including women, believes this is fair but women get away with it because the fantastically corrupt court enables them to. And why is that? Because the corrupt family court gets a cut of all those billions each and every year.
Yes, it really is all about the money’ and the kids welfare be damned!
I WANT THAT DAMN MONEY!!!!!!!!!!
A letter to a future daughter-in-law, possibly my own:
A few years from now you’re probably going to want to marry my son. Perhaps you already do; he’s kind of hot (if I’m allowed to notice) and his potential is quite obvious, if I do say so myself. He’s only twenty, handsome and well built, and when he lets is hair grow long it’s thick and wavy. He has his father’s beautiful eyes, and my dimples look much better on him than they ever looked on me. Also, he’s in the military; he has finished his deployment and doesn’t expect to go overseas again, so he’s now preparing to start earning college credits. I don’t hover so I’m not certain, but he’s probably going to major in engineering. Or possibly actuarial science. He surfs, rides a motorcycle and a mountain bike, and he maintains a classic car. He’s essentially a decent guy; pretty much everyone likes him or loves him, and respects him. Girls hit on him regularly.
I’ll be surprised if he ever marries though. You see, his plan is to wait until he’s at least thirty, and therefore he will spend the next decade meeting, dating, working with, and probably sleeping with, the product of sixty years of American feminism. I’m pretty sure he won’t find many women worth considering for marriage.
How about we look at it from his perspective, m’kay? Here’s what he sees:
Half of you have been raised without your fathers, yet only a few of your fathers deserved to be kicked out of your lives. You were raised by the women who kicked your fathers out, and perhaps by a string of step-dads and “uncles.” Those women, your mothers, taught you their values by example. Not an auspicious start. Most of the rest of you were raised by fathers who knew damn well that if they displeased your mothers, they too could be kicked out of your lives according to your mothers’ whims. They knew full well who had the real power in the family; they quietly accepted that “mother knows best.”
You were raised in a culture that permits, even encourages, women and girls to always push for more; not necessarily to do more or earn more, but to demand more and to expect more. You were punished far less severely for your transgressions than were your male peers. Indeed your female peers egged you on to be even naughtier, and to be defiant about it. It’s Grrrl Power, after all! The boys of your acquaintance were expected to give in to your shenanigans and your shit tests, and those who didn’t were labeled “problem children” and medicated. Usually, a boy’s best bet was to shut up and grovel, and maybe win your approval. They weren’t allowed to go around offending the Special Snowflakes, were they?
You were raised in a Disney Princess Culture, where every girl is entitled to her Prince Charming. And if she can’t find one, she has the Grrrl Power to kiss any old frog and transform him into a Prince. You were raised to be a slut, at least through your twenties. Go to college. Establish a career. Don’t get married until your late twenties or early thirties, but DO NOT under any circumstances, repress your sexuality. Your foremothers fought hard for your right to be promiscuous with no consequences; don’t you dare let their efforts go to waste.
And since you’re not looking for a husband, there’s no need to sleep with only “good” men, is there? Cuz badboyz r hawt! And nice guys are boring. And hell, you have plenty of time to ride the best cocks you can find – thanks to modern medicine, you can get pregnant after menopause if you want, so there’s no hurry. You are expected to waste your youth and your beauty on hot guys who treat you like shit, then give your leftovers to the guy you’ll promise to love, honor and cherish for the rest of your life. Wow! How lucky is he!
My son looks around and he sees bitchy, arrogant, malicious women. He sees spoiled greedy women. He sees financially irresponsible women. He sees lazy, undisciplined women. (Yes, even in the military; they had to lower the standards so more women could “serve.”) He sees overweight women wearing unflattering clothes that display muffin tops and rolls of fat, who drool over his biceps while telling him that “looks shouldn’t matter.”
He sees slutty women who dress to attract men, sleep with the hot ones, and denigrate the less attractive ones by calling them “creepy.” He sees “competitive” professional women whose primary tools for getting ahead are affirmative action and the unspoken threat of sexual harassment lawsuits. He sees demanding women who expect men to bow and scrape for the privilege of a smile. He sees utterly irrational women whose “self-esteem” is obscenely disproportionate to their proven worth. He sees entitled women who expect romantic dates and expensive gifts, yet have absolutely nothing of value to contribute to a relationship. He sees women who flirt with their hopeful, geeky JustFriends, juuuust barely enough to keep them on a string while simultaneously panting after Alpha Hotteies, then run crying back to those Just Friends after being pumped and dumped by said Hotties. “Oh, why can’t more men be nice like you?” (Answer: if they were, no woman would fuck them.)
Look around you, ladies. You see the very same women, don’t you? Many of you are these women. You think this is normal and acceptable because “everybody does it.” It’s not.
There’s something you should know about my son and his peers. They’re not gay, they’re not lazy, they’re not stupid, they’re not unambitious, and they’re not weak. They’ve merely figured you out. They know that you don’t give a rat’s ass about them, and that you see them as nothing but providers and fantasy sex objects. They are wise to the game and they’re done playing by your rules.
They have the same job titles as you and they take home the same pay, but they work longer hours and they do harder work; they know that their productivity is why employers can afford to hire you to sit a desk and shuffle papers. They know that if two drunk people have sex and both regret it the next morning, only one of them is a rapist. They know that “My Body/My Choice” actually means “My/Body/My Choice/Your Wallet.” They know that the minute they sign a marriage license, everything they own is yours, but nothing you own is theirs (except your debts) and you can walk away with cash and prizes, at any time, for any reason. Or for no reason at all.
They’re calling Bullshit.
A few years from now, you’ll begin asking yourself, “Where have all the good men gone?” You’ll look down your noses at all those guys playing video games and living like frat boys in cheap apartments, and you’ll just know that they could be “doing so much better for themselves,” if only they would “Man Up.” You’ll shake your heads in wonder at their “immaturity,” or their “wasted potential.” Here’s a little secret. Yes, a few men are immature or weak; they’ve had the masculinity abused or medicated out of them, mostly by their single mothers and grandmothers. But most of them?
They no longer give a rat’s ass about you.
That’s right. They don’t need to work hard and earn a good living. They have no intention of fathering and supporting any children, and no desire whatsoever to earn your approval. You go buy your own four-bedroom colonial in just the right subdivision. That’s what your Grrrl Power is for, isn’t it? So you don’t need a man? Many of these men will even go so far as to quit their jobs as soon as they begin to “earn a good living.” They don’t want to make enough money to pay taxes. They don’t want to pay the salaries of millions of useless (and mostly female) government employees, and they don’t want to finance the personal choices of “Empowered Women.”
Those Empowered Women can buy their own damn birth control. These men refuse to feed your Beast. And you, and your government, and your church, can’t cajole them or shame them into giving a shit. Men are dropping out, ladies. Chivalry has died of blunt force trauma, in a beatdown administered by Grrrl Power. Your mothers, your grandmothers, your schools, your family courts, your sociology professors, have spent the last two generations telling men that they are unnecessary and unwelcome. And now they’re leaving. (Although they’ll be glad to fuck you while you’re young and hot, since you’re offering. Aaaaand then they’ll move on to younger and hotter sluts. Why the hell not? It’s free.)
This is the gift that feminism has given to you: Independence. Scary, lonely, bitter, potentially impoverished Independence. For yourselves and any children you may have. Most of you won’t blame feminism though; you’ll blame Male Privilege (which doesn’t exist.) You’ll blame The Patriarchy (which always gave women a better deal than it gave men.) You will stamp your feet, flip your hair, and blame anything except the single cultural force that has devoted itself to suppressing and controlling masculinity. And you’ll go home alone every night to your cats, your Facebook Friends, and your vibrators. I sure hope that’s what you want.
Sincerely,
A Mom.
A letter to my daughter:
Your generation is completely engrossed in the media; a constant stream of photoshop jobs that have digitally perfected the body that the doctors couldn’t fix with silicone. Million dollar sexy ad campaigns inflating females onto a pedestal that the starring actresses themselves can’t pretend to achieve.
You are about to embark on a fantastic journey where love takes a backseat to power. And sex is power. Regardless of what you even look like! Yep. Guys are young and horny and naïve to your grasp of their..ugh..stock portfolio. Live the high life. You are entitled to it.
You’ll have good years giving into the pleasure of being in the driver’s seat. You will be a princess. You’ll need to give very little in return. Sometimes the mere promise that you’ll promise something in the future is enough! He’ll jump through flaming hoops for you. It will almost be like being that famous rock star. Almost.
Then slowly it will occur to you that you’ve built a house of cards; that your whole world is sitting on the foundation that you will be young and beautiful forever. But isn’t beauty who we are — not what we look like? Wait. The guys aren’t biting. They’ve been told for decades that it’s all about being sexy and being in control. You taught them well. Maybe a bit too well.
As it turns out the media also has it’s take on men. Did we forget to mention the media is controlled by men? Sorry girls. Back when you were sixteen and taking it all in as the guide for happiness you didn’t bother to notice the spoiler: the sixty year old men in the movies still get the hot twenty year olds. Yep. Somehow that snuck up on you. The tables turned.
You’ll do anything to get your power back but you are just a statistic; another woman with little to give who has created a generation of men trained to look for the hot ones. And you are no longer hot despite the promise of the surgeries and never ending shelves of creams. In fact, it’s worse. You are depressed and on medication and angry at the world because someone didn’t notice you just because you bought a pocket dog.
Where have the good guys gone? You didn’t want them. You took curtain number two: it was shinier. The old reliable guy was swept up eons ago by some forgotten unnoticeable girl you once knew. You could look her up on Facebook but she actually figured out happiness back when it wasn’t vogue so she doesn’t live her life through social media. She lives life.
Of course, the media has also swept away any notion that your elders know anything. Why listen to someone old and wrinkly when you have so many people to text. But so few actually text back. Hmm.
You can’t quite put your finger on it but this letter means something. Maybe you’ll print it out, stick it in some folder and cry over it when you are forty-two, divorced and alone wondering why you didn’t simply take the time to listen when you were younger.
You’ll eventually see that me leaving your mother because she felt she deserved both a married, live-in child caretaker and a boyfriend may have been an excessive request. Maybe dad wasn’t really the selfish man you’ve been taught about when he was forcibly removed from your life. Maybe he had some right to be fed up with her ego.
Maybe if you act just like your mom you’ll meet the same fate; desperately swinging from man to man while praying to God to magically deliver stuff so that she doesn’t actually have to do anything.
Or you can learn from your mother’s mistakes, get your nose out of the TV and live life.
A dad
Bottom line, no judge, no scientist no anybody but the parents of a child themselves can over the life of the child determine how to best handle their own child – they have to be the ones to ultimately figure it our and work it out. If this is not the case why don’t we just establish Government “birthing facilities” so every new born can immediately be turned over to the gov’t to service every possible need. They can just TAX the parents according to number of children — as they claim to know how to do everything better than they very people that brought the individual into the world????
Sounds crazy of course ——— but isn’t it what the divorce courts are doing right now? Some judge that doesn’t know the individual child from a hole in the wall NOR the real day to day factors of the child’s living situation, personality etc —- plus being someone that ultimately has ZERO vested interest in the that “individual child’s” future life today makes those determinations.
Things like who the child should associate with, for how long and in what manner? It is all craziness when you look at in full light – Parenting is a RESPONSIBILITY that people elect to take on — it is part and parcel to the condition of BEING HUMANS – let them Keep their responsibility — in the long run society will be much better off. Because right now in the effort to try can control every little nuance the courts are destroying far more families than they are helping.
Given the incompetency of the court system and the plethora of court-sanctioned ‘experts’, the only solution for this is 50-50 joint custody much like no-fault accidents and no-fault divorce. There’s so much corruption that the system must be stopped.
As long as policy and the federal government incentivize the most efficient financial model for families in distress, there is nothing anyone can do. There are too many business and government agencies that rely on their share and quotas as a purpose of their existence. The courts themselves would shrink by 77% if divorce was returned to common law and out of the statutory law spectrum. It is unfortunate that due to the way that the legal system interprets the law is only and simply one that is always going to be contentious with issue of families and the type of formations that are possible. There are a number of policitcal reasons to avoid family court judges, the priimary being they are not arbitars of logic or common sense but dispensers of policy. Their own rationals hidden behind the mask of total immunity both from argument, debate or a legal attack.
Collectively our children suffer so much and the manipulation of human behavoir by these courts is consistently tantamount to treason and betrayal of all our children. Many tend to focus on their own individual needs and aspirations, yet we must consider the outlook for the children of this system. Those children who are living their reality of what life is about is an imposed on, and one that has a payback in the future. We no longer live in a pay it forward society.
The only thing that I do know is that we all should consider the children first simply because the political rule is there is nothing more important to the public than the appearance that children are safe, and no culture ever has been more fooled than ours. The state has failed our children on a mass scale, both in education, outlook and a future. The rule is mommy will get 96% of absolute control over the children, if she choses otherwise the system is designed to make it 100%. There are few males who are not in a precarious position of just keeping the status quo of keeping mommy happy or else, amrried or unmarried, the status of which can and may change at anytime.
I did hear a pro divorce feminist proclaim that fathers should just dissappear, have little to do with their children and go form another family if that is their desire. But they must continue to pay for her children. That unfortunately is the legal mandate under US law, the children always belong to the mother and as a measure for further control also the state as a bonus.
” two capable and caring parents divorce” ???? This phrase should not be used. It is subject to too much interpretation. 50/50 child parenting should not depend upon both parents agreeing. If one parent diagrees, thinking they are superior or if there is money or egos at stake in the choice (which is often the case), it will be iompossible to get BOTH parents to agree. 50/50 child parenting should be the standard that deviates ONLY if a parent is found to be unfit, in the same way that Children’s Protective Services can assess a parent as unfit and therefore remove the child from the home. But the same standards should be used for divorced and married parents as to the government determining their fitness for parenthood. Married and unmarried parents should be treated the same in terms of the government removing their children from the home.. The same standards should be used. If money was not an issue, this question would not be asked.
Although it sounds good it’s not good for the child, my daughter’s stepdaughter went through that and she felt like a volleyball she was very unsettled bouncing from mom’s house one week to dad’s house the next week
One kid only (assuming you are even correct) does not mean we should change for everyone else!
You know it. You just want you way and as a female, you are used to getting it. Not with me you won’t!
The nature designed the living to depend and to need the mother. So the child should always stay with mother unless she does not have a natural instinct and is unfit. Alienating the child from the father falls in the category of being unfit. Even animals know that the more resources to raise the child, the higher the chances are for the child’s success.
Whoa!
What if mother kicks children out. Then what. Do you have any consequences for mother??
You lost me and every other REASONABLE person after “children should always stay with the mother”
Could you be anymore stupid and selfish?
And this from a female. Would could have guessed that?
IF it is in the best interest of the child(ren), then equal is unquestionably the better choice. Kids need both male & female mentors / role models. Much of the malaise in today’s society is due to the lack of such stability … and to the reprehensible arrogance of DNA donors who put their personal wants ahead of their child(ren)’s needs. No one, parent or not, has the right to weaponize a child. If the parents will work together for their kids, then they should be encouraged, not simply allowed, to do so.
I agree with the other comments. This question is predicated on parents who are both fit and caring, and the fact is that these are not the cases that get to court. Usually, the unfit parent refuses to compromise and threatens to take the children in retaliation. The vast majority of court cases involve domestic violence and abuse of the children. No one in their right mind would compromise and let a child be sent to an abuser and be harmed. However, the abusers have been well coached through Hate Groups like the “Screw the Bitch” crowd, and use those nefarious legal techniques as a means of power and control to further their abuse through misuse of the legal system. When faced with an opposing parent who will only agree to 100% of the time with him and zero child support, there is no option but court. The abusive unfit parent misuses the court to lie, manipulate, and destroy the fit parent and irreparably harm the child and the other parent. What has been uncovered, is that it is a scheme between judges, lawyers, and quasi-court officials to take all money from litigants. Usually the parent with the most money and connections win, no matter the evidence. On top of it, you have judges that show a total disregard for basic human and civil rights, and use children as tools of punishment in efforts to silence and break the fit parent. Abusive parents get custody because they have the money and connections — which is really the only thing the courts care about. Judges sit on their benches and bemoan the time they have to spend on cases, yet at the same time order unnecessary evaluations, supervisions, etc to all their cronies who they give special favors to in order that the people and organizations get money… and that money goes right back to the judges personal pockets because the judges sit on the boards of the organizations they send people to. It is very much a “cash for kids” scandal happening all across the country.
The question is poorly worded. Instead of “limited” visitation, it should read “liberal” visitation. No matter what time is granted by the court, the CP (when shared is not granted) has the liberty to provide as much time as the kid wants with the other parent. And that’s what two caring, capable parents go after…what the child needs to thrive.
We chose the wording carefully to reflect what many family courts order in terms of visitation schedules. Four overnights per month is limited. Thanks
In my situation, it would have been better for my children to spend most of their time with one parent. I do not think one person (the Judge) should have the sole “power” to make a decision on the lives of one family with children involved, whom they know nothing about, care to know nothing about, who also knows nothing about the dynamics and the “behind the scenes” ‘dirt’ that is thrown in the midst of a divorce.
…as long as that “one parent” is the father I don’t have a problem.
You, just by that statement, have already proven yourself unfit.
So, Clay, you have proven yourself judgmental and blameful without even knowing the facts and the details of my case.
I think this question is a bad question. It picks 2 extremes. I think that it depends on age of child but the visitation should be a lot. But it is better for consistency during school year to be at 1 house for overnight. But being with other parent til like 7pm or whatever works should be often. I am a graduate in Psychology of Children.
Another death in midst of divorce, this time it was my sons girlfriends mother, strangled. This hits about as close to home as it can. I am worried my estranged ex will also come out and kill me. It has changed my life and my goals. I am studying l.aw and helping others free of charge. Curren.tly working on 8 book ser..ies. .of the divorce industry, dynamics, IRS fraud, and other frauds common during divorce.
Ginny what state are you in?! Sorry to hear what has happened and what youre going through. I have my own legal story to tell…
I think we need to re-think the whole issue of marriage and divorce. First off, this is a personal, or family matter. The government needs to stay out of our personal lives. Marriage these days is basically treated what we used to call going steady. If one party become unhappy in anyway their outta there. Marriage was to be a life time commitment sanctioned by god. We have made it to easy to get a divorce. If a couple wants to get married they should be required to make a binding pre-nuptial agreement, and not just on property. Regarding children, they would be subject to the terms of the agreement until age 12, when the child will make the choice. This process all but eliminates divorce as we know it. It keeps the courts out of it other than to enforce the existing agreement if one should fail to comply. The agreement would also outline that personal and real property would be owned by the person that purchased it. This would be in line with what is now the societal norms, of man and women being equal. I’ve also heard the term, “the fit parent”, how is this determined? It’s now determined by a judge that is subject to their own values, preferences, and the social norms of the time. Once again, get the government out of your personal life. What one person values is not always what the other values, these are greatly influenced by what is called, “personal family value orientation”. Basically, how your parents raised you by their values. In addition, child support would be eliminated, the parent with primary custody would be responsible, however, with two responsible parents, any self respecting parent would want to take care of their child. It would no longer be a automatic paycheck for Mom or Dad. The way the courts work now they operate as they did in the 1950’s, where most women were not in the workforce, had little to no opportunities, and rarely attended college, they could not support themselves. As we all know women have come a long way, more women are now completing college than men, and they enjoy many special programs to assist them make better livings. Times have changed and how divorced is addressed has not. Many women, not all, have discovered that it is beneficial for them to get a divorce. They will more than likely get custody of the children, and receive large support payments, they receive half of their ex-husbands assets, including their retirement. And it is very common that she also gets their home. This is a pretty good deal for them so why not! The bottom line is, get the government out of marriage and divorce, stop rewarding for divorce, give children a choice, and make a mandatory pre-nuptial agreement before marriage. If couples understand that divorce is not beneficial to them they will be more careful about entering into marriage.
Less government is ideal.
I’m not too keen on the age 12 thing. There is a reason kids don’t become adults until age 18 – we don’t feel that they have the life experience to make their own decisions. What decision could be more critical than deciding to eliminate a parent? And eliminating a parent is a decision that headstrong parents want to see happen (actually with or without financial gain — another debate).
I agree that as children get older they should have more autonomy but divorce currently gives the kids the ultimate control: decide where to go and take the cash with you. Smart kids are leveraging the same process to get the toys they want by merely threatening to live with the other parent. Ridiculous!
Kids needs to have 50/50 access as a general rule. There is little guarantee that anyone: judges, parents or kids have any clue to which parent is “best”.
I agree. Take the profit out of divorce for the couple. Split marital assests 50/50 and child time 50/50, child costs should be provided by the parent having the child at that time (meaning no support to the other parent), parents should be expected to take care of themselves to the standard of living that they desire and both parents should share equally in the responsibilites and costs related to child rearing.
These false arguements that the woman needs financial support ignore the fact that most divorces are initiated by the woman. People should live the consequences of their own choosing and if they prefer a different outcome, then they should make a different choice.
When determining such important matters, courts should consider abuse: All TYPES of abuse, not just physical. Again, these matters should not be decided by ONE person (the Judge) who knows and cares to know anything about the dynamics of the people/family involved.
Kim, would you please explain what type of non-physical abuse you are referring to, and why it should influence the time a child gets to spend with a parent? Thanks
New Rules Proposed for Domestic Relations Courts:
1. Mandatory joint counseling and multiple (3) mediation sessions prior to any parent filing for divorce;
2. Family lawyers who block–or lie or file motions to prevent–mediation or ADR in child custody cases should be subject to disbarment, felony charges and up to five years of incarceration;
3. 50/50 parenting time should be ordered in all cases unless one parent has been convicted of a crime of physical violence against the child (this protects the child and his/her parents from endless, frivolous, destructive litigation);
4. Charges or allegations of domestic violence in the context of divorce/custody should be handled separately from and prior to any divorce or custody litigation, with both parents represented by counsel. No ex parte TPO hearings should ever be permitted, just as in criminal law. No protection order may contain restrictions on child/parent access or change in custody, especially if there is a pending divorce/custody case. Any divorce or custody action should be stayed until completion of the domestic violence issue (helping to eliminate use of domestic violence allegations to obtain a tactical advantage, and to protect children from the myriad of harms inflicted upon them from the use of tactical protection orders); lawyers found to have prepared and filed a tactical domestic violence complaint, or who encouraged a parent to do so, should be investigated and, if the lawyer’s complaint is found to be false, frivolous, or tactical, the lawyer should be disbarred (to deter this activity, and so the court can focus on the real DV cases);
5. lawyers for the child should represent the stated wishes of the child, not the child’s “best interests” (for lawyers, “best interests” of their client is a corrupting, unethical, and impossible standard), and there should be rigid protocol for how and when such lawyers pose such questions to children (included in such a query, the lawyer must first ask the child whether he/she wishes to have their time shared between the parents, so they understand this is an option; forcing a child to “choose” between parents should occur only when one parent has been convicted of a crime of violence against the child; otherwise, such a question is inappropriate and abusive to the child; if one parent has not seen the child for a long time due to divorce/custody litigation, then, to minimize any distortions caused by alienation, there should be equal access to the child for at least one month prior to such questions being asked;
6. There should be at least one male and one female judge presiding in a divorce/custody case to address anthropological gender bias; they should be among the most experienced and seasoned judges, who will not hesitate to report lawyers to the bar for lying in court, making false allegations or filing frivolous pleadings in domestic relations cases; preference should be given to judges who have been involuntarily subjected to divorce/custody litigation to preside; all family judges should have at least one year of judicial training in conflict analysis and conflict resolution, ideally in the family context; prospective family judges should be tested to determine if they have a healthy, natural revulsion to the concept of divorce/custody litigation, as any sentient human with compassion and empathy for children would or should have;
7. bar counsel should investigate the lawyer for any co-parent of young children who refuses to communicate with the other co-parent; if it is discovered that the lawyer caused this to happen or advised this, the lawyer should be removed from the case; if it was not the lawyer, the parents should be ordered into monitored communications, with a licensed social worker moderating and observing, to assess the reasons and possible remedies for non-communication;
8. Custody evaluators trained, e.g., in psychology should ask questions, take notes, and report factual observations; they are not trained as investigators or judges and are not qualified to and should never make recommendations or conclusions on access or custody, or otherwise usurp the parents’ or judges’ role; a custody evaluator who makes such recommendations should be removed from the case and investigated by the state psychology board and his/her report should be stricken, and any presiding judge who saw such a report should recuse themselves or be removed from the case; custody evaluators should never be proposed by a law firm or paid by one of the parents; they should not be used at all except in very rare cases, and they should be selected by a judge and paid by the court (not by a firm or party; parents would reimburse the court according to their present ability);
9. If a divorce/custody case goes to trial, the court must ensure that each parent is represented by counsel of relatively equal experience and stature starting from the pre-trial conference at the latest; it is the duty of the judge to level the playing field in terms of representation when the interests of children are at stake; if only one parent can afford counsel for a trial, the court has to find a solution to that problem so that each parent is adequately and ideally equally represented.
I think that psychologists should be limited to their findings. They should only be allowed to report if both parents are capable and fit to parent. Not which parent is better than the other,