Not Your Dad's Divorce

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: svxr8dr @ 12/31/2008 4:55:59 AM

    This is utter garbage...pure propaganda. Thanks Newsweek for doing absolutely nothing to help. Take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, then go thru Family Court as a Father and tell me how you feel. The War on Father's continues.

  • Posted By: sunrose @ 12/16/2008 3:05:49 PM

    Part 1

    PAS is debunked. See "Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations In Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge's Guide???. PP.25-26.

    Legislative "cents off the dollar coupon" as incentive to increase NCPs' visits with their children still places the major financial burden on custodial parents. The article points out contact is sometimes more a money consideration than a parenting one. The message is not lost on the children.

    How do courts handle NCPs who play "Santa" every time they have the kids leaving daily drudgery of homework, school, and other schedules to the CPs? THAT little manipulation has played out under the radar for decades.

    If custodial parents need to track all expenses, then the equal (read that 'due process') thing to do is require it of NCPs.

    In fact, $30.759 billion in CURRENT SUPPORT was due (see ACF FY2007 Summary Tables). $18.821 billion was collected. After total collections, unpaid CURRENT was $4.682 billion. Historically, ACF does not carry it to next year's TOTAL ARREARS DUE. ACF reports over $107 billion UNPAID. Using FY2005, add in uncollected CURRENT support for 2005-2007; total arrears exceeds $120 BILLION. One state 'had a computer glitch', in FY2006, according to the NCSEA, resulting in a $1.2 billion shorted report on TOTAL ARREARS which the ACF carried forward in FY2007.

    Unpaid child support robs children of their childhoods, custodial parents of equivalent resource consideration extended by courts to NCPs, and tax payers when families must use social services to meet financial gaps created by nonpaying NCPS. Many NCPs pop in when the whim hits them; others want to be more involved. As long as they don't use child support as a means of economic control of custodial parents, about 85% women, then great.

    • Posted By: fjwa @ 12/29/2008 6:24:56 PM

      Let me guess...you must be the custodial parent.

    • Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 12/18/2008 12:46:05 AM

      Copy and paste much? Do you actually have anything in your own words to contribute to the conversation?

  • Posted By: amc654 @ 12/16/2008 10:54:16 AM

    I???m all for dads having equal opportunity for custody, but joint physical custody is for the parents, not the kids. I can't think of anything more upsetting to kids, other than a divorce, than splitting their time between 2 homes. A divorce is traumatic enough. Kids need stability; uprooting them like that can destroy whatever sense of it they have left. This is more about what's ???best??? for parents. The non-custodial parent should be as involved as possible, see the kids as much as possible, including overnights. But making kids live between 2 households is wrong! But judges should order that a non-custodial parent must live within a certain radius, to maintain ties to the kids and retain responsibility. Not up and leave the area, remarry, have more kids, and ignore the first ones.

    To those who say it's women's own fault they don't make as much money as men and become impoverished in a divorce, wake up! Women still don???t make as much as men, even for the same job. Women often take lower-paying or part-time jobs because they???re often still the primary caregivers. A high-paying, career-track job often doesn???t afford enough flexibility. They give up high pay so they can be home when the kids get home from school, run them to appointments, stay home with them when they're sick, attend school functions, etc. It???s demeaning to imply they???re uneducated or lazy! Then there???s a divorce, and they should suffer disproportionately because they sacrificed monetarily for their families? That's unfair. Men need to realize that their wives made these sacrifices for the family and shouldn???t have to live in near poverty. Many divorces that I see involve husbands who walked out on their wives to go do their own things and/or be with another woman. Now they want to abandon their financial responsibility, too? Sorry to generalize, but this is my personal observation.

    Before divorcing, parents should make every attempt to save the marriage. Absent abuse, substance addiction, etc., parents must try. Don???t bail out when the going gets rough. You owe it to your kids to give it your best. Get counseling, do whatever you need to resolve your problems. All marriages get rocky at times, so rocky sometimes you don't think you can stand to stay married. But even that can be worked through, if you have the will and the commitment. Nobody should stay together just for the kids, BUT you owe it to the family not to leave before exhausting all options. Is it hard work? Yes, it can be excruciating. Is it worth it? Yes. I know it is. It can be done. Your children need you. Remember, marriage isn???t a cure for your unhappiness, a new lover won't change your insides, your spouse isn???t responsible for making you whole. Getting out of your marriage may not make you happy. Often it won???t. You may not be "head over heels" in love with your spouse, but that???s not a reason to leave. Love changes over time--accept it, embrace it, celebrate your commi

    • Posted By: starrywaste @ 12/16/2008 3:23:46 PM

      "Then there???s a divorce, and they should suffer disproportionately because they sacrificed monetarily for their families? That's unfair. Men need to realize that their wives made these sacrifices for the family and shouldn???t have to live in near poverty."

      I believe your statements illustrate one of the core issues that only make divorce harder to bear for all involved. Martyrs don't make good parents. It is one thing to talk about "sacrifices" that all parents make, but IMHO, quite another to imply that a woman does not go out and become CEO of her own company only because of her kids. That is a cop-out I am really tired of hearing (not saying you meant it that way, just making a point).

      Under non-abusive circumstances, if a husband is financially capable of supporting a sahm, and they both agree on this, more power to them. However, a sahm implies that the husband will provide a living for the whole family and that he will reap some benefit from the arrangement. The wife and children gain security, stability, prosperity (hopefully) and alot of other things (both tangible and intangible). The working dad gains in the love, respect and care he receives from his family and the peace of seeing his efforts provide the aforementioned elements to their lives.

      If the marriage fails, why should he be required to continue to financially support the ex-wife so that she doesn't have to work? In this case, she cannot afford to be a sahm anymore and should go out and get a job like everyone else. It is entirely unethical IMHO to expect a man that she has no loyalty to, and may outright hate, to continue to support her so that she can stay at home. They both share responsibility for providing for the needs of the children (financially, et al).

      From the point of the marriage failing, the standard-of-living of the wife should be determined based on her career, not his.

      • Posted By: aformerabusedmom @ 12/17/2008 7:35:47 PM

        I want to understand what you wrote in 4 paragraphs and try to summarize it.

        Basically you are saying that as long as a man and woman are married and have a child or children and he wants her to stay hjome and she wants to stay home then that is fine. If the wife and child(ren) enjoy a decent lifestyle and he agrees then that is fine. They divorce and she should either a) hope she can get a great paying job so she can continue that lifestyle for the children, b) give up on that lifestyle for the children, or c) give the children to the rich father? The monies paid by the father in the form of child support will not be a forever thing. If the mother wants to continue in a good lifestyle (ie not live in poverty) she will have to work, move up the ladder and make more money, or get trained in a field that will pay decently. Her having a good standard of living due to receiving child support is just a by-product of the chidlren's lifestyle. I do not know many moms who get enough child support that they can afford brand new vehicles, visits to the salon and nail parlor every week, and many other luxuries that are spoken of in FR circles. I know my piddly 150 a week will not give me that stuff, not with an annual GROSS salary of only 16,000. Taxes and insurance take out 90 in insurance a week and 45 a week in taxes. The child support I get makes up for the tax/insurance loss. AND I do NOT get the exemption for our child EVER.

        • Posted By: starrywaste @ 12/29/2008 2:20:46 PM

          Ma'am, you are obviously in pain. I pray that you will find peace.

          My wife and I have actually discussed this topic on several occaisions. I come from divorced parents and my wife has been divorced.

          We've been married for 21 years and she has worked that entire time (except for the 6 months I finally convinced her to take some time off and just find out who she is now that the kids are grown).

          At this moment, were we to divorce, I see no reason not to help her get on her feet. But at this point, I still love her, what else would I feel? If she did something to cause our divorce, I wouldn't be in the same frame-of-mind. And I most definitely would NOT want my hypothetical future wife/children to have to pay for something my hypothetical ex-wife caused. How would that be fair to my new family? Especially if I did nothing to cause my divorce?

        • Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 12/17/2008 11:53:17 PM

          I think you've got it backward. The vast majority (2/3) of divorces are filed by women, rarely for cause, such as drugs or abuse. Also, most SAHMs are in that position by their choice, or at least a joint choice. Therefore, if she decides to go find herself with another guy, she should also figure out a way to support herself. Personally, I am a firm believer that the person at fault in a divorce should be the one that suffers the most. If the guy leaves his wife for a hot, young, blonde, he should pay the price. If a woman leaves for the same reason, or for a sugar daddy, she should be the one who suffers the highest consequences. Most "no-fault" divorces really aren't no-fault. One person just decided that it wasn't their cup of tea anymore.

      • Posted By: amc654 @ 12/18/2008 10:53:01 AM

        I didn't say the woman should remain a sahm! But after being out of the full-time workfirce for up to several years, it is impossible for a stay0at-home parent, man or woman, to jump back in and earn a great salary. So, help from the other spouse is needed. If both parents, during themarriage, felt it was best for the family to have one parent stay home full time or work outside the home part time, then yes, the other parent should be willing to help support the family when theire's a divorce such that the other parent and the kids should not have to live in poverty, or close to it. This goes both ways--whether it was the mom or the dad who stayed home.

        • Posted By: starrywaste @ 12/29/2008 2:09:53 PM

          I didn't mean to imply that you said that. I am, in NO way, attacking your statements, only attempting to add to them from my own experience. I agree with many of your points. I agree that both parents should do everything they can to work things out for the children *before* divorce becomes an option.

          I also know that, in some cases, divorce is better for the children. From personal experience, it is better for the parents to divorce and "start over" than to stay in a marriage where the children are taught to disrespect and/or rebel against one parent by the other. This is abuse, no matter how you slice it.

          As it happened in my life, my mother was determined to "win" the divorce and to "make him pay" so that she would never have to work. It wasn't an abuse or infidelity situation, btw. She made my father's life miserable and taught me and my sister to be "good little spies" for her. Now? I'm over 40 and can see clearly how she abused us. I have to pray daily NOT to hate her for what she did to my dad, my sister and myself.

          In a divorce, the parents should *always* put the kids first and act rationally. Problem is, divorce by its nature is not rational. The kids *always* pay for this, no matter how responsible one parent thinks they're being through the process. If they couldn't work together to make a marriage work, how can they possibly work together to make the divorce easier on their kids?

  • Posted By: coldinNCA @ 12/28/2008 4:05:01 PM

    Our family court system plays into their prey. My horror ordeal imposed the family court is similar to yours except the added abuses to my son. My ex and her attorney lied on the I&E Declaration contrary to the accounts she has and the retainer fees she paid her attorney. Yet, she and her attorney didn't disclose her retainer fees paid to her attorney in order to seek Code Section 2030 attorney fees from me. So, her attorney can seek the judge award of her attorney fees which I paid in tens of thousands. Her attorney makes sure he gets his fees either way and raises his fees during the process if there's any money left. I love my son and I will put his needs first to ensure as much as humanly possible that he grows up healthy with normal education and life. He will grow up after another 10 or more years. He will have his own life and hopefully he will be a loving and productive person. Under our family court system and the self-serving attorneys and the uncaring(for children) judges, fathers and their children will continue to bear this injustice and the backlash will increase and our society will pay as the senseless acts are provoked by family court injustice. No one wins and our society pays for the injustice in the end. Divorced mothers will have the law by their side to vent their anger, revenge and win the child support money they receive at their disposal and our children will not see the benefits. Thank God, children eventually grow up hopefully to be good. I just don't have faith in our broken family court system.

  • Posted By: coldinNCA @ 12/28/2008 4:03:30 PM

    coldinCA: (Continued...) Yet, I have to pay for her attorney & accountant fees during the divorce and every time I seek the custody modification. My son refuses to go his mother when I have to send him to his mother. He said I don't want to go to my mother and why do I have to go to my mother. He used to cry when he had to when he was younger. The judges don't know the issues inherent to a communist culture growing up there. Lying is the cultural norm and using their children as a tool for selfish gains is the norm. Our family court system plays into their prey. My horror ordeal imposed the family court is similar to yours except the added abuses to my son. My ex and her attorney lied on the I&E Declaration contrary to the accounts she has and the retainer fees she paid her attorney. Yet, she and her attorney didn't disclose her retainer fees paid to her attorney in order to seek Code Section 2030 attorney fees from me. So, her attorney can seek the judge award of her attorney fees which I paid in tens of thousands. Her attorney makes sure he gets his fees either way and raises his fees during the process if there's any money left. I love my son and I will put his needs first to ensure as much as humanly possible that he grows up healthy with normal education and life. He will grow up after another 10 or more years. He will have his own life and hopefully he will be a loving and productive person. Under our family court system and the self-serving attorneys and the uncaring(for children) judges, fathers and their children will continue to bear this injustice and the backlash will increase and our society will pay as the senseless acts are provoked by family court injustice. No one wins and our society pays for the injustice in the end. Divorced mothers will have the law by their side to vent their anger, revenge and win the child support money they receive at their disposal and our children will not see the benefits. Thank God, children eventually grow up hopefully to be good. I just don't have faith in our broken family court system.

  • Posted By: coldinNCA @ 12/28/2008 4:02:01 PM

    ColdinCA: You wouldn't believe that my son was physically abused by his mother before 5 years old. I reported to CPS 3 times and the social worker interviewed my son. My son said he was hit by his mother and grandparents(they all came from mainland China). They use my son as the object for their anger, revenge and a tool to make huge financial gains on child support payment they receive. They all have money to buy big houses, Lexus SUV's, go to restaurants often, good clothes & shoes. They wouldn't spend the child support money on my son's clothes and shoes to go to his school. He wears worn out clothes and shoes to school on Mondays and Fridays from his mother's. He said his mother is too lazy to help him with school homework. So, I have to double up on helping his homework, love and care and fun with him. My son is 5 years old now. He has been telling that his mother tells him she hates him. She doesn't care about him he tells her when he feels cold. He cracked the back of his head his head with 3 staples put in the back of his head in emergency room at Kaiser when he was told to jump on a rocker and numerous cuts and bruises. Yet, I have to pay for her attorney & accountant fees during the divorce and every time I seek the custody modification. My son refuses to go his mother when I have to send him to his mother. He said I don't want to go to my mother and why do I have to go to my mother. He used to cry when he had to when he was younger. The judges don't know the issues inherent to a communist culture growing up there. Lying is the cultural norm and using their children as a tool for selfish gains is the norm (To Be Continued...)

  • Posted By: coldinCA @ 12/18/2008 12:24:51 AM

    I understand why most the laws are the way they are now with regards to child support. I know that in the past there were fathers that abused the system and didn't live up to their responsibilities towards their children and their court obligations and these laws were put into place to curb those abuses. However, the pendulum has swung too far to the mothers advantage at least in CA. I give the following examples; the way they figure child support is too "cookie cutter" and rigid. After plugging in all the numbers I was told I would have to pay $2100 per month for two children ages 2 and 4 as my child support and medical insurance. I thought that a bit high for children that age, I mean what could you possibly need that much money for a 2 and 4 year old for? I had a good job at the time and said okay fine but asked the judge if it would be possible to pay $1000 directly and the remainder put into a trust fund for the children so that they have something for the future. The judge denied this saying that the primary keeper (my ex) should make any such decision. Of course the decisions she made were a new wide screen TV, laptop, furniture etc.. So I paid this for three years watching her lifestyle rise as mine declined. Then the unthinikable happened and I was without a job as the company I worked for went out of business. I was in shock and depressed and didn't work or attempt to work for almost a year spending my savings and 401k to survive. I was unfortunately given some bad advice regarding my child support that the court would make any adjustments from the time I lost my job retro active. So from the time I lost my job to when I finally did go to court to have a reconciliation my arrears with interest amoujnted to over $28,000. So I told the judge what had happened and admitted I owed arrears but they cannot expect me to pay $2100 per month when my income went to $0 could they? The judge says "well you should have come in earlier" (I know that by now) "and I cannot help you." He says the only person that can change that is my ex. So I talk to a counsler and they ask me if I could get my ex to say that I did some work for her (in other words lie to the court) they might be able to relax some of my arrears. Why would she do this when she is sitting pretty raking in this monthly amount? I didn't bother asking her since it sounded like a dead end from the beginning. This is just wrong. (cont'd)

    • Posted By: coldinNCA @ 12/28/2008 3:54:02 PM

      ColdinCA: You wouldn't believe that my son was physically abused by his mother before 5 years old. I reported to CPS 3 times and the social worker interviewed my son. My son said he was hit by his mother and grandparents(they all came from mainland China). They use my son as the object for their anger, revenge and a tool to make huge financial gains on child support payment they receive. They all have money to buy big houses, Lexus SUV's, go to restaurants often, good clothes & shoes. They wouldn't spend the child support money on my son's clothes and shoes to go to his school. He wears worn out clothes and shoes to school on Mondays and Fridays from his mother's. He said his mother is too lazy to help him with school homework. So, I have to double up on helping his homework, love and care and fun with him. My son is 5 years old now. He has been telling that his mother tells him she hates him. She doesn't care about him he tells her when he feels cold. He cracked the back of his head his head with 3 staples put in the back of his head in emergency room at Kaiser when he was told to jump on a rocker and numerous cuts and bruises. Yet, I have to pay for her attorney & accountant fees during the divorce and every time I seek the custody modification. My son refuses to go his mother when I have to send him to his mother. He said I don't want to go to my mother and why do I have to go to my mother. He used to cry when he had to when he was younger. The judges don't know the issues inherent to a communist culture growing up there. Lying is the cultural norm and using their children as a tool for selfish gains is the norm. Our family court system plays into their prey. My horror ordeal imposed the family court is similar to yours except the added abuses to my son. (to be continued...)

    • Posted By: coldinNCA @ 12/28/2008 3:49:52 PM

      ColdinCA: You wouldn't believe that my son was physically abused by his mother before 5 years old. I reported to CPS 3 times and the social worker interviewed my son. My son said he was hit by his mother and grandparents(they all came from mainland China). They use my son as the object for their anger, revenge and a tool to make huge financial gains on child support payment they receive. They all have money to buy big houses, Lexus SUV's, go to restaurants often, good clothes & shoes. They wouldn't spend the child support money on my son's clothes and shoes to go to his school. He wears worn out clothes and shoes to school on Mondays and Fridays from his mother's. He said his mother is too lazy to help him with school homework. So, I have to double up on helping his homework, love and care and fun with him. My son is 5 years old now. He has been telling that his mother tells him she hates him. She doesn't care about him he tells her when he feels cold. He cracked the back of his head his head with 3 staples put in the back of his head in emergency room at Kaiser when he was told to jump on a rocker and numerous cuts and bruises. Yet, I have to pay for her attorney & accountant fees during the divorce and every time I seek the custody modification. My son refuses to go his mother when I have to send him to his mother. He said I don't want to go to my mother and why do I have to go to my mother. He used to cry when he had to when he was younger. The judges don't know the issues inherent to a communist culture growing up there. Lying is the cultural norm and using their children as a tool for selfish gains is the norm. Our family court system plays into their prey. My horror ordeal imposed the family court is similar to yours except the added abuses to my son.

    • Posted By: coldinNCA @ 12/28/2008 3:44:24 PM

      ColdinCA: You wouldn't believe that my son was physically abused by his mother before 5 years old. I reported to CPS 3 times and the social worker interviewed my son. My son said he was hit by his mother and grandparents(they all came from mainland China). They use my son as the object for their anger, revenge and a tool to make huge financial gains on child support payment they receive. They all have money to buy big houses, Lexus SUV's, go to restaurants often, good clothes & shoes. They wouldn't spend the child support money on my son's clothes and shoes to go to his school. He wears worn out clothes and shoes to school on Mondays and Fridays from his mother's. He said his mother is too lazy to help him with school homework. So, I have to double up on helping his homework, love and care and fun with him. My son is 5 years old now. He has been telling that his mother tells him she hates him. She doesn't care about him he tells her when he feels cold. He cracked the back of his head his head with 3 staples put in the back of his head in emergency room at Kaiser when he was told to jump on a rocker and numerous cuts and bruises. Yet, I have to pay for her attorney & accountant fees during the divorce and every time I seek the custody modification. My son refuses to go his mother when I have to send him to his mother. He said I don't want to go to my mother and why do I have to go to my mother. He used to cry when he had to when he was younger. The judges don't know the issues inherent to a communist culture growing up there. Lying is the cultural norm and using their children as a tool for selfish gains is the norm. Our family court system plays into their prey. My horror ordeal imposed the family court is similar to yours except the added abuses to my son.

    • Posted By: coldinNCA @ 12/28/2008 3:42:10 PM

      ColdinCA: You wouldn't believe that my son was physically abused by his mother before 5 years old. I reported to CPS 3 times and the social worker interviewed my son. My son said he was hit by his mother and grandparents(they all came from mainland China). They use my son as the object for their anger, revenge and a tool to make huge financial gains on child support payment they receive. They all have money to buy big houses, Lexus SUV's, go to restaurants often, good clothes & shoes. They wouldn't spend the child support money on my son's clothes and shoes to go to his school. He wears worn out clothes and shoes to school on Mondays and Fridays from his mother's. He said his mother is too lazy to help him with school homework. So, I have to double up on helping his homework, love and care and fun with him. My son is 5 years old now. He has been telling that his mother tells him she hates him. She doesn't care about him he tells her when he feels cold. He cracked the back of his head his head with 3 staples put in the back of his head in emergency room at Kaiser when he was told to jump on a rocker and numerous cuts and bruises. Yet, I have to pay for her attorney & accountant fees during the divorce and every time I seek the custody modification. My son refuses to go his mother when I have to send him to his mother. He said I don't want to go to my mother and why do I have to go to my mother. He used to cry when he had to when he was younger. The judges don't know the issues inherent to a communist culture growing up there. Lying is the cultural norm and using their children as a tool for selfish gains is the norm. Our family court system plays into their prey. My horror ordeal imposed the family court is similar to yours except the added abuses to my son.

    • Posted By: coldinNCA @ 12/28/2008 3:39:36 PM

      ColdinCA: You wouldn't believe that my son was physically abused by his mother before 5 years old. I reported to CPS 3 times and the social worker interviewed my son. My son said he was hit by his mother and grandparents(they all came from mainland China). They use my son as the object for their anger, revenge and a tool to make huge financial gains on child support payment they receive. They all have money to buy big houses, Lexus SUV's, go to restaurants often, good clothes & shoes. They wouldn't spend the child support money on my son's clothes and shoes to go to his school. He wears worn out clothes and shoes to school on Mondays and Fridays from his mother's. He said his mother is too lazy to help him with school homework. So, I have to double up on helping his homework, love and care and fun with him. My son is 5 years old now. He has been telling that his mother tells him she hates him. She doesn't care about him he tells her when he feels cold. He cracked the back of his head his head with 3 staples put in the back of his head in emergency room at Kaiser when he was told to jump on a rocker and numerous cuts and bruises. Yet, I have to pay for her attorney & accountant fees during the divorce and every time I seek the custody modification. My son refuses to go his mother when I have to send him to his mother. He said I don't want to go to my mother and why do I have to go to my mother. He used to cry when he had to when he was younger. The judges don't know the issues inherent to a communist culture growing up there. Lying is the cultural norm and using their children as a tool for selfish gains is the norm. Our family court system plays into their prey. My horror ordeal imposed the family court is similar to yours except the added abuses to my son.

  • Posted By: Eliminate missing child fraud! @ 12/24/2008 2:09:59 AM

    Another major problem occurs when one parent falsely claims that his or her child is missing.

    If you know where your child is located, stop claiming that she is missing. Travel to her home to be with her during the holidays. Show her that you care.

    Women are behind <a href="http://www.ncmec.eu/case.php?Id=1">the most egregious cases of missing child fraud</a>.

    Help us put a stop to missing child fraud!
    <a href="http://www.ncmec.eu">http://www.ncmec.eu</a>

  • Posted By: wordsofjohn @ 12/19/2008 4:34:50 AM

    Love your kids enough to allow them to be loved by the other parent and family.Children are not to be owned or obtained as an car or house.We as parents are to point the way ,and Lord where are we pointing them towards.Will they remember playing catch with dad or how lazy he is from his mother.Will he remember how you met his mom or how big a bitch you say she is.And I really know how it only takes one to cause problems.It takes two too marry and only one to get a divorce.And then we are left to the mercy of lawyers haha.There should be more laws to fight the lawyers amen.And get real not all men abuse their wives and children.You hurt the kids when you make things up.My daughter has a disease from the drugs given her by a doctor cause the other side said she had seizures when with me.She almost died and I never knew .

    • Posted By: ScottDugan @ 12/23/2008 11:33:24 AM

      How about the fact that many women want full custody for "less than pure reasons", meaning, they simply want to control the custody aspect so that they can maximize the child support. Why is it that women's motives are always considered noble, but father's aren't?

      If you want to test the theory, realize that more men, who DO have full custody, do NOT receive child support from women, versus the converse. I think we know who uses the system to manipulate the financial aspect.

  • Posted By: JustSimpleFather @ 12/20/2008 1:57:56 AM

    SimpleFather

    Some Moms prefer to hurt their own kids in order to make suffer the father, because they know how much we care for love and respect, something my wife does not care at all.

  • Posted By: 64boomer @ 12/18/2008 9:00:44 AM

    Wow. A lot of folks here sure are concerned about their rights. Take a big deep breath and put yourself in the kids' shoes. How long would you put up with living in two places, not knowing which house your belongings are in, having to think about which house you were going home to that night, sleeping in different beds on a regular basis? We somehow think it is OK to put children through that just so one parent doesn't get more overnights than the other. It should be a given that children need both parents in their lives when that is possible, but involvement does not equal number of nights spent sleeping under a parent's roof. I would not dream of shutting my ex out of my kids' lives--ever--but we make their lives so complicated with our parent-driven schedules that my heart breaks when I think about how they live. Presumption in favor of the primary caregiver--whichever parent that happens to be--and generous, flexible access to the children by the non-custodial parent (absent abuse or substance issues) would be a more child-centered solution to our current mess of a system. I find it curious that parents who were content to let their spouses take on more than half of the parenting during the marriage suddenly feel entitled to do EXACTLY half of the parenting after the marriage ends. Where were they during the marriage? I don't know this for a fact, but I'd be willing to bet that many of the most acrimonious custody battles are waged by parents who couldn't be bothered with the nitty gritty of parenting before the split. True in my case, and I've seen it in plenty of other divorces I'm personally familiar with. These horrible battles and arguments about "whose day it is" do far more harm to kids than living primarily in one stable household with lots of access to both parents. You can't treat kids like the retirement accounts and the furniture, splitting them precisely down the middle in pursuit of some twisted notion of equality. To do so is not progressive or enlightened. It's barbaric.

    • Posted By: momofjake @ 12/19/2008 12:17:01 PM

      64boomer, I disagree. I share joint physical custody with my ex-husband, and we alternate week-on, week-off schedules. Parental involvement is indeed time shared with a child. There is no subsititute for doing homework, tucking them into bed, enforcing chore-lists, chatting while driving to school, the endless little league practices, and all those other minor day-to-day things that add up to being a PARENT, rather than simply being someone who only only ends up being the "fun" parent, just because there aren't enough moments in a weekend or a three hour dinner-time visit to want to be the "enforcer". If there are two loving homes that can agree to put the best interests of the child first, there's no reason not to split parenting time equally.

      Your concerns about having two homes and two beds are concerns we initially had also, but there hasn't been any problems. The backpack with school books and his cellphone travels with my son, but each house has everything else he needs, which goes a long way in making each house truly feel like his "home", instead of somewhere he has to pack a suitcase to "visit".

      As far as those horrible arguments about whose day it is that you alluded to, that's not even an issue. When each parent gets the same amount of time on a set schedule, there's a pleasant lack of bitterness. We've explained to our son that while we both wanted full custody, that simply wouldn't be fair to anyone, especially him.

    • Posted By: momofjake @ 12/19/2008 12:14:02 PM

      64boomer, I disagree. I share joint physical custody with my ex-husband, and we alternate week-on, week-off schedules. Parental involvement is indeed time shared with a child. There is no subsititute for doing homework, tucking them into bed, enforcing chore-lists, chatting while driving to school, the endless little league practices, and all those other minor day-to-day things that add up to being a PARENT, rather than simply being someone who only only ends up being the "fun" parent, just because there aren't enough moments in a weekend or a three hour dinner-time visit to want to be the "enforcer". If there are two loving homes that can agree to put the best interests of the child first, there's no reason not to split parenting time equally.

      Your concerns about having two homes and two beds are concerns we initially had also, but there hasn't been any problems. The backpack with school books and his cellphone travels with my son, but each house has everything else he needs, which goes a long way in making each house truly feel like his "home", instead of somewhere he has to pack a suitcase to "visit".

      As far as those horrible arguments about whose day it is that you alluded to, that's not even an issue. When each parent gets the same amount of time on a set schedule, there's a pleasant lack of bitterness. We've explained to our son that while we both wanted full custody, that simply wouldn't be fair to anyone, especially him.

  • Posted By: HiHo61 @ 12/18/2008 3:06:24 PM

    Oh yes, we don't do alimony or child support.

  • Posted By: HiHo61 @ 12/18/2008 3:05:04 PM

    My husband and I divorced when our son, an only child, was seven. Joint custody was the only fair thing for us to consider, since it was our decision to go our separate ways and not his. We made every effort to provide consistent rules and lifestyles in both homes, and fortunately, it seems to have worked. We live near each other and communicate daily, and we divide the month evenly, based on our travel schedules and obligations. I have to say, it has really worked out well for all of us. It gives me a chance to conduct my personal business when my son is with his dad, and vice versa. Honestly, it has made his dad much better and more responsible regarding parenting (when we were married, he tended to lean on me for most things), and aside from the logistics, this arrangement offers everyone a break when we need it. Sure, there have been some late night dashes for forgotten homework, but we make it work. It isn't rocket science, but it does require a little cooperation among ex-spouses. Still, that's the least we can do as parents.

    My son is now 17 and will start college in September 2009. He is a good student, works at the local grocery store, participates in band and wrestling, and always has BOTH of his parents in his corner. We even sit together at concerts and other school functions.

  • Posted By: pugbubbe @ 12/18/2008 12:53:15 PM

    NOTE FROM AN ABUSE SURVIVOR--via pugbubbe: Fathers! Are you f****** your daughter? Or your son, for that matter. Just open your mouth and scream "Parental Alienation" and you are virtually guaranteed to have the child all to yourself.

  • Posted By: jmark0315 @ 12/18/2008 12:02:23 PM

    My congratulations to Ms. Schrobsdorff and her ex for working out an amicable arrangement. I also appreciate her having raised the issue of joint custody. But the true picture of divorce, custody and support issues is bleaker than this article portrays.

    Nickelson and the AAML have an obvious financial stake in painting the illusion that the courts are not biased. After all divorce lawyers make their gold in the endless divorce, custody and support court warfare. 70% of divorces are filed by women, most without sufficient cause. No fault divorce only precipiates the "right" of these litigants to get a divorce judgement and then use custody and support to extract ransom so that the father has the "privilege" of seeing his children sometime. It does not matter to the family court that the father was, is and continues to remain actively involved in children's life. Family court bureaucrats don't really believe that a father's home, love, time spent with children, the purchase of clothing and other neccessities and niceties account for any value in the child's life. He is only the checkbook.

    My ex currently collects on two children...who by-the-way...live with me full time with her acknowledgement. I have faced an increase in support, garnishment, closure of bank accounts and a driver's suspension because my new job after a year of unemployment only pays 1/4 of my former salary.

    All these circumstances are meaningless to the family court...and a lawyer won't advocate on my behalf because I cannot afford one under the present circumstances.

    Go figure!

  • Posted By: knorton @ 12/17/2008 4:55:54 PM

    The custody decision should be based on the bests interests of the children, period. I feel that in many cases involving small children, the mother is the best parent for the child to live with, but I also agree with generous visitation, irregardless of who has physical custody. The most crucial thing is to leave your kids out of the animosity, and give them the freedom to see/speak to the other parent whenever the mood strikes them, without them feeling as though those actions are hurtful to the other parent. This is something I have struggled with in my own life, but the bottom line is you have to put the kids first, and your own anger on the back burner for the emotional well-being of your children.

    • Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 12/18/2008 11:52:53 AM

      The problem is: who decides what is the best interests of the child? The mom, dad, lawyers, judge, stenographer, all have different ideas as to what that entails. The children themselves have their own version. Who decides? Answer: the judge, based on his/her own prejudices and mood that day.

  • Posted By: MaMaBear1968 @ 12/17/2008 12:29:11 AM

    It's good to hear SOME men can be mature, but we know full well the majority are not.

    • Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 12/18/2008 11:37:45 AM

      The majority? Wow, that's a pretty wide brush you're painting half of the human species with! Hyperbolize much?

  • Posted By: dicedealer72 @ 12/16/2008 6:01:00 PM

    This seems to be a very touchy subject, and I think the one thing we can all agree on is that those of us reading and posting love our children and step-children very much. The one thing the massive amount of discrepencies listed here and on most parental websites is that something needs to change. Governments, and courts need to realize that. Some women lose their kids, some men lose their kids, some parents are better than others, but unitl there is a checks and balances in the court system to assure that the laws are being followed they way they were meant to be, it will always be this way. The problem is that too much is left up to the discretion of the judge on your individual case, and he can choose to hear certain things and not hear others. I think in cases of child custody and decidng what is in the best interest of a child anything pertaining to the case should be heard, and deemed relevant, regardless of what the judge determines. When it comes to kids the smallest shred of evidence unheard could turn out to be the most damaging to them as adults.

    • Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 12/18/2008 11:08:03 AM

      Unfortunately, if you ask 10 different people what they think is in the best interests of the child in a particular case, you'll get 10 different answers. So, whose answer really IS in the best interests of the child? Answer: nobody's - they all have a different piece of the puzzle, which is colored by their biases and stake in the case.

  • Posted By: condor68 @ 12/16/2008 9:22:26 PM

    All the research (yes ALL!) shows that joint custody with equal time with both parents is ENORMOUSLY better for children. This is now ascientific fact. Over 225 different studies support this and not one says sole custody with alternating weekends is good for children. This industry continues because obscene child "support". This should be called "child extortion" because the parent's rights are terminated illegally according to U.S. Supreme Court case law ignored by all 50 states. These "support" orders amount to 40 and 50% of take-home pay for many people and can even be tens of thousands of dollars per month! These orders generate BILLIONS annually in federal kickbacks to states each year. Your federal taxdollars hard at work! This is a disgusting incentive for judges and states to separate parents from their children. Lawyers also want to maintain te $50 Billion custody battle and divorce industry. This is a truly evil industry which is destroying children and parents lives for profits. AlecBaldwin has it right: The judges are like "pit bosses in Las Vegas" keeping everyone at the table until they are broke. See www.FathersUnite.org for the facts.

    • Posted By: amc654 @ 12/18/2008 11:06:59 AM

      Wow, what seems to be missing in this discussion is the fact that the only two choices are not joing physical custody, with the kids living between two households, and every-other-weekend custody arrangements. There are a whole host of options inbetween! I absolutely think both divorced parents should spend as much time as possible with the kids, but absolutely don't think kids whould be shuttled between houses all the time. It doesn't have to be "all or nothing," for heaven's sakes!

  • Posted By: sunrose @ 12/16/2008 3:06:24 PM

    Part 2 -

    Father's rights groups accuse CPs of using child support for vacations and buying jewelry, simultaneously bewailing the so-called poverty NCPS live in while struggling to support children they made. Question: Which is it? Are NCPs paying huge support or are they too poor to pay? The argument is false.

    Newsweek, ask custodial parents about the myriad of problems they face when child support isn't paid, CSE doesn't enforce, NCPs hide income/assets, claim to be un- or underemployed, use threats to avoid or reduce support, and manipulation of children with Adventureland-type activities. Talk to the millions of women still owed child support after their children are adults; ask what their children and they did without, how deficits affected the children as adults, and how much contact nonpaying NCPs had or have with the children.

    Isn't the use of spyware some kind of invasion of privacy, illegal search, and do these spouses have PI licenses to conduct such surveillance? See Soleto v. DirectRevenue, federal court, Chicago.

    It didn't take a court order for NCPs to make their babies. When children grow up, they know who paid the bills, helped them with homework, drove them to activities, nursed them when they were sick, and stuck by them no matter what. No amount of rhetoric can change what they know.

    • Posted By: dicedealer72 @ 12/16/2008 5:41:33 PM

      i think one of the things on here is that everyone wants to see one side. i understand the hardships of supporting a child without the cushion of support, so I budget my life and money based on what I know I can rely on, my income. That way if the support is not paid then I suffer no hardships, and if it is paid then I have a nice cushion should something come up. I live within the means I know I can count on, my income, if there is a history of sporadic payments then we as responsible mothers should budget accordingly. As far as NCP's taking jobs with less income or a job where the full extent of their income is not reported, CP's should be held accountable as well, because CP's do it as well, usually under the shroud of they have the responsibility of taking care of the child and cannot work full time, althoug they did prior to the order for support. In most states you are held accountable for the income you are capable of making. Meaning if you have experience or education or up to this point you have made a certain amount of money as reported on your taxes you then your support is based on that amount. My husbands fomrer spouse made more money than him annually the enitre time they were married, but when they went to court she claimed a lesser amount claiming she quit her lucrative job (company car, retirement, benefits, bonuses) because "it was going nowhere". The court allowed this and doubled my husbands child support. So in this scenario who put themselves close to the poverty level, she did. There are arguments on both sides of the fence. I certainly don't think my husband should take a lesser paying job or a job that doesn't report his full income in order to pay less support, but she should also be held accountable for the amount she was capable of making during their marriage.

      • Posted By: dicedealer72 @ 12/16/2008 5:46:33 PM

        I don't know what CP's use their child support for, hopefully for the support of a child. Their are some NCP's who are required to pay support when the children are in their care, for example-not just for a weekend, but two months at a time and they are still required to pay full support while they are supporting the child 100% in their home for those months. That support in most cases even includes the childcare expenses, which obviously are not needed if the child is with the NCP. Also NCP's in most states cannot claim childcare in their support cases, even if the y have it, because courts don't allow credits for childcare for NCP's only CP's.

        • Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 12/18/2008 12:50:51 AM

          I have 50% custody, but pay support 100% of the time, even when my daughter is in my care. It's a real bear to survive under this crushing load, but at least I get to share in my daughter's life. I feel I have to pay for time with her, though.

        • Posted By: aformerabusedmom @ 12/17/2008 7:25:18 PM

          My state only figures in 75% of the child care in support. This gives more than ample extra left over for the times child might be with NCP.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse