Not Your Dad's Divorce

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: fjwa @ 12/17/2008 12:52:15 AM

    U.S. Judicial Corruption Crisis...why?

    http://www.banned-in-america.net/americans-murdering-their-judges.html

  • Posted By: fjwa @ 12/17/2008 12:28:13 AM

    More truth:
    Gulf War Vet with MS jailed for arreages based on incorrect income.

    http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2008/12/14/gulf-war-veteran-with-multiple-sclerosis-jailed-is-the-child-support-arrearage-fake/

  • Posted By: MaMaBear1968 @ 12/17/2008 12:28:08 AM

    It's nice that a "normal" healthy couple that MATURELY can handle a divorce. It would be wonderful to have that, but when you have an ex abusive boyfriend who is hellbent of continuing the cycle of abuse now via the child these arrangements are not ideal. If I didn't have to worry about my child being sexually molested by the father who drives drunk with the child I wouldn't have to worry about her. It would be nice to have time with my new husband who IS responsible.
    Unfortunately over 70% of ABUSIVE men whose mission is stalking the non abusive parent through Family Court get custody.

  • Posted By: fjwa @ 12/16/2008 11:58:55 PM

    I've been shown that the emotional abuse their mother subjects them to doesn't count in family court.

    Oddly enough, if the provisions in the U.S. Constitution were enforced, this problem would not exist against mothers or fathers.

    Here's an idea:
    Equal Shared Parenting removes the cash incentives for BOTH sides. The children like it better as well.

    Remember, it's all "in the best interest of the children"...right?

    want more information?

    www.glennsacks.com
    www.f4j.us
    www.f4jpa.us
    www.unitedcivilrights.org/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation

  • Posted By: fjwa @ 12/16/2008 11:58:30 PM

    I pay child support, but my children never see any of it. Mom drives a new SUV (courtesy of dad), lives in the family home (courtesy of dad), gets plastic surgery (courtesy of dad), and goes on vacation regularly (also courtesy of dad) all while she leaves them to be raised by grandma.

    In return, I get to deal with mom telling my daughters not to talk to me on the phone, interfering with the tiny amount of visitation we do get, and causing all sorts of trouble which I cannot afford to fight in court. (As if a father has a voice in court). This is besides the fact that I can barely support myself after the more than 40% of my net pay is stolen from me to support mom's LIFESTYLE. I would much rather be able to use the fruits of MY LABOR on my CHILDREN. But, I can't provide for my children because mom spends my hard earned money on herself. She is accountable to NO ONE. I call her a windfall mother.

    Instead, I get to see my daughters cry when it is time to bring them back to her mother, because they don't want to go back. Do you think the courts care? No way. I was told by several attorneys that it IS NOT ENOUGH (according to the LAW) that MY DAUGHTERS WANT to be with ME. The only way my daughters and I can get a custody change is if I can PROVE that the mother is harming my children, she goes to jail, or for some other reason of a similar magnitude. How do you prove emotional abuse...the worst form of child abuse.

  • Posted By: fjwa @ 12/16/2008 11:58:07 PM

    Fathers are the primary target. Sorry mom, the numbers don't lie. I know there are a small percentage of non-custodial mothers out there, and I will stand with you. But the facts remain, there is a vicious attack in progress against fatherhood, and our children are paying the price.

  • Posted By: fjwa @ 12/16/2008 11:57:39 PM

    When a Judge knowingly rules against your children's RIGHTS, the CONSTITUTION, and your parental RIGHTS, it is called TREASON! (They swear to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution as part of their oath of office.) What happened to DUE PROCESS? Family law matters are supposed to be civil matters.

    Your vicious ex is only the pawn of a criminally corrupt system operating to rob from, steal from, and oppress the families and money earners of this nation.

  • Posted By: fjwa @ 12/16/2008 11:56:19 PM

    When are you all going to see it? Look up Title IV D of the Social Security Act. See for yourselves that the Federal Government is providing incentives to the States to DESTROY OUR FAMILIES. Worst of all, YOU pay for it, U.S. taxpayer. Think I'm full of it? Keep reading.

    READ THE LAWS! Sec. 466. [42 U.S.C. 666] of the Social Security Act, (link provided here): http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0466.htm.

    SEE FOR YOURSELF why the States are abusing OUR CHILDREN to line the pockets of Judges, Lawyers, DCS, CPS, and on and on. The Federal Laws provide the incentive.

  • Posted By: lordofthethirdring @ 12/16/2008 10:36:50 PM

    It has never ceased to amaze me that when legislators passed "no fault" divorce laws that the did not anticipate the large number of divorces due to couples disappointment with their lives projected on one and other and their inability and unwillingness to resolve the misalignment of their lives. Having opened the flood gates to divorce to people dissatisfied with their lives that the legislators would have courts oversee the dissolution of disappointed lives. Why would one think that courts whose functions are to determine guilt, assess damages and assign punishments are the channel to deliver social services to disappointed damaged families.

  • Posted By: tommywebb @ 12/15/2008 11:45:37 PM

    My wifes ex husband was ordered to pay $100 per month 6 years ago and hasn't paid a cent. According to the divorce papers she has custody and he he supposed to pay $100 child support, health insurance and life insurance........my wife had to get state health care and her mom carries the life insurance on the child. In the 3 months before we got married he seen child twice, never called to ask for child, child always called him. Prior to that it was even more sporadic. Why the sudden interest to see a child you don't support in any way and don't call? I live in another state so when we got married she moved in with me. The childs father found out and had a warrant taken out for my wifes arrest, which of course costed us bail money. The charged her with custodial interference for not having her there on his "weekend"? Great! Seems we may be getting back support and current since he is bringing us to court. I'm sure the judge will want to know why he hasn't paid. Our court date is in Jan. 2009.

    • Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 12/16/2008 10:17:55 PM

      I'm just curious what state you live in. I have never heard of authorities enforcing custody righnt. They usually just hunt the guy down for his money.

    • Posted By: missingyouannmarie @ 12/16/2008 6:33:03 AM

      as i see it YOU only care about the "money" not the childs feelings, because if you cared about the childs needs you would take the child to see the father

    • Posted By: aformerabusedmom @ 12/16/2008 12:27:10 AM

      Good for you!!! It is extremely refreshing to see a MAN stand up to another MAN and call him on his foolishness. My hat is tipped to you and my sincere wish that there were more out there like you.

  • Posted By: aformerabusedmom @ 12/15/2008 11:44:51 PM

    I have no issue with Fathers who have never engaged in any type of abuse (whether proven in criminal court or not) having access to children. The issue lies withthe very small and very vocal percentage of those who were abusive and continue to use the courts to hang over the mother's head. If this father has the money to engage in protracted legal battles, he should just pay child support. Children need to have a "home". ONE home that they know is theirs that they know they can come to in times of trouble. Children in joint custody situations whose parents are forced into that situation are more likely to be angry, confused about this situation. They will liely lose friends due to the "oh I am at dads this week I can't go to your party" or "I don't know where I will be, let me check my calendar." Joint custody has been proven to ONLY work in those cases where the parents are extremely devoted to it, where there is NO abuse, and where they live in close proximty to one another. This completely leaves abused women as moms out of the picture. First, an absuer is extremely controllinga nd will use the close proximity to keep tabs on his ex. Control her even post divorce. safety is another issue with abused women in this scenario. Women are 7 times more likely to be severely injured or killed when leaving or after leaving her abuser. There is just so mcuh that is worng with presumed joint custody. Abusers can easily slip through the net and continue to abuse, control, intimidate and dominate his victim, even after she has left. Is this what society wants? If so, then more women will stay with an abusive man and you will have more dv murders and severe injuries on yoru hands. Ask yourself then why she stayed? JOINT CUSTODY is why!!!!!!

    • Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 12/16/2008 10:14:13 PM

      Actually, the vast majority of child abuse and/or murder is perpetrated by the mother. The father's house is statistically the safest place for a child. Not to say mothers are likely to abuse their children, just saying you paint all fathers with your "abuser" brush. Here's the stats from the Dept of Health & Human Services: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/figure3_5.htm

    • Posted By: dicedealer72 @ 12/15/2008 11:53:17 PM

      Abusive situations should not be situations considered for joint custody, but others should be most courts don't even want to hear the evidence, it's easier and faster to rule one way or the other without hearing all the evidence. Although I think you should think about your statement where a child may lose friends because "oh I can't go to your party because I will be at...." First of all a parental relationship should be WAY more important than any other (after all blood is thicker than water) and it's no so far fetched, if you live close enough, to suggest the other parent could take them to the extracurricular activity. Parental relationships shape what kind of adult your child will be and are the most important for establishing identity.

      • Posted By: aformerabusedmom @ 12/16/2008 12:25:04 AM

        When you have an abuser such as mine (and most are very similar in many ways) he will attempt to defame the victim to anyone and everyone he meets. So why would this child even want to have the abuser taking him/her to their friend's houses? So they can listen to dad talk to friends parents telling friends parents - oh my ex did this or my ex does that. So the child will forget going to parties and such so they do not have to deal with this. I know because my own child has done this. She has refused to go to many of her classmates parties because she does not want dad there saying bad stuff about mom to her friends parents and to other parents at the party. How does she know about this? SHE WITNESSED IT HERSELF. Her dad speaks to daycares, schools, and anyone who will listen about how bad her mom is. So why would she want to give him the chance to do this?

        The issue with presumptive shared parenting is that abusers can and do slip through now. How bad will it be if shared parenting is the law?

  • Posted By: Antisexistdad @ 12/15/2008 11:37:09 PM

    This article does a disservice to the public because of its bias, lack of context and failure to use up-to-date research. The author repeatedly quotes male supremacist (fathers' rights) groups, but not those fighting domestic violence. What the author does not seem to understand is that most of the contested cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody to force his victim to return or punish her for leaving. These are the cases in which fathers receive custody or joint custody 70% of the time. As a result, thousands of children are forced by courts to live with abusers while safe, protective mothers are denied any meaningful relationship with their children. In September of 2006, Newsweek printed a brilliant article by Sarah Childress. It is too bad it wasn't consulted before posting this misleading article.

    The idea that joint custody benefits children is based upon outdated research. Initial research was limited to unusual cases in which the parents agreed to joint custody and were able to cooperate well. The study was very small, but the results were favorable. Later studies found that sending children back and forth so frequently is actually harmful to children. Even worse, most of those seeking to impose joint custody are abusers using a strategy to maintain control over his victim and avoid child support. In these cases the availability of joint custody and worse encouragement or pressure by the courts to consider joint custody in domestic violence cases is an unmitigated disaster.

    When the parents can safely cooperate they don't need joint custody because they will easily work in the children's best interest. When they cannot cooperate joint custody makes a bad situation disastrous. We presently have a crisis in our custody court system where so many children are placed at risk because courts have been slow to recognize the abuser tactic of seeking custody to control his victim. The last thing we need is a misleading article by a magazine that knows better. Barry Goldstein

    • Posted By: missingyouannmarie @ 12/16/2008 4:40:40 AM

      there are just as many women in jail for DV of a spouse, as there are men so don't go at it bias or one sided as you say they are. you don't know because it is not part of the media circus, just like the one sided election we just went thru.

      • Posted By: aformerabusedmom @ 12/16/2008 12:06:43 PM

        Actually I have researched this issue on a local level and have discovered that 95% of all dv arrests in my community have a male perp. Approximately 10% of those cases were repeat offenses and of those repeat offenders only 5% were given jail time. There was about 50% given minor terms of probation and the remainder were set free with no punishment. Of the female arrests nearly all were reciprocal violence (the male was also arrested). These are actual true arrests - not statistics.

        • Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 12/16/2008 9:59:51 PM

          I think the key word here is ARRESTS. No matter who started it, and who is at fault, they ALWAYS arrest the guy. One time my ex-wife got upset and called the cops, accusing me of DV. I didn't even know about it, because I was asleep at the time. They actually dragged me out of bed to arrest me!

  • Posted By: chlallen @ 12/16/2008 8:05:59 PM

    In all of these discussions, one seems to forget the question of "What's best for the children?" We, as adults would not like to live in two separate houses. As a teacher, I can't tell you how many times homework has been forgotten at the "other parent's house". I would like to see more research done in that area. Divorce has become WAY too easy, and it has become to easy for parents. They get want they want, and may or may not be concerned for their children's best interests. Where do we hear about what is TRULY best for the children?

    • Posted By: fairness4fathers @ 12/16/2008 9:53:42 PM

      I cannot tell you how many times my ex wife repeatedly refused to send my childrens homework during our visits, as wel as shutting me out of all school events. This is besides the false arrests, visitiation violations, strip searching my children after visits, and interrogating my kids after our visit.
      Is this "in the best interest" of the child?
      Guess what, the courts rewarded her by reducing my role even further when I complained.
      Best interest my a...

  • Posted By: anonymums @ 12/16/2008 1:01:55 AM

    I found this article to be aimed purely with the interests of fathers but not of the interests of children. Parent Alienation syndrome is an abuse excuse developed by DR Richard Gardner who promotes pedophiliac philosophies. Very little is mentioned about the plights of women who experience domestic violence and the children who are ignored when they are in fact being abused.

    • Posted By: Kelly M. Bray @ 12/16/2008 1:47:56 AM

      Your statement about Dr Richard gardener is an outright lie. He never advocated pedophilia. The correct quote is
      "I believe that pedophilia is a bad thing for society. I do believe, however, that pedophilia, like all other forms of atypical sexuality is part of the human repertoire and that all humans are born with the potential to develop any of the forms of atypical sexuality (which are referred to as paraphilias by DSM-IV). My acknowledgment that a form of behavior is part of the human potential is not an endorsement of that behavior. Rape, murder, sexual sadism, and sexual harassment are all part of the human potential. This does not mean I sanction these abominations."

      The Department of Justice published figures show that children are far more likely to be abused or killed by their mothers. Abuse excuse, you mean like the one Mary Winkler used? Modern, up to date studies, ones not contaminated with ascientific sexist feminist bias show that women commit domestic violence as often as men. As an example the rate of lesbian domestic violence is equal to the reported rates. No men involved here. Explain that one away. The people who are being abused and ignored are men and children who are victims of violent women. Good men smeared by controlling ex wives and a family court system that ignores them. It is their time and their turn to be heard, we have heard from you already

      • Posted By: aformerabusedmom @ 12/16/2008 11:58:57 AM

        Actually Richard Gardner committed suicide by stabbing himself multiple times. Many of the other activists touting PAS are equally as offensive. Try taking a look at Warren Farell (spelling?). he is the author of the December 1977 Penthouse article in which he stated that fathers should be allowed to genitally caress his children. He then changed it to gently and then generally. This man also spent years researching incest. Go to thelizlibrary.org in order to read up about the truth in the mRA movement.

        • Posted By: Kelly M. Bray @ 12/16/2008 9:50:20 PM

          This is a description of the symptoms of Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy. It sounds intolerable.
          "Type three is characterized by irreversible changes in the skin and bones, while the pain becomes unyielding and may involve the entire limb. There is marked muscle atrophy, severely limited mobility of the affected area, and flexor tendon contractions (contractions of the muscles and tendons that flex the joints). Occasionally the limb is displaced from its normal position, and marked bone softening is more dispersed"

        • Posted By: Kelly M. Bray @ 12/16/2008 9:37:25 PM

          The truth about why Richard Gardner took his life. "Suffering from advancing symptoms of reflex sympathetic dystrophy and no longer capable of standing the pain, Dr. Gardner took his own life on May 25, 2003. He killed himself with a kitchen knife that he used to stab himself multiple times in the chest and neck." He was seriously ill and in agonizing pain. What does this have to do with the accuracy of his work? Nothing, more distractions from grasping at straws feminists.

          Warren Farrell actually said "In my case, she is spreading around a misquote about me that appeared in
          Penthouse in 1977. The misquote had me saying that I felt that the taboo
          on incest was making parents fearful of hugging, touching, and genitally
          caressing their children. The hugging and touching part is correct. The
          genitally caressing part is incorrect."
          Misquote again. What he says must be correct if the best you can do is slander him instead of addressing his salient arguments

      • Posted By: missingyouannmarie @ 12/16/2008 4:20:07 AM

        Isn't it funny that most womaen who ARE alienating their children from the father are always saying that DR. Garner does this or that, but keep doing what he says they are, but deny it.??? With the courts help!!! The worker's told her to move out of state but there is no DV in our history.

  • Posted By: fairness4fathers @ 12/16/2008 9:48:54 PM

    What planet are you writing from? Father's are regularly left with nothing more than visitor status in regards to seeing their children. There are no services that help a father when he is being denied his parental rights and the court system actually rewards and encourages excessive fighting in court. At which time, over 80 percent of custody goes to the mother.

  • Posted By: cpwhite78 @ 12/15/2008 11:13:46 PM

    Are you talking to me roadkill? or someone else? I was confused by your comment about some fathers not being deserving and that I might be one of these such fathers.

    • Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 12/16/2008 9:42:58 PM

      I assume you're writing about me. I'm very pro-father, but one lady said her ex couldn't even spell their child's name correctly. He's the one I said didn't deserve rights. I guess that's what you're referring to(?)

  • Posted By: princessxena @ 12/15/2008 10:55:07 PM

    It is my experience as a Child Protective Service worker that fathers call CPS to make a complaint about the mother that is often frivolous and driven by a desire to not pay child support and to not communicate with the mother in a civil manner. They are accusative about something that they dislike , like what the children had for dinner. They become angered if Mom gets a boyfriend when they may have a live-in girlfriend themselves. Real fathers are reticent to make a CPS complaint and to use the CPS system to establish their custody.

    • Posted By: roadkill1965 @ 12/16/2008 9:28:16 PM

      From what I've seen, the term "Child Protective Services" is a misnomer. Most parents keep CPS as far away from their families as possible. If you get CPS involved, they will destroy your family. I don't know how you can admit to working for such an evil organization.

    • Posted By: dicedealer72 @ 12/15/2008 11:05:18 PM

      My husband and I made a CPS complaint. It occurred after two instances of bruising on his younger childs face and based on what that child said the way it happened. It was a difficult decision for him and I left it to him, I did not want to make that decision for him. She retaliated by claiming that my 6 year old had sexually molested their older child, which was not the first time she had made that accusation. Previously she had said it to him only at the time she was unaware of my son's name so she made one up, she got it wrong, then when she knew my son's name she tried again. DFS took her statement but didn't even investigate. We were told it was one of the most ridiculous she had heard. I also still have the letter where she made the exact same accusation, word for word, with the wrong name, months before. Everybody tries to work the system.

      • Posted By: missingyouannmarie @ 12/16/2008 4:55:15 AM

        it's all about being vindictive and the money it gets them for being that way glad to see they seen thru her smoke and mirrors, finally a good investigator

        • Posted By: aformerabusedmom @ 12/16/2008 12:12:45 PM

          This is truly an amazing statement (NOT!). My ex has contacted child protection workers more times than I can count (once he claimed my boyfriend was assaulting our child - sad thing is we had not finalized our divorce yet and I had no boyfriend). Then when I did find someone to be part of my life, he (my ex) pushed and pushed until that person had to back out - again by using child protection. Allegations amde were proven false, but the resulting backlash ruined that relationship. I now have no doubt - I will be single and my child will miss out on the opportunity to have a wonderful life with someone to care for her mom. She does not understand why her dad can have a new wife but her mom has nobody. Well dear child - this is what mom does NOT tell you - when your daddy dearest does everything in his power to continue CONTROLLING your mother and not allowing her to have a life - she will not have a life.

    • Posted By: missingyouannmarie @ 12/16/2008 4:53:17 AM

      but how often do the mother contact you and say something false and you run with the ball till he loses his custody altogether, more than you will admit to i bet.

    • Posted By: aformerabusedmom @ 12/15/2008 11:51:33 PM

      My ex has engaged in this tactic more times than I can count. It does have its good points though. I am very careful with my child, I make sure she is not hurt and if she shows up with bruising, I see it quickly and am able to ascertain the causes. I am also an excellent housekeeper. Sadly though I do not date, nor do I ever bring any males into my house (for any reason) due to my ex's calls to CPS. Pretty sad - he can remarry, yet I am forced to stay single.

  • Posted By: condor68 @ 12/16/2008 9:18:40 PM

    All (yes ALL!) the research shows that joint custody with equal time with both parents is ENORMOUSLY better for children. 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" (more acurately extortion) orders generate BILLIONS annually in federal kickbacks to states each year. This is a disgusting incentive 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. Alec Baldwin has it right: The judges (mostly ex-lawyers) 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: momofboys05 @ 12/16/2008 7:55:54 PM

    My huband is trying to get full custody of his 6 1/2 yr old son, because his ex wants to move him 4 hrs away from where we live and where she currently lives, because her parents are giving her, her grandmothers house. My husband has always been there for his son, and now it seems like the courts are ready to let her just up and leave with him. I feel that since he is a big part of his sons life that the mother should stay here and have both his parents raising him like they have been for the last 6 yrs. They were never married and broke up shortly after their son was born. I came into the picture when he was 7 months old. This whole legal battle is hurting us, mentatlly, finacailly, and its hurting my marriage. What can we do?

  • Posted By: smokey_joe @ 12/16/2008 6:40:11 PM

    The legal system is back somewhere in the mid-1800's with respect to divorce. The mother is treated as a damaged flower or injured angel who cannot support herself. And who is to blame for this? Nobody but the evil father. When a divorce is started, every perceived slight is transformed into violent abuse in the mind of the woman. Its what wins divorce trials and women know it. When they get up to testify, they don't have to say a thing, they just break down into SEEMINGLY uncontrollable sobbing. In order for a father to be awarded primary custody, the wife has to be in prison, in a mental institution, in a coma, already abandoned her children or deceased and that's a simple fact. The only fathers that get anywhere near equal custody are those who are wealthy enough to hire a very expensive lawyer. Child support is theoretically a mutual expense. The father ALWAYS has to prove that he has paid child support, but a mother never has to prove that she has spent an equal amount of money toward the support of her child/children. I know a case where a mother has a live-in boyfriend who is in effect a step-father, but the step-father is never obligated to pay child support nor is any child support reduced to compensate for support received by the mother from the live-in boyfriend.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse