SPARC Forums

Main Forums => Father's Issues => Topic started by: frzrclan on Dec 19, 2007, 08:00:39 AM

Title: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: frzrclan on Dec 19, 2007, 08:00:39 AM
Just seeking advice on how I maintain a relationship with my kids under the following circumstances:

Recently, I was on the phone with my 14 year old daughter who told me that, for the first time in her rather short athletic career, she had scored three goals in her last soccer game. My first reaction was excitement that quickly turned to the realization that, not only had I not been there, but that I would, likely, never see her make such an achievement.

This revelation was not made any easier when I told her during the same conversation that for the first time in her life, I could not spend Christmas with her or even see her until next summer for a few short weeks. We all make mistakes on the long road to being good parents, and my first one was believing that, although I am a divorced father, my kids and I had rights that were sanctified by the constitution itself and protected by a fair and just judicial system.

The biggest mistake a parent who lives away from his kids can make is to ask the system for help, even if, as in my case, it is something as simple as seeking more time with your kids. Once you do, especially in child custody and visitation disputes, courts will always appoint a family psychological specialist to meet with the parents and children and then make recommendations to the court on their findings. For the kids and their non-custodial parent, everything goes down hill from there.

The root of the problem appears to be that the family law system is fraught with contradictions. On the one hand, society enjoys a since of righteous indignation at lecturing fathers to stay involved with their families and to constantly vilify those who “cop-out” while, on the other, appearing to be completely unprepared for a father who will ask the system for help to – well, be a father. Also, family law judges usually put professional psychologists on a level next to God when it comes to making decisions about parenting time and will usually restate the psychologists recommendation almost verbatim in decisions regarding parenting time.

For their part, psychologist will almost always admit that it is better for kids to spend as much time as possible with fathers and then with the same breath, recommend much less time then needed to sustain a healthy parent-child relationship. When pressed about this obvious mixed message, what do some of societies best minds tell use from behind their clinical degrees?  Because it is not “fair” to the mother or more time will cause increased “confusion” for the children. Worse, as in my cased, psychologist will usually recommend that the mother, the childrens’ friends, even soccer coaches should have more time with the kids before the biological father.

 This problem appears to have its basis in the psychologist profession’s continuing quest for acceptance. Because psychologists specialize in the study of the mind, they seem to have a heightened need for keeping current with the latest thinking. And when it comes to a public that craves stories about dead beat dads, actors verbally abusing their kids and domestic violence, this particular group of professionals have come to the conclusion that all fathers are either bad or, at least, bungling idiots who don’t really want to be around their kids anyway. Of course, it does not help matters that psychologist have learned that the child support industry is pretty fertile ground and that, in a system which usually tells fathers to “leave your wallet at the door and get out”, they are more likely to get their share of the spoils if they side with the mother over the father.

Okay. So where all adults here. A little ribbing and even the exorbitant child support payments that result from the stigma that comes with being a parent living away from their kids comes with the territory. I can tell you from experience that’s not what bothers us. What does bother us is that, instead of assisting families which is what we pay them exorbitant amounts of fees for, in a system which is already biased against fathers, adding psychologists into the equation typically results in disaster for the parent/child relationship.

The result? The childrens’ supposed constitutional right to spend time with a parent is completely trampled by a system that seems to feel that fathers still owe some kind of debt to society.

Chalk one up for the Grinch this year.
Title: Not all cases are like this...m
Post by: Giggles on Dec 19, 2007, 08:47:01 AM
But I will admit that you are correct.  The "family" court system is seriously flawed and does tend to favor Mothers over fathers.  Perhaps that is why our youth of today are so out of control.

Thankfully, my X and I work hard TOGETHER to be sure that our daughter has what she needs and that includes the love and support of BOTH her parents!!!  I must say that the post-divorce relationship my X and I share in regards to our daughter is very rare....but we did learn this lesson the hard way.  We both started out bickering over her and a legal tug o war ensued...then we wised up and realized what a racket "family" court was.  We both agreed to drop our lawyers and work together on deciding what is best for our daughter and there has been peace ever since!!  My X and I divorced when our daughter was only 2, she is now a very well adjusted beautiful 15 year old that knows she can rely on BOTH of her parents.  If my X is having a problem with her (He's CP), he will call me to discuss it.  Being the NCP, any time I wish to have her he typically doesn't have a problem with that.  OH...btw we live on opposite coasts so logistics for her visits have to be worked out...she has many frequent flyer miles.  This was supposed to be his year to have her for Christmas....I asked him if I could have it because I'm taking my other 2 children (not X's) to Disney.  He said SURE...just like at the begining of this year...I was supposed to have her for Spring Break, but he wanted to take her to San Fran...I said SURE.

If parents could focus on the needs of their children and put their children first...I seriously doubt the family court would be as bad as it is!!!!
Title: You are confused
Post by: Kent on Dec 19, 2007, 08:47:58 AM
Reading your post, I can tell that you are slightly confused.

When "the system" is talking about staying involved with your children, it only means that you must stay involved in paying your child support. The ones who cop-out - i.e. refuse to pay or, as in most cases, just don't have the means to pay - are "not involved" and will go to jail.

You also believe that judges are here to adhere to the Constitution. Well, yes, in all areas - except for Family Law. Since Family Law is a so-called "soft area", judges are not held accountable for their decisions, hence you will find the biggest ego trippers will become family law judges, and rule as if they're better than God.

It appears you also believe that "the system" is in place to protect the best interest of the child. Wrong again - child support brings federal grants, so the more child support is ordered, the more federal grants are received by "the system". And "the system" is money hungry.

But there is hope.
You cannot beat the system, but you can use it to your advantage.

1. If you're not a threat to the children, then nobody can keep you from moving close to your child - or, as I know one person did, buy the house right next to your ex's.

2. If coaches get more time with your child than you do, become a coach yourself. Or just an assistant coach on your child's team.

3. Become an active PTA member at your child's school. Meet with the teachers.

It won't help you in the short run.
But your daughter will see that YOU are acting in her best interest, and in many states, at age 14 she can choose where she wants to live.

And just in case you're the one who moved away - in that situation I'm not really receptive to your complaints.

Kent!
Title: As far as the soccer game goes
Post by: gidgetgirl on Dec 19, 2007, 03:18:20 PM
If you are within driving distance, you should be able to attend her games.

If you are not- never mind!
Title: Are you long distance?
Post by: Ref on Dec 19, 2007, 05:59:15 PM
If you are, DH and I have been in that situation for years and we might be able to offer you some pointers.

BTW, DH had visitation increased and did not have to see a psychiatrist. Sometimes you do sometimes you don't. Fortunatly his judge was fantastic and really did look out for his time with SD. Unfortunately, SD is so brainwashed, we haven't been able to take much advantage of this.

Anyway, if you need some long-distance pointers, just ask.

Best wishes,
Ref
Title: RE: You are confused
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 19, 2007, 10:00:48 PM
>Reading your post, I can tell that you are slightly
>confused.
>
>When "the system" is talking about staying involved with your
>children, it only means that you must stay involved in paying
>your child support. The ones who cop-out - i.e. refuse to pay
>or, as in most cases, just don't have the means to pay - are
>"not involved" and will go to jail.
>
>You also believe that judges are here to adhere to the
>Constitution. Well, yes, in all areas - except for Family Law.
>Since Family Law is a so-called "soft area", judges are not
>held accountable for their decisions, hence you will find the
>biggest ego trippers will become family law judges, and rule
>as if they're better than God.

I will note (again!) that family courts have little or nothing to do with the constitution. They can not violate the Constitution (by taking away your right to free speech, free exercise of religion, etc), but the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter of custody and child support. Only those rights enumerated in the Constitution are covered by it. All other rights are specifically relegated to the states.

>
>It appears you also believe that "the system" is in place to
>protect the best interest of the child. Wrong again - child
>support brings federal grants, so the more child support is
>ordered, the more federal grants are received by "the system".
>And "the system" is money hungry.

Note that this is not a universal opinion. Most people find that the system works quite well for them. Granted, in a board like this, you're going to have a larger percentage of people with problems, but most of the people in the system are satisfied with it (evidence provided in a lengthy earlier thread).
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 19, 2007, 10:02:55 PM
1. You have no Constitutional right to see your children. The Constitution specifically states that any matters not covered in that document are for the states to decide. Who told you you have a Constitutional right to see your kids?

2. You would need to be more specific in order to get any useful advice. While venting might make you feel better, it's not going to solve anything. There are lots of people here who can give specific advice if you ask a question. But to do that, they're going to need more information - specifically why you think you'll never see your daughter play and so on.
Title: RE: You are confused
Post by: Davy on Dec 20, 2007, 12:08:29 AM
Mist "let's start argument" olese said
  Most people find that the system works quite well for them. Granted, in a board like this, you're going to have a larger percentage of people with problems, but most of the people in the system are satisfied with it (evidence provided in a lengthy earlier thread).

That's a bold face lie.  An ad-hoc statistical 'make work' government report is not EVIDENCE.  The complexity of a broke system is the reason this board exist.  Your theories are very much a tainted minority view of reality.    
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: Davy on Dec 20, 2007, 12:35:02 AM
"specifically why you think you'll never see your daughter play and so on."
 Poster never said that..he was simply expressing sadness of not being there to share the joy of a hat trick...an achievement seldom obtained.

also check-out the 14th amendment.  Are you suggesting the supremes or higher courts have never over-turned a family court ruling based on constitutionality ???  
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 20, 2007, 06:31:33 AM
>"specifically why you think you'll never see your daughter
>play and so on."
> Poster never said that..he was simply expressing sadness of
>not being there to share the joy of a hat trick...an
>achievement seldom obtained.

You apparently missed:
" I would, likely, never see her make such an achievement. "

>
>also check-out the 14th amendment.  Are you suggesting the
>supremes or higher courts have never over-turned a family
>court ruling based on constitutionality ???  

There's nothing in the 14th amendment that's even close:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend14.htm

As I said, states do not have the right to do something that DOES violate the constitution, so I'm sure that the Supreme Court has overruled them in some cases, but they have an incredible amount of discretion.

Rather than just throwing out numbers, why don't you tell me where the Constitution guarantees you the right to see your kids or the right to limit the amount of support you pay? It's just not there.
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: frzrclan on Dec 20, 2007, 08:20:24 AM
Thank you for all of the replies and I am glad to have sparked some debate on this topic. T

he Constitution quarantees "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (I am sorry that I don't know the exact number of which amendment this is). Although, I doubt that any parent has sued on this topic yet, the destruction of the parent child relationship with a very good reason directly controdicts these principles. As such, I believe that most Constitutional rights lawyers would say that, as long as I am up on my child support payments (as I am) and when I ask for only enough time with my kids as needed to maintain some kind of parent child relationship, the Court's denial of that time violates this constitutional right.

Yes, I do live a long distance from my kids. This is why I asked for at least 8 weeks in the summer and I recieved only 5. Because of this distance and with the help of the psychologists, I now see my kids for 2 2.5 week blocks in the summer.

Rather than being "confused" I feel that I understand perfectly well how the system works. It has been made corrupted and dysfunctional by the "Dead-Beat Dad" label and the "child support industry" and, as such, is often destructive to the parent-child relationship.

At this time, I am still caught in the court system while struggling to maintain a relationship with my kids. My question was mostly to seek advice on how to to do this amidst all the anger and frustration created by this system and not being able to see them but a few weeks each year. You can only get so much done over the phone.

Thanks again for the advice and debate.
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 20, 2007, 09:39:27 AM
>The Constitution quarantees "life, liberty and the pursuit of
>happiness" (I am sorry that I don't know the exact number of
>which amendment this is). Although, I doubt that any parent
>has sued on this topic yet, the destruction of the parent
>child relationship with a very good reason directly
>controdicts these principles.

Good luck pursuing that one. I guarantee you'll lose.

The Constitution gives you the right to pursue happiness - it doesn't guarantee everything you need to make you happy. Otherwise, you could interpret that clause as guaranteeing a good job, a nice home, and a trophy wife. It makes just as much sense to expect that as it does to expect the government to guarantee your time with your kids.
Title: RE: You are confused
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 20, 2007, 09:40:41 AM
>Mist "let's start argument" olese said
>  Most people find that the system works quite well for them.
>Granted, in a board like this, you're going to have a larger
>percentage of people with problems, but most of the people in
>the system are satisfied with it (evidence provided in a
>lengthy earlier thread).
>
>That's a bold face lie.  An ad-hoc statistical 'make work'
>government report is not EVIDENCE.  The complexity of a broke
>system is the reason this board exist.  Your theories are very
>much a tainted minority view of reality.    

Sorry, but I provided evidence. The fact that you don't agree with it isn't refutation.

You've had plenty of chances to prove that the system fails in the majority of cases - yet you've never provided anything.

Your assertion that the system is broken is not evidence.
Title: You are correct...
Post by: olanna on Dec 20, 2007, 08:32:15 PM
So much information out there....

Here is a good example of how the system does NOT work...from a family court judge.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dRY1-7WFlTwC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=family+court+judge+l+mendel+rivers+jr&source=web&ots=TuyRtJbYg0&sig=6cO6dVgGdvZxz-4i1DIU5aZx-v8

http://www.accelant.com/index.php?article_id=114875&page=article

Title: RE: You are confused
Post by: Davy on Dec 20, 2007, 11:38:40 PM
It is NOT evidence just because YOU say it is evidence. Just who do you think you are to to demand evidence be produced for your inspection (unless you want to start paying me huge dollars) as if you are the Sparc God or Godess.   You're very much far from that. And anyway, true to form, you will try to manipulate every word of every post.  
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: olanna on Dec 21, 2007, 12:55:18 AM
" does to expect the government to guarantee your time with your kids"

If there were money in it, you best believe they would be involved in making sure it happened..
Title: Unless there is something I don't know
Post by: Ref on Dec 21, 2007, 06:57:09 AM
in your parenting agreement, there are ways to make sure you have more face time with your kids.

Is there language in your agreement about you going to school events? Do you have joint legal custody?

Try starting a webpage (facebook, myspace, or livejournal would work) Chances are, your kids, depending on age, have one of those anyway. Put pictures of what you are doing, people on your side of the family and notes to them letting them know you love them.

DH and I have been through a zillion loops with the long distance thing. Everything you do can be countered by your ex, if she is bitter, so you will have to change tactics.

Are you in driving or flying distance? You can send them pictures of things that you think they find interesting near your home. (DH and I ran around the county taking pictures of Mule sculptures that SD liked). You can get them a magazine subscription so that every month they think of you.

Anyway, there are a million creative ways to get to spend time, even if it isn't face-to-face. Good luck with everything.

Ref
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: DaddyMax on Dec 21, 2007, 10:25:01 AM
Be grateful.  At least you get to speak to your daughter.  My children have been trained to say how much they hate me, I am not their father, and they never want to see me again.  I would give anything to know, from my children,  how they are doing.
This will make the second christmas I have been completely without my children.
Title: RE: You are confused
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 22, 2007, 07:19:59 AM
And, yet, I provided published research studies to support my position and you haven't provided anything but a few anecdotes.

Go figure.
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: frzrclan on Dec 24, 2007, 07:54:04 AM
That's for sure. They already have all my money. Its partly that I can't afford the travel that X-Mas and spring break are out. What is amazing is that I still have a fairly strong relationship with my kids. Perhaps its even better than some fathers who are around their kids all the time.

Title: RE: Unless there is something I don't know
Post by: frzrclan on Dec 24, 2007, 08:02:11 AM
Yes. There is a bitterness thing. I probably won't be able to talk to them on Christmas because she has, once again, taken them to family or something and has not told men where they are.  My kids don't have a lot of access to internet or cell phones yet, but I was thinking of trying to communicate with them more through those mediums. Good ideas about the "my-space", etc... Thank you.

Do you still have a fairly strong relationship with your kids in spite of the long distance thing?
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: frzrclan on Dec 24, 2007, 08:14:47 AM
The main reason your posting makes my blood boil is that we are up against the Family Law Industry that is encouraging the destruction of our relationship with our kids. The other problem is that the press is simply not interested in this issue. The only thing we can do is to  FIGHT BACK! - legally. I would be interested in starting a dialogue about how this can be done primarily through the courts and the legislature if any one else is interested.
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 24, 2007, 08:34:14 PM
>The main reason your posting makes my blood boil is that we
>are up against the Family Law Industry that is encouraging the
>destruction of our relationship with our kids. The other
>problem is that the press is simply not interested in this
>issue. The only thing we can do is to  FIGHT BACK! - legally.
>I would be interested in starting a dialogue about how this
>can be done primarily through the courts and the legislature
>if any one else is interested.

This is, of course, only one view. Others see the family courts and CPS as there to protect the kids.

I'm still waiting for one shred of credible evidence that the system as a whole is broken.

Imperfect? Of course. But there is a lot of good being done, as well.
Title: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: John-J-Jay on Dec 26, 2007, 07:58:38 AM
The system does suck. Am many of you on here know i'm a custodial parent attempting to get my ex to pay 4 years of back child support but being a MAN the courts aren't doing anything to make this mother pay child support. I've dumped thousands into the atty lap and can't get a hearing on the facts of the case, yet the ex is trying to take my daughter away and this fight has been going on since Mid 2006, so i truly believe their is a sexual bias here as well as a system that's BROKE.

However, if it was a woman that was owed the child support the man would be in Jail.....
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 26, 2007, 03:36:14 PM
>The system does suck. Am many of you on here know i'm a
>custodial parent attempting to get my ex to pay 4 years of
>back child support but being a MAN the courts aren't doing
>anything to make this mother pay child support. I've dumped
>thousands into the atty lap and can't get a hearing on the
>facts of the case, yet the ex is trying to take my daughter
>away and this fight has been going on since Mid 2006, so i
>truly believe their is a sexual bias here as well as a system
>that's BROKE.
>
>However, if it was a woman that was owed the child support the
>man would be in Jail.....


And, yet, the studies show that the overwhelming majority of child support is paid on time - and most of the child support which is not paid is owed by someone with no income.

Yes, there are bad cases out there. That does not mean the entire system is broken. The system works far more often than it fails.
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: Kitty C. on Dec 26, 2007, 09:28:34 PM
Mist, it's time you step back from all the writings and 'studies' and take a serious look at the reality of child custody and support.

I worked for 5 years on a program with a certified statistician who also had a PhD.  He was the first to tell me that for every study out there, you can find a comparable study that will completely negate the first.  He also said that any decent statistician (and you can't do a study on anything without one) can make the numbers look good in their favor.  The biggest part of any study and statistics is what they AREN'T telling, compared to what they are.

I will be the first to admit that, on this website, you will only see one side of the story.  So you can't judge what the rest of the nation is dealing with based upon the users here.  But with the father's and children's rights movements gaining momentum and so much new legislation being passed on joint custody in recent years, wouldn't it be common sense to believe that these issues are more of a problem than not?  Legislation doesn't happen on issues like this unless there is a significant outcry for it.

Common sense tells me that, with recently new legislation in my state  and history that has proven that the majority of primary physical custody cases are awarded to the mother, there has been a bias in the system against fathers regarding custody issues.  And with the feminists beating their drum of the 'deadbeat DAD' and the media listening to them, there appears to be a bias against fathers regarding support as well.  I don't need any study, pro OR con, to tell me that.  It's as plain as the nose on my face.
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: frzrclan on Dec 27, 2007, 08:28:29 AM
I agree. Most of the studies and reports produced in family law matters are unrelialbe because they are written by psyhcologists, attorneys, and others who have made a killing as a result of the child support industry. Also, thanks to the "Homer Simpson" stigma, while the media is dominated by stories of Dead-Beat-Dad's, domestic violance or movies star fathers who yell at their kids, one almost never sees stories about the destruction of the parent child relationship between fathers and children.

The individual cases speak for themselves, however. I spent an hour on the phone last night with a father who lives right next door to his children and there are no allegations of domestic or substance abuse or criminal activity involved in the case, yet the family evaluator in the case, inexplicably, recommended that he recieve only 33% of his kid's time.

In my own case, I have repeatedly gone back to court at huge expense to enough more time with my kids during the summer months I live in another stateso that they can at least remember what I look like because. Again, no allegations of abuse or criminal activity of any kind. Yet, the psychologist who testified in court, explicitly stated that I should have only 5 weeks a year with my kids so as not to "inconvenience" the mother.
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: moft on Dec 27, 2007, 08:40:28 AM
I'm new to this forum, and already feel the need...

An internet troll is defined as someone who posts controversial messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting other users into responding.

Are you a troll?  Or are you just so unhappy?  Try reading the original post without nitpicking every little word.  Forest?  Trees?  Want to be helpful?  Answer his question.  Try contributing instead of bashing.  He even put himself above you by not responding in kind to your malice.
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: moft on Dec 27, 2007, 08:45:47 AM
Yeah, I'm sure you read the studies.

I mean, the system is so convoluted and fraught with the troubles everyone is complaining about, because the majority of people are current with support and there is no conflict.  That's what your saying?

You can always find a government report or a study to support your argument?  If you want, I can post my study right here.  I'll make it up in the next hour...  Don't knock it,  because I'm going to call it a "study."
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 27, 2007, 08:53:05 AM
>Mist, it's time you step back from all the writings and
>'studies' and take a serious look at the reality of child
>custody and support.

Sorry, 'reality' only applies if you have facts. A board which is made up mostly of people who have problems is not the place to find facts.

My point is simple - yes, there are problems - and many of the people here can cite problems. But focusing only on problems can hide the fact that the system doesn't always fail. People who go into the process assuming failure and attacking everyone at every turn are more likely to have bad results.

>
>I worked for 5 years on a program with a certified
>statistician who also had a PhD.  He was the first to tell me
>that for every study out there, you can find a comparable
>study that will completely negate the first.  He also said

Fine. Then where's the study with evidence which negates the ones I provided?

>that any decent statistician (and you can't do a study on
>anything without one) can make the numbers look good in their
>favor.  The biggest part of any study and statistics is what
>they AREN'T telling, compared to what they are.

Fine. Then how about some FACTS rather than opinions and anecdotes?

>
>I will be the first to admit that, on this website, you will
>only see one side of the story.  So you can't judge what the
>rest of the nation is dealing with based upon the users here.
>But with the father's and children's rights movements gaining
>momentum and so much new legislation being passed on joint
>custody in recent years, wouldn't it be common sense to
>believe that these issues are more of a problem than not?
>Legislation doesn't happen on issues like this unless there is
>a significant outcry for it.

ROTFLMAO. Legislation happens whenever politicians think they can gain votes.

>
>Common sense tells me that, with recently new legislation in
>my state  and history that has proven that the majority of
>primary physical custody cases are awarded to the mother,
>there has been a bias in the system against fathers regarding
>custody issues.  And with the feminists beating their drum of
>the 'deadbeat DAD' and the media listening to them, there
>appears to be a bias against fathers regarding support as
>well.  I don't need any study, pro OR con, to tell me that.
>It's as plain as the nose on my face.

And THAT is what I'm fighting against. What's plain to you may not have any bearing on reality. As long as people insist on debating nothing but their own feelings or what's 'obvious' to them rather than getting the facts and working with REALITY, the problems won't get solved. All you'll do is substitute one bad law for another.

Let's use crime as an analogy. If you do nothing but read the New York Post, you'd assume that every living person in the US is likely to be robbed on any given day and everyone should wear bulletproof vests. In reality, crime affects very few people on a given day. The rational thing to do is to determine the risks, take appropriate action, and then live your life. That's quite different than the panic mode you'd live in if you read only the NY Post.  I'm not saying that crime isn't a problem - of course it is. But if you take prudent precautions, you don't have to live your life in panic mode assuming that you're going to be attacked every time you leave your home. In many ways, that's even worse than not doing anything.

Similarly, there are problems with the system and it can be improved. But the 'the system is broken' and 'nothing works' and 'every male is going to get shafted' and 'you don't have to pay child support because it's unconstitutional' stuff you see thrown around here is NOT going to solve the problem. What WILL improve the system is a calm, rational assessment of where it works and where it doesnt - and then calmly trying to address the weaknesses rather than throwing out the whole system which - like it or not - works reasonably well much of the time (as the evidence I provided indicates - at least until someone can provide some evidence refuting it).
Title: Amen Kitty~
Post by: speciallady on Dec 27, 2007, 12:59:52 PM
I pointed that out to Mist ages ago-stats can be slanted to provide "evidence" for anything. All depends on what you are looking for.
That being said, the "study" Mist provided here was dated from 2003--almost 5 years ago. Many things have happened within that time frame. I also provided a study which directly showed in California, the state we dealt with, the HUGE number of failing cases in regards to support being collected or not being collected (in the billions I believe it said...). How could that be a system that works?
I provided an alternative as in 50/50 split with NO support exchanged but that arguement went nowhere. Mist said it wasnt fair to the child/ren if one parent made good money and the other didn't--without regards to the lower salaried parent having the same opportunity to get a better job and/or education.

I provided everything Mist asked for==proof the system doesn't work (btw, the study Mist quoted from also only included 3-4 states I believe...I was only concerned with CA as that is the state that screwed us.), I offered an alternative, etc....but Mist has to have the last word and stood only by that outdated study.

A study that is at least 4 years old, limited states involved, billions of uncollected support--how can that be a system that works?
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: Kitty C. on Dec 27, 2007, 03:16:30 PM
This isn't court, Mist.  And I have a full time job, which prevents me from taking the enormous amount of time it would require to investigate and obtain 'facts'.  These so-called facts you seem to think are the key are actually court records, which aren't public information, as far as the details are concerned.  At least I've never seen any custody or support agreement between 2 parents published for all to see.

And using crime as an analogy is like comparing apples to oranges.  There is no comparison, in frequency, convictions, or recidivism, which is non-existant in family courts anyway.

As for legislation, we've worked MANY years here in IA to get it passed and constantly ran into roadblocks along the way.  And not just from the IA Bar, but the legislators themselves.  They certainly didn't pass it for votes, since we are still having to 'remind' judges of the new legislation.

Be careful of throwing out your own 'opinion' and presenting it as fact, as well.  I can throw it right back at you and I bet you can't give me 'proof' that 'Legislation happens whenever politicians think they can gain votes.'

None of what I said in my post was my opinion or feeling, rather it's what I have seen through long observation, primarily within my own state.  I can't give you all the names or case numbers, but I can tell you that of the many fathers I have talked to and heard about (many who didn't even know about this site until I told them about it) give the same song-and-dance.

Yes, the 'system' may work for some, but I think it's state, even city specific.  And it appears to even depend on the mood of the presiding judge, because I've been told of cases where the judge will rule one way, but later down the road rescind or completely change an order, with no basis or change of status in the case.  But when you see case after case where fathers AND their children are getting the short end of the stick, you'd have to be blind and naive to ignore it.

The system must be changed for the children, simple as that.  If the system works so well, why are there so many children of divorced/separated parents with problems?  It's been proven over and over again that teenage promiscuity, drug use, truancy, etc. is increased in children from split homes.  If those children had both parents as a constant in their lives (like children from intact marriages, check the stats on that one), those numbers would drop dramatically.

No, I cannot give specifics on data and studies and I certainly don't have the time to go digging for it all, either.  But when the majority of people walk through the door dripping wet and tell me it's raining outside, I certainly won't call them a liar and go to the window to look.

'If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be a duck.'
Title: Unfortunately no
Post by: Ref on Dec 27, 2007, 03:29:36 PM
DH is struggling right now with his relationship with SD. BM is a terrible person and alienated SD to no end.... Doesn't mean that over the years DH wasn't successful in staying in SD's life. It just means that BM was able to work her magic 24/7 and at this point, won.

The problem is, BM ultimately has the power to distroy your relationship. There is little you can do if she is crazy enough to hurt your child to get to you. You have to ask yourself every day if you can handle the pain and be honest. DH fought for 13 very hard years and he has some wonderful memories because of his efforts. We will have to wait and see right now how it plays out with SD.

I was a child of Alienation. My dad lived in England and my mother in PA. I did the longdistance thing. I hated my dad for no real reason other than my mom hated him. I rejected him just like SD is rejecting DH. I realized in my late teens through my early twenties that I was brainwashed against him and had anger issues with my mom. At any rate, I have seen it on both sides and I actually do feel for the alienating parent a little. They are pretty pathetic and sick people.

Anyway, good luck with everything. It is a very hard position to be in.

Ref
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 27, 2007, 10:41:45 PM
Sorry, pal, but when I see people offering advice which is likely to get someone in trouble or not help them, I'm going to throw my 2 cents in. In case you haven't noticed, this is a public board.

Instead of personal attacks on me, why don't you read what I wrote and try an intelligent response.

You will note that almost all of the people attacking me are using pure ad hominem attacks and have never provided any rational evidence to back their position - including you.
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 27, 2007, 10:42:56 PM
So what it amounts to is that you want people to ignore the published facts out there on the basis of your opinion - which you have never been able to back up with facts.

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. At least for thinking readers.
Title: RE: Amen Kitty~
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 27, 2007, 10:48:34 PM
>I pointed that out to Mist ages ago-stats can be slanted to
>provide "evidence" for anything. All depends on what you are
>looking for.

And, yet, you've never been able to provide any studies to back up your position. Why is that?

>That being said, the "study" Mist provided here was dated from
>2003--almost 5 years ago. Many things have happened within

Prove it.

>that time frame. I also provided a study which directly showed
>in California, the state we dealt with, the HUGE number of
>failing cases in regards to support being collected or not
>being collected (in the billions I believe it said...). How
>could that be a system that works?

The funny thing is that after reading that study, it confirmed what I stated - only a tiny percentage of cases were problems and most of those were cases where the NCP didn't have any income to pay support. Your article simply confirmed what I stated - that in the majority of cases the system works and that there is a small number where it doesn't.

>I provided an alternative as in 50/50 split with NO support
>exchanged but that arguement went nowhere. Mist said it wasnt
>fair to the child/ren if one parent made good money and the
>other didn't--without regards to the lower salaried parent
>having the same opportunity to get a better job and/or
>education.

A very large number of situations involve one parent with a very high income and the other parent working for quite low wages. Whether you want to blame the low wage parent or not, the child would see a huge drop in his/her standard of living under your scenario. I simply argued that it is not intrinsically fair for the child to suffer unnecessarily. You seem to disagree.

>
>I provided everything Mist asked for==proof the system doesn't
>work (btw, the study Mist quoted from also only included 3-4

Actually, if you even bothered to read your study, it confirms that the system works in an overwhelming percentage of cases.

>states I believe...I was only concerned with CA as that is the
>state that screwed us.), I offered an alternative, etc....but
>Mist has to have the last word and stood only by that outdated
>study.

No, I'm standing by the only two studies presented - mine and yours. Both agree that the system works most of the time.

>
>A study that is at least 4 years old, limited states involved,

Given the time that it takes to collect the information, that was the newest study available. You see, collecting data takes time - unlike simply making things up which seems to be advocated by a number of people here.

>billions of uncollected support--how can that be a system that
>works?

Sure. Lots of uncollected support. No one ever denied that. But it's a single digit percentage of the total - according to both your study and mine. AND, most of the uncollected support is owed by parents with no income.

Seems to me that you're simply confirming my position.
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: John-J-Jay on Dec 28, 2007, 09:20:22 AM
Can anyone explain my situation then? Custodial dad not be paid child support in over 4 yrs, yet the court has allowed my motion to be sitting for over 14 months. I think the system SUCKS and we need to fight this mockery of a court system to prevent this from happening to future generations. I'd like to see someone step up and get a national organization together so we can fight the court system full force.

If i was the NCP i would be in jail right now because i'm a MAN. A woman they are affraid to do anything because they are MOMMY!

Give me a break, our system hates dads and puts them down like they are worthless. Majority of all dads should have their children and not the so called "mothers". My daughter wasn't even walking when her mother left us. now almost 10 yrs later, i'm still fighting the court and my ex. I should only be fighting the ex not the courts.
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: moft on Dec 28, 2007, 10:08:31 AM
Personal attack, no?  I was challenging your ridicule.  Once again, not reading the sentences.  Your two cents are a poor investment, for they are worth nothing here...  
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: moft on Dec 28, 2007, 10:33:39 AM
I feel your frustration, friend.  If I were in arrears and my ex walked into court, by herself and without representation, she would certainly be able to enter a wage-garnishment order and/or have a warrant out for my arrest that day.  It's sexual bias and a flaming example of the contradiction in our society today.  Women's lib was meant to bring equality, yet we continue to see the gross inequality in the sexes.

Someone previously called Family Law a "soft" branch of law, and there is where the problems lie.  Some clerk or judge saw your motion, and pictured this father trying to track down the (gasp) MOTHER of his child to make her responsible for her part of the parenting deal, then placed that motion in the "TO BE REVIEWED AT A LATER TIME" pile on the desk.  There are some here that will be astonished at my suggestion, may even provide some obscure study to suggest otherwise, but practicality and common sense come into play here.  While I don't know for sure, I doubt that there is a 14 month backlog of delinquent child support cases in your county.

My suggestion is this:  there are a lot of tutorials and guides to accomplishing many legal tasks on this site and many other Father's Rights sites.  Your case is different than probably a lot of dads, in that you were lucky enough to get custody of your daughter, but you may be able to file some sort of petition or complaint, on your own, which may expedite the process.  

I am finishing an ordeal to have more time with my own daughter, and have learned just how worthless attorney's can be.  Please don't can your attorney, just try doing a little research and work on your own.  I learned a lot myself by studying this stuff on my own.  
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: John-J-Jay on Dec 28, 2007, 11:37:11 AM
I couldn't agree with you more! you are dead on.

imagine this crap. My ex is trying to regain custody because i've asked for child support to be paid and now 14 months later, i'm way upside down finanically on what i'll collect versus what i've paid out in atty fees for the next 7 to 8 yrs of her childhood. However the court system has allowed this mother to file motion after motion after motion to stall and TRY to regain custody.

if the courts were truly unbiased they would have smashed her 1st motion and said this is nonsense you are filing this in retailation to him asking for money. BUT they allow BullSH** motions to be filed to run up fees and make the court system what it is today.
Title: Huh?
Post by: speciallady on Dec 28, 2007, 01:53:24 PM
"... unlike simply making things up which seems to be advocated by a number of people here."

I'd like to know where that came from?


"A very large number of situations involve one parent with a very high income and the other parent working for quite low wages. Whether you want to blame the low wage parent or not, the child would see a huge drop in his/her standard of living under your scenario. I simply argued that it is not intrinsically fair for the child to suffer unnecessarily. You seem to disagree."

Blame for no one--every person has the same opportunity to "better" themselves. I'd like to see stats regarding a child suffering under a split custody agreement and no support exchanged. I'd also like to see stats regarding one parent having a VERY high income and the other one quite low and by what standards are we talking about here?


You have yet to understand that stats and studies are subjective and not real proof of anything. I, like many here, go by the experiences we've had and shared--you seem to negate that as no proof. I strongly disagree.
I'll say it again--you're defending a system that seems to be working for you right now. Watch what happens when you don't meet the criteria of this system.  
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: Kitty C. on Dec 28, 2007, 02:04:51 PM
You need to stop putting words into my mouth, Mist.  I NEVER said opinion, only giving evidence of what has been told to me, either in first person or otherwise.  NONE of what I've said is my opinion and, for all you know, my actual opinion could be vastly different from the information that was given to me.

Read ALL of the information in posts........don't just pick and choose what you want.  We have a religious sect in this area whose elders only allow their flock to read certain sections of the Bible, not the whole.  And, in doing so, it skews and severely narrows their belief system.  I have found it's amazing how one's perspective can change if you only know parts and not the whole of anything.

As for the truth in studies, do you believe there's global warming going on?  There are some studies out there (that Bush has obviously taken as the absolute truth) that say no.  If you put your trust and faith into 'studies' that can be easily tampered with, I feel sorry for you.  One thing you may not know or cannot get access to, is how many of those so-called studies that say the system works fine are funded by NOW and those ilk.  They have a vested interest in the results.

Studies are like legislation..........it all depends on what PAC's and organizations are willing to put up the money to have it done, which means it wouldn't be published (or passed) unless it came out in their favor.
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: frzrclan on Dec 28, 2007, 02:10:29 PM
When I mentioned in one of my previous postings that the bias against fathers is, in part, due to the child support industry, what I ment was that the system has been using the DBD excuse to line the pockets of all involved at the expense of fathers. The reason that you have been unable to get the support you are entitled to is because of an industry that owes its very existance to discrimination against fathers. I know another father who has his kids for 10 months each year, yet HE is the one who has to pay child support!

Someone also mentioned that getting an attorney is useless. This is because even the attorneys we hire to represent us are part of the system which is fueled by both attorneys and judges. When I was in court the first time, I was expressly told by the judge, during the trial, that I would loose my case because I was representing myself and that I needed to get an attorney. Only problem was that I am an attorney and, at the time, I had numerous other clients that I was representing in family law matters. As a result, when I did get an attorney to fight for more time with my children, he did nothing for me.  

I have talked to other father's whose attorney's have been conditioned into complacency by the system. As a result, the only means of making a change is through legislation which, thankfully, some states are starting to adopt. I am starting an organization that would focus on local father's and children's rights issues but am interested in further discussion on what would be involved in a national organization as you suggest.
Title: RE: Maintaining a Relationship With Kids
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 28, 2007, 02:54:21 PM
>Personal attack, no?  I was challenging your ridicule.  Once
>again, not reading the sentences.  Your two cents are a poor
>investment, for they are worth nothing here...  

Nothing but more personal attacks. Thanks for proving my point.
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 28, 2007, 02:55:49 PM
And, yet, no one has been able to produce a single study which shows that the system fails most of the time. If it's so easy to get the result you want, why do all the studies agree with me?

What you've given is nothing more than anecdotes - which are useless in making policy.
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: Kitty C. on Dec 28, 2007, 03:23:48 PM
You're NEVER going to find a study like that, don't you realize that?????  You'll never find one, because it means taking money out of the pockets of those who profit from it!  If someone had the time, money (and it would have to be personal, because no feminist group would want its' existance known), and especially the balls to do the research, then you could, COULD well get very different results.

Like I said, if you put that much faith and belief in studies, then you can't possibly know the actual reality of what they're even talking about and I feel sorry for you.  Those studies ONLY tell you what THEY want you to know, nothing more and nothing less.  
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 29, 2007, 09:22:26 AM
In other words, your mind is closed and you'll come up with endless excuses as to why the facts don't agree with your opinions.


Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 29, 2007, 09:24:06 AM
>Can anyone explain my situation then? Custodial dad not be
>paid child support in over 4 yrs, yet the court has allowed my
>motion to be sitting for over 14 months. I think the system
>SUCKS and we need to fight this mockery of a court system to
>prevent this from happening to future generations. I'd like to
>see someone step up and get a national organization together
>so we can fight the court system full force.
>

Yes, the court system moves slowly in some cases.

But it's interesting that you ignore the other side of the story. How many times has your ex tried to take you back to court for custody? It seems like every month or so you're writing about another attempt on her part. Yet the court has given you custody and hasn't budged on that.

If it's so biased, how did a NCP father manage to take custody away from the mother?
Title: How twisted can you get????
Post by: Kitty C. on Dec 29, 2007, 04:05:29 PM
Closed?  All I've done is listen to what others have to say!  Like I said, you don't even have a CLUE as to what my ACTUAL opinion is, all the info I've given is what I've been told of true experiences of others.  NONE of it is my opinion, just passing on observations.  Excuses??  Fathers telling me what happened to them in court is an excuse?  I guess I've been living in a cave, because I or the fathers that I've talked to have never been told the court orders that were handed down to them were 'excuses'.

'In other words, your mind is closed and you'll come up with endless excuses as to why the facts don't agree with your opinions.'

Now, if that's not opinion, I'll eat my shorts............


I wasn't going to interject this, but for the children, the point has to be made.  I had an opportunity a week ago to speak to a presidential candidate one-on-one.  I will not go into who or even what party (tho the party would blow some people away, I'm sure) because politics doesn't belong on this forum.  I told this candidate that what was needed to save the children of divorce and custody battles was to ELIMINATE the adversarial atmosphere of the current family court system nation wide.  When parents know GOING IN IT that they will equally be involved with their child until age of majority (which includes being involved with the other parent as well), it eliminates the majority of the battle.  Right now, family courts have 'winners' and 'losers', but the only losers are the kids.  There should be NO winners or losers and, as long as a parent is not proven unfit, joint legal and physical custody should be the norm.

This candidate that I spoke with is very strong supporter of children and they told me they were 'surprised' that I, AS A WOMAN, would care about this issue.  Now, anyone could very easily say that was a political tactic, used to gain my support.  But I ask you all this:  that may be true, but why else would this candidate say something like that unless they actually KNEW the issues and understood themselves that the system is biased against fathers???  

More importantly, this candidate agreed with me 100% and thanked me profusely for caring about the children.  Bottom line, that's what it's all about..........
Title: RE: How twisted can you get????
Post by: olanna on Dec 29, 2007, 06:26:06 PM
K,

there are plenty of political views and published books telling how the system is corrupt and falling under it's own weight.

May I suggest scrolling and ignoring?  This board may only represent a small part of the divorced population but there are enough numbers here to prove the system isn't working. (Think about the size of the population and how few people exercise their right to vote).

with warm regards,

Olanna
Title: I know............
Post by: Kitty C. on Dec 29, 2007, 07:05:33 PM
I guess I let it get to me when the focus is so far off of what we really should be fighting for.  I shouldn't, I know, but I guess when it comes to those who can't defend themselves (the children, our future), I tend to take more exception to it.  I like to think I have thick skin, but this is one of those times there are certainly thin spots in it, LOL!
Title: RE: I know............
Post by: Davy on Dec 30, 2007, 01:06:57 AM
Amen and thanks.  I couldn't agree more about your concern for children.

Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: John-J-Jay on Dec 31, 2007, 08:00:04 AM
IF you managed to read all POST.. THE mother left us when our child was 1 1/2 years old. Our baby girl was barley walking. The court didn't give her to me. My EX gave her to me. If the court had it their way my daughter would be with her mother 9 years ago. But by the GRACE of GOD i got custody because the mother walked away from our marriage and child to go screw some other guy in another state. The court system SUCKS and I think the fathers of this country that are being screwed by the system. I think you need to contact your local legislators and congress to get bills passed to revant the system and to create laws that protect Dads.

If i was delq on $35,000+ of child support I would already be arrested but moms can get away with it....
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: mistoffolees on Dec 31, 2007, 01:44:30 PM
>If i was delq on $35,000+ of child support I would already be
>arrested but moms can get away with it....

Actually, if you read this board, you'd see that several dads are in arrears for 5 digit figures and have not gone to jail.

The system is imperfect. That's not in dispute. But that doesn't make it sexually biased, nor does it justify fathers throwing in the towel because they "can't win".
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: jilly on Jan 02, 2008, 01:32:45 PM
>In other words, your mind is closed and you'll come up with
>endless excuses as to why the facts don't agree with your
>opinions.
>
>
>

Hello Pot...this is kettle calling.
Title: RE: the SYSTEM is sexually biased
Post by: mistoffolees on Jan 02, 2008, 01:35:41 PM
>>In other words, your mind is closed and you'll come up with
>>endless excuses as to why the facts don't agree with your
>>opinions.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Hello Pot...this is kettle calling.
>


Then why is it that I'm the only one who can provide evidence to back my position and I'm willing to look at any evidence you can provide.

You, OTOH, have your mind made up on the basis of your own experience and refuse to consider any evidence to show that your experience is not the norm.