Did anyone see Dr. Phil on friday? It had a family that had put a baby up for adoption without the consent of the father and due to some loophole they legally did it! They had the director for the National Institute for Men on talkig about how the government didn't care to find out if he wanted to care for the child but they will sure come after him for child support if the adoptive parents want it! Unbelievable!
His show is ready for prime time, for mothers. He panders to his audience, which is the stay at home mothers, who buy pampers, dish detergent, foodstuffs, and watch soaps all day.
His audience isn't pro father.
FatherTime
Actually in this episode he was standing up for the father who had his child basically taken away from him by the child's mother (they were not married) and her family. They gave the baby up for adoption without his consent, the didn't tell him when the child was born and they didn't put his name on the birth certificate. He was not informed until later that she had had the beby and then her family wouldn't allow him to see the child. apparently there is an obscure law that requires the father of a baby born to an unwed couple to file some sort of paperwork in order to have any "rights" to the baby. The law is so obscure that the mothers lawyer didn't even know about it until she did research for her client. Dr. phil said if you are a layer and din't even know about this law then how do you expect him to know?
What bothers me about that "putative father's registry" (which I think was created with good intentions) is that, at least in their state, he is required to keep in contact with the mother-to-be, and support her and the pregnancy ($), but it's not even proven to be his child!
This and other boards tell presumptive fathers that until the child is born and paternity is established, they have no rights or responsibilites to the child. It could be anyone's child. Why the heck should a guy give the woman money or ask to go to doctor appointments with her (maintain contact) when it may not be his child? And if he doesn't do those things, he has any rights he might have taken away? And if he has no idea there is a baby...? I suppose ignorance is bliss?
I thought the purpose of the registry was to let the powers that be know that there is a possible father out there, should mom try to put the child up for adoption, and they contact him for his permission. I think that fathers' advocate who was on the show had a great idea. Make mom identify the dad, or if there is more than one, get them all in for a test. (I guess it wouldn't work for the "women" on Maury who bring in a dozen guys for testing and it's still none of them....)
I do think Phil was on Dad's side. The mom's family basically decided he was unfit and found a way to get him out of the way. Didn't work, though. Another thing that irks me, is that her family can see the child, and dad can't.
I agree. i do believe the registry was created with good intentions but how is anyone supposed to know about it? I do think that the mother should have to name a father or possible father(s) and the state should have the responsibilty of at least notifying them that they may possibly have a child out there. It definitely wouldn't work for those women on Maury though. I just hate that the father was basically pushed out of his child's life but I know that if she wanted it the mother could get child support, unbelievable.
I don't watch Dr Phil so I didn't see the program about the illegal adoption of the infant. I did receive an adoption notification for my 16 yr old daughter. Upon contacting the Probate dept in this podunk out of state (ILL-and noise) county I encountered this gruff talking dip chit Probate dept. head that informed me they had only 'notified' me as required by law and that I had no choice in the matter and the adoption would proceed.
It didn't.
I would hope not! Don't get me started on my feelings for the family court system and it's associated beneficiary agencies.
eom
"That explains a lot. eom"
Please define what 'that' is.
Please define what 'explains' means.
Please define what 'a lot' is.
Otherwise your entire post appears meaningless.
your consent explains why you seem so anti-court and even anti-mom in your posts. Though it was obvious that you had been hurt by the mother of your children, I didn't know any of your story.
It wasn't my intention to offend you.
I am not anti-mom but I am anti bias and the court demonstartes extreme bias in favor of mothers on a daily basis. Disenfranchising hundreds if not thousands of capable and willing fathers from the joy of watching their children grow. It also cheats children from having involved and caring fathers in their lives by giving full reign to custodial mothers to basically do what they want and ask questions later. Fathers are rarely given the same attention a mother is given by CPS, and family courts in respect to Parental Alienation Syndrome, visitation rights and child support. A father has to go above and beyond what any normal parent would be expected to prove to even stand a chance of getting custody or more than 4 days a month with his child. Mothers are allowed to move away, cut off contact between father and child and they get away with it. The children are the ones who suffer with increased teen pregnancies, drug use, higher drop out rates and runaway rates and incarceration. As long as the check keeps coming every month you are highly unlikely to hear anything from the Family and Domestic Court System, miss a payment and your phone will start ringing.
First let us applaud the post below by the learned Fueledbyjava.
Secondly, I seriously apologize if I only 'seem' anti-court.
And tigger ....
Moreover, comments about anti-mom and being hurt by the mother of your children are basically textbook political statements from your social conditioning (not your fault) that serve to sway communication away from the real pertinant issues. The basic long term welfare of children are greatly impacted by all the many negative ramifications of a bias and prejudiced revenue generating government institution(s). My social conditioning. My personal programming was to always focus on the children thru God. No radical falsehoods, no self, not bimbo (whoops there I go again) or bozzo, no angry words, no false accusation, no threat of arrest, nothing else mattered but the children. All of the opposers thought they were above man's laws and god's laws...so they lost and the children won. I was only a tool and a casual observer.
About the adoption attempt. By comparison to everything else it was just tiny potatoes. I handled myself without threatening to bomb the court house. Three state courts had been defeated, a Federal court had ordered jurisdiction to the Home state, etc.
We as parents should always be referred to as mom or dad rather than the government labels 'ncp' and 'cp'
I wouldn't say I am learned, as I am still going through this process, but I am definitely learning and I am completely disturbed by what I am finding. I agree with you on the social conditioning issue as we are conditioned throughout our lifetime to look upon mothers as the only choice for parenting, which 20 years ago may have been more relevant but todays male is not the same animal that he was back then. There are rising numbers of Stay at Home Dads and women work just as much as men do. So the stereotypical housewife, while still around is finding itself decreasing in numbers. Couple that with the changing social attitude of women today and the playing field for parenting your children is leveled. The courts simply have not caught up, and they still adhere to the status quo established thirty years ago. Also lets not forget the greasy palms of all the organizations private and public attached to the Family/Domestic court system and you have a (I feel like I am wearing out this phrase) flawed and biased system in need of a complete examination and subsequent overhaul.
My biological parents divorced (1970) when I was three, my dad won custody of my brother and me. My mother was not grossly negligent nor abusive. He was simply the better choice. He eventually married three years later.
As I was growing up and friends of my parents would divorce, it would surprise me when the mother got custody as opposed to the dad. I can name two fathers off the top of my head who got custody of their children (in this case, two daughters each) as opposed to the mothers and the mothers weren't horrible, over-the-edge nutcases. Another recent case was the reversal of custody from my ex's wife to her ex-husband.
So my "social conditioning" isn't what you consider to be typical though for me it is normal. My personal experience with divorce was that my ex never even gave either of the boys a bath until a week before we separated in an attempt to prove he was a primary caregiver. He never took them to the doctor (and one of them was there several times a month), dentist or school event. He would dump them off on anyone who would take them (even when we were married) rather than care for them himself. This went completely against what I expected from a dad.
I have no desire to be combative or to end up at odds with you each time we post advice to those seeking help. I am as much "pro-dad" as I am "pro-mom". Kids need both parents in their lives. What's done in the marriage needs to be taken into consideration. Perhaps my experience isn't typical but I don't see the courts as automatically pro-mom and don't understand the court bashing.
You probably don't understand because you have custody at least from what I can tell and haven't been discriminated against. Every situation is different and there are bad "fathers" out there. What state do you live in? I think that has alot to do with it as well. Some states don't even look at why you are getting divorced they just divide things up, hand the kids to mom and hand dad the bill. I don't like the system because basically it is left up to one person who doesn't know you or your children to decide the rest of your childs life, and once that decision is made it is extememly hard to change. I really don't see how you don't see the bias that exists. Fathers are subjected to extreme scrutiny as far as winning custody, mothers simply are not. Unless a father can prove that the mother is totally unfit, and have substantial proof to back it up it is an uphill battle that is already won by the mother before you even start. It is up to you to take custody basically. Put yourself in the position of say you were fighting for custody of your chuildren and your ex had already basicall won. Think about the amount of things you would have to prove to the court to get your kids back. Think of the pain of not kissing your child goodnight every night. Think about your ex conditioning your child to hate you with lies. Think about missing birthdays think about not knowing your child. Think about not legally being able to control any of it. Think about only getting communication from the ex when she wants money. Think about wanting to raise your child and be there every step of the way and not being allowed to by a vindictive ex. Think about your ex's boyfreind getting more time with your child than you. That is why the system is flawed, that is why we must fight to change it.
eom
I know father involvement with the children continues to grow but I would like to clarify. My children were in grade school, organized athletics, etc in the mid 1970's. Even before her dance school kept her away from the kids every night I was by far the nuturing, involved, psychological parent. Other moms called me not her. I was the soccer and basketball coach and never missed a baseball game or cub scout event. Planned the kids birthday partys, did home work and school events, washed clothes and floors,etc. Etc etc. Church was out of the question. She would not allow our daughter to be in anything except dance but the few times she did participated she was better than the boys and was pretty much a tomboy but still half feminine. She seemed to think child rearing ended as soon as each child took their first steps.
She finally learned how to boil water about the time our first child was born. I'm not sure if she ever mastered multi-tasking the dishwasher, oven, washer, dryer, TV and stereo. The kids taught her to operate the garage door opener. She loved the new drive thru banks. One day she called because the new chevy van had died and she had traffic backed up then gets pissed at me when I calmly advised her to put it in park. Her claim to fame was she that she was good in bed and she let everybody else know too.
Fathers of those days were active because we wanted to be and because some mothers had no parenting skills after growing up is the sexual revolution and their own mothers were from the roaing 20's. Involved Dads were at times known socially as "Mr. Moms".
eom? What does that mean? I don't text message so please enlighten me.
Your post said :
" Perhaps my experience isn't typical but I don't see the courts as automatically pro-mom and don't understand the court bashing. "
Unfortunately I understand your views especially given your situation was amicable without government PROMOTION and interference. I've often thought things would be better if every American got a dose of reality becoming a casual observer 3 times a year in family court Sort of like jury duty.
I myself was naive at first and then I learned that if I was lucky I would be a visitor in the lifes of my children. I knew my children would never tolerate that situation. I soon learned that neither them or I had any rational alternatives.
The proof is in the pudding not only nationally but in other countries as well to this disgraceful and dismal circumstances many families find themselves. A book entiled "Our Endangered Children" (1980) is good information but at the time it was written no one could fathom a parent tieing 2 liitle boys in their car seats and pushing the car into a lake.
There are far more women than opposers that share my views and attitudes about a broken judiciary and bias and predujices for mothers/against fathers. It is these like-minded women that have added substantially to the cause of fathers and children. Their voice is powerful because, in my humble opinion, they throw sexism aside and trully represent the best interest of children. So screw the courts.
Many post on this site and there were many before them.
On the other hand, when so many children are hurting and damaged from these mis-guided and evil social policys it is simply beyond belief that anyone would not be somewhat aware.
Even with the feel-good joint custody model it STILL appears to me that whenever a father visits an attorney (officer of the court) assumming he would continue to be the primary custodial parent he is thought to be a mental case unless he has a 100k plus to piss away on an attorney and court, etc.
Where is it written that children can be put up for sale like an animal except in feminist inspired social policies.
Earler this week two talking head attorneys were discussing a child situation on a popular well watched TV news program. One attorney made a BOLD statement that "it is NEVER in a child's best interest to be removed from the mother"
that I had posted way too much information. You can't delete posts here and editing it to "eom" was the closest I could come to deleting.
after she was born. When I met her, the daughter was 13. She said that she gave up custody because the father was the more stable of the two. I said, "Let me guess, he had a house, a job he had held for a long time and a good grip on budgeting. You, on the other hand, were still finding yourself." She was shocked. She said, "Most people ask what I did wrong to have her taken from me." I said, "Nope, that's how I ended up with my dad instead of my birth mother." (You'll notice that I don't refer to her as "mom". This is because after my dad got remarried, the insecurities of my stepmother won out and she made life miserable for all involved until my birth mother dropped out. Daddy made sure that my brother and I had a relationship with our grandparents and aunts, uncles and cousins from her side (made easier because they lived in the same city as his parents and his mom shared information with her mom) but no visitation or contact with her. See, my situation wasn't perfect but not because of my dad.) She said that her ex was getting increasingly difficult to deal with. Interfering with visitation and phone contact and she suspected mail contact. I told her that he was scared. That he's had her all this time and she's probably making comments about needing her mom's advice on stuff and he's scared of losing her. Having had her for 13 years, he can't imaging stepping back from that. She took that into consideration when talking to him and reassured him that she had no intentions of going for custody and uprooting her and moving her to another state. He confessed that it wasn't her intentions that he was scared of, it was his daughter deciding that she wanted to try to live with mom. So when mom saw her next, she listed pros and cons of making that decision and guided her daughter into no longer wondering or fantasizing about living with mom but make an informed decision to stay with dad.
A rarity? Probably. You had two mature adults who put the child first. Before emotions, before social expectations, before personal wants and desires. If parents would put more thought into with whom they bred (myself included) and then into what would this person be like were we to divorce, there might be fewer kids caught in the middle. In my case, my ex was pretty much what I expected, what I didn't expect was an affair that broke up the marriage and the mistress turn wife being a control freak who wanted my life and everything I had, including my kids, especially after she lost hers in a custody battle.