SPARC Forums

Main Forums => General Issues => Topic started by: iceclimber on Sep 20, 2008, 07:36:36 AM

Title: Anyone see 20/20 last night?
Post by: iceclimber on Sep 20, 2008, 07:36:36 AM
Diane Sawyer interviewed Alec Baldwin about PAS and his divorce/custody battle.
it was moving.... and describes what many parents are going thru both mothers and fathers. though they do not have 3.5 million for a legal battle of that magnitude.

i really loved his comment:
"The judges are like pit bosses in Vegas casinos. Their job is to make sure everybody stays at the table and keeps gambling."
Title: Yep, I saw it..........
Post by: Kitty C. on Sep 21, 2008, 04:01:44 PM
And Diane Sawyer wondered why he's angry???  Obviously she knows absolutely NOTHING about the difficulties fathers have in seeing their kids after divorce!  What amazed me is that ABC went out of their way to try to disprove PAS, without a single solitary proactive source.  I would think that Diane Sawyer, of all people, would try to look at both sides of the issue, not just one.  Or did she simply dismiss out of hand that interviewing Alec was the 'opposing side'?

I found Alec Baldwin very articulate about the issues and I think he hit the nail on the head on several.  I know that it had to be very hard to do that interview, as hard as it was to write the book, but it's obvious that he is passionate about the issues and is willing to add his voice.  I'm anxious to read his book.

Let's put it this way........if Alec Baldwin has as difficult time seeing his child after divorce as the average divorced dad, then you know that money certainly isn't a factor and the father bias in family court is very real.
Title: yes!
Post by: iceclimber on Sep 21, 2008, 06:31:01 PM
i said that very thing to my husband. he is very fluent.

i guess what i was trying to say about the 3.5 million dollar custody battle is that unfortunately most dads do not have the money to fight that long. and the children suffer when they give in.
Title: You're right, but.........
Post by: Kitty C. on Sep 21, 2008, 07:01:14 PM
........even with spending that kind of money, it's obvious that there was a father bias in the Baldwin case, since money apparently didn't change the fact that PAS was prevalent and the court did nothing about it and never even acknowledged it.  In this case, Mr. Baldwin could have spent twice that much and I doubt the outcome would have been any different.

I guess what I'm saying is..........if a parent who's dealing with a custody battle thinks that having more money for a better atty. and all the court proceedings will somehow give them an edge in the case, they are very much mistaken.  Alec was dead on about the judges being pit bosses...they saw a gold mine in this case and milked it for all it was worth.
Title: very true..
Post by: iceclimber on Sep 22, 2008, 09:44:52 AM
i have always felt that if it were really about the child's 'best interest' attorney's would be better about advising their clients on the contents of their parenting plan. especially when it is clear that high-conflict is present.

surely constant litigation is not in the child's 'best interest'. so even creating an ambiguous parenting plan does not facilitate 'best interest' at all.
but attorneys do not advise their clients of how to write an air tight parenting plan, which would help reduce litigation and the need for repetitive clarification as well as some of the conflict (if previously addressed in the parenting plan).

the family law system certainly treats fathers with bias and stereotyping. Involved-Good fathers pay the price in a small part due to the actions of dead-beat dads.  And as Mr. Baldwin pointed out, he too can't stand fathers that don't pay child support or abandon their children, because they just aren't a good parent.

with stereotyping in mind.... it is also overlooked that the same can happen to a good mother. and even in a situation where the father wasn't the better parent, but possibly an abuser and manipulator and had the resources not available to the mother.

so in the long run... it's not about 'father's rights' or 'mother's rights'.....
'father's right' to be with the child or 'mother's right' to be with the child.

it is 'child's rights'

and family courts are infringing upon CHILDREN's RIGHTS by not recognizing PAS and other situations that affect the children and inhibit their right to be with both parents.

did i just rant?
Title: RE: Anyone see 20/20 last night?
Post by: FatherTime on Sep 22, 2008, 11:44:04 AM
I watched and posted in his guestbook.  I thought that he was very courageous.  

I also noted how he was blindsided by the question regarding PAS and how the National Organization of Wackos (NOW) denies PAS.  He could have commented on how Diane Sawyer was using the feminists agenda to make her point.  He could have asked Diane if she was a card carrying member of NOW.  Either she is or isnt a member.  IF she is then her agenda would have been outed.  IF she wasn't then why isn't she?  

The public needs to be aware of how NOW has been hijacked by feminists with a Lesbian agenda.  Instead he looked like a deer in headlights, in in regards to that question. He was more concerned about the real issue of not seeing his child.  She was more concerned about talking about his mistakes and making him look like a mean spirited father.  That question by Diane made the interview a BIASED segment by ABC in my opinion.  

Judge Judy should be asked about PAS.  She understands the issue better than any NOW feminist.  If you are not familiar with Judge Judy's position on this issue, just watch her show sometime when she is talking about custody issues.  She is very adamant about ensuring contact between both parents.  Her books are very good reads.

Title: Yup!
Post by: Kitty C. on Sep 22, 2008, 12:44:13 PM
But it's allowed here!  :-)
Title: Comments and a Question
Post by: Davy on Sep 22, 2008, 11:57:54 PM
In the day (mid 1980's), 97.5 % of mothers were rewarded SOLE CUSTODY and hefty CS rewards.  Fathers also paid mortgages, health insurance, all transportation expenses, etc.

Visitation was often one weekend a month and it was common to be denied  and often risk arrest (false charges) just showing up at visitation periods.  Some judges would get pissed then laugh at fathers before raising the CS payment each time they filed a contempt action.

A good friend in our TX FR chapter was incarcerated ... his CS was much greater than his income ... a life sentence since his only way to get out of jail was to bring payments current.  60 minutes ask to him appear but once he got there a female exec canceled at the last minute.

The system was designed to disenfranchise and criminalize fathers.

'Rights' were spoken about in passing among many FR advocates and the hope and emphasis was on Children's Rights.  5 Tx chapters pooled funds to hire a female legislative lobbyist for a year to no avail.  Our chapter had  free legal advice at weekly 'experience sharing' meetings from a female attorney that only represented fathers (except our members).

In short, there are just too many HORROR stories concerning fathers and children to reiterate here ... some are down right bizarre.

My question is WHY  ??  WHY are the CHILDREN NOT PROTECTED ??

Title: That's the million dollar question, Davy...........
Post by: Kitty C. on Sep 23, 2008, 09:38:18 AM
....and one we'd ALL like to know the answer to.  My anger is probably just as strong as yours, too.  We stand back helplessly as the courts and judicial system tear apart our kids, our future.......and NOBODY seems to realize the untold, sometimes permanent damage that's being done to them!  Sometimes I feel we're all just trying to fight windmills and never getting anywhere.  Once in a while, there's a flash in the pan and some NCP prevails and their children come out winners.............but the 'wins' for the kids are just too far between.

That's why we need action on a federal level.  A presumption of joint physical and legal custody UNLESS one parent can PROVE the other could physically or mentally harm the child(ren).  Like Alec said, take the adversarial atmosphere out of the court room and the parents won't have anything to fight about.  If they know going in that there will be NO fighting over time with the children, they will work together.  Thus taking away the one excuse some Iowa judges have used to undermine our joint physical custody law:  since the parents can't work together, joint physical custody can't possibly work either.

See what you did, Davy??  You got me on my soapbox again!  :-)
Okay, I'm done now............
Title: RE: That's the million dollar question, Davy...........
Post by: Davy on Sep 23, 2008, 04:26:37 PM
Oh Kitty !  Please don't go away ... certainly you can't be done ... sweety pie honey buns !!  I'm begging .......... jump off your soap box and whip some a$$.

IMHO is that government, attorneys and everything adverserial MUST be removed  from decisions effecting the well being of children.  That mind set must be supreme and widespread.  We, as a society, can develope and implement a program that is essential to children, those that have no voice and depend on their parents to make responsible decisions.  All other institutions WILL fall in line and positive change will result.

Government has FAILED MISERBLY.

I have idea with my adult children to 'go after' the system and at the very least embarrass them (more).  I think I can slice and dice so that it is not detrimental to the OP. Just like before.  After my next brain surgery ....

I'm not as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was.

Title: Don't tempt me, Davy!
Post by: Kitty C. on Sep 24, 2008, 08:07:00 AM
You're preaching to the choir here!  And I would love nothing better than to be able to whip some a$$!

I agree with you 100%............the govt' has failed our children miserably by creating the current adversarial atmosphere in family court.  I truely believe that if that were eliminated, and parents KNEW going into court that there would be no fighting over the children, they would cooperate a whole lot more.........because they know they HAVE to in order to maintain custody.  In fact, I think there should be laws in place that if a parent purposely creates problems with custody issues, they should have their parenting time reduced until they change their ways.

Now look what you got me back on my soap box again!  :-)
Title: i dont' think it's fair...
Post by: iceclimber on Sep 24, 2008, 02:47:08 PM
to place the blame on the gov't and family courts, when it is PARENTS that are acting like insolent children.
sure family courts let children down when these issues need resolve and they just pass the buck.... but the real blame lies with the parent(s).
they are the ones failing the children.
Title: I think it's VERY fair........
Post by: Kitty C. on Sep 24, 2008, 03:44:39 PM
Like I said, it's the courts and the current laws that have created the adversarial atmosphere in family court.  Without that, you would have parents who KNOW going into it that there will be no fighting over the kids.  Take away the theater and the actors can't act.  

I know of too many women who 'know how the game is played' and milk the system and courts......and the father, and screw their kids because they KNOW they can get away with it, because the system is built around that.  The current system ALLOWS the parents to act like insolent kids.  If you take away the opportunity, they either HAVE to agree to joint physical custody or end up with extremely limited or no custody.  If you create an atmosphere where the KIDS win, the parents won't fight each other.  Right now, our laws and the courts create winners and losers between the PARENTS, giving them ample opportunity to do everything within their power to shut the other parent out of the kids' lives.

The current adversarial system was created by our laws and the courts.  They are the ones who started it and that's where it has to end.
Title: i disagree...
Post by: iceclimber on Sep 24, 2008, 04:28:27 PM
 i don't believe for one second that there is a system that could ever be implemented that could keep a vindictive ex from manipulating it... despite the fact that it hurts the children.

even in joint custody....some parents just want to fight and make life miserable for the other parent and will continue to do so, no matter the system in place.

i also don't believe the courts started it... society started it. our parents, our grandparents. it's what we all were taught. and it is still out there. in tv shows depicting women as the primary care giver. i agree this has changed, but our civilization hasn't depicted it. and society has never accepted change gracefully. change is bad.

am i saying the system isn't flawed? no. lawyers, judges, and evaluators are more focused on lining their pockets than truly serving the 'best interest' of the child. conflict is job security.

that just my opinion.
Title: RE: i dont' think it's fair...
Post by: Davy on Sep 24, 2008, 06:04:46 PM

Try to look at it this way and, for God's sake, please tell your pastor :

A child is made to love and be's not up to government to determine who can love a child or be loved by a child.

A child's capacity to love is formed in a family.... not in court.

A family's most important bond is the relatonship among the members of the family ... in our society it was never the intent or purpose of government to interfere in the family unit to showing favortism of one parent over the other parent.

What every child needs from a parent is unconditional love ... not conditions ordered by a court.
I have looked and looked.  I can not find it written anywhere that I am required to purchase my children from the government or that a parent is entitled to ask the government to broker children.

I have been advised all my life that my labor is to provide for my children.  The court threw in to the equation my wife's boyfreinds children.

I also have been advised all my life that I am required to nuture my children with encouragement and to motivate them in their life.  
I found that impossible when YOUR government not only condons but promotes their demise in their uncanny absence from home.

Title: i'll just be blunt..
Post by: iceclimber on Sep 24, 2008, 07:55:21 PM
i'd appreciate you dropping the pastor bit. we weren't talking about him, you don't know him..... no reason to make such remarks.

Title: RE: i'll just be blunt..
Post by: Davy on Sep 24, 2008, 09:31:33 PM
You previously posted that your pastor advised you to file and that event is directly related to the serious subject matter of the thread.  I'm not posting lipsmack...please tell your pastor what I said.  

I'd be more than happy to contact him or, better yet, I'll ask one of the kids at church to contact him.

I'm almost certain none of them will say they want to be a single parent when they grow up.

I really hope that what I post is helpful to you other wise you're wasting your time logging on.
Title: RE: I think it's VERY fair........
Post by: Davy on Sep 24, 2008, 11:37:52 PM
Kitty... I've seen time and time again how important the strong well-spoken female voice is in the real advocacy for children.  Why you and I don't always see eye to eye you should know how much you are appreciated no matter what.  Your son is a very lucky young man !

I mentioned in a previous post about a female attorney that consulted with FR advocates.  She was very experienced and she was not promoting new business.  She would never offer what drew her to provide free legal advice or what caused her to only represent fathers. I went to her office with an appointment.

She had represented a father in what she considered a normal divorce/custody case.  The only rather unusual situation was that the father requested a social study on the mother's boyfriend which he passed with flying colors.  The father paid her and she never heard another word until 3 years later when the daughter was 8 yrs old.

The frantic father phoned one Sunday evening after receiving a call from his daughter following return from a weekend visit.....the police removed the daugher about 90 minutes later (caught in the act with lip stick and candles).   The mother got 25 years and her husband got 50 years.  The act had been on-going EOW for the 3 years.
Title: absolute lipsmack and unnecessary...
Post by: iceclimber on Sep 25, 2008, 04:11:10 AM
if you had something worthy to discuss or contribute, it would not be necessary.

fortunately i don't log on for you.
my posts with you are done.
Title: RE: absolute lipsmack and unnecessary...
Post by: Davy on Sep 25, 2008, 06:34:56 AM
Logging on and refusing to contemplate the many HARMS your entitlement prone government has caused children only serves to prolong your alligator mouth humming bird a$$ disease.

It might be best for you to concentrate on school supplies for the next school year while trying to comprehend the real purpose of the school swim team.    

Please re-think your mindset.
Title: You have a PM
Post by: Ref on Sep 26, 2008, 08:30:05 AM
Title: Don't get it
Post by: hagatha on Sep 26, 2008, 06:24:35 PM
>Logging on and refusing to contemplate the many HARMS your
>entitlement prone government has caused children only serves
>to prolong your alligator mouth humming bird a$$ disease.

Don't you live in the US?? Isn't this Your government also??

I do understand why you are so angry about the situation you are in as regards to the family court system, been there myself trying to help my husband even see his daughter. (btw the child lived 4 blocks away and attended school directly across the street from us) What I don't understand is the attacks on other posters who don't agree with how you say things.

Aren't we all here for the same reason? To find a way to make things better for our children and ourselves. To HELP make society aware of the injustices within the family court system. To help each other member with encouragement and sympathy?? How is an attack on someone elses situation helpful?

You have tons of experience which is vital to helping other members but you seem to attack anyone that doesn't agree with your personal agenda.

Maybe it's me and I don't understand


The Witch
Title: RE: Anyone see 20/20 last night?
Post by: hagatha on Sep 26, 2008, 06:33:59 PM

I saw him on the VIEW also and he was more articulate and was able to actually speak and finish a sentence. So much better than the Diane Sawyer interview. Dh heard him discuss PA on a local radio station and thought he was great.

I hope people watch him on other programs and get a better idea of what he was trying to explain to Sawyer. IMHO I thought that interview (Sawyer)sucked.

The Witch

Remember . . . KARMA is a Wonderful Thing!!!!!

This is a game of cat and mouse.. to win, you must become the DOG!
Title: RE: Don't get it
Post by: Davy on Sep 27, 2008, 12:31:12 AM

>Don't you live in the US?? Isn't this Your government also??

>I do understand why you are so angry about the situation you are in >as regards to the family court system,.............
>What I don'tunderstand is the attacks on other posters who don't >agree with how you say things.

>Aren't we all here for the same reason? To find a way to make things >better for our children and ourselves. To HELP make society aware of >the injustices within the family court system. To help each other >member with encouragement and sympathy?? How is an attack on >someone elses situation helpful?

Hag...thanks for posting and a bigger thanks for asking.  I think you might know I'm not political or have any excuses.  Of course I adamantly agree with the above except with the 'sympathy' thing.  

My VIEW is that this poster came to this board with control issues....and posted with situations concerning dau. medical appts, school supplies, school swim team, etc.  The father has 50/50.  Unlike others, I'm not all kisssy face and huggy bear over all these trivial isses which were used to primarily BERATE the father.  On several occassions I suggested to confer or defer the communication to the father ... encouraging that she could find a way and that it would be benefical to all concerned especially the children.  She CLAIMS the father is a control freak (which is all the more reason he needs to be compromised). I assume she must have thought I was lipsmacking and I wasn't at all.

The bottom line, and it is not a secret, the father and I are big boys and happy to be the SOB in her mind.  The EMPHASIS is  to please please please STOP causing HARM to the children with the manipulative controlling BS.  That is consistent with this site as far as I know.

Several months ago, I casually told my ys that I wanted to invite his mother here.(she still gives may dau a rash of)   He immediately asked why and I said because I wanted to talk to her.  He exclaimed 'what for....., [list=1], and don't want to talk to her.'

Hope those that BERATE wake up !!!    

Oh... I'm so red, white and blue that I don't consider Floriduh as a part of the USA.  Statistically, several years ago,  Floridah DCFS was considered a business entity ...removed children 47% of the time they entered a home. By comparison, the % of the 2nd and 3rd and 4th place states were 14%,  7% and 5%.  I know a Floriduh grandmother that was terminated (physical abuse, neglect,alcoholism) as a parent in another state (and lost custody in a third state) that was awarded custody of grandkids by DCFS.  Floriduh is full of mouthy feminests that hate and BERATE men on this site.

Like I's OK.  As a matter of fact, everything's OK !!

pssst !  Don't tell the mother her sons are pastors...she thinks they take turns playing the piano in a whore house.