Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Author Topic: THIS IS WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST  (Read 3671 times)


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 142
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
« on: Mar 08, 2006, 06:48:36 AM »




  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
  • Karma: 56
  • Been hanging out since 1998... I think.
    • View Profile
The main opposition appears to be
« Reply #1 on: Mar 08, 2006, 08:43:18 AM »
DISCORD or high conflict... thus joint physical custody with high conflict can actually be MORE harmful to children.

They forget one thing. What is the highest conflict "fathers rights" groups have? Access to their children.

So if they get access to their kids, would it not follow that any conflict  these stereotypical fathers had would also go by the way? So where is all this conflict coming from?.... that's right mothers.

So if I follow their line of reasoning, they are advocating the joint custody be opposed by creating conflict in co-parenting so that joint custody will fail.

Did I get that right?

(Taking tongue out of cheek now.)
A true soldier fights, not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves whats behind him...dear parents, please remember not to continue to fight because you hate your ex, but because you love your children.


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 142
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: Mar 08, 2006, 09:36:18 AM »
Yes that's right!! Very nicely said =)

What I think this lady is also failing to see is there wouldn't be "Fathers Rights" groups if there wasn't a just cause. These men didn't rally together to wiggle out of their parenting obligation but instead came together to fight an unjust bais that is so prevelant in todays court system and society. Most men actually want to be fathers but from what I got from this article was, every father is a heathen who wants nothing to do with their children and all they want is to lower their Child Support.

Yes, some men (and some woman like my own mother) don't want the responsibilty of parenting and will abuse the court system to get out of it. But doesn't the same hold true for custodial parents who want to punish the other parent?? I mean honestly, I can't think of a better way to make sure you get what you want than to go to the courts and have it leaglized. Both parents will abuse the court system, if it suits them.

In my own opinion Joint Custody, Shared Parenting, 50/50 or whatever you'd like to call it, is the best way to raise a child, unless certain situations dictate otherwise. High conflict between two parents is going to exist no matter what the Court Order says but I'd have to say sole custody encourages that.

When you have two combattng parents and you give complete control to just one, what do think is going to happen? Hell breaks out! This kind of custody is unfair to everyone involved - child, parents, family - even teachers and coaches are affected. If co-operation is desired then the courts/Court Order needs to reconize both parents as equal, and award them equal rights to parenting their children. This is the only way to maintain the lowest amount of animosity between parents.




  • Private Reserve
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1257
  • Karma: 4
    • View Profile
In some ways it is correct, but that doesn't mean....
« Reply #3 on: Mar 08, 2006, 10:23:55 AM »
it shouldn't happen.  You do need to be able to get along and cooperate with joint custody b/c it has to be hell if not. The benefit of the time with the child outweighs this.  I always wonder how it can work intirely if the parents don't get together.  One thing at one house and something different at another.  I wonder if there is stability.  

I am not in any way saying it is wrong. Just must be very frustrating on both sides in many cases.  I have no idea how it affects the child b/c I haven't been in that situation.  I'm sure it is not a negative as stated and I am also sure the positives outweigh the negatives.  I seem to notice though that as the child gets older, in some cases, they want one main house.  How is that dealth with then?  

I do believe that not all parents should have joint.  In my case my X can't even take care of himself besides the girls.  I have said this before and hopefully no one thinks bad of me for saying it but there are serious issues which would prevent him from having it now.

For those of you who have made it work out that is great. I hope more can do so in the future.


  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 256
  • Karma: 23
    • View Profile
Most people disagree with me on this
« Reply #4 on: Mar 08, 2006, 11:20:45 AM »
IF both parents manage to get along at least somewhat, shared physical custody can be good for the child(ren).

My son lives one week with his mother, then one week with me. And yes, he hates it, but he would hate it at least as much, if not more, to have an "every-other-weekend-parent".

In our particular situation - and I believe this is similar to most other situations - joint legal with shared physical would not have worked at all. Luckily, GAL, custody evaluator, and judge agreed, and I ended up with shared physical, but sole legal.

Why joint legal doesn't work?
My son has been a daddy's boy from day one, and having strong morals and values, I am willing to compromise on his upbringing only so much.
With his mother's morals and values going down the drain (becoming part-time prostitute), living in different counties, her frequently moving, and just a different look on life in general, joint legal would be impossible.
1) Who decides where he goes to school with joint legal?
2) Who decides about medical treatment with joint?
3) Who decides about mental treatment with joint?
4) Who decides about tutoring with joint?
5) Who decides about where to move to with joint?
6) Who decides about which sports he plays, and where?
7) Who decides... and so on and so on.

And believe me, as vindictive as she has been, even with me having joint legal, it was one battle after the other. Just the total unwillingness to agree to anything but her having total control and no responsibilities makes joint legal impossible.

If you disagree, just answer the above 6 questions, assuming an ex who exlusively disagrees just to disagree, with no regards to what is best for the child, or what the child wants.

Shared physical? Absolutely!
Joint legal? Absolutely not!



  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 142
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Sorry about the confusion
« Reply #5 on: Mar 08, 2006, 01:28:05 PM »
I re-read my previous posts and I'm sorry if it was confusing. When I mentioned joint custody I was reffering to joint everything - physical and legal.

In my fiances case, the BM has temp. physical custody and she abuses the privilege. When my fiance goes to pick his daughter up BM acts as if he's borrowing a rental car - ie: have her back by such and such, don't take her here, don't do this with her, blah blah blah. It's really awful. Also, although they share joint-legal custody, my fiance has never been involved in any minor/major decisions.

Bm has all the control but lacks the maturity to handle it. And, although she claims otherwise, she really doesn't look at what is in the best interest of their daughter, unless it's good for BM too.

As I said before, my fiance and I are still mid-battle and really don't have too much experience with winning joint-custody. But I do think joint-physical/legal custody would be peaceful and easy to live with if there was a strict, concrete and detailed Court Order written up. In our situation, we have a very vague, 1 page temporary Court Order which  BM has no regard for because it doesn't outline a punishment for disobeying it. She's knows she can get away with murder and does as she pleases. This is the cause for all the unnecessary strain we've been going through.


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Consider the source
« Reply #6 on: Mar 09, 2006, 07:28:21 PM »
Trish Wilson is well known for father-bashing articles.  This actually represents one of the mildest that I have seen her write.  They all come to the same predictable conclusion that is totally independent of either the child's best interests or any substantiated reality.


  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1730
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
If you think Trish is bad, read this....
« Reply #7 on: Mar 11, 2006, 09:52:03 AM »
My personal opinion is "True and Equal Parenting" from the start. Take away the incentive and more marriages would remain intact. Give BOTH FIT parents total equality in the courtroom and many women would opt to stay and work things out. Barring any abuse or neglect that may be going on. Not false allegations, the use of solid evidence.

It would be a step in the right direction and remove much of the conflicts many now face.

The children would come out the true winners.

But right now, things are too easy to walk away, too many incentives and the knowledge of how to play the game. Whether it is an RO or OOP or being encouraged to keep a 'high conflict' situation going, and beleive me, CP's are told to do this just so there will not be "joint". On most of their sites, this is one of the first things you will read.

Here is Liz Scott's advice to women:


And more on Liz:


The "NEW" game in town:



The sad part is, there are many step parents who really love and care about these children caught in the middle. Many of them would never dream of pulling this crap. And CP's who truely put their children as top priority. To them, I salute you.

Here is someone who is standing his ground and doing something politically toward REAL reform,


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 142
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: If you think Trish is bad, read this....
« Reply #8 on: Mar 11, 2006, 07:35:58 PM »
WOW and OH MY GOD!!!

Thank you so much for posting that link!!! I can't express the anger and frustration I felt (and still feel!!!) reading that.

I don't promote violence in anyway, but I think anyone who uses false allegations of domestic abuse to get what they want should be slapped, it's only fair. Not only is that kind of person selfish and evil, they are also hurting innocent victims (the men) and are explointing the pain and trama that real DV vicitims suffer. This is exactly the type of selfish, evil woman that the men on SPARC and men all around the world are fighting.

I'm not really sure I understand what the point of her site is. I'm thinking she's trying to shed light on the obvious gender bias in court and she's trying to do it in a commical way. But honestly, I really can't believe the crap she wrote on there, be it for humor or not. I'm worried that some pissed off ex wife is going to stumble across that site and really mess up some guys life!

If you read that site you'll notice she moslty advocates for the mothers, without a genuine care for the children. On any and all fathers sites I've been to, the father's main concern was always for the welfare of their children, not how to wreak havoc on the mother's life. I think its sick this woman posted such man-hating advice but she almost (but not quite) redeems herself by writing this:


Here are a few more articles I found on that site that I thought might be of interest. They almost made me vomit. Check these out:

This the best and worst thing I found written on her site:



Found this on the Google search engine when I entered "domestic violence industry:


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
The last link is just the tip of the iceberg
« Reply #9 on: Mar 11, 2006, 08:10:03 PM »
Take it from someone who lives in MA, and has fought the system (requiring a full decade).  This article seriously understates the problem, and I could put up dozens of others which support it.


Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.