Messages

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.