View the memberlist
Search for Members
Divorce First Aid
Mental Health Articles
Editorials / Opinion
Law & Legislation
Studies & Statistics
Contact & About Us
Click to Search the
Click to Search the
Supervised Visitation Providers
Oracle SQL Function Library
Oct 02, 2023, 04:07:45 AM
Login with username, password and session length
Started by 2dvldog, Jun 23, 2007, 08:17:51 PM
Jun 25, 2007, 06:22:46 AM
>Every reply i have gotten form jade is a mother biased reply.
>You have to remember the courts are still gender biased and
>ihave been fighting it for 6 years...I thought getting advice
>from a site like this would be differant...
There are some cases where the courts are biased on the basis of gender, but nowhere near as much as some people claim. But Jade's responses didn't indicate any gender bias.
Furthermore, you can either live in a fantasy world where things work the way you wish they did or you can live in the real world and deal with things as they are. I'd suggest the latter. If there's gender bias in your court (for which you haven't provided any evidence, btw), then you have to deal with it.
Jun 25, 2007, 06:24:20 AM
>Hey Mist (and you too Jaded) ... knock off your crap !!
Sorry, but I'm not the one providing anger-filled irrational comments here.
>Most of the world certainly does not agree with the way YOU
>WANT it to.
>As a matter of fact (over a very long period of years) far
>more would agree with the OP.
Why don't you point out the factual errors in my post?
Jun 25, 2007, 06:26:11 AM
>oh and my children have neevr set foot in a daycare so its
>not a matter of daycare or her
So what do you suggest? It's OK for one of your family members to stay at home to watch the kids but it's not OK for your ex to stay home and watch the kids? Try presenting that argument to the courts.
The facts are simple. Her husband makes enough money that it doesn't make sense financially for her to work and put the kids in day care. I've been in the same situation. You may not like it, but that's the way things work some times.
Jun 25, 2007, 06:35:18 AM
>Again and again and again ....
>You are simply text book and not in reality making up
>assumptions that simply don't relate to 2dvldog.
Fair enough - just as soon as you stop making assumptions, too.
>He said the mother started out with primary custody (aka mommy
>bias) and the father has fought thru the bias much to the gain
>of the children.
The father CLAIMS bias. Unfortunately, there's no evidence of that. The easiest thing in the world is to claim bias.
>The father said his children had never seen the inside of a
>day care center and you simply don't know the salary level the
>lazy mom might demand if she would work to support her five
Talk about ad hominem attacks. A mother who can afford to stay home with her kdis and chooses to do so is lazy? Now who's the one who's biased?
When I was married, it was very clear that it didn't pay for my wife to work - even though she'd be making $40-50 K per year. First, you have day care expenses. Then an extra car. Then lunches out. Then a cleaning lady. Then more clothing. And so on. You can quibble about some of those, but we made a sound, financial decision that her working would not benefit us financially, but would be worse off for our daughter because she'd be in day care. So are we lazy?
Furthermore, I don't need to know the salary level she MIGHT command. Unless she's in a very specialized line of work, they're going to impute minimum wage. So far, there's been no evidence that she's a rocket scientist or plastic surgeon.
>You also assume the father's CS $$$ is strictly being used to
>support his children. Very doubtful since there is no
>acountibility in the system.
That's the way child support works. But, frankly, I've seen very few cases where the money provided for support was greater than what it costs to raise a child. Jade and I both pointed out the chance that if the mother goes back to work, his support could go UP. All we're suggesting is that it's not necessarily beneficial to ANYONE for her to be working.
What does that have to do with accountability?
>Here is reality. The money received from the father's labor
>is for the gain of his children...not for the gain of an
>exwife or another man's children including the exwife's new
>husband, attorneys and judges.
Do you feel better now that you have that out of your system?
Do you have evidence that the money he's paying for support is not being used for the kids? If not, then stop with the inflammatory stuff.
>The children are currently thriving in the custodial
>arrangement, school, socially and in outside activities. The
>children need to be protected from the mother.
You really need to take a step back. The children are thriving with shared physical custody. No allegations of abuse of any kind. Now, the mother wants to watch them during the day to accomodate the father's work schedule and that's some evil scheme?
>You should not assume these children's, the other children, or
>all the adults are best served by cowing down to the mother's
Nor by the father's misguided ego. Nor by yours.
Jun 25, 2007, 07:26:50 AM
So are you saying that people who choose to stay home and raise their children are automatically lazy and don't want to work?
Child support money is to support the child's basic needs. Part of those basic needs are shelter, food, electricity..........
Jun 25, 2007, 07:32:11 AM
No I wasn't making a general statement. I was making a very specific statement about a very specific person whom I Know is lazy(I was married to her after-all). All I'm saying is that the children are thriving in our current situation and there would be no reason to change the arrangement based on that alone. To what end? Whos needs are really being met by doing so?
Jun 25, 2007, 11:54:41 AM
ok here is my 2 cents.
1. if you both have joint physical custody, then it would seem to me that you both can command what goes on with the kids while in your care. ie, if your wife wants to watch the kids when you are at work then so be it, but also remember that the same goes for the ex. IF you would choose, and as a practical suggestion, to allow the other the right of first refusal (if this is not addressed in your court order already) then you have that right.
2. the basic thing here is the kids and communicaiton between the parents.
3. Some (not all) court orders will address the childs rights to have a relationship with other significants in their life, ours does and specifically states that the child has the right "To develop and maintain meaningful relationships with other significant adults (grandparents, stepparents and other relatives) as long as these relationships do not interfere with or replace the child's primary relationship with the parents." so my take is that if the child is with you and you have joint physical - then the child has the right to have a relationship with his/her stepmother, and seeing as how the child is with you during this shared joint physical custody, ten it is not replacing the mothers time IF your court order does not specifically state the right of first refusal - then you would need to follow your court order.
Jun 25, 2007, 11:38:57 PM
I would like to throw in my 2 cents also...
From what I have read in this thread, the kids are in the care of the stepmother (at times) while the father works. The mother wants the kids while the father is at work. Does that about some it up?
Something I would like to throw out there. (This is a personal observation and opinion) A child benefits not just from the physical presence of a parent...but also from the enviroment that that parent provides. If not, you would have to think that the only time the child benefits from being with a parent is when they are attatched at the hip. So not true, especially as the children grow up.
Does the child only benefit when they are sitting there in the same room with Daddy (or Mommy)? Or do they benefit from knowing that Daddy (or Mommy) has provided this safe, loving enviroment for them to be in? What happens when the kids are in school? They are away from both Mommy and Daddy (hopefully in a safe, learning enviroment). How is the time spent in school different from time spent in a care program? Both situations have the children outside of the home, in the care of others for a time.
Jade I read something in another post that kind of raised my hackles a bit. It is the survey of if presumed 50/50 custody should be the norm. You wrote: "my answer would be no. It doesn't take the individual child into consideration. If it is that the other parent can call the child when with the other parent (if that makes sense), then my answer would be yes. Along with both parents having access to school records, health records, etc...
Should it not be the other way around...that presumed 50/50 should be the norm, with the individual child/circumstances taken into consideration for possible needed adjustments? Is it your contention that "phoning the child when with the other parent" is in any way equivilant to spend time with the parent? What a crock! Jade, I dont know you from Adam, but that comment is spoken like a true controlling custodial parent! They cant have true shared custody, but they can call when ever they want. If I would have to guess, the bias I am seeing in your post is not a "Mommy" or "Daddy" based bias, but rather a Custodial Parent based bias. And that is just wrong.
Ok, I will get off my soap box now.
Jun 26, 2007, 04:23:01 PM
>Jade I read something in another post that kind of raised my
>hackles a bit. It is the survey of if presumed 50/50 custody
>should be the norm. You wrote: "my answer would be no. It
>doesn't take the individual child into consideration. If it is
>that the other parent can call the child when with the other
>parent (if that makes sense), then my answer would be yes.
>Along with both parents having access to school records,
>health records, etc...
>Should it not be the other way around...that presumed 50/50
>should be the norm, with the individual child/circumstances
>taken into consideration for possible needed adjustments? Is
>it your contention that "phoning the child when with the other
>parent" is in any way equivilant to spend time with the
>parent? What a crock! Jade, I dont know you from Adam, but
>that comment is spoken like a true controlling custodial
>parent! They cant have true shared custody, but they can call
>when ever they want. If I would have to guess, the bias I am
>seeing in your post is not a "Mommy" or "Daddy" based bias,
>but rather a Custodial Parent based bias. And that is just
>Ok, I will get off my soap box now.
It's not a custodial parent bias. It is a primary caregiver bias. If my ex had been the sahp, he would have custody right now.
And, no, shared physical custody should not be the presumption. Because it does not take the individual child into consideration.
An example of this is small children. They need more stability than 50/50 provides. And then there are children, regardless of age, who just do not do well with going back and forth constantly. And while this may not seem a big deal to you, what if the parents can't agree to one home being the primary home? That child is stuck in a bad situation under the law.
As it stands now, the only exception in the states that are foolish enough to have this presumption, the only way that the child wouldn't be forced into shared physical custody is if there is domestic violence involved or the parents agree to do what is best for the child (which I would hope they would do anyway). The law simply is not in the child's best interests.
Does this mean that I think that shared physical custody won't work? That depends on the individual child and how close the parents live together.
Shared physical custody is not something that I would have ever agreed to when I got a divorce simply because my children are young and aren't ready for it. And if my children had the misfortune of being in a state where the presumption is 50/50 physical, they would not be as happy and well-adjusted as they are. Does it mean that I have ruled it out in the future? No, but right now, it's not happening.
Jun 26, 2007, 05:16:03 PM
>As it stands now, the only exception in the states that are
>foolish enough to have this presumption, the only way that the
>child wouldn't be forced into shared physical custody is if
>there is domestic violence involved or the parents agree to do
>what is best for the child (which I would hope they would do
>anyway). The law simply is not in the child's best interests.
Jade, that is not correct. If you're going to argue your point, you should start with accurate information.
In my state, shared physical custody is the presumption, but either parent can present any evidence that they wish as to why they think that it should not be applied. They can include counselor's reports, request a custody evaluation, or present any other evidence that they wish if they think that their home is a better place for the kids.
I happen to believe that shared physical custody is best for the kids unless there's some reason why the opposite is true. Research shows that greater levels of involvement by both parents results in better outcomes (although I suspect that for infants, it might be better). What is the evidence supporting your contention that it it not appropriate for younger children?
At the time of our divorce, my ex was the primary caregiver - as a stay-at-home-mom. But there's no question in my mind that I'm a better parent. By your standards, my daughter should be with her, but in reality, my daughter does better with me - happier, we spend far more time together than she does with her mother, we do more activities, and so on. A presumption of equal time where either parent is free to present their case seems much fairer than presuming that one parent is a 'better' parent than the other. Just how is it fair to make an arbitrary assumption favoring either parent?
Terms and Rules
Go Up ▲
SMF 2.1.4 © 2023