Maintaining a Relationship With Kids

[frzrclan]

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.

[Giggles]

But I will admit that you are correct.  The "family" court system is seriously flawed and does tend to favor Mothers over fathers.  Perhaps that is why our youth of today are so out of control.

Thankfully, my X and I work hard TOGETHER to be sure that our daughter has what she needs and that includes the love and support of BOTH her parents!!!  I must say that the post-divorce relationship my X and I share in regards to our daughter is very rare....but we did learn this lesson the hard way.  We both started out bickering over her and a legal tug o war ensued...then we wised up and realized what a racket "family" court was.  We both agreed to drop our lawyers and work together on deciding what is best for our daughter and there has been peace ever since!!  My X and I divorced when our daughter was only 2, she is now a very well adjusted beautiful 15 year old that knows she can rely on BOTH of her parents.  If my X is having a problem with her (He's CP), he will call me to discuss it.  Being the NCP, any time I wish to have her he typically doesn't have a problem with that.  OH...btw we live on opposite coasts so logistics for her visits have to be worked out...she has many frequent flyer miles.  This was supposed to be his year to have her for Christmas....I asked him if I could have it because I'm taking my other 2 children (not X's) to Disney.  He said SURE...just like at the begining of this year...I was supposed to have her for Spring Break, but he wanted to take her to San Fran...I said SURE.

If parents could focus on the needs of their children and put their children first...I seriously doubt the family court would be as bad as it is!!!!

[Kent]

Reading your post, I can tell that you are slightly confused.

When "the system" is talking about staying involved with your children, it only means that you must stay involved in paying your child support. The ones who cop-out - i.e. refuse to pay or, as in most cases, just don't have the means to pay - are "not involved" and will go to jail.

You also believe that judges are here to adhere to the Constitution. Well, yes, in all areas - except for Family Law. Since Family Law is a so-called "soft area", judges are not held accountable for their decisions, hence you will find the biggest ego trippers will become family law judges, and rule as if they're better than God.

It appears you also believe that "the system" is in place to protect the best interest of the child. Wrong again - child support brings federal grants, so the more child support is ordered, the more federal grants are received by "the system". And "the system" is money hungry.

But there is hope.
You cannot beat the system, but you can use it to your advantage.

1. If you're not a threat to the children, then nobody can keep you from moving close to your child - or, as I know one person did, buy the house right next to your ex's.

2. If coaches get more time with your child than you do, become a coach yourself. Or just an assistant coach on your child's team.

3. Become an active PTA member at your child's school. Meet with the teachers.

It won't help you in the short run.
But your daughter will see that YOU are acting in her best interest, and in many states, at age 14 she can choose where she wants to live.

And just in case you're the one who moved away - in that situation I'm not really receptive to your complaints.

Kent!

[gidgetgirl]

If you are within driving distance, you should be able to attend her games.

If you are not- never mind!

[Ref]

If you are, DH and I have been in that situation for years and we might be able to offer you some pointers.

BTW, DH had visitation increased and did not have to see a psychiatrist. Sometimes you do sometimes you don't. Fortunatly his judge was fantastic and really did look out for his time with SD. Unfortunately, SD is so brainwashed, we haven't been able to take much advantage of this.

Anyway, if you need some long-distance pointers, just ask.

Best wishes,
Ref

[mistoffolees]

>Reading your post, I can tell that you are slightly
>confused.
>
>When "the system" is talking about staying involved with your
>children, it only means that you must stay involved in paying
>your child support. The ones who cop-out - i.e. refuse to pay
>or, as in most cases, just don't have the means to pay - are
>"not involved" and will go to jail.
>
>You also believe that judges are here to adhere to the
>Constitution. Well, yes, in all areas - except for Family Law.
>Since Family Law is a so-called "soft area", judges are not
>held accountable for their decisions, hence you will find the
>biggest ego trippers will become family law judges, and rule
>as if they're better than God.

I will note (again!) that family courts have little or nothing to do with the constitution. They can not violate the Constitution (by taking away your right to free speech, free exercise of religion, etc), but the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter of custody and child support. Only those rights enumerated in the Constitution are covered by it. All other rights are specifically relegated to the states.

>
>It appears you also believe that "the system" is in place to
>protect the best interest of the child. Wrong again - child
>support brings federal grants, so the more child support is
>ordered, the more federal grants are received by "the system".
>And "the system" is money hungry.

Note that this is not a universal opinion. Most people find that the system works quite well for them. Granted, in a board like this, you're going to have a larger percentage of people with problems, but most of the people in the system are satisfied with it (evidence provided in a lengthy earlier thread).

[mistoffolees]

1. You have no Constitutional right to see your children. The Constitution specifically states that any matters not covered in that document are for the states to decide. Who told you you have a Constitutional right to see your kids?

2. You would need to be more specific in order to get any useful advice. While venting might make you feel better, it's not going to solve anything. There are lots of people here who can give specific advice if you ask a question. But to do that, they're going to need more information - specifically why you think you'll never see your daughter play and so on.

[Davy]

Mist "let's start argument" olese said
  Most people find that the system works quite well for them. Granted, in a board like this, you're going to have a larger percentage of people with problems, but most of the people in the system are satisfied with it (evidence provided in a lengthy earlier thread).

That's a bold face lie.  An ad-hoc statistical 'make work' government report is not EVIDENCE.  The complexity of a broke system is the reason this board exist.  Your theories are very much a tainted minority view of reality.    

[Davy]

"specifically why you think you'll never see your daughter play and so on."
 Poster never said that..he was simply expressing sadness of not being there to share the joy of a hat trick...an achievement seldom obtained.

also check-out the 14th amendment.  Are you suggesting the supremes or higher courts have never over-turned a family court ruling based on constitutionality ???  

[mistoffolees]

>"specifically why you think you'll never see your daughter
>play and so on."
> Poster never said that..he was simply expressing sadness of
>not being there to share the joy of a hat trick...an
>achievement seldom obtained.

You apparently missed:
" I would, likely, never see her make such an achievement. "

>
>also check-out the 14th amendment.  Are you suggesting the
>supremes or higher courts have never over-turned a family
>court ruling based on constitutionality ???  

There's nothing in the 14th amendment that's even close:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend14.htm

As I said, states do not have the right to do something that DOES violate the constitution, so I'm sure that the Supreme Court has overruled them in some cases, but they have an incredible amount of discretion.

Rather than just throwing out numbers, why don't you tell me where the Constitution guarantees you the right to see your kids or the right to limit the amount of support you pay? It's just not there.