Maintaining a Relationship With Kids

[frzrclan]

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?

[frzrclan]

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.

[mistoffolees]

>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.

This is, of course, only one view. Others see the family courts and CPS as there to protect the kids.

I'm still waiting for one shred of credible evidence that the system as a whole is broken.

Imperfect? Of course. But there is a lot of good being done, as well.

[John-J-Jay]

The system does suck. Am many of you on here know i'm a custodial parent attempting to get my ex to pay 4 years of back child support but being a MAN the courts aren't doing anything to make this mother pay child support. I've dumped thousands into the atty lap and can't get a hearing on the facts of the case, yet the ex is trying to take my daughter away and this fight has been going on since Mid 2006, so i truly believe their is a sexual bias here as well as a system that's BROKE.

However, if it was a woman that was owed the child support the man would be in Jail.....

[mistoffolees]

>The system does suck. Am many of you on here know i'm a
>custodial parent attempting to get my ex to pay 4 years of
>back child support but being a MAN the courts aren't doing
>anything to make this mother pay child support. I've dumped
>thousands into the atty lap and can't get a hearing on the
>facts of the case, yet the ex is trying to take my daughter
>away and this fight has been going on since Mid 2006, so i
>truly believe their is a sexual bias here as well as a system
>that's BROKE.
>
>However, if it was a woman that was owed the child support the
>man would be in Jail.....


And, yet, the studies show that the overwhelming majority of child support is paid on time - and most of the child support which is not paid is owed by someone with no income.

Yes, there are bad cases out there. That does not mean the entire system is broken. The system works far more often than it fails.

[Kitty C.]

Mist, it's time you step back from all the writings and 'studies' and take a serious look at the reality of child custody and support.

I worked for 5 years on a program with a certified statistician who also had a PhD.  He was the first to tell me that for every study out there, you can find a comparable study that will completely negate the first.  He also said that any decent statistician (and you can't do a study on anything without one) can make the numbers look good in their favor.  The biggest part of any study and statistics is what they AREN'T telling, compared to what they are.

I will be the first to admit that, on this website, you will only see one side of the story.  So you can't judge what the rest of the nation is dealing with based upon the users here.  But with the father's and children's rights movements gaining momentum and so much new legislation being passed on joint custody in recent years, wouldn't it be common sense to believe that these issues are more of a problem than not?  Legislation doesn't happen on issues like this unless there is a significant outcry for it.

Common sense tells me that, with recently new legislation in my state  and history that has proven that the majority of primary physical custody cases are awarded to the mother, there has been a bias in the system against fathers regarding custody issues.  And with the feminists beating their drum of the 'deadbeat DAD' and the media listening to them, there appears to be a bias against fathers regarding support as well.  I don't need any study, pro OR con, to tell me that.  It's as plain as the nose on my face.

[frzrclan]

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.

[moft]

I'm new to this forum, and already feel the need...

An internet troll is defined as someone who posts controversial messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting other users into responding.

Are you a troll?  Or are you just so unhappy?  Try reading the original post without nitpicking every little word.  Forest?  Trees?  Want to be helpful?  Answer his question.  Try contributing instead of bashing.  He even put himself above you by not responding in kind to your malice.

[moft]

Yeah, I'm sure you read the studies.

I mean, the system is so convoluted and fraught with the troubles everyone is complaining about, because the majority of people are current with support and there is no conflict.  That's what your saying?

You can always find a government report or a study to support your argument?  If you want, I can post my study right here.  I'll make it up in the next hour...  Don't knock it,  because I'm going to call it a "study."

[mistoffolees]

>Mist, it's time you step back from all the writings and
>'studies' and take a serious look at the reality of child
>custody and support.

Sorry, 'reality' only applies if you have facts. A board which is made up mostly of people who have problems is not the place to find facts.

My point is simple - yes, there are problems - and many of the people here can cite problems. But focusing only on problems can hide the fact that the system doesn't always fail. People who go into the process assuming failure and attacking everyone at every turn are more likely to have bad results.

>
>I worked for 5 years on a program with a certified
>statistician who also had a PhD.  He was the first to tell me
>that for every study out there, you can find a comparable
>study that will completely negate the first.  He also said

Fine. Then where's the study with evidence which negates the ones I provided?

>that any decent statistician (and you can't do a study on
>anything without one) can make the numbers look good in their
>favor.  The biggest part of any study and statistics is what
>they AREN'T telling, compared to what they are.

Fine. Then how about some FACTS rather than opinions and anecdotes?

>
>I will be the first to admit that, on this website, you will
>only see one side of the story.  So you can't judge what the
>rest of the nation is dealing with based upon the users here.
>But with the father's and children's rights movements gaining
>momentum and so much new legislation being passed on joint
>custody in recent years, wouldn't it be common sense to
>believe that these issues are more of a problem than not?
>Legislation doesn't happen on issues like this unless there is
>a significant outcry for it.

ROTFLMAO. Legislation happens whenever politicians think they can gain votes.

>
>Common sense tells me that, with recently new legislation in
>my state  and history that has proven that the majority of
>primary physical custody cases are awarded to the mother,
>there has been a bias in the system against fathers regarding
>custody issues.  And with the feminists beating their drum of
>the 'deadbeat DAD' and the media listening to them, there
>appears to be a bias against fathers regarding support as
>well.  I don't need any study, pro OR con, to tell me that.
>It's as plain as the nose on my face.

And THAT is what I'm fighting against. What's plain to you may not have any bearing on reality. As long as people insist on debating nothing but their own feelings or what's 'obvious' to them rather than getting the facts and working with REALITY, the problems won't get solved. All you'll do is substitute one bad law for another.

Let's use crime as an analogy. If you do nothing but read the New York Post, you'd assume that every living person in the US is likely to be robbed on any given day and everyone should wear bulletproof vests. In reality, crime affects very few people on a given day. The rational thing to do is to determine the risks, take appropriate action, and then live your life. That's quite different than the panic mode you'd live in if you read only the NY Post.  I'm not saying that crime isn't a problem - of course it is. But if you take prudent precautions, you don't have to live your life in panic mode assuming that you're going to be attacked every time you leave your home. In many ways, that's even worse than not doing anything.

Similarly, there are problems with the system and it can be improved. But the 'the system is broken' and 'nothing works' and 'every male is going to get shafted' and 'you don't have to pay child support because it's unconstitutional' stuff you see thrown around here is NOT going to solve the problem. What WILL improve the system is a calm, rational assessment of where it works and where it doesnt - and then calmly trying to address the weaknesses rather than throwing out the whole system which - like it or not - works reasonably well much of the time (as the evidence I provided indicates - at least until someone can provide some evidence refuting it).