Maintaining a Relationship With Kids

[speciallady]

I pointed that out to Mist ages ago-stats can be slanted to provide "evidence" for anything. All depends on what you are looking for.
That being said, the "study" Mist provided here was dated from 2003--almost 5 years ago. Many things have happened within that time frame. I also provided a study which directly showed in California, the state we dealt with, the HUGE number of failing cases in regards to support being collected or not being collected (in the billions I believe it said...). How could that be a system that works?
I provided an alternative as in 50/50 split with NO support exchanged but that arguement went nowhere. Mist said it wasnt fair to the child/ren if one parent made good money and the other didn't--without regards to the lower salaried parent having the same opportunity to get a better job and/or education.

I provided everything Mist asked for==proof the system doesn't work (btw, the study Mist quoted from also only included 3-4 states I believe...I was only concerned with CA as that is the state that screwed us.), I offered an alternative, etc....but Mist has to have the last word and stood only by that outdated study.

A study that is at least 4 years old, limited states involved, billions of uncollected support--how can that be a system that works?

[Kitty C.]

This isn't court, Mist.  And I have a full time job, which prevents me from taking the enormous amount of time it would require to investigate and obtain 'facts'.  These so-called facts you seem to think are the key are actually court records, which aren't public information, as far as the details are concerned.  At least I've never seen any custody or support agreement between 2 parents published for all to see.

And using crime as an analogy is like comparing apples to oranges.  There is no comparison, in frequency, convictions, or recidivism, which is non-existant in family courts anyway.

As for legislation, we've worked MANY years here in IA to get it passed and constantly ran into roadblocks along the way.  And not just from the IA Bar, but the legislators themselves.  They certainly didn't pass it for votes, since we are still having to 'remind' judges of the new legislation.

Be careful of throwing out your own 'opinion' and presenting it as fact, as well.  I can throw it right back at you and I bet you can't give me 'proof' that 'Legislation happens whenever politicians think they can gain votes.'

None of what I said in my post was my opinion or feeling, rather it's what I have seen through long observation, primarily within my own state.  I can't give you all the names or case numbers, but I can tell you that of the many fathers I have talked to and heard about (many who didn't even know about this site until I told them about it) give the same song-and-dance.

Yes, the 'system' may work for some, but I think it's state, even city specific.  And it appears to even depend on the mood of the presiding judge, because I've been told of cases where the judge will rule one way, but later down the road rescind or completely change an order, with no basis or change of status in the case.  But when you see case after case where fathers AND their children are getting the short end of the stick, you'd have to be blind and naive to ignore it.

The system must be changed for the children, simple as that.  If the system works so well, why are there so many children of divorced/separated parents with problems?  It's been proven over and over again that teenage promiscuity, drug use, truancy, etc. is increased in children from split homes.  If those children had both parents as a constant in their lives (like children from intact marriages, check the stats on that one), those numbers would drop dramatically.

No, I cannot give specifics on data and studies and I certainly don't have the time to go digging for it all, either.  But when the majority of people walk through the door dripping wet and tell me it's raining outside, I certainly won't call them a liar and go to the window to look.

'If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be a duck.'

[Ref]

DH is struggling right now with his relationship with SD. BM is a terrible person and alienated SD to no end.... Doesn't mean that over the years DH wasn't successful in staying in SD's life. It just means that BM was able to work her magic 24/7 and at this point, won.

The problem is, BM ultimately has the power to distroy your relationship. There is little you can do if she is crazy enough to hurt your child to get to you. You have to ask yourself every day if you can handle the pain and be honest. DH fought for 13 very hard years and he has some wonderful memories because of his efforts. We will have to wait and see right now how it plays out with SD.

I was a child of Alienation. My dad lived in England and my mother in PA. I did the longdistance thing. I hated my dad for no real reason other than my mom hated him. I rejected him just like SD is rejecting DH. I realized in my late teens through my early twenties that I was brainwashed against him and had anger issues with my mom. At any rate, I have seen it on both sides and I actually do feel for the alienating parent a little. They are pretty pathetic and sick people.

Anyway, good luck with everything. It is a very hard position to be in.

Ref

[mistoffolees]

Sorry, pal, but when I see people offering advice which is likely to get someone in trouble or not help them, I'm going to throw my 2 cents in. In case you haven't noticed, this is a public board.

Instead of personal attacks on me, why don't you read what I wrote and try an intelligent response.

You will note that almost all of the people attacking me are using pure ad hominem attacks and have never provided any rational evidence to back their position - including you.

[mistoffolees]

So what it amounts to is that you want people to ignore the published facts out there on the basis of your opinion - which you have never been able to back up with facts.

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. At least for thinking readers.

[mistoffolees]

>I pointed that out to Mist ages ago-stats can be slanted to
>provide "evidence" for anything. All depends on what you are
>looking for.

And, yet, you've never been able to provide any studies to back up your position. Why is that?

>That being said, the "study" Mist provided here was dated from
>2003--almost 5 years ago. Many things have happened within

Prove it.

>that time frame. I also provided a study which directly showed
>in California, the state we dealt with, the HUGE number of
>failing cases in regards to support being collected or not
>being collected (in the billions I believe it said...). How
>could that be a system that works?

The funny thing is that after reading that study, it confirmed what I stated - only a tiny percentage of cases were problems and most of those were cases where the NCP didn't have any income to pay support. Your article simply confirmed what I stated - that in the majority of cases the system works and that there is a small number where it doesn't.

>I provided an alternative as in 50/50 split with NO support
>exchanged but that arguement went nowhere. Mist said it wasnt
>fair to the child/ren if one parent made good money and the
>other didn't--without regards to the lower salaried parent
>having the same opportunity to get a better job and/or
>education.

A very large number of situations involve one parent with a very high income and the other parent working for quite low wages. Whether you want to blame the low wage parent or not, the child would see a huge drop in his/her standard of living under your scenario. I simply argued that it is not intrinsically fair for the child to suffer unnecessarily. You seem to disagree.

>
>I provided everything Mist asked for==proof the system doesn't
>work (btw, the study Mist quoted from also only included 3-4

Actually, if you even bothered to read your study, it confirms that the system works in an overwhelming percentage of cases.

>states I believe...I was only concerned with CA as that is the
>state that screwed us.), I offered an alternative, etc....but
>Mist has to have the last word and stood only by that outdated
>study.

No, I'm standing by the only two studies presented - mine and yours. Both agree that the system works most of the time.

>
>A study that is at least 4 years old, limited states involved,

Given the time that it takes to collect the information, that was the newest study available. You see, collecting data takes time - unlike simply making things up which seems to be advocated by a number of people here.

>billions of uncollected support--how can that be a system that
>works?

Sure. Lots of uncollected support. No one ever denied that. But it's a single digit percentage of the total - according to both your study and mine. AND, most of the uncollected support is owed by parents with no income.

Seems to me that you're simply confirming my position.

[John-J-Jay]

Can anyone explain my situation then? Custodial dad not be paid child support in over 4 yrs, yet the court has allowed my motion to be sitting for over 14 months. I think the system SUCKS and we need to fight this mockery of a court system to prevent this from happening to future generations. I'd like to see someone step up and get a national organization together so we can fight the court system full force.

If i was the NCP i would be in jail right now because i'm a MAN. A woman they are affraid to do anything because they are MOMMY!

Give me a break, our system hates dads and puts them down like they are worthless. Majority of all dads should have their children and not the so called "mothers". My daughter wasn't even walking when her mother left us. now almost 10 yrs later, i'm still fighting the court and my ex. I should only be fighting the ex not the courts.

[moft]

Personal attack, no?  I was challenging your ridicule.  Once again, not reading the sentences.  Your two cents are a poor investment, for they are worth nothing here...  

[moft]

I feel your frustration, friend.  If I were in arrears and my ex walked into court, by herself and without representation, she would certainly be able to enter a wage-garnishment order and/or have a warrant out for my arrest that day.  It's sexual bias and a flaming example of the contradiction in our society today.  Women's lib was meant to bring equality, yet we continue to see the gross inequality in the sexes.

Someone previously called Family Law a "soft" branch of law, and there is where the problems lie.  Some clerk or judge saw your motion, and pictured this father trying to track down the (gasp) MOTHER of his child to make her responsible for her part of the parenting deal, then placed that motion in the "TO BE REVIEWED AT A LATER TIME" pile on the desk.  There are some here that will be astonished at my suggestion, may even provide some obscure study to suggest otherwise, but practicality and common sense come into play here.  While I don't know for sure, I doubt that there is a 14 month backlog of delinquent child support cases in your county.

My suggestion is this:  there are a lot of tutorials and guides to accomplishing many legal tasks on this site and many other Father's Rights sites.  Your case is different than probably a lot of dads, in that you were lucky enough to get custody of your daughter, but you may be able to file some sort of petition or complaint, on your own, which may expedite the process.  

I am finishing an ordeal to have more time with my own daughter, and have learned just how worthless attorney's can be.  Please don't can your attorney, just try doing a little research and work on your own.  I learned a lot myself by studying this stuff on my own.  

[John-J-Jay]

I couldn't agree with you more! you are dead on.

imagine this crap. My ex is trying to regain custody because i've asked for child support to be paid and now 14 months later, i'm way upside down finanically on what i'll collect versus what i've paid out in atty fees for the next 7 to 8 yrs of her childhood. However the court system has allowed this mother to file motion after motion after motion to stall and TRY to regain custody.

if the courts were truly unbiased they would have smashed her 1st motion and said this is nonsense you are filing this in retailation to him asking for money. BUT they allow BullSH** motions to be filed to run up fees and make the court system what it is today.