Anyone see 20/20 last night?

[iceclimber]

Diane Sawyer interviewed Alec Baldwin about PAS and his divorce/custody battle.
it was moving.... and describes what many parents are going thru both mothers and fathers. though they do not have 3.5 million for a legal battle of that magnitude.

i really loved his comment:
"The judges are like pit bosses in Vegas casinos. Their job is to make sure everybody stays at the table and keeps gambling."

[Kitty C.]

And Diane Sawyer wondered why he's angry???  Obviously she knows absolutely NOTHING about the difficulties fathers have in seeing their kids after divorce!  What amazed me is that ABC went out of their way to try to disprove PAS, without a single solitary proactive source.  I would think that Diane Sawyer, of all people, would try to look at both sides of the issue, not just one.  Or did she simply dismiss out of hand that interviewing Alec was the 'opposing side'?

I found Alec Baldwin very articulate about the issues and I think he hit the nail on the head on several.  I know that it had to be very hard to do that interview, as hard as it was to write the book, but it's obvious that he is passionate about the issues and is willing to add his voice.  I'm anxious to read his book.

Let's put it this way........if Alec Baldwin has as difficult time seeing his child after divorce as the average divorced dad, then you know that money certainly isn't a factor and the father bias in family court is very real.

[iceclimber]

i said that very thing to my husband. he is very fluent.

i guess what i was trying to say about the 3.5 million dollar custody battle is that unfortunately most dads do not have the money to fight that long. and the children suffer when they give in.

[Kitty C.]

........even with spending that kind of money, it's obvious that there was a father bias in the Baldwin case, since money apparently didn't change the fact that PAS was prevalent and the court did nothing about it and never even acknowledged it.  In this case, Mr. Baldwin could have spent twice that much and I doubt the outcome would have been any different.

I guess what I'm saying is..........if a parent who's dealing with a custody battle thinks that having more money for a better atty. and all the court proceedings will somehow give them an edge in the case, they are very much mistaken.  Alec was dead on about the judges being pit bosses...they saw a gold mine in this case and milked it for all it was worth.

[iceclimber]

i have always felt that if it were really about the child's 'best interest' attorney's would be better about advising their clients on the contents of their parenting plan. especially when it is clear that high-conflict is present.

surely constant litigation is not in the child's 'best interest'. so even creating an ambiguous parenting plan does not facilitate 'best interest' at all.
but attorneys do not advise their clients of how to write an air tight parenting plan, which would help reduce litigation and the need for repetitive clarification as well as some of the conflict (if previously addressed in the parenting plan).

the family law system certainly treats fathers with bias and stereotyping. Involved-Good fathers pay the price in a small part due to the actions of dead-beat dads.  And as Mr. Baldwin pointed out, he too can't stand fathers that don't pay child support or abandon their children, because they just aren't a good parent.

with stereotyping in mind.... it is also overlooked that the same can happen to a good mother. and even in a situation where the father wasn't the better parent, but possibly an abuser and manipulator and had the resources not available to the mother.

so in the long run... it's not about 'father's rights' or 'mother's rights'.....
'father's right' to be with the child or 'mother's right' to be with the child.

it is 'child's rights'

and family courts are infringing upon CHILDREN's RIGHTS by not recognizing PAS and other situations that affect the children and inhibit their right to be with both parents.


did i just rant?

[FatherTime]

I watched and posted in his guestbook.  I thought that he was very courageous.  

I also noted how he was blindsided by the question regarding PAS and how the National Organization of Wackos (NOW) denies PAS.  He could have commented on how Diane Sawyer was using the feminists agenda to make her point.  He could have asked Diane if she was a card carrying member of NOW.  Either she is or isnt a member.  IF she is then her agenda would have been outed.  IF she wasn't then why isn't she?  

The public needs to be aware of how NOW has been hijacked by feminists with a Lesbian agenda.  Instead he looked like a deer in headlights, in in regards to that question. He was more concerned about the real issue of not seeing his child.  She was more concerned about talking about his mistakes and making him look like a mean spirited father.  That question by Diane made the interview a BIASED segment by ABC in my opinion.  

Judge Judy should be asked about PAS.  She understands the issue better than any NOW feminist.  If you are not familiar with Judge Judy's position on this issue, just watch her show sometime when she is talking about custody issues.  She is very adamant about ensuring contact between both parents.  Her books are very good reads.

It's...
FatherTime

[Kitty C.]

But it's allowed here!  :-)

[Davy]

In the day (mid 1980's), 97.5 % of mothers were rewarded SOLE CUSTODY and hefty CS rewards.  Fathers also paid mortgages, health insurance, all transportation expenses, etc.

Visitation was often one weekend a month and it was common to be denied  and often risk arrest (false charges) just showing up at visitation periods.  Some judges would get pissed then laugh at fathers before raising the CS payment each time they filed a contempt action.

A good friend in our TX FR chapter was incarcerated ... his CS was much greater than his income ... a life sentence since his only way to get out of jail was to bring payments current.  60 minutes ask to him appear but once he got there a female exec canceled at the last minute.

The system was designed to disenfranchise and criminalize fathers.

'Rights' were spoken about in passing among many FR advocates and the hope and emphasis was on Children's Rights.  5 Tx chapters pooled funds to hire a female legislative lobbyist for a year to no avail.  Our chapter had  free legal advice at weekly 'experience sharing' meetings from a female attorney that only represented fathers (except our members).

In short, there are just too many HORROR stories concerning fathers and children to reiterate here ... some are down right bizarre.

My question is WHY  ??  WHY are the CHILDREN NOT PROTECTED ??
   

 

[Kitty C.]

....and one we'd ALL like to know the answer to.  My anger is probably just as strong as yours, too.  We stand back helplessly as the courts and judicial system tear apart our kids, our future.......and NOBODY seems to realize the untold, sometimes permanent damage that's being done to them!  Sometimes I feel we're all just trying to fight windmills and never getting anywhere.  Once in a while, there's a flash in the pan and some NCP prevails and their children come out winners.............but the 'wins' for the kids are just too far between.

That's why we need action on a federal level.  A presumption of joint physical and legal custody UNLESS one parent can PROVE the other could physically or mentally harm the child(ren).  Like Alec said, take the adversarial atmosphere out of the court room and the parents won't have anything to fight about.  If they know going in that there will be NO fighting over time with the children, they will work together.  Thus taking away the one excuse some Iowa judges have used to undermine our joint physical custody law:  since the parents can't work together, joint physical custody can't possibly work either.

See what you did, Davy??  You got me on my soapbox again!  :-)
Okay, I'm done now............

[Davy]

Oh Kitty !  Please don't go away ... certainly you can't be done ... sweety pie honey buns !!  I'm begging .......... jump off your soap box and whip some a$$.

IMHO is that government, attorneys and everything adverserial MUST be removed  from decisions effecting the well being of children.  That mind set must be supreme and widespread.  We, as a society, can develope and implement a program that is essential to children, those that have no voice and depend on their parents to make responsible decisions.  All other institutions WILL fall in line and positive change will result.

Government has FAILED MISERBLY.

I have idea with my adult children to 'go after' the system and at the very least embarrass them (more).  I think I can slice and dice so that it is not detrimental to the OP. Just like before.  After my next brain surgery ....

I'm not as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was.