Utter Baloney

[Brent]

There's a stronger word for it too, "bull****".

Some drivel from "Garland Waller",  an assistant professor in the Television Department at Boston University's College of Communication. That's right, she's not a therapist, not a psychologist, not a family court specialist...she's a TV producer. Listen to some of her bullshit ideas........

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/641

Excerpt:

"Get rid of the "best interests of the child" as the standard for custody and replace it with a new concept called the "approximation standard." That means that the judge should try to approximate the same setup for the children that existed before the divorce. If mom was with the kids 70 percent of the time before the divorce, she would be with them 70 percent of the time after the divorce. In non-contested custody cases, the mother and father generally agree to this on their own."

LOL! The old "primary caregiver" nonsense. (sigh)  Let's turn the clock back 20 years and make her happy.

There's also this:

"Most significantly, the allegation of child abuse in a custody battle must be considered a rebuttable presumption, that is, that the sworn testimony of a parent or child claiming abuse is presumed to be true unless and until the accused sufficiently challenges its veracity."

Gee, so you should be "guilty until proven innocent", based on nothing more than "sword testimony" (which we all know is NEVER fabricated).

Shit, this woman is a stone-cold fruitcake.

[img src=http://www.womensenews.org/images/ci/WallerGarland010905.jpg]


Maggot!!

[StPaulieGirl]

[p]
"Most significantly, the allegation of child abuse in a custody battle must be considered a rebuttable presumption, that is, that the sworn testimony of a parent or child claiming abuse is presumed to be true unless and until the accused sufficiently challenges its veracity."

[p]Guilty until proven innocent.  The cornerstone of our modern legal system.

[p]I do have a question for you.  If a woman stays home and takes care of the kids 24/7, is that a problem?  Sure, when you get divorced you need to find some kind of way to earn money.  The problem is that it IS the status quo where mothers work outside the home.  There are still stay at home mothers, and imo, when you have children, it's better that a parent raise them, rather than stick them into daycare.  Notice I used the non specific gender term "parent"
:P

[Indigo Mom]

You can't possibly believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty...can you????

We grow up believing that...but it ain't true, which is why people who are falsely accused of crimes lose their jobs, their homes, and are treated as your common  criminal.

And...if you're lucky enough to be able to prove you're not guilty, the "cloud of suspicion" will always be there.

[Kitty C.]

It goes back to the 'maintaining lifestyle' BS that alimony was based on.  Pardon me, but that's GOT to be the BIGGEST bunch of hogwash I've ever heard of.

Back when I was a kid and my dad was farming for himself, I didn't know it but we were living VERY comfortably, almost considered 'well off'.  We never lacked for anything, but my parents never overindulged us either.  Then my uncle sold the farm and Dad went to work for another farmer.  Times got hard.  Mom had to go to work also, to make ends meet.  We made do with less.

The lesson my parents taught me:  Live within your means.  If times are flush, then treat yourself once in a while, but if times are tough, then tighten your belt and work your way to better times.  But don't ever consider yourself 'entitled' to something you're not willing to work for in the first place.

These past few years, I've gotten accustomed to some things that I've never had a chance to experience.  A brand new manufactured home (I've NEVER lived anywhere that was brand new), a fifth wheel camper, snowmobiles (which I LOVE!), satellite TV, soft water, a car that's newer than 5 years, amongst other things.  But if DH and I were to divorce, do I expect HIM to keep me in the lifestyle I've gotten accustomed to?  Not anymore than he should expect it from me.  It would be tough, and I'd have to give up a LOT of things I've thoroughly enjoyed, making do with a LOT less.  But that's LIFE.

I agree with you, SPG, that kids should be raised by their parents, not by some daycare.  But there are a LOT of two-income families that have NO choice.  The economy has forced both parents into the workplace; no middle or lower class family can afford to live on one income anymore.  But when life takes unexpected turns, you MUST do whatever it takes to take care of your responsibilities.  There ISN'T a 'status quo' because the situation is now different, if the parents separate and the previous SAHM must now work.

Us kids adjusted just fine when our family's 'fortune' turned.  My sister and I helped out that much more when Mom had to work.  Because we were a family and we MADE it work.  And I'm doing everything I can to pass that on to my son.

[FatherTime]

Let's go back even further....

to when the children were the property of the father and the mother had to leave without the kids.  

Or...

Is that taking it a little too far?


HEY....SHE JUST HIT ME...I WANT HER THROWN IN JAIL!!!

N.O.W. let's see if she can prove that she didn't.

[StPaulieGirl]

We could take it back about 100 years when a woman worked 12 hours a day in the mills.  She did get to go home every 4 hours to nurse her latest baby.  These kids were left at home by themselves.  Divorce was practically unknown back then.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying :/

[Brent]

There's a stronger word for it too, "bull****".

Some drivel from "Garland Waller",  an assistant professor in the Television Department at Boston University's College of Communication. That's right, she's not a therapist, not a psychologist, not a family court specialist...she's a TV producer. Listen to some of her bullshit ideas........

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/641

Excerpt:

"Get rid of the "best interests of the child" as the standard for custody and replace it with a new concept called the "approximation standard." That means that the judge should try to approximate the same setup for the children that existed before the divorce. If mom was with the kids 70 percent of the time before the divorce, she would be with them 70 percent of the time after the divorce. In non-contested custody cases, the mother and father generally agree to this on their own."

LOL! The old "primary caregiver" nonsense. (sigh)  Let's turn the clock back 20 years and make her happy.

There's also this:

"Most significantly, the allegation of child abuse in a custody battle must be considered a rebuttable presumption, that is, that the sworn testimony of a parent or child claiming abuse is presumed to be true unless and until the accused sufficiently challenges its veracity."

Gee, so you should be "guilty until proven innocent", based on nothing more than "sword testimony" (which we all know is NEVER fabricated).

Shit, this woman is a stone-cold fruitcake.

[img src=http://www.womensenews.org/images/ci/WallerGarland010905.jpg]


Maggot!!

[StPaulieGirl]

[p]
"Most significantly, the allegation of child abuse in a custody battle must be considered a rebuttable presumption, that is, that the sworn testimony of a parent or child claiming abuse is presumed to be true unless and until the accused sufficiently challenges its veracity."

[p]Guilty until proven innocent.  The cornerstone of our modern legal system.

[p]I do have a question for you.  If a woman stays home and takes care of the kids 24/7, is that a problem?  Sure, when you get divorced you need to find some kind of way to earn money.  The problem is that it IS the status quo where mothers work outside the home.  There are still stay at home mothers, and imo, when you have children, it's better that a parent raise them, rather than stick them into daycare.  Notice I used the non specific gender term "parent"
:P

[Indigo Mom]

You can't possibly believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty...can you????

We grow up believing that...but it ain't true, which is why people who are falsely accused of crimes lose their jobs, their homes, and are treated as your common  criminal.

And...if you're lucky enough to be able to prove you're not guilty, the "cloud of suspicion" will always be there.

[Kitty C.]

It goes back to the 'maintaining lifestyle' BS that alimony was based on.  Pardon me, but that's GOT to be the BIGGEST bunch of hogwash I've ever heard of.

Back when I was a kid and my dad was farming for himself, I didn't know it but we were living VERY comfortably, almost considered 'well off'.  We never lacked for anything, but my parents never overindulged us either.  Then my uncle sold the farm and Dad went to work for another farmer.  Times got hard.  Mom had to go to work also, to make ends meet.  We made do with less.

The lesson my parents taught me:  Live within your means.  If times are flush, then treat yourself once in a while, but if times are tough, then tighten your belt and work your way to better times.  But don't ever consider yourself 'entitled' to something you're not willing to work for in the first place.

These past few years, I've gotten accustomed to some things that I've never had a chance to experience.  A brand new manufactured home (I've NEVER lived anywhere that was brand new), a fifth wheel camper, snowmobiles (which I LOVE!), satellite TV, soft water, a car that's newer than 5 years, amongst other things.  But if DH and I were to divorce, do I expect HIM to keep me in the lifestyle I've gotten accustomed to?  Not anymore than he should expect it from me.  It would be tough, and I'd have to give up a LOT of things I've thoroughly enjoyed, making do with a LOT less.  But that's LIFE.

I agree with you, SPG, that kids should be raised by their parents, not by some daycare.  But there are a LOT of two-income families that have NO choice.  The economy has forced both parents into the workplace; no middle or lower class family can afford to live on one income anymore.  But when life takes unexpected turns, you MUST do whatever it takes to take care of your responsibilities.  There ISN'T a 'status quo' because the situation is now different, if the parents separate and the previous SAHM must now work.

Us kids adjusted just fine when our family's 'fortune' turned.  My sister and I helped out that much more when Mom had to work.  Because we were a family and we MADE it work.  And I'm doing everything I can to pass that on to my son.