A must read...

[FleetingMoment]

I only read the article that was posted and this was what I read. It may have had a different impact on myself, sans the peppering. I still believe it will be looked upon as pandora's box. One cannot view the pros without visualizing the cons, otherwise they would become both one- and blind-sided.

>The plaintiffs claim to represent an estimated 25 million
>non-custodial parents — primarily fathers — whose right to
>equal
>custody of minor children in situations of dispute is
>allegedly being
>violated by family courts across the nation.
>
>In particular, fathers protest the widespread practice of
>almost
>automatically granting sole custody to mothers in divorce
>disputes.
>

Unfortunately, this gives the appearance of pursuing
>profit
>rather than justice.
>
>At bare minimum, they are raising the profile of an issue that
>will
>not go away: the crying need of non-custodial parents,
>especially
>fathers, to know their children.
>

[MYSONSDAD]

I was just passing something on that many here, unlike you,  are interested in.

If you don't like the posts, either write the author or just keep your mouth shut. No one cares about your insight or your ability to the socalled 'read between the line' garbage.

And if you bothered to do the research, you would find the majority support to be from women. Women who see first hand who the Family Courts favor. Take a hard look at the petitions and who signs them, you might just learn something.

It said, incase you have a reading problem, 'NCP, primarily fathers.'

If you can not post an educated response, don't bother....

[c_alexander]

I certainly agree that something needs to be done. I know that in my case not only did my ex wife end a marriage I did not want ended, but then took the child that she did not even originally want to bear, and made me pay for her to raise her. Where is the fairness in that? Furthermore she then decides to move halfway across the country so I can see my child a whopping 17% of the year if I am luck...usually only 14%, garnished my paycheck and made it all but impossible for me to follow her out there without winning the freaking lottery. How is that fair? How can ANY judge look me in the eye and with a straight face claim that these judgements are fair...not only to me and my constitutional rights, but to the 9 year old that has to live with these decisions for the next 9 years until she is old enough to do as she pleases. If things are left to go on as they are now I fear what kind of children, and what kind of society we are creating. Equal opportunity or not, government cash cow or not, I am standing behind this movement because of what it stands for. No where on Oprah, Maury Povich, Montel Williams, judge freaking judge or any of 100 different nation wide television news programs are we seeing this issues dealt with. It is taken for granted by the media while stories of skateboarding dogs, or the some or non sense is aired. For the gentleman spear heading these lawsuits I feel that perhaps he can be the Martin Luther King of  Non Custodial parents everywhere. The Ghandi of family law. Now more than ever I think we need to get as many on board for this as we can.

[FleetingMoment]

'I CARE ABOUT 'MY' KIDS.

>I was just passing something on that many here, unlike you,
>are interested in.

Why do you conclude I wasn't interested? If I wasn't interested, why would I read it, then respond?
>
>If you don't like the posts, either write the author or just
>keep your mouth shut. No one cares about your insight or your
>ability to the socalled 'read between the line' garbage.

The author isn't posting this. You are. If you don't want responses to your posts, then consider not posting them. If you don't care about my insight or ability to read between the line garbage, then just throw it out with the rest of your garbage.

>And if you bothered to do the research, you would find the
>majority support to be from women. Women who see first hand
>who the Family Courts favor. Take a hard look at the petitions
>and who signs them, you might just learn something.

"Behind every man, stands a woman."  Without them, where would you be?? Clinton passed "federal" CS laws not too long ago. How well is this working, as it comes down to "state's rights," who neither care nor bother to enforce these laws. Think about it.  

>It said, incase you have a reading problem, 'NCP, primarily
>fathers.'

Actually you appear to have the reading problem. It's clearly reposted and highlighted exactly as I said it, and you repeated it.
>
>If you can not post an educated response, don't bother....

It's your opinion what an educated response is. I did not respond the "mass petition." I responded to your post about Wendy's article.

I think the board moderator, if not other's have made it clear that conflicting views are both welcome and helpful here, despite your "personal" belief otherwise. I just take your comments with couple of grains of salt and toss them over my shoulder for "good luck."

I'm not here to argue with YOU, nor do I make it my daily goal to attack and pick apart every post you make. Conclusion: Say what you want from this point on, but I will not respond to you again.

[Bolivar]

New! You can read a generic copy of
the main classaction federal complaint.

http://www.indianacrc.org/TheMainComplaint.pdf
(Adobe PDF format, 43 pages, 88KB)



http://www.indianacrc.org/

[StPaulieGirl]

The Federal Government is violating the United States constitution by assuming control of child support payments.  They are usurping states rights by doing so.  Of course they've been doing this for years.  Take highway funds for instance.  They bleed everyone dry, then come up with all kinds of little laws that have to be complied with before a state can get their money back.  

Until several months ago, I had no idea why the Feds were involved in the collection of CS.  Roger F. Gay used to post over on Free Republic, and I learned that the Feds receive interest on these payments from him.  I literally had no idea this was going on.

I think the lawsuit has merit, but I don't think it's going to go very far.  I'm completely disgusted with what our legal system has deteriorated into.

[VeronicaGia]

Posted by Kay at Divorce Source on the CS board:

"after clicking on my state and finding the representative and the web site for Iowa, one of the main headings is "$512,655 Billion at stake in Iowa alone". This really rubs me the wrong way. Not a number of children at stake but the money amount. Things that make me doubt the sincerity. "

Iowa is already worried more about the money than they are the kids.  I'd have to guess that other states have already mentioned the money and the rest will follow.

More proof from the words of our representatives that money is the issue, kids are not the issue.  They couldn't care less about the kids.

It's really too bad people have had to go this far just to get what they deserve:  equal treatment in courts, equal time with their kids, kids having equal access to both parents.  I've said it before and I will probably say it again - I'm for a U.S. Constitutional amendment that states that children are given equal, unfettered access to both parents.

[Kitty C.]

I posted on it below, as the courts are now retaliating by way of CS in regards to the new JC law that went into effect here in July.

Makes me ill to think that the almighty dollar would have more importance than an actual human being, and a CHILD at that!  Talk about the country going to hell in a handbasket!

[MYSONSDAD]

"Children learn what they live"

[Hawkeye]

>Posted by Kay at Divorce Source on the CS board:
>
>"after clicking on my state and finding the representative and
>the web site for Iowa, one of the main headings is "$512,655
>Billion at stake in Iowa alone". This really rubs me the wrong
>way. Not a number of children at stake but the money amount.
>Things that make me doubt the sincerity. "
 
Clearly, "Kay" missed a fact. The very first line of the Iowa website states "Join our efforts to level the playing field for children affected by divorce to provide them with two, virtually equal parents."

>Iowa is already worried more about the money than they are the
>kids.  I'd have to guess that other states have already
>mentioned the money and the rest will follow.

"Kay" needs to understand some things. The website and the State of Iowa are two different things. As I stated above, the "children" are mentioned FIRST, the money figure is just informational. The website (and lawsuit) was created by a SINCERE non-custodial parent who, by government order, recieves unfair time with their children. I hope the state IS worried more about the money, because if this suit succeeds, thats what it will pay, one way or another. Time=Money, the non-custodials just want fair/equal time.

The site further states "Estimated non-custodial parents in Iowa 170,885"
Simple math... if that's minimal one child per non-custodial, total is 170,885
If it's an average of two children per non-custodial, total is double or 341,770 children without EQUAL access to their parents. It could be that no accurate figures exist of the children impacted by divorce as it's constantly changing or just difficult to tally. Younger kids, not in school may not be accounted for. I just read someplace that the Florida DHS has "lost" over 1000 children in their system. Hmmm, surely they and/or records weren't blown into the gulf by a hurricane? Gov't incompetence most likely.

>More proof from the words of our representatives that money is
>the issue, kids are not the issue.  They couldn't care less
>about the kids.

I fully agree. Include many lawyers, judges, and worst of all the evil-ex's who lie and cheat, and use their own children as a pawn against a loving and devoted non-custodial parent.

>It's really too bad people have had to go this far just to get
>what they deserve:  equal treatment in courts, equal time with
>their kids, kids having equal access to both parents.  I've
>said it before and I will probably say it again - I'm for a
>U.S. Constitutional amendment that states that children are
>given equal, unfettered access to both parents.

Kay may really be on our side, just needs to fully examine the facts.
I like that idea, a Constitutional amendment proclaiming equality!