Hi! You're not currently logged in or aren't yet a member -- but you can still read everything, as well as reply to posts and vote in polls. If you register (for free), you can also create new topics, track messages/friends, use a sig file and make a blog! (We're also offering great prizes for posting to your blog -- get the details here.)
This is a discussion on Thoughts? within the Debate forums, part of the Say Anything category; More on Fathers' Rights: The State Matriarchy
More on Fathers' Rights: The State Matriarchy - Paul Robbins, Ph.D.
Excerpts:
Under ...
More on Fathers' Rights: The State Matriarchy
More on Fathers' Rights: The State Matriarchy - Paul Robbins, Ph.D.
Excerpts:
Under the current system of family law, fathers typically lose their children in return for financing the destruction of their own families. When the system fails to work as promised, fathers are blamed and put in jail. But the system is at fault, not fathers. The system makes it far too easy for mom to expel dad, keep the children, and force him to pay for her decisions using the police power of the state.
This is the hallmark of the system that I call "state matriarchy": the creation of single-mother families followed by calls for more government programs to help those families. We are assured the problem is not single-mother families; the problem is a government that doesn't do enough to help these families.
I have no problem with society expecting fathers to meet their responsibilities to their children. But society in turn must protect fathers' rights to the care and custody of their children. That is a fair an equitable arrangement, not unaccountable judicial power backed up by unaccountable state power in the service of divisive social theories.
I don't get it. All the divorced women I know have to follow the custody details that were worked out when they got divorced. If they don't, they get into major amounts of trouble. Yes if the father doesn't pay or isn't following out visitation rights, he gets in trouble as well.
Do I think there are times that women are screwing men over? Absolutely. Just as there are many men who are screwing women over when it comes to this. It is really sad all the way around.
I don't get it. All the divorced women I know have to follow the custody details that were worked out when they got divorced.
Problem is, most of the time the 'agreement' is biased favoring the mother.
Quote:
If they don't, they get into major amounts of trouble.
What kind of trouble? I have not seen this.
Quote:
Yes if the father doesn't pay or isn't following out visitation rights, he gets in trouble as well.
See? You automatically assume the mother has custody and the father gets to 'visit' (not parent) his children. Unfair from the start.
Quote:
Do I think there are times that women are screwing men over? Absolutely. Just as there are many men who are screwing women over when it comes to this. It is really sad all the way around.
I think it varies. I know many many many many women who have completely lost it all in their divorces and have had to fight tooth and nail for any penny they ever see from their ex's. I see their ex's living high on the hog and getting away with it all.
The one girl I know who was not following things and causing trouble for her ex was pulled back into court, was told off by the judge and told how much she would lose if she continued with this. She backed off. I honestly do not know how far the judge would've taken things. I think it unfair to assume that it never happens though.
Quote:
See? You automatically assume the mother has custody and the father gets to 'visit' (not parent) his children. Unfair from the start.
You are being ridiculously silly here. I am only thinking of the cases that I personally know. In all of those cases not one of the fathers wanted full time custody of the children. They were more then happy to give that over to mother. They (in the cases that I personally know) knew it is was twice the work and they were more then happy to give that over to the mother. I have never assumed that all cases are like this. I always assume that the children should go to who can parent them the best and no I do not care whether or not it is the mother or the father. Do I think that the courts have always or are always fair in this? Absolutely not. Nor do I think the courts are always automatically fair to the women. As I said, I know many many many women who have been completely screwed over by their ex's and the courts and they continue to get away with it.
I think it varies. I know many many many many women who have completely lost it all in their divorces and have had to fight tooth and nail for any penny they ever see from their ex's. I see their ex's living high on the hog and getting away with it all.
I agree that this can happen. I have also seen women take men to the cleaners, also. However, what I am referring to primarily is the unfairness in family court when it comes to custody and access.
Quote:
The one girl I know who was not following things and causing trouble for her ex was pulled back into court, was told off by the judge and told how much she would lose if she continued with this. She backed off. I honestly do not know how far the judge would've taken things. I think it unfair to assume that it never happens though.
Not sure what you are referring to here. Was this in regards to $? Because in custody and access issues $ is never a factor. So what could she lose? Sometimes judges threaten to give custody to the father (our judge did). But realistically? This almost never happens, and most mothers know this.
Quote:
I have never assumed that all cases are like this. I always assume that the children should go to who can parent them the best and no I do not care whether or not it is the mother or the father.
It am glad that you feel that way. But my observations and study suggest that this is not what happens. In the overwhelming majority of cases the children go to who the mother wants them to (usually her) regardless of the best interests of the children.
Quote:
Nor do I think the courts are always automatically fair to the women.
Fair is not the word here. There is no equality in the family court system. It is very biased towards women (as far as custody and access). I was very surprised to find this out. In fact, I have become somewhat of a Father's Advocate because of what I have learned.
It am glad that you feel that way. But my observations and study suggest that this is not what happens. In the overwhelming majority of cases the children go to who the mother wants them to (usually her) regardless of the best interests of the children.
How many SAHP parents do you know that are male? How many married men do you know work 40 hours a week, and still do 75% of family need such as cooking, cleaning, homework, afterschool activities, hell, even just diaper changing?
Do they exist? Sure. Are they the majority? No.
So maybe the majority of child custody recipients are mothers for all the right reasons, and you can't see that from where you are sitting.
__________________ Dear Jacquie,
You were right about everything.
-Jacie
Well, how about looking at it another way? Instead of automatically giving the women sole custody, how about automatically giving both parents custody? Studies show that children do better when both parents are allowed to parent. North Dakota has implented a law requiring this.
"The North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative is based on the belief that all parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children, and that no fit parent can lawfully be denied custody of his or her children. Under the Initiative, when family law courts adjudicate a divorce, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that a mother or father is unfit, all parents will have joint legal and physical custody of their children.
That more needs to be done to protect children’s relationships with their parents after divorce cannot be reasonably denied. In a study published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 40% of divorced mothers admitted that they had interfered with their ex-husband's access or visitation, and that their motives were punitive in nature and not due to safety considerations."
The courts can't protect a right that many fathers throw away (like your DH). It destabilizes the responsible family the child(ren) does have.
You know, I do know somebody who lives in a state with similar laws....her ex is a drunkard, stoner, who rarely if ever pays child support. Yet, he's allowed to walk all over the mother, her plans, and ultimately their child because the court is "protecting his rights". Who's protecting the child when the courts tie the responsible parents hands?
__________________ Dear Jacquie,
You were right about everything.
-Jacie
The courts can't protect a right that many fathers throw away
Your point makes no sense. Rights should be protected whether or not you choose to exercize them. For instance, we have the right to vote in Canada. There are laws to protect these rights, whether one chooses to vote every election or not.
Quote:
You know, I do know somebody who lives in a state with similar laws....her ex is a drunkard, stoner, who rarely if ever pays child support. Yet, he's allowed to walk all over the mother, her plans, and ultimately their child because the court is "protecting his rights". Who's protecting the child when the courts tie the responsible parents hands?
Well, it is unfortunate that she decided to have children with an addict. But the kids have a right to know their father, regardless. How would he ruin her plans? Do they not have an access order? And why would he pay child support if they have a shared parenting plan?
Children are protected by the courts if they are in danger. Unless Mom is the one who is putting the child at risk, then the courts generally do nothing.
Who's protecting the child when the courts tie the responsible parents hands?
Who is protecting the child when a the 40% of mothers(those are only the ones who admitted it) use their kids as tools by keeping them away from their fathers for no other reason than they are controlling and vindictive? Breaking the law and your child's heart for no other reason than to punish the father does not sound at all to me like something a responsible parent would do....
Your point makes no sense. Rights should be protected whether or not you choose to exercize them. For instance, we have the right to vote in Canada. There are laws to protect these rights, whether one chooses to vote every election or not.
So convicted pedophiles and abuser should not only have access to their children, to as not infringe on their rights, but have equal access to? So a man who never visits his children EVER should be able to show up on his ex's door and demand visitation years and years later, and not have any consequences because he happens to be "the father". That is not thinking in the best interest of the child, is it? I find it sad that you think those example are defendable just so you can make a point who should be allowed to POSSESS a child.
Quote:
Who is protecting the child when a the 40% of mothers(those are only the ones who admitted it) use their kids as tools by keeping them away from their fathers for no other reason than they are controlling and vindictive? Breaking the law and your child's heart for no other reason than to punish the father does not sound at all to me like something a responsible parent would do....
What the ****? Where did you get the 40 % number from. I didn't see it in your sited quotes. Please site your source.
Honestly, I can not believe you are here arguing about fathers rights when your DH abandoned his child for YEARS. I can't believe you hold him up as an example of REAL parents who get screwed by the legal system.
Let's see, Your DH's childs mother was nothing but gracious in court about what a good parent your DH was. YOUR DH agreed to the custody plan she put forth WITH NO ARGUEMENTS, and then he just walked away for 6-8 years without a word. Your DH had rights - HE CHOSE NOT TO EXCERSIZE them or take a stand for his child.
I Definitely think some parents get the shaft. For all sorts of reason. Sometimes it's bias against gender, sometimes lifestyle, sometimes financial situation. I'd be happy to rally with those poor people that did everything right and still got shafted, but I have yet to see an example of it on this board.
How can you take yourself so seriously in this debate when it was your own DH's choice to walk away? I can't. Nobody held a gun to him, and "somebody was kind of mean to me" is no defense.
__________________ Dear Jacquie,
You were right about everything.
-Jacie
So convicted pedophiles and abuser should not only have access to their children, to as not infringe on their rights, but have equal access to?
When did I say that? Honestly! Get real.
Quote:
So a man who never visits his children EVER should be able to show up on his ex's door and demand visitation years and years later, and not have any consequences because he happens to be "the father".
Actually, yes. Consequences? Of course. It should be done gradually.
Quote:
What the ****? Where did you get the 40 % number from. I didn't see it in your sited quotes. Please site your source.
Learn to read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacie
That more needs to be done to protect children’s relationships with their parents after divorce cannot be reasonably denied. In a study published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 40% of divorced mothers admitted that they had interfered with their ex-husband's access or visitation, and that their motives were punitive in nature and not due to safety considerations."
Maybe this is why you never understand what I say. You don't read.
Typical narrow-mindedness.
Do you not realize that if we had mandatory shared custody in our province that many of the absent dads would not be absent? But you don't actually care about that, do you? You don't care about reforming the system so that more fathers are in their children's lives. You care about remaining the dominant sex when it comes to parenting. That's it.
You can keep throwing my DH's situation into this, if you want to be petty. I am done talking about it. This is a general discussion. Everyone already knows you hate DH. No-one cares what your opinion of DH is.
Anyways, his son loves him to death!!!!!!!! And is starting to realize his mother is a liar. It's all good! And that is all that matters, sweetheart!
Rights should be protected whether or not you choose to exercize them.
And the inference that rights of the parents should be protected at all costs.
Quote:
Actually, yes. Consequences? Of course. It should be done gradually.
What should be done gradually? Visitation? So you ARE for diminishing rights of irresponsible parents and you are just playing semantic games for husbands sake? Well, which is it? Either ******* parents need to a take a back seat for the sake of their children or they get full access, to the detriment of their kids.. Again, which is it?
Quote:
Maybe this is why you never understand what I say. You don't read.
Typical narrow-mindedness.
Or maybe I tried to wade thru all your posts on the subject, and got bored.
Quote:
Do you not realize that if we had mandatory shared custody in our province that many of the absent dads would not be absent? But you don't actually care about that, do you? You don't care about reforming the system so that more fathers are in their children's lives. You care about remaining the dominant sex when it comes to parenting. That's it.
You are a brain dead twit. I have repeatedly said the opposite. Absent dads are absent because they choose to be. You can reform the system all you want but you can't reform a parent who doesn't care.
Quote:
Anyways, his son loves him to death!!!!!!!! And is starting to realize his mother is a liar. It's all good! And that is all that matters, sweetheart!
And yet I've made no statement about your DH and his childs current relationship. One has to wonder why you feel the need to bring it up constantly.
Secondly, how would a ten year old be starting to realize how "his mother is a liar" (Gee, I thought "I" was the one with the "agenda") That would be an inaproppriate conversation for your DH to have with his child in any manner.
__________________ Dear Jacquie,
You were right about everything.
-Jacie
But the kids have a right to know their father, regardless.
I think that is fine and dandy if the kids want to know their father. I just think there are times they should not have to if they do not want to.
Wasn't there a case recently in the news about a child molester wanting contact with his bio kids and the judge was forcing the mother to bring the kids to prison to visit their Dad?
Wasn't there a case recently in the news about a child molester wanting contact with his bio kids and the judge was forcing the mother to bring the kids to prison to visit their Dad?
Actually - there was one in Canadian news (since Jacie's Canadian), a few years ago - just as an example. Doctor John Schneeburger, who had raped/fondled/assaulted/molested a crapload of his patients (thought he only ended up being convicted of one, plus assault/molestation of a teenager) and was able to fake his way out of being tagged by DNA, by collecting someone else's blood, inserting the vial in his arm, and managed to manouever it so that the tech pulled the blood from that vial. He got away with a lot for a long time. IIRC, he has older daughters from a different marriage and there was rampant speculation that he molested them, by drugging them, and also his two youngest, with his second or third wife, or whatever number she was, via the same means.
The bastard managed to get visitation rights - the kids had to go to the prison to see him, even though they were clearly terrified of the dink.
If you read what I said and then read Jacquie's responses you will see that she does not have any comprehension for what I am saying and does not answer the questions. It is like she cannot process a thought or keep anything straight. I would like to continue this conversation, but have no interest in talking to Jacquie, as all she does is bash DH, make no sense, and twist what I say.
So if Jacquie wants to refrain from answering my post (which I am sure she will not) I will continue this conversation. Although W Party is mean, at least she makes sense and knows how to read. Emaline? Seems like an intelligent person. But I have no intention on wasting my time going back and forth with someone who does not read what I have said, does not answer the questions I pose logically, and who's apparent only intention is to bash the love of my life. And make assumptions. Boring.
I wonder if that was your intention, Jacquie? To have me go somewhere else? Sometimes I think that some of you ladies have some gripe with SK and this board and have vowed to intentionally chase everyone away.....
Thoughts?
