Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    I am a divorced father with 50% Physical Custody of my two sons,
    now 14 & 18 (they were 14 and 10 when the marriage broke up).
    my EX originally only wanted the boys with me on Sunday afternoons.
    I told her that I would not accept anything less than 50% Physical
    Custody.  My lawyer substantiated that she had no legal cause to
    limit me to less than 50% as I only drink socially, don't beat or
    otherwise physically or mentally abuse the boys, etc.  In addition,
    the boys have the same high beliefs in fairness that I do, so they
    also wanted to spend half their time with each of us.  All of this
    together I think convinced my EX's lawyer that it was fruitless
    for him to try and limit me more than that.  That's the story in
    a nutshell.
    
    You don't say where you live (MA or somewhere else).  If you'd like
    to discuss this more or have specific questions, you can ENET to
    me at the above node address.
    
    Good luck!!  I know very well the h*ll you are going through!!
    
    				Joe

    See also TERZA::PARENTING
    
    KP7, etc

    There's some in XANADU::MENNOTES too, probably more along the line
    of what you want.
    
    It makes me feel ill whenever I read about a couple who fight over
    custody - the effects on the children are far-reaching.  I have
    joint legal and shared physical custody of my son, and there were
    no battles.  I hate to think of what it would be like if I had had
    to fight for custody (which I would have done if necessary).
    
    There are various organizations that can help, as can a dedicated
    and helpful lawyer - I hope you have one.
    
    				Steve

    Thank you for the reply's.  I wrote that request before I had the
    opportunity to read from this note file #426.  Which was quite
    depressing.  I live in Massachusetts.  My "case" started in January
    and has become so complex I have tried to computerize situations,
    facts, issues, as they happen to keep myself straight with all the
    mess.  My children and I do go to counseling.  I started it as soon
    as I filed for divorce, (should have gone sooner with them, instead
    spent effortless hours with her before I filed).  
    
    The difference from my case compared to #426 is she has two children
    from a privious marrige.  One is in jail, (1 yr) and the second
    lives at home but with her boy friend in my back yard, in a camper.
    She is 17.  My wife, is suspected of drug use, and has become one
    of the "teen" members to her daughter's clique'.  Wife is 38.
    My goal is to get my (our) children (7 and 11) out of that enviorment.
    I know she is motivated by $$$, and tried to offer her the house
    and everything in it.  Just let me take the children out of that
    mess.  She is clever, and realizes that she could receive more $$$
    by keeping the children.  She is neglectfull with them and I have
    numorous witness's, it goes on and on.  Right now I am waiting for
    a court appointed investigator to review our case.  It has been
    three months and I have heard nothing yet.  I agreed to move out
    of the home, to get this started, (temporary orders).  I get the
    children every other weekend. 
    
    my new question is (and I will check the suggested xanadu notes)
    has anyone deal't with an investigator with divorce and custody,
    and if yes, how long?  What happened?  
    
    I believe I have a good case, but don't trust the judicial system.
    
    thanks for the input!
    

    RE: Court investigations...
    
    I had wanted to have my EX checked out, to get full custody of my
    girls.  When I talked to the office that does this, she told me
    that it would be a very long and drawn out process.  They only have
    so many people to do so much, so if there is no inherent danger to
    the child, you often get re-placed to the bottom of the pile.  I
    was told it could take upwards to a year.  This came out of the
    Cambridge Court in Boston.  Others might have a lessor load.  I
    decided to opt not to go that route, cuz I knew he wouldn't be having
    much to do with the girls anyways, so why drag it out....
    
    Hope this helps...
    
    Gale

    I plan for the worst and hope for the best!  Everyday I check the
    answering machine with hopes that this "investigator" will call
    and begin the process.  Your implecation (.5) of one year may be
    a reality.  It's difficult, when I pick up my children on the alloted
    (temp orders) weekends to see assorted junkies (sorry personal opinion)
    hanging about what was once my "home", I cringe.  As for me, I will
    hang in there as long as necessary,  the kids are, I can't quit.
    
    Thanks for the input...

DON'T MOVE OUT AND LEAVE THE KIDS!

Once you do that, de facto, the mother becomes the custodian, and you would have
a long hard battle to even get back to an even situation.  "Possession is nine
tenths of the law". 

Who, legally has custody of the children?

If custody has not been set, move out, and take the children with you, DO NOT
ABONDON YOUR CHILDREN.  Then apply for custody.  If you can show good reasons
for removing them you *MAY* be able to get custody.  If you leave the children
you cut your chances down to a fifth of whatever possible chance you have.

If you wish further details, contact me directly.

Jim Baranski 

    
    Have you heard of the National Father's organization called F.A.I.R.
    "Father's Advococy, Information and Referral" Corp.  They are a
    non-profit nation-wide organization representing the Father's issues.
    
    Given the indiscriminate feminist lobbying that have been going
    on over the years it has become increasingling harder for Father;s
    to get a fair deal in the courts, especially when dealing with custody
    and child support.
    
    F.A.I.R. can help you by referring you to competant lawyer who
    understands the issues and can represent you fairly.  
    
    Their toll free number is 800-722-FAIR
    
    You may need to join before they will refer you which is a service
    they provide to members.  But the $50 membership is $$$ well spent.
    
    Try their referral hot line.  302-697-2026
    
    Reason I suggest this is that I lost out on the opportunity of getting
    custody [any %] nine years ago.  The only legal right I have today
    is visitation.  My ex moved to NJ and I could'nt even stop that.
    
    This was due in part to hiring a lawyer thru a legal aid group who
    misrepresented me.  Finding a quality lawyer who understands your
    issues and who is out for you first and not our for the $$$$ only
    is tough.  I think if FAIR were around back then things would be
    different for me.  
    
    Hope this helps.  
    
    Bill

    RE:  .8
    
    > Given the indescriminate feminist lobbying that have been going
    > on over the years it has been increasingling harder for Father's
    > to get a fair deal ... (etc)
    
    Since I am very far removed from this subject, perhaps you could
    conseder my impressions on the subject to be a bit "wide eyed",
    but I have believed that the courts have been moving in the direction
    of much _more_ equality.  For example, it is now (from what I understand)
    quite uncommon for alimony to be given to a spouse for more than the
    amount of time required to acquire a skill if necessary, and become
    self supporting.  This is quite unlike the "old days" when a husband
    could be stuck with alimony for life if his x-wife didn't re-marry.
    Further, in the past any man that felt he should get alimony from
    his wife would have been laughed out of court (and probably out of town).
    Also, in the past, it was an unwritten (and sometimes written) law
    that a man could not divorce his wife unless he had proof that she
    was fooling around, whereas this was not true for a wife.  Also
    in the past it had been nearly unheard of for a father to have full
    custody, unless the mother just did not _want_ custody of the kids.
    It has been a long time (17 years) since my divorce, but when you
    look a "then and now", I don't understand how you can say that a
    it is getting harder for a man to get a fair deal.  Please, educate
    me.  I know you probably can come up with stats on how many people
    lobby for one side as apposed to the other, but my question centers
    more on the actual end result.  Are there in fact _more_ or _fewer_
    fathers being given custody today in contrast to last year - five
    years ago - ten?
                    
    Marion
    
    PS  I know this is a very emotional issue.  My heart goes out to
    all that are involved in this sort of a conflict.  It's a real heart
    breaker, no matter _what_ sex you are.  I wish the best for the
    author of .0 and everybody involved in his dilemma.

    At this time I am positive with my situation, only because we haven't
    been to the "Final" court yet.  Give me a few more months and perhaps
    my attitude will change, but I don't think so.  My situation is
    different than ones I've read here and my chances (nock on wood)
    are GOOD!}  
    
    I appreciate your (.9) p.s..  I need all positive as I am still
    walking on eggs waiting for my turn in court.  
    
    The kids deserve fair, in their present condition they are not getting
    it. 
    
    To answer your question, it is my opinion that the courts (some)
    are changing.  But it is my intention to encourage any possible
    approach to ensure my childrens success.
    
    lou
    

RE: .9

I believe that you are mistaken on several of your facts:

"For example, it is now (from what I understand) quite uncommon for alimony to
be given to a spouse for more than the amount of time required to acquire a
skill if necessary, and become self supporting."

This may be true, but it is also true that Child Support has been increased way
beyond half of what is necessary to support a child.  Typically child support is
60-85% of what is necessary to support a child.  Yet the mother gets the tax
deduction for the child.  And child support is taxed, whereas alimony was not.
Mass Law demands that for 1-2 children, a father pay 28-32% of his GROSS income,
AND pay taxes for it, and more for more children.  This means that the child
support is effectively HALF of a father's income.  Not quite what I call an
equitable arrangement.  

This amount does not take into account whatever debts or other needs that a
family has which the father usually ends up paying on top of child support, such
as life insurance, house insurance, health insurance. And any money the father
may spend on the shildren when he does get the chance to see them is not counted
as child support, but is supposedly out of the goodness of his heart.  Well
really folks, there IS nothing left for the 'goodness of his heart', Christmas
presents or whatever. 

"Also in the past it had been nearly unheard of for a father to have full
custody, unless the mother just did not _want_ custody of the kids."

That is still true.  A father cannot get custody unless the mother does not want
custody, or unless the mother is PROVEN to be GROSSLY unfit.  The percentages of
mothers having custody has dropped from 98% to 92% solely because more mothers
do not want custody, not because fathers are being treated fairly.

The courts will go to great lengths to collect outrageous child support, but
will do nothing to prevent or punish interference of 'visitation'.

Any promise that a mother may make for low child support or future custody is
effectively a nonpromise, because the courts reserve the rights at any time to
set child support irrespective of agreements.  When a father gets a raise, his
child support increases also, so life never gets any better. A father may be
promised low child support, or that he will have custody of the children when
the children are older, but it will not happen.  Next month, the mother can
easily go back to court and get the child support raised for no reason, and when
the children are older he will not get custody of them unless the mother does
not want them because courts will not change a stable situation. 

The divorce can be mediated, and a reasonable child support and visitation can
be agreed to with a counseler, and the mother can still go to court and demand
outrageous child support. 

I think all this stuff about how more fair it is now is lip service, even
though most people believe what they are saying.  It has not gotten better.
In effect, mothers get whatever they want, and screw the fathers whenever
they wish.

"Children need Parents, not 'Vistors'"

Jim.

    
    -1
    "I think all this stuff about how fair it is now is lip service,
    even though most people believe what they are saying.  It has not
    gotten better.  In effect, mothers get whatever they want, and screw
    the fathers whenever they wish."
    
    As usual, Jim puts into words, the things I feel.  For all the new
    studies showing fathers getting a 'good' deal, I feel the studies
    are just pure bullshit.  
    
    As far as support groups, well, they're nice if you need someone
    to cry on.  You are on your own as a single father, and the sooner
    you realize it, the better you'll do.  Each and every divorce and
    its subsequent setup (ie; visitation,  support) is decided by the
    mother and whether or not she feels like sticking it to the father.
    Also, just because today her heart is golden, doesn't mean that
    tomorrow, the claws won't come out.  
    
    And this is what we have to live with.
    
    Gene

A couple of more gems:

In MA, even if parents have shared custody, the father still has to pay the 50%
gross income child support, and the mother does not.  Net effect:  The father
cannot afford a home to have the children in and does not have the children.

I have to agree that support groups and attitude adjustment help deal with
surviving, but they cannot change the reality of the situation that you and your
children are being abused, and you are going to continue being abused for the
next eighteen years. 

Jim.

      I managed to get 100% custody of my two sons.  You need a GOOD
    lawyer and a reasonable judge, but it can be done.  Good luck, and
    hang in there.

    Re: .7
    
    You are correct.  When my husband ran out of the house with our
    18 month old daughter, I couldn't legally get her back until I fought
    for custody--the reason, equal custody is implied by the fact that
    you are living in the same house; therefore, I encourage you to
    pack up your kids and go!  Let your soon-to-be ex fight the battle
    rather than let your children experience the pain and fear that
    goes along with a parent on drugs.
    
    Wishing you the best-
    Barb

    Jim... Sometimes your OPINIONATED opinions urk me so much 
    
    			I COULD SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    The courts in Mass do not automatically take X% out. I KNOW THAT
    FOR A FACT!...  I asked for a very low percentage of my X's pay
    for child support.  I recieved ONLY what I asked for. If they
    automatically took out 50%, my child support would raise by $1200.00
    a month!
    
    Also, there is now a complete formula that is a factor of both
    incomes.  Someone making 28,000 a year will get less of the X's
    income for child support than someone making 9,000 a year. There
    is a break even point where no child support is granted - 60,000
    rings in my ear, but that might not be the correct amount.
    
    Also.. my X does get raises... his child support HAS NEVER gone
    up to include his raise.  I would be in court to pitch a d*mn fit
    if it did....
    
    Please, I know you are bitter, and all that jazz, BUT don't
    misrepresent the facts!
    
    Gale

    Mr's. Baranski and Salois, you've hit a real raw nerve with me.
    I got divorced almost 7 years ago, and asked for $200/month and
    health insurance toward support of 2 children.  My ex got fired,
    thus no health insurance (they've always been covered by mine,
    anyway), stopped payments after 3 months, never called or wrote,
    and often misses Christmas and birthdays.  The rare request for 
    assistance with glasses, dr bills, etc. has been totally ignored.
    You really shouldn't make rash generalizations about the unreasonable
    behavior of women with custody of their children, any more than
    I should assume that all men are real sob's just because my ex is.
    I've never stuck a claw into a man, in my life.
    
    Re. .0, I wish you luck, and I applaud your efforts to give your
    children the best opportunities that you can.  Your decision to
    move out worries me somewhat, though, as it seems that could make
    it more difficult to get custody; there seemed to be some requirement
    that you do that, though (from what you said).
    
    I wish that more men were genuinely interested in the well-being
    of their children, and tried to remain a positive influence in their
    upbringing.  
    
    Good luck to you.
      

    So what you are saying Gale, is that sinse YOU did not get what
    Jim was saying.....disproves his stats???
    
    I Have been involved in a couple of dev. cases that would curl your
    hair...
    
    I tend to agree with Jim, although I have a great marriage, that
    could end anytime.(hope not)  I tend to believe that what has happened
    TO MANY, MANY men would probably happen to me.

Gale, please count to 10^n...

I am not misrepresenting the facts.  Your situation differs from mine in
several ways.

1:  Your divorce was considerably before the current laws went into effect.
    This accounts for the majority of the differences in your situation.

2:  True, you were able to ask for less, yet you *could* go to court and
    get an outrageous amount easily.  

Does this sound like a fair situation to you?  It doesn't to me.

Jim.

    Jim,
    
    I know you have educated yourself on this issue more than I have,
    but you speak in generalities.
    
    My parents were poor.  Dad got 100% custody, with only a country
    laywer.  Mom was not shown to be "grossly" unfit, simply unable
    to provide a home for us ($$).  She _wanted_ custody, and fought
    for it and LOST.  There were no child support payments, and no alimony.
    This was eight or nine years ago, in Maine.  The children suffered
    from the animosity of the parents.
    
    The parent who got shafted was my mother.

    
    There is also a formula in Colorado which dictates what is taken
    out of the father's pay.  It is always assumed that the mother is
    contributing her "fair" share, while we know that the dad is doing
    his part as he has no choice but pay what the courts order, or it
    will be taken from him before he gets his check.  
    
    I'll second Jim that the court comes up with a figure that is too
    high.  Hell, an adult doesn't require that much!
    
    It's also pretty sorry that the father has to pay tax on the GROSS
    amount that he pays out, and the mother is getting tax free money
    under the table and can really do any damn thing she pleases with
    the money.
    

 Here we go again.

 Child custody and support is an issue which is near to many peoples' hearts,
especially given the high divorce rate these days. It is an issue which 
causes many people much pain and suffering, and I hear a lot of pain in 
these (and the other child support/custody) notes.

 But let us not forget that the issue is not as black and white as people 
would have us think -- the cases which have been raised in this (and other)
notes cover the spectrum of possible outcomes.  There are many cases where
the mother was treated "unjustly" and many cases where the father was treated
"unjustly" and many, many cases where the children were treated "unjustly".

 Is the current system of assigning custody and support flawed? Obviously, your
opinion on this depends on whether the judge agreed with you or with your
ex-spouse. I would argue that the system (if indeed there is "A SYSTEM") works
adequately since the allegations of injustice are spread between the two sides!

I'm sure that a lot of people will try to argue their cases in notesfiles having
failed to successfully argue their cases in court. That's good (or at least
interesting for a while). But let's not lose sight of the fact that (in my 
opinion) if your case didn't hold up in court, then the fault may be with the
court and legal system, but it is much more likely that the fault is with your
case!!!! 

					Nigel

    
    	RE: .22
    
    	While in some respects I agree with your reply, it does not
    	always work that way. In my case, I have two children, one
    	lives with me and one with me ex. My ex's income is alot
    	more than mine, she got the house car, everything, except
    	the bills, which she kindly let me have. ;^(  However, it
    	was still interesting to note the court still awarded her
    	$50 a week from me. So, yes the system is sometimes unfair
    	to women, and sometimes to men. It all depends on which judge
    	you get and his mood for the day as to how each side will fair.
    
    	G_B

    
    
    OK
    
    He won	That's fair.
    She won	That's fair.
    The kids	aren't even in the game.
    
    By the way, how can a non-custodial parent make certain that the
    child support is used to support the child?  Guess what?  The non-
    custodial parent can't!!
    
    After paying $XX.XX each week for my daughter, I'm getting pretty
    damn pissed off each time I see her wearing the same old blue jeans
    that are three inches above her ankles!!!  
    I went out last fall and spent over $150 for her school clothes.
    I sent all the clothes back with her.  Well, school shopping is
    due again.  I still haven't seen her wear one of the outfits I bought
    her last year.  Yeah, maybe she is wearing them at school, and then
    again maybe not.
    
    One last thing, I certainly do get a kick out of people who have
    never been involved in divorce/child custody situations, and yet
    have an informed opinion on the subject.  And when I generalize,
    it is with the knowledge that for each woman who gets raked over
    the coals in court, there are at least 50 men who get the screws
    put to them.  This little tidbit was told to me by my lawyer.
    Perhaps he was generalizing also.
    
    It's still a woman's world in family court.
    
    

Lee...  I am aware that there are cases where the woman gets the short end. I've
listened to enough people to know that it is not all one sided.  But for every
story I've heard where the woman doesn't get "justice", I've heard a dozen where
the man gets ripped; and most of the stories I hear are from women.  I have
heard about an equal number of stories about father's not paying support, and
father's not being enabled to continue fathering their children. 

RE: Nigel,

"I would argue that the system (if indeed there is "A SYSTEM") works adequately
since the allegations of injustice are spread between the two sides!"

That's one hell of a design spec that one side or the other gets shafted an
equal number of times.  That's like saying that murder trials are run correctly
if the number of murderers who get off free equals the number of innocent
people imprisoned.  That's ludicrous!  Perhaps British justice works in bizzarre
ways, but I wouldn't equate that with justice!

As for the problem being the case...  The court did not even LOOK at my case! It
was all considered irrelevant, and they did not have time to waste!

Jim.

         -< "There's only you and me, and we just disagree." >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It looks like we've got the classic case of two extreme sides of
    a very complex situation going head-to-head.  There can only be
    one outcome, and it is not a pretty site!  Is it possible that 
    there may be a certain amount of merit in what the other side has 
    to say, even if it does not directly apply to your personal situations?
    
    When I got my divorce (in NH, 3 years ago), I was raked over the
    coals financially.  But only because I agreed to it!  Had I not,
    my ex and I would still be battling in court, and hating each other,
    and our kids would be suffering.  The kids are the most important
    consideration, which is why I agreed to the financial arrangement with 
    my ex.  But my ex and I are also to be considered.
     
    I wanted the kids to lead the same quality of life as before.  It hasn't
    been easy for me OR my Ex, but we've managed.  We now have an excellent
    co-parent relationship, and I have an excellent relationship with
    my kids.
    
    But I know there are many horror stories, as well.  I guess my message
    in this rambling is that if separating/divorcing parents would try
    to work together to make the best *for ALL concerned* of a bad
    situation, there would be fewer philosophical battles being conducted
    on the QUARK:: ... Battlefield!
    
    Enjoy!
    
    Jack             

    Re: .25
    
    >But for every story I've heard where the woman doesn't get "justice",
    >I've heard a dozen where the man gets ripped; and most of the stories
    >I hear are from women.
    
    The mathematically inclined are intrigued.

    re:  .25
    
    There are well publized statistics that prove that the custodial
    parent does not get adequate child support and that in fact the
    standard of living for the custodial parent generally remains the
    same or lowers and the non-custodial parent after two or three 
    years has increased their standard of living.
    
    I think that our frame of reference in these conferences is a little
    biased compared to the real world.  Where a medium income amongst
    those of us that contribute to Notes might be $32,000 (an arbitrary
    figure) the medium income in any metropolitan community is from
    $16,000 to $24,000.  These figures are from memory...I can research
    and find out actuals from published reports.  The figure for Notes
    contributors would require a survey to which I do not think everyone
    would be willing to contribute to.
    
    So the system of percentages is unfair at both ends of the spectrum.
    Child support should equate to actual expenditures.  If a non-custodial
    parent does not earn enough to pay they occur a liability to whomever
    (welfare and/or the custodial parent) for the remainder at such
    time as they can remit that debt.
    
    Until they give the custodial parent the option of going to the
    grocery store with a court order saying that they only have to pay
    30% of their grocery bill the child support system remains unfair.
                                                      
    And in light of the fact that the largest percentage of custodial
    parents are women I feel that justice and the adminstration of justice
    is still against women.
                    
    I do offer my support and encouragement to men who wish to parent
    and are being restricted by unfair court orders.  
    

    
    
    .26
    
    
    *But I know there are many horror stories, as well.  I guess my
    message in this rambling is that if separating/divorcing parents
    would try to work together to make the best *for ALL concerned*
    of a bad situation, there would be fewer philosophical battles being
    conducted on the QUARK:: ... Battlefield!*
    
    	I couldn't agree with you more.  But, your statement is based
    on a premise that rarely happens.  ..."if"...  What to do when one
    parent is unwilling to do that?  You then have the battles that
    take place now.
    
    

    .29 asks "What happens if" one party is unwilling to work with the
    other, and try to do what is best for all concerns.  I never said
    it would be easy, or that it would work in all cases.  The only
    way such a situation can be resolved is if the person who IS willing
    to work towards a mutually agreeable situation lets the other person
    know that (s)he still respects the former spouse/partner, and isn't
    out to "put the screws" to that person.  There has to be communication,
    if anything is to be resolved.  There also has to be consessions
    made (probably MORE by the willing partner!)  And the children must
    be the principal objects of consideration - NOT just pawns in a
    critical chess match.
    
    Will this be easy??  NO WAY!  But even in the worst of cases it's
    possible.  The key in this, as in ALL human relations situations,
    is communication.  (And I know - If you could communicate, you probably
    wouldn't be getting divorced in the first place!)
    
    Good Luck!
    
    Jack

"The mathematically inclined are intrigued."

The reason that I get more stories about men being screwed, even talking to
women. 

"There are well publized statistics that prove that the custodial parent does
not get adequate child support and that in fact the standard of living for the
custodial parent generally remains the same or lowers and the non-custodial
parent after two or three years has increased their standard of living."

Under what situation?  Under the current laws?  In NE's high cost of living? I
am sure not.  I will bet that this information also assumes that a certain
percentage of noncustodial parents do not pay child support; a factor which
should not be used in setting child support to be paid;  the statistics are also
several years if not decades out of date, which makes them totally useless in
today's situation. 

Also, absolutely no weight is given to the satisfaction which a custodial parent
feels in raising a child, which a noncustodial parent is deprived.  That
means a LOT to noncustodial parents!

RE: 'if parents would try to work together...'

This is irrelevent.  The point is that the current court system encourages and
supports mothers ruining fathers.  There is no counter encouragement. The point
is that if a mother wishes to ruin their ex-husband, the courts are quite
willing to help them do that, and no way to stop them.  The courts give no
motivation for mothers to cooperate with the fathers, and no penalty if they do
not.  There are severe penalties for fathers who do not cooperate.

There is no way to make consession to someone who intent on ruining you! You
have nothing to make consessions with!

The 'agreements' FORCED on parents are not free agreements entered in good
faith.  Most of the time there's a loaded gun to your head, and you are told
'sign it, or you will get even worse then this!'.  I am really not surprised
that some noncustodial parents simply disappear;  in many cases I am sure that
they are economically forced to.

Now...  tell me one more time that all this is 'for the good of the children'..

Like hell...

JMB 

    Divorce is not good for the children....if we make mistakes in choosing
    our partners and if we make mistakes in conceiving children and
    we then choose to divorce and expect that decisions will be made
    for the good of the children and the children only we are a bit
    naive.  
    
    To state that information relayed in a note is from personal stories
    heard by both men and women doesn't hold water with me.  Then to
    negate published statistics seems contradictory.  The statistics
    this year are still the same.  The average custodial parent suffers
    a financial loss and incurs more than half of the cost to support
    the child as well as most of the physical labor to attend to their
    needs.
    
    To those of you that do not know me...I want to explain something.
    I worked two and three jobs to support four beautiful children.
    My ex saw all of the four once in ten years and the boys he saw
    twice.  His child support was determined on his 'stated' wages.
    He owes me!
    
    I was so busy working and trying to raise these children I never
    did anything to see that the rules were changed.  I have taken it
    as my responsibility to make sure that in some small way that the
    laws and peoples attitudes change so that there is some justice
    when people divorce.
    
    So you may see me frequently responding to these issues.
    
    In a conference like this we only see one side of the story...we
    are presented with biased opinions...even in my case there is another
    side to the story.
    
    What one person's perception of being raked over the coals is another's
    idea of equality.
    
    We can not blame the justice system for we are the system.  Men
    are indeed suffering some abuse by the new laws both in custody
    and in the financial aspects of divorce.
    
    There is work to be done...and some people have to get out and fight
    for what they believe in.  When I wanted custody of my children
    I worked extra hours at my part time job to pay for a lawyer and
    I got it.  Men have done the same thing.  A man who works for Digital
    has been in the papers for the efforts he has gone through to get
    custody of his daughters.  He is to be commended for his actions
    and in so doing he has helped others who choose the same path.
    
    And last but not least it is evident that what one person considers
    as expenses relating to the care of children is not anothers.  The
    % equation that is used by many states is based on the fact that
    the standards of living between the children and the non-custodial
    parent should be somewhat equal.  In doing that the custodial parent
    often benefits.  And this equation does not guarantee the greatest
    percentage of children in the state of Massachusetts with adequate
    child support.  
    
    I am willing to work with any man who wishes custody of children,
    I believe that custodial parents have a responsibility to account
    for the dollars that they receive in child support (much the same
    as we have to account for expense money we receive).  I believe
    that joint custody should be the norm and separate custody should
    only be granted if there are extenuating circumstances.
    
    In DEC there are many men that have been raked over the coals...in
    the real world...custodial parents are still accepting the major
    portion of the financial responsibility for raising their children.
    
    

    	RE:  .31
    
    	> The reason [is] that I get more stories about men being screwed,
    	> even talking to women.
    
    	Funny, but I hear *far* more stories about the wives getting
    	screwed.  Two women that I know *right now* had ex-husbands
    	who sold their houses for a song before the divorce (depriving
    	them of all the equity on said houses even though both the
    	women were employed during their marriages) and bought the
    	houses *back* later to take the full amount of the equity for
    	themselves after the divorces were final.
    
    	One guy had his brother-in-law buy the house and sell it back
    	to him (and the other guy had his girlfriend buy the house and
    	then signed him back onto it after the two of *them* got married
    	later.)  Both of the women I knew ended up with almost nothing
    	from the marriage (and something on the order of $65 per month
    	for child support, which they sometimes receive and oftentimes
    	don't.)  And neither of these women ever "stayed home" during
    	the marriages (or while raising young children.)
    
    	The horror stories get worse from there, but there is no point
    	in elaborating furthur.  Suffice it to say that there are a
    	lot of pretty unfair things that can happen to people during
    	divorce (and neither sex has a monopoly on dirty pool when the 
       	object is to hurt an ex-partner.)

    Moderator hat on...
    
    I'd like to call a moratorium on anecdotes here.  Recounting
    our favorite horror stories isn't going to change anyone's mind.
    
    Moderator hat off...
    
    I am a divorced father, but have joint custody and neither
    alimony nor child support payments, so I would not think that this
    proposed legislation would affect me directly.  Nonetheless, I
    am horrified at the notion of automatic attachment of wages without
    any regard for enforcing visitation provisions, and am further
    disgusted by the idea that some of the money paid would NOT go to
    the children but to the federal welfare system.  I would hope that
    all of us could recognize the outrageousness of this bill on its
    own demerits.
    
    					Steve

>    In child support questions associated with a divorce case, I believe
>    that a stepparent's income is taken into account in determining support
>    payment levels.   I don't know if that is true in an unmarried parent
>    support case such as yours.  
Totally not true. A Step-parents income has no bearing on support payments
what-so ever, at least in Mass.

Ken

    
    RE .34
    
    	Yep, Steve, recounting "horror stories", does little good. 
    For every story I can tell about how my ex-wife gave me a good
    screwing over, someone out there can tell how her ex-husband did
    the same.  So, it really is an excercise in futility, except in
    some respects, perhaps it's a nice way to blow off some steam.
    
    	All the horror stories are about things past, or at least things
    that will be done before this law is effective.  I too, have a real
    problem thinking that some of my support could go to support the
    welfare system.  I also have a problem with a "guilty-before-proven-
    innocent" law.  And that, in my opinion, is unfair.
    
    	Do you ever get the feeling that you're all alone in this? 
    When you get past all the sob stories, the leaning on the shoulders,
    when you get past all the "he did this, but she did that" stories,
    each one of us is left to fight our own battles, and what may win
    for me may not for you.  And I've found, most people just really
    don't give a sh*t about you and your problem.
    
    

I agree that the anecdotes are not getting us anywhere...

"I am willing to work with any man who wishes custody of children, ..."

I hear a lot of this 'we support you' stuff... all well meaning and all that,
but what can be done?  What can/would you do for a divorced parent?

I hear a lot of 'if you want custody, fight for it'.  But what do you once you
have gone to court to try to get custody, and the court is not interested in
listening to *ONE WORD* that you have to say, and you have lost?  What is there
that can be done then? 

"Funny, but I hear *far* more stories about the wives getting screwed."

The difference is that your stories are examples of men screwing their wives
illegally, or in the past with rediculously low amounts of child support.
The situations I am speaking of are those why mothers, aided by the laws
are ruining fathers.  

How would you feel if you had to work three or four jobs, AND you did not have
the children?  Is that better or worse?  I feel it is abysmally worse. 65$ a
month child support eh?  The state of MA wants $1000 a month, try that on for
size! 

"Totally not true. A Step-parents income has no bearing on support payments
what-so ever, at least in Mass."

Worse then that, there are bills waiting that would include the noncustodial
parents spouses income in the noncustodial parents income for determining child
support!

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the state hopes to gain
by counting the same money twic, as both the noncustodial parent's and then as
the custodial parent's to keep them both off of any government programs when in
reality some kind of help is needed, even though I dispise the thought.

"Do you ever get the feeling that you're all alone in this? When you get past all
the sob stories, the leaning on the shoulders, when you get past all the "he did
this, but she did that" stories, each one of us is left to fight our own
battles, and what may win for me may not for you.  And I've found, most people
just really don't give a sh*t about you and your problem."

That is exactly how I feel often...  But I am at a loss as to what anyone can
do, what I might expect, or be able to ask from anyone.  Feels like a ghetto...
I think that most people are well meaning, and that they do care, but what CAN
they do? 

Jim.

    It sounds like Massachusetts has managed to do what I thought was
    impossible -- come up with a law that is unfair to absoluely
    everyone it applies to . . . 
    
    --bonnie

    Might I suggest that we look at this issue at the macro level instead
    of the micro level of people in a well defined income range such
    as we  have here at Digital.
    
    The suggested law is the result of past performance of non-custodial
    parents as well as the fact that tax payers are supporting children
    through the AFDC program.  
    
    I agree the law is restrictive but to use an overused phrase...'let's
    not throw the baby out with the bath water.'
    
    I also feel that specifics are important when discussing cases like
    this.  They create an awareness of the potential loopholes in any
    law and could make the proposal more palatable.
    
    Although we as a group (noters) accept our responsibilities as parents
    what I find interesting is the variety of feelings around what
    constitutes child support.
    
    In the few joint custody cases I know both parents keep dual sets
    of clothing and toys...it seems these parents (the ones I know)
    are more concerned with the welfare of the children than the financial
    aspects of parenting after a divorce.
    
    In other cases I hear much todo about the financial aspects...with
    a few words here and there about being deprived of the ability to
    parent.
    
    The courts have given custody to men, the lawmakers will listen
    if you appeal to them with your vote.  If any one of you is concerned
    about the proposed law (I haven't seen much about it lately, what
    is the status?) tell us who to write to and what proposals you have
    to make the law equitable.

By macro level, do you mean the level at which one can expend an infinite
amount of energy, and recieve zero results?

Which law are we talking about, anyway?

What about noncustodial parents who have been paying child support?  Why
should they be affected?

"In the few joint custody cases I know ... In other cases I hear much todo about
the financial aspects...with a few words here and there about being deprived of
the ability to parent"

What is it that you want as proof that both issues are important????  You are
suggesting that all noncustodial parents are insincere!

Really, there seems to be this feeling out there that if a person really wanted
to have the children, and they would get custody, and if they don't then they
are insincere money sucking misers.  Give us a break!  Both issues are
important, but a parent who is being taken to the cleaners is not likely to be
able to be a good parent for both emotional and financial reasons.

"The courts have given custody to men, the lawmakers will listen if you appeal
to them with your vote."

Lawmakers listen???  Not while 80% of the population sees noncustodial parents
as moneysucking deadbeat misers!  It still sounds to me as if you are saying 'if
you want it badly you will get it; if you don't have it you must not want it.'

Suppose you tell us HOW to get a court to listen to a noncustodial parent??? 

"tell us who to write to and what proposals you have to make the law equitable."

You want to know my proposal?  

If both parents want custody, shared custody, no support.  If a parent does not
fullfill their role in being a parent, then support should be 50% of the
necessary additional expenses for the child, with an additional amount spent by
the noncustodial parent on the child.  All effort should be made to equalize the
living standards of the family.

Jim. 

    First of all the issues that are presented by non-custodial parents
    are not my issues and as I stated before I did not have time to
    work the issues of a custodial parent getting inadequate child support
    so I have no intention of working these issues.  What I have had
    said time and again and the author of .40 is a friend of mine (I
    hope) is I will support your efforts to obtain equity.  But I will
    also argue what I consider unrealistic arguments or proposals based
    on the experiences I have had and the available documented statistics.
    
    There are two basic statistics that have not changed...
    
          The average custodial parent does not receive adequate child
          support.
    
          The average single parent family has a lower standard of living
          then the non-custodial parent associated with that family.
    
    I think that the author of .40 feels differently about what constitutes
    50% of a child's support then I do or the court does.  When he states 
    'additional' expenses it gives us a clue.  For an example when I was 
    managing a single parent family I based my figures on the number of
    people in the family (I had 4 children).  Therefore the rent was
    divided by 5 and the children's portion was 4/5 of the rent...likewise 
    the heat and so forth.  The total telephone expenses I did not divide by
    5 I just divided the basic payment.  One might say that in fact that
    the non-custodial parent subsidizes the living arrangement of the
    custodial parent using that methodology.  I don't buy that at all.  
    The living arrangement was determined by the size of the family and
    the options for economical living arrangements are many for one person 
    not so many for five. The standard roommate arrangement is similar to
    what I have described and is an option for economical living
    arrangements open to any individual. And of course any expenses
    directly relating to the children were not divided by 5.  We then come
    up with a figure and that figure is divided by the two parents and a
    determination is made around child support.
    
    We haven't even addressed the issue of physical labor especially
    around infants and young children.  As is so often true custodial
    parents (usually the Mom) have dishpan hands and the non-custodial
    parent becomes the infamous Disneyland Dad.
    
    Around child custody...I would not want a judge to give custody
    to any parent that did not have the means to care for a child. 
    That means that one should not petition the court until there is
    adequate housing and child care provisions in place.  That is tough and I
    understand that...but we as a public and our judicial system are
    concerned with the welfare of the children first.  It means that
    someone who wishes custody of their children has to do some homework
    and maybe even expend some time and money to convince the court
    of their capabilities.  I think if you expect less of the court
    you cannot see the whole picture and the potential abuse that could
    be created.  A non-custodial parent could convince a judge that
    they wanted custody, be granted that custody, move away from the court
    system and there is a potential that the children would not receive
    adequate care.
                                              
    I personally have no blanket prejudices against non-custodial parents
    I take each case as it is worth.  I feel that many non-custodial
    parents have some biases around how their money is spent and often
    make statements which indicate that their former spouse is getting
    rich on 'their' money.  I know my ex felt he was giving the money
    to me.  He wasn't 'giving' anything he owed it.  And I got nothing
    out of it.
    
    The value in discussions like this is the possibility of creating
    understanding amongst individuals...and this is why I put so much
    effort into these discussions.  I left a conference once because
    I felt I could not convince anyone that my logic made sense.  What
    I found out was that there were people that read some of the things
    I had said and changed their attitudes.  I hope that might happen
    in this current discussion.

    Hi, I'm Larry Hockemeyer SWS/great lakes.
    
       Last year I successfully was blessed with custody of my
    three children ages 6 -14.  I started by contacting my
    local "Fathers Rights" organization.  They lead me to a
    lawyer who specialized in helping fathers win custody suits.
    The next thing that I did was to LISTEN to him only and 
    follow his every command regardless of the pain.  He got
    my children to a psychologist to befriend them during the
    pre-trial separation period.  They need all the support 
    that they can get.  Also the psychologist through therapy
    proved for the court that I was the nurturing parent.
    I also kept a journal of all of my ex's contacts with me
    and the kids.  Dates, times , places, what happened, what
    was said, the reactions of the children.  I also bought
    a telephone with a speaker and an answering machine that
    allowed me to tape all conversations with my ex. 
    My attorney present a copy of my journal to her lawyer 
    just before the hearing.  That with the psychologist's
    deposition made her lawyer 'weak-kneed', he folded and
    convinced her to agree to a pre-trial settlement of
    custody, her visitation, and property settlement.  The
    agreement was made in the hall outside the courtroom
    while we were waiting for our case to be heard.  The
    judge just blessed it.
    
    Good luck.

"The average custodial parent does not receive adequate child support."

Do you feel ~1/2 cost (your formula) is adequate?
    
"The average single parent family has a lower standard of living then the
non-custodial parent associated with that family."

What should be done in cases where this statistic does not hold?  I do not
feel that the current MA laws support this statistic.

RE: 'roommate child support formula'

In actuality, I feel the question is moot because I feel that children should
send equal time with each parent, and there should be no child support.

I don't agree with this method for determining child support, you don't agree
with mine.  I cannot think of an argument that will change your mind, and none
of the arguments you have used haved changed my mind. 

I feel that you have a very unrealistic view of how the courts would treat a
noncustodial father seeking custody.  No one in their right mind would put
themselves the couple of thousand in debt necessary to establish a household
without having the current no_more_then_a_prayer chance of getting custody from
the court.

Potential Abuse???  The court will not even *LOOK* at the situation to see if
there is any potential for abuse.  All the court cares is are the children
currently in danger; if not then case closed.

Jim. 

    Thank you Larry!  What a positive note!  I have just received notice
    that my investigation is to begin, and must be completed within
    60 days. (ahhhhhhh!)  It's starting at last.  Congratulations on
    your decision to fight for your children whatever your circumstances
    were, and for winning and giving me hope.
    
    Thanks for adding your note..
    
    Lou

    RE .43
    
    I think my formula for determining child support is more in line
    with what the courts objectives are.  And yes, if each custodial
    parent received 1/2 the cost as determined by the formula I would
    say that the statistic would be invalid.
    
    What I find frustrating in the notes by the author of .43 is that
    he does not state that his formula does not agree with the what
    is considered by the courts and by the legislature to be fair. 
    He then chastizes the system and then makes blanket statements that
    the average non-custodial parent is being taken to the cleaners.
    
    Reply .42 sites a case where a man received custody and .44 where
    a man has applied and feels he has a good opportunity.
    
    It is my hope that the readers understand your frustration for it
    would be nice if people could just trust that others are going to
    do the right thing.  But I also hope they realize that the dreams
    and wishes of parents don't always become reality and judges have
    to make decisions on the evidence at hand.  If two parents want
    to have custody the judge cannot look into the future he has to
    make a determination based on the current situation.
    
    Another point I would like to make is that decisions are often made
    in court and negotiated again outside the courtroom.  I know of
    many instances where the custodial parent has agreed to a lesser
    support payment based on sympathy and/or a lesser need.
    
    

    In California, which is admittedly not Massachusetts, a father who
    sued for custody received it approximately 90% of the time in
    1985, the last year for which I saw statistics. 
    
    These numbers were distributed by the Associated Press earlier
    this year.
    
    --bonnie

    re: .45
    
>    Reply .42 sites a case where a man received custody and .44 where
>    a man has applied and feels he has a good opportunity.
    
    The author of .42 appears to be located in Michigan.  How does his
    experience contradict any of Jim Baranski's complaints regarding
    the system in Massachusetts?  All .44 said is that an investigation
    has started.
    

    Jim does not have any statistics nor do I around custody arrangements
    in Massachusetts...the most valid frame of reference to this date
    are the experiences of noters.  
    
    Jim does not site statistics he sites perceptions which concerns
    me.
    
    I feel non-custodial parents have some real issues that need to
    be worked.  Feeling sorry does not change the judicial system we
    are the system.
    
    I for instance was told that if I left my home even to go into the
    hospital for R & R (I was close to a breakdown) I would be endangering
    my rights to custody.  If custody of children is important to an
    individual they will do whatever is necessary legally to get it.
     
    If children are important to people they will work with there ex's
    and the court system to have as little disruption in their lives
    as possible.
    
    It is unrealistic in my mind to expect the court system to be fair
    in everyone's eyes.  Laws get passed because people care enough
    about the issue to lobby their case.  If a person want's custody
    or joint custody they have to be able to negotiate that with their
    ex or ask the court to make a decision.  
    
    I feel that Jim's negative comments can be very detrimental to an
    individual who is in the beginning stages of divorce.  It is not
    all bleak.  There are ways to be a good parent and be divorced at
    the same time.  Admittedly it is harder...but the time to plan is
    before the family splits.  I can see a male parent reading Jim's
    notes, moving out of the house because he feels that he has no 
    options and not even trying for custody.  
    
    It is a lot easier to complain then to do something!
    

	First, a little background.

	My ex and I had differences for a long period of time. We went to 2.5
YEARS of counseling. The children went to counseling for part of this time. On
my 2nd (yes second!) visit to the counselor, he explained to me that, although
I had come to counseling to repair the marriage, my ex had come to dismantle
the marriage. I made a big mistake in not believing him. I did follow his
advice and do everything that SHE wanted for the next 3.5 years. I finally woke
up and realized that he was right. 

	There were several major changes in our life together, including a move
to another state while I continued to work in the state where we were settled.
This involved sale of the house, changing the kid's school and TOTAL compliance
with what SHE wanted. (The kids and I did NOT want to move.) 

	I traveled 265 miles one way each weekend to be with the family. I did
not this for 1 year and missed only two weekends. 

	After the summer when this occurred, the children began to be upset.
They were not attending school, and, because I was 260 miles away, I could do
very little to modify their attendance. I talked (communicated?) with my ex on
a daily basis as well as talking with the children to no avail. 

	I tried to convince my ex that this was a critical situation because
the kids were so unhappy and that the unhappiness revolved around HER
unhappiness. She told me that there were no problems. 

	(This is tough to condense!!!)

	I have to note that the kids were 9 and 11 at that time and they wanted
to live with me. She was leaving them alone until 2 in the morning (not work)
and they would call me in Mass and ask where their mother was. In one
particular instance, they called me to tell me that they had arranged for their
own sitter! I felt helpless - castrated. 

	At this time the (as I have said) the kids were not in school, there
was little or no food in the house to feed them, although I was giving her a
rather large sum of money weekly to supply that need, paying the rent, the
phone, the heat and insurance coverage and she was working at this time. I
should explain, the school year had begun, but the kids were not going. If they
were tired from staying up too late or just because they didn't want to go, she
would let them stay home while she went to work or off to see a friend!! Zip
for discipline. The report cards for the first and second quarters were all D's
and F's or incompletes.

	I started a divorce in Mass only to have her change the venue to Maine.
(The two states that were involved.) I did this to make her realize how out of
control the situation had become. 

	We went to court on several different occasions in Maine for temporary
custody of the children. The courts aren't overly responsive!!!!

	After several delays, the court in Maine granted temporary custody to
HER! Now, I am not upset about that, the court had little evidence to make it's
judgment and it was temporary. That was on January 29th. On February 16th she
called her attorney and stated that she did not want the children and could he
please expedite the situation! 

	I now have the kids with me in Mass. She is off in her own world, and
has seen the kids 4 times since February 29th. She doesn't call or contact them
very often. I get NO child support. 

	My point is this: FIGHT FOR YOUR KIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

	I talked to my kids tonight about your note (.0) Our situations are
very similar. For your wife, kids are not the issue, $$$ is. I love my kids and
wanted to help and guide them into adulthood. Money was never an issue with me.
I once had a very wise friend say to me "May all your troubles be money." In a
recent interview with Ken Olsen, after he had lost $109 MILLION in one day, he
interviewer asked Ken about how he was reacting to his "troubles." Ken's
response: "This isn't trouble. Trouble is when your kids take drugs." KEEP
FOCUSED. 

	My kid's comments:
	"We love the way we live now... thank you for fighting for us"
	"Tell the guy that his kids need him"

	(from my ten year old) (his birthday was the day before court!)
	"Do you thing that living around druggies is a way for a 7 and an
	 11 year old to live... FIGHT!"

	(from my 11 year old) (birthday this month)
	"I'm not saying that Mom is a bad mom, she just didn't want us"

	Comment from me:
	"Fight for all your worth.... It is worth every pain that you can
	(and will) ever suffer"

	For now, forget the equality (or lack thereof) in the court "system".
	Get a good attorney. Be good to yourself. Love the kids. You CAN
	do it. Maybe not the way that you want, but keep on fighting. Let
	your_soon_to_be_ex know that YOU WILL NOT STOP until 1.) you have
	the kids safe and protected or 2.) She becomes a reasonable mother.
	(From what you have written, I think that 2.) is not an option.)

	Second piece of advice (although you seem to be doing it OK!!!
	1.) Document
	2.) Document
	3.) Document

	Write everything down. Do not depend upon you memory. My therapist
recommended this to me and I will be grateful forever. No matter how trivial it
seems at the time, write it down. And give ALL this to your attorney. 

	Kids do not have an option when they are born as to who(m)(syntax?)
their parents will be. We have the _obligation_ as parents to provide the best
that we can (and I do NOT mean materially) for their lives. 

	I am sorry for rambling... It is difficult to relate all this without
sounding like I'm complaining. I HAVE NO REGRETS. 

	By the way, after my kids moved in with me, the third and forth
quarters of their report cards put them on the Honor Roll! They did it, not me.
I was not standing over them making them do their homework, etc. They just were
more content. 

If you want to talk, please call... HOME: 508-376-1903 or DTN: 508-223-7890.

	tomc

	PS

	One final note to JLAMOTTE:

	<flame on>

	I am reluctant to make this personal, BUT:

	When I was going through the worst part of my divorce, two people kept
me going and they don't even know it. Steve Lionel and Jim Baranski. They were
my beacons of hope in a very dismal situation. When you write that Jim didn't
try hard enough (and that is your implication) I want to scream. When you write
that Jim's comments are negative, I can only say that from my experience he is
telling it like it is. 

	It strikes me as strange when you say that if you want something bad
enough, you will fight for it legally and win. In Jim's case, he didn't even
get to tell his side of the story in a legal arena. Work with an ex! Get real.
If you could do that, then maybe the marriage could have survived.

	We both have had bad experiences in marriage. My ex is a b**** and yous
is a b******. This does not mean that I think all women are rotten, just this
one. I would hope that you have the same attitude toward men. It all comes to
the same thing. FAIRNESS. Men are not treated fairly in Family court.

	I suggest that you open you eyes... The court system is _inherently_
UNFAIR to men. I have my children ONLY because my ex did not want them. Because
the case was handled by the Maine courts, my ex's lawyer told her that there
would not be a big $$$ settlement and that was what she was interested in, not
the welfare of the children. Note that this was not taken into considerstion in
the original temporary custody order of the court. I have read many of Jim's
notes and replies and I am of the opinion that Jim wants FAIRNESS. That is that
he wants the courts to consider _each_ case, not make a blanket decision based
on what usually happens. The "decision" that the court makes is in reality
pre-determined. It starts with "The kids belong with the mother." The father
has the entire burden of proving otherwise. This is not fair and you will never
convince me otherwise. If the courts were truly just, then each side of the
case, including the wishes of the children, would be listened to. Unless one of
the parents is physically or mentally abusive or the children would be in
danger from being with the parent, joint custody should be the norm. Child
support is a total farce. Child support should be determined by the needs of
the children, not the income of one parent or the other. Alimony should be
granted only in certain VERY rare cases and then just for a short time - until
the spouse can become self supporting. These are just general guidelines. Each
case must be considered individually with all variables being considered. Then
we we have a judicial system that does what it is supposed to - be just! 

	Complain... not me any more. I have joined F.A.I.R. Not for myself,
but to begin to straighten out the mess in the judicial system. Is that doing
something?

	Some philosopher said "There will be no justice until every person
is as outraged as the victim." I, for one, am outraged by our system.

	<flame off>

"he does not state that his formula does not agree with the what is considered
by the courts and by the legislature to be fair."

You are right, I don't agree with what the courts and legislature consider to be
fair.  Big deal, that doesn't make them right and me wrong.

The courts objectives as told to me by a half dozen lawyers, the 'social
services counselor', and a judge, is to provide one stable home for the
children, period.  I was informed by these learned persons, supposedly
authorities in the MA family court system.  Now tell me again that I don't know
what I am talking about!  I invesigated continuing the fight for visitation, and
this is what I was told by the people of the system. 

I claim that this is unfair and shortsighted at the least.  It makes no
provision at all for the noncustodial paren or the relationship between the
noncustodial parents relationship with the children. 

1: The court does not care if you see your children beyond a token amount which
they will not enforce.  Any time over a few hours a week is seen as "excessive
visitation" (quote from the court's social service counselor), and is at the
mercy of the custodial parents wishes either in court or out of court. 

2: The court does not care about comparitive standards of living between the
custodial parent and noncustodial parent.  A father is often saddled with
mortgage, insurance, taxes, debts and child support payments for the family
without regard as to what the respective standards of living are like, or what
they were like before the divorce.  The noncustodial parent can be left without
the resources to have the children on even a part time basis, and the court does
not care. 

3: There is no attempt to compromise support, visitation or support on a long
term basis, say something like the mother will have custody and the father will
have as much visitation as he wishes untill the children a 5, then the situation
will switch untill they are 10 and then the children will decide; or for long
term variation in support.  The court insists that child support and visitation
are infinitely changable. 

4: Any expenses by noncustodial parents spent for the child is not counted as
child support. 

5: In MA even if a father has joint custody he still has to by law pay full
child support. 

I could hang in there if I knew that in 5 years the shoe would be on the other
foot, but I can't when I know that it will be at least 18 years and the shoe
will NEVER be on the other foot. 

"judges have to make decisions on the evidence at hand"

My point is that judges IGNORE evidence at hand.  Evidence against the mother
having custody is ignored or excused.  Again, I was told by the people of the
system that this is usually the case. 

"If two parents want to have custody the judge cannot look into the future he
has to make a determination based on the current situation."

What does this mean?  Does this mean that a father who works to support his
family and the mother who stays home will NEVER have any significant custody of
his children?  Shouldn't a father have AT LEAST the same chance as EVERY first
time mother to prove that they can take care of their children?  No, the courts
attitude is that they have to PROVE themselves, a chance which they will never
get because the court will not give them more then token custody. 

I'm not talking about abusive situations, I'm talking about people who want
to to be PARENTS not VISTORS.

"I know of many instances where the custodial parent has agreed to a lesser
support payment based on sympathy and/or a lesser need."

That is possible, but again, it is AT THE MERCY of the custodial parent, which
the custodial parent may change AT ANY TIME.  I know that it keeps me awake at
night wondering when the next blow will come. 

'statistics'

In a national survey collected by FAIR last year from summary reports from
family social workers, the percentage of mothers gaining custody fell from 98%
to 92% because more mothers were declining custody, but not from any more
fathers winning custody battles.  The quote of the statistic is in some of the
earlier notes in this conference and others. 

"Feeling sorry does not change the judicial system we are the system."

True...  I have never asked that anybody feel sorry for me.  I've looked high
and low for someone who could or would DO SOMETHING.  No success to date.

"I for instance was told that if I left my home even to go into the hospital for
R & R (I was close to a breakdown) I would be endangering my rights to custody.
If custody of children is important to an individual they will do whatever is
necessary legally to get it."

If that were the case of a father, there would be no question but that he would
lose custody on the spot.  If a father has a breakdown in the process of the
divorce there is literally no chance in hell of him ever getting custody. 

Again, you seem to feel that if a person wants custody then they should be
legally able to get it.  Do you actually feel that way?  This is simply not
true.

"If children are important to people they will work with there ex's and the
court system to have as little disruption in their lives as possible."

Again, how can a person make any compromises if they have nothing on their side
to compromise with???  How can they "work with" the court when they are
consistantly ignored.

"If a person want's custody or joint custody they have to be able to negotiate
that with their ex or ask the court to make a decision."

Again, what does the noncustodial parent have to negotiate?  NOTHING!  Asking
the court to make a decision is equivelant to giving away custody.  The MA court
will never decide on joint custody; joint custody can only be granted by the
'custodial parent' [sic] (read mother).

"I feel that Jim's negative comments can be very detrimental to an individual
who is in the beginning stages of divorce.  It is not all bleak."

Is it better to spend ~5,000$ in legal fees and be bleak, or merely skip
spending the money?
     
"It is a lot easier to complain then to do something!"

Again, you are assuming that noncustodial parents do not make any effort to get
custody, and therefore they must not really want it.

"It would help greatly if any "information" provided be identified as to
personal observations versus results of whose studies ..."

Fortunately or unfortunatly the moderator has disallowed anecdotes.

What I find very strange is that virtually no other currently divorced MA
parents are responding either that they are being screwed, or that the opposite
is the case within DEC noterdom.  I would have expected some kind of feedback
one way or the other... instead all there is is silence... 

I am told that I am an anomaly, especially for my income bracket.  That might
well be, but what *are* the noncustodial parents in lower incomes doing? I can't
imagine that it is any better for them.  Why is my income braket supposed to be
an anomaly?  I do not see how, when the current amount of child support by law
in MA is fixed by gross income that anyone else can be in any better boat. 

As mentioned, the other people who have responded are not in MA.

Jim.

    Tom  you absolutly  positive incouragable!  Your Great!!!!
    Your note came at the motst oportune moment.    At this time Annie
    is taking a (mint?) bath ((I have them for two weeks).  My son is
    presently in camp
    ( a much needed break and exposure that I thought he could use)
     You seem simular however we are different because theis case is
    not without $$$ as a target.
    
    I will have to continue this message Monday of next week as we are
    on vacation .
    
    thanks for your input and  to all who have written with my first
    request.
    
    But this terminal is not responding to my frustration level...
    
    
    Later...
    
    
    thanks again.
    bye

    I can empathize with you fathers out there that want custody of
    your children at divorce time.  I was at the HIGHEST hate level
    by the time I divorced my husband. I hated him, but I loved my 2
    babies, but at the same couldn't deal with the decision I knew I
    had to make.  My ex wanted the children as much as I did, we both
    wanted what was best for them, not ourselves.  Besides I wasn't
    out to punish him for the rest of his life (I believe that is why
    alot of women hang on to the children, fit or not).  I know several
    cases where thats all it is....a club/knife/torture....punishment.
    Not all women are "naturally" better parents.  Ideally children
    need both parents after the divorce even more than during the marriage.
    When the family is "whole" there is a sense of security that comes
    natural.  Divorce rattles everyones cage, ESPECIALLY children. 
    Be good to your children, they can't fight for themselves. 
    
    I vote that you should get a VERY aggressive, strong lawyer.  Push
    and fight to the limit, tactfully when possible.  But let her know
    you believe this is best for them, and personal feelings should
    be kept separate.  If you don't win...and your chances of winning
    get better by the day.....insist on liberal visitation, documented 
    in the papers specifically so it won't be left open for interpertation.
    Because when they are mad at you (like my new husbands ex, they
    have been divorced 9 yrs now) their idea of "liberal" is once a
    year for 4 hours.
    
    My new husband didn't fight much (not in my estimation anyway),
    and to this day he suffers from guilt, etc. And his ex is not fit,
    but it was a standard case, mother gets child just because they
    are the mother. The court is not that interested in what is best
    unless it is a sue for custody case.  The judge thought I was crazy
    when I willing gave my ex custody.  He (judge) tried to change my
    mind right then and there on the stand.  GIVE IT UP!! Women are
    not always the more fit parent.  And its okay!
    
    - Part time mom, and coping -

    
    
    i've had custody of my 2 daughters for over 12 years....
    never said a bad word about their mother....
    i brainwashed them into believing that we didn't need a second
    parent....convinced them that the 3 of us could have a good life
    without a "mother", play acting or otherwise....
    
    never took a dime from my ex.
    never took a dime from the state.
    never took a dime from a taxpayer.
    except free day care for 4 years...
    thanks a lot!
    
    for the first 6 years i was a computer operator for dec making
    8,000 less than what it actually cost a family of 3 to live.

    now i've worked my way up to instructor and make a nice salary
    and am veryy happy and have had 3 or 4 great relationships
    and am very much looking forward to the rest of my life....
    
    and all along i've been raising my daughters to take care of
    themselves...
    
    been brainwashing them into believing that the only one they can
    really rely on to be there forever (besides me) is themselves....
    all other relationships are probably transient.
    and that's ok.
    it's real.
    and i'm glad i had my daughters to myself all that time....
    i'm the only one who cold have raised them right...
    
    every one else would have raised them to believe their happiest
    day in life would be the day they got married at 21 and settled
    down to a mundane loveless life that would end in devastated trajedy
    when the male food provider left home with a newer and younger
    female and now you're gonna have to go work as a secretary or
    a waitress and make shit pay and live a lonely and neurotic life...
    
    yes, i can say ramble...
    and i can do it, too
    

    re: .11
    Jim, I am a new noter and a new, single mom. Am I to believe from
    your note .11  "Mass. law demands that the non-custodial parent
    pays 28-32% of gross wages for child support" - If the father of
    my child earns $100k/year, that I should be getting $2,333/month?
    This is a hypothetical case only.
    Thanks. Beth

    Re: .51
           
    >The courts objectives as told to me by a half dozen lawyers, the
    >'social services counselor', and a judge, is to provide one stable home
    >for the children, period.  I was informed by these learned persons,
    >supposedly authorities in the MA family court system. 
           
    >My point is that judges IGNORE evidence at hand.  Evidence against the
    >mother having custody is ignored or excused.  Again, I was told by the
    >people of the system that this is usually the case. 
                                                
    >I claim that this is unfair and shortsighted at the least.  It makes no
    >provision at all for the noncustodial paren or the relationship between
    >the noncustodial parents relationship with the children. 
                                                
    >Shouldn't a father have AT LEAST the same chance as EVERY first time
    >mother to prove that they can take care of their children?  No, the
    >courts attitude is that they have to PROVE themselves, a chance which
    >they will never get because the court will not give them more then
    >token custody.                             
                                                
    As I have meandered in and out of this topic as it has played out over
    the last two years in a variety of files, I feel compelled to support
    Jim.  The "term of trade" in law to which he refers in the citations
    above is called "The Tender Years Theory."  As best as my research has
    uncovered, it was formally articulated and adopted in the 1930's.  It
    was based on opinion and opinion alone of academicians, judges, and
    others of the male establishment, some freudians in there no doubt ;-).
    It was put forth to address the increasing incidence of divorce in the
    context of the industrialization of America.  There is even a
    bellweather book written by some judge whose name escapes me at the
    momemt though I believe that I can find it in my files.  The argument
    has three points and goes something like this.  'First, regardless of
    the reason, men as the dominant and more capable sex, bear the
    responsibility for the disintigration of the the social contract of
    marriage, therefore financial responsibility resides with them.
    Second, because of the maternal instinct [irrelevance of the paternal
    instinct implied], responsibility for child rearing resides with the
    women.  Third, the stability of a child's location takes precendence
    over the stability of a relationship with the father.'  There you have
    it. Institutionalized sexual discrimination across the board.  This
    became the overriding and guiding rationale, not necessarily the law,
    for adjudicating divorce and custody WITHOUT ANY IMPERICAL
    SUBSTANTIATION AT ALL FOR OVER 40 YEARS. 
                                                  

    The results of the "California Children of Divorce Study," ["Mom's
    House, Dad's House," Wallenstein (sp?) et al] really pulls the rug
    out from under this and a lot of other myths about divorce, custody,
    etc.  This longitudinal study, which continues, suggested the following:
                                                   
    1.	Kids suffer an intense loss with any divorce regardless
    of the circumstances or cordiallity.
    
    2.	Kids will persist in trying to bring the family unit back together.
                                                   
    3.	Kids which maintain a nurturing relationship with both parents
    cope with the divorce far better as a group than kids who don't.
                                                
    4.	A childs welfare does not necessarily depend on stability of
    location.  A child's ability to cope with changes of venue is very
    individual.  Lots of children are very content with two separate
    households in which they spend 50% of their time, even during school.
    Others seem to need a base from which they venture, yet continued
    and repeated contact with both parents is always of paramount
    importance.                                 
                                                
    5.	Getting divorced does not necessarily help the kids in the long
    run (i.e. the myth of "being from a broken home is better than living
    in one is just that, a myth.)  Again, to split or stay together
    for the kids is completely situational (sorry about this, I'm just
    reporting what I've read.)                  
                                                
    6.	Women are not intrinsically better parents, they are trained to be
    parents in our culture.  Men who did not demonstrate parenting skills
    at the outset of getting custody acquired them. 
                                                  
    This doesn't address support, but _I believe_ that when you solve
    the parenting issue (note I did not call it custody) the support
    issue can be resolved by formula.  Then the only problem is finding
    a formula which balances all of the variables.
    
    I recommend this book.  It blows away many long standing beliefs,
    and provides much food for thought.

RE: .55

"If the father of my child earns $100k/year, that I should be getting
$2,333/month?"

... I believe that there is some cutoff point of some kind at 50K$ a year...
but there are of course ways to get around that...

Then again, there are a sizable faction of father's (?15%) who are willing and
able to pay more then the required child support (at least by past standards),
and pay more then is required by the court. 

Jim. 

    Jim,
    
    Per your comment that some fathers pay more than the mandated amount
    of support, according to a F.A.I.R. survey 80+% of non custodial
    fathers provide MORE than the court ordered levels of support.
    
    Craig

    Re. .57    Thanks, Jim. This guy earns more than $50K, even that
    is $1167/month, more than I receive. He basically asked me what
    I needed, and we agreed on the cost of day care plus incremental
    health insurance (family plan). So I pay food, clothing, shelter,
    furniture, toys, extras. I suppose if I factored in nighttime
    babysitting, (I could use a nanny) I could justify more, but for
    now I think this is fair. I don't care what you earn, 1167/month
    is a lot after taxes. This is off the subject of fathers with/without
    custody, but do you fathers think this is a fair arrangement? I
    guess in Massachusetts I could ask for more cash, but I don't want
    this to get to be a money issue, and I don't want the baby's dad
    to become bitter over giving me more than he thinks if fair...
    
    Beth

Beth, I'm not sure what you are saying...  Are you saying that 1167$/month would
be 28-32% of a 450K gross salary, and that you need less then that and get less
then that?  And that you don't live in MA/NE?

If you do not live in MA, you probably need considerably less then 1167/month.
My experience is that daycare runs about half of the expenses, so if you get the
cost of daycare, you are probably doing ok. 

Regarding taxes, the 1167$ a month does not include taxes in MA, the father
would have to pay for the taxes on the 1167$ on top of the 1167$ child support,
for a total of around 1600$!

I wish that people would realize that this is not strictly a money issue for me.
Perhaps for father's who are not interested in being fathers, the current child
support is fair; if they don't want to be father's they deserve what they get. 

I am bitter because I want to be a father, not a "visitor".  I am being deprived
of my sons, and they are being deprived of me.  To add insult to injury, I am
deprived of whatever financial resources I might have to be able to provide a
home for my sons when they can be with me.  Lastly and leastly, I am deprived of
resources to live as a normal human being.  My standard of living is a magnitude
less then their mother's.

And it's not like I bear a grudge, or just want to lower my child support
payments, or want to deprive my children of their mother or vice versa. Can't
you see the difference?

Jim. 

    Jim, I understand your point. It is terrible that you are not allowed
    to share as a parent for your boys, especially boys! What cruelty,
    in a time when fathers' time with their children is so valuable.
    Their mother must be some kind of mentally ill to deprive her sons
    of any love and attention that is available to them.  Have these
    fathers support groups been of any help to you?
    
    Yes, I live in MA and have to deal with the reality of $200 K plus
    for a small home in the suburbs, but I am lucky enough (no, I have
    worked for it) to be able to manage this somehow (I think). I
    understand the before and after tax cost of child support, so that
    I do feel that paying for daycare plus some insurance is fine for
    now.
    
    As for providing a home for your boys, have you considered roommates?
    I know of some single dads who did that, and I noticed you have
    a HR note on that.  If you like, I'll ask those single dads (one
    of whom has re-married) if you can talk to them about their experience.
    
    Beth

    Taken from the PARENTING file.  Thought it would be appropriate
    here.
    
    CJA
    
              <<< TERZA::DISK$USERDISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]PARENTING.NOTE;5 >>>
                                 -< Parenting >-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               MISSING FATHERS

       (Reprinted without Permission from Psychology Today, April 1987)

      Many Divorced Fathers Have No Regular Contact With Their Children.
 Formidable, And Often Unrecognized Obstacles Can Prevent Them From Becoming
                Active Parents, Despite Their Desire To Do So.

     In The Wake Of Divorce, Fathers Often Abandon Parenting Altogether.
             But There Are Ways To Prevent Such A Harmful Split.

                    By Edward Teyber & Charles D. Hoffman

The shared act of conception entitles children to both a mother and a father.
In an unspoken tragedy, however, the natural birthright to two parents is lost
to most children in the aftermath of divorce.  In 9 of 10 cases of divorce,
mothers take primary physical custody of the children, and the restriction of
father's visits to every other weekend is still commonplace. 

In the years following divorce, fathers tend to see less and less of their
children:  Some estimates suggest that about half of all divorced fathers have
no regularly scheduled contact with their children, and about three out of four
see their children less than once a week. 

Social critics, witnessing this massive abandonment of responsibility, have
tended to blame fathers exclusively, charging that they are simply too selfish
and uncaring to follow through on their child rearing obligations.  At times
this is true, and it is distressing indeed when fathers give up on parenting. 

But there is far more to understanding this complex social problem than a
simple, one sided blaming of men.  Divorced fathers who do want to take an
active parenting role face formidable, though often unrecognized obstacles. 

There are two major reasons why many divorced fathers are absent from their
children's lives.  First, they tend not to be involved because our society's
inadequate sex role prescriptions for both men and women lead to competing
power bases within the family.  Many parents still believe that children
"belong" more to their mothers then their fathers, even though there is no
empirical evidence that women are better suited for child rearing then men.
Mothers are presumed to be the "real" parent, the nurturant parent, while the
father's role is limited to financial support and perhaps, discipline.  As a
result of this, most fathers are not prepared to take on an active parenting
role at the time of divorce.  Although women's sex roles have expanded over the
past decade to include success in the work world, there has not been a
corresponding expansion of men's traditional roles to include competent and
committed childcare. 

Mothering was institutionalized in the early 1900s by the Industrial
Revolution, which established mutually exclusive and competing power bases in
the family.  While fathers have wielded much more power in the work world,
mothers have held an equal but more covert power base in the realm of child
care.  But men's resistance to women's achievement in the work world has been
more fully articulated then women's corresponding concerns over men's equal
parenting status.  Sure, many mothers would like to have their husbands change
more diapers and fix more lunches.  Fewer mothers, however, really want their
children to be as emotionally close to their fathers as to themselves.  Most of
us continue to suffer the effects of these sex role inadequacies, and that will
change only when a future generation relinquishes these competing power bases.
Mothers must support, indeed, insist on, fathers' equal involvement in
parenting, just as men must support women's equality outside the home. 

The second cause for divorced fathers' lack of involvement with their children
is continuing  conflict with the children's mothers.  In Euripedes' version of
the classic Greek myth, Medea, Jason leaves Medea for a beautifull young
princess.  Comptemplating the ultimate revenge, Medea swears, "He shall never
see alive again the sons he had from me... this is the way to deal Jason the
deepest wound."  The breakup of a modern marriage often arouses bitterness and
distrust between exspouses that do not end with the divorce decree, and the
mother's primary means of venting her bitterness is to align the children with
her against their father.  Responding in kind, many fathers retaliate by
withholding financial support. 

The mother is usually the primary caretaker before the divorce, and as a rule
children live with her afterwards.  As a result, children tend to be closer to
their mothers then to their fathers.  When subtly pressured to choose between
their parents, most children's emotional allegiance foes to their mothers.  In
this way, the father's continuing involvement requires, in effect, his former
wife's permission.  Felling powerless and controlled in this situation, many a
father simply departs, abandoning parenting altogether. 

Many mothers and fathers seem untroubled by divorced father's absence from
parenting.  Although there has been increased pressure recently to force
fathers' compliance with child support and alimony payments, there appears to
be little corresponding interest in involving fathers personally with their
children.  Ironically, one of the strongest determinants of a child's healthy
adjustment to divorce is the extent of the father's continued participation as
a parent.  Children of divorce suffer socially, emotionally and intellectually
when their fathers are not actively involved as parents. They appear to
internalize responsibility for the father's departure and suffer a precipitous
loss of self esteem and initiative that is reflected in depression, poor school
performance and failure in peer relationships.  Adolescent girls offer an
especially poignant example:  When their fathers are not around, they are more
likely then girls with an available father to become sexually promiscuous.
They have sex at an earlier age and with more partners, and they are more
likely to marry young, to find their own marriage unsatisfactory and eventually
to divorce themselves. 

Furthermore, boys of every age suffer more from divorce then do girls, in part
because they usually live with their mothers and have little time with their
same sex parent.  Divorce is also more problematic for boys because mothers
tend to be more critical and angry toward their sons then their daughters, and
when the father is absent mothers discipline daughters more effectively then
sons.  Research also suggests that when shared parenting arrangements are not
workable, boys adjust better in the custody of their father, girls better in
mother's custody.  The best adjusted children of divorce, however, have
frequent access, without conflict, to both parents. 

Currently about one million children experience a parental divorce every year.
What can be done to provide these children with both the fathering and
mothering they continue to need?  The first thing is to stop assigning blame.
If you ask divorced mothers why fathers are uninvolved in parenting, the
typical reply is, "I've done everything I can to keep him involved with the
kids, but he doesn't want anything to do with them.  He never has. The kids
don't really want to visit him either.  They only go because I tell them they
must. Actually, they would rather be home with their friends." 

In sharp contrast, if you ask divorced fathers why they are disengaged, they
predictably respond, "She makes it really hard for me to be with the children.
It's little things, like being late whenever I go to pick them up.  I don't
think she ever really wanted me to have my own relationship with the kids.  She
believes, like she told the judge, that 'children just ought to be with their
mothers.'" Fathers also complain about pressure from their new wives, who often
resent the money and attention the children receive. 

Both sides have legitimate concerns, of course, but these radically differing
viewpoints really reflect poor communication between angry exspouses. Polarized
arguments over the mothers' and fathers' rights and responsibilities must
cease.  The only solution is for children of divorce to gave a dependable
relationship with both parents, one allowing for frequent, regularly scheduled
and conflict free access to both mother and father.  There are many practical
ways to achieve this. 

Both divorcing parents must receive that the most loving gift they can give
their children is permission to be as close to the other parent as to
themselves. Parents need to disentangle their own lingering hostility from the
child's need for a continuing relationship with the other parent. Grandparents
can help by not taking sides against their former son or daughter in law and
instead discouraging both parents from embroiling children in parental battles
and wrenching loyalty conflicts.  Friends can support the father's identity as
a parent by emphasizing both the importance of his contribution to his
children's lives and the importance of his children to the quality of his life.
A new woman in a man's life needs to support his efforts to remain involved
with his children and not interpret his commitment as a threat.  Therapists
must help divorcing parents make concrete plans for custody and visitation,
beginning at the time of separation, that ensure the father's active
participation.  Family lawyers must discourage litigious parents from fighting
over children in court; rather they should take an active role in impressing
upon clients that whenever only one parent winds custody or visitation rights
are limited, it is the children who lose. Judges must examine their own sexist
biases and discard the "tender years" doctrine and other myths about the
primacy of motherhood.  Instead, they must routinely decide on joint legal
custody so that, by law, children belong equally to their mothers and fathers.
And visitation schedules should be written to guarantee equal participation of
fathers and mothers in parenting. In cases where the father prefers to let the
mother have primary physical custody, judges must provide visitation schedules
that include overnight stays with the father every week. 

Many fathers recognize, and welcome, their continuing responsibility to care
for their children following divorce. Yet without concerted efforts such as
these, most divorced fathers simply will not take on an effective parenting
role on their own.  It is time to work together and ensure that all children
can have both a mother and a father in the aftermath of divorce. 
  
Edward Teyber is a clinical psychologist and associate professor of psychology
at California State University, San Bernardino.  He is the author of "Helping
your Children With Divorce: A Compassionate Guide for Parents", Pocket Books.
Charles D. Hoffman is a developmental psychologist and is chair and professor
[Bof psychology at California State University, San Bernardino.