Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    Gary,
    
    Sorry don't know of any court who would use your idea.  Have
    you thought of how this would work?  Who/what would define
    "ability to parent"?
    
    Personally I believe the children should remain in the marital
    home and the parents should be the ones who get bounced back
    and forth.
    
    It makes sense that the children should be in the custody of the
    parent who would be better able to raise them healthy and happy.
    I just don't know how that would be defined.
    
    Michele

    Yep. You gotta have The Pope for an attorney. She has to be an ax
    wielding craz-iod prevert. And maybe, just maybe, if it gets cool down
    in Hell. You just might get a fair chance. :)

re .1


  What I mean by the "ability to parent" are the guidelines that are
set down by the State of NH and most likely, by most if not all of
the other states that help the court (or the guardian et litem in
the State of NH) to determine which parent should obtain custody of
the child.  These guidelines look at such things as the plan each
parent has to care for the child while he or she works, the activities
the parent will involve the child in, and the interaction of each parent
with the child.  In other words, "What is in the best interests of the
children ?"  While this seems to make sense on the surface, what actually
happens is quite a different story.  The process is subjective rather
than objective, and therefore, a guardian who has a bias towards one
gender can easily skew the results of his/her investigation.  So,
basically what I am asking is "Does anyone know of a father who has
gained custody of his children because the court has determined that
he is the better parent and would best serve the emotional and physical
needs of the children ?"

    The courts are dominated by male lawyers (or female lawyers who adopt
    male attitudes in order to succeed in their win-at-any-cost profession).
    Naturally, these men's men (who are successful lawyers because they
    work 70-hour weeks and "sacrifice" their family life gladly and proudly)
    project themselves on the two parties contesting custody:
    
        "Let's see, I'm a creep who doesn't give a whit about MY kids, and
         he's a guy like me, so he must be a creep too."
    
    Except they probably wouldn't consider themselves creeps. They'd use
    some self-aggrandizing expression like "ambitious" or "hard-working"
    which they STILL translate as NOT being engaged in the life of
    children. My statement is a little harsh, but the macho I-work-14-hours
    attitude in law firms really doesn't allow for any decent family life.
    These are the kind of men (and pseudo-men) who run our courts.
    
    What I don't understand is how social workers associated with the
    courts can persist in their overwhelming disposition to favor Mom. They
    are mostly mothers, I suppose, so that's them projecting again. Still,
    they should have enough experience to KNOW that there are lots of lame
    Moms around, where the kids would be better off with Dad. Maybe it's a
    matter of being intimidated and dominated by the lawyers, since the
    lawyers make a lot of money and drive nice cars and wear expensive
    suits, etc.

re .4

>    Except they probably wouldn't consider themselves creeps. They'd use
>    some self-aggrandizing expression like "ambitious" or "hard-working"
>    which they STILL translate as NOT being engaged in the life of
>    children. My statement is a little harsh, but the macho I-work-14-hours
>    attitude in law firms really doesn't allow for any decent family life.
>    These are the kind of men (and pseudo-men) who run our courts.
    
     But what happens when the woman is "ambitious" or "hard-working" ?
     Then, the guardian uses the logic that mother is a more positive
     role model than the father because of her aggressive behavior.
     This was a key point in determining the custody of my daughter.
     I did my paperwork and was able to show the guardian by the use
     of a daily journal that I was the parent who was bathing, feeding,
     clothing, and meeting the emotional needs of my daughter.  The
     babysitter would tend to these issues while both parents worked,
     which resulted in Jen's mother only caring for her every other
     weekend and sometimes one evening per week.  Because I was caring
     for my child rather than plotting a hostile takeover of some
     foreign conglomerate, I was labeled passive.  I would imagine
     that had the situation been reversed, where I were the parent who
     were working all the time and had engaged in an adulterous affair,
     the results of the guardian's investigation would have been quite
     the same using the logic that I was of low moral character and
     was not performing the duties of a parent deserving of custody.
     It seems that using the logic the guardian employed in determining
     custody in my case, it would be relatively easy to file a mal-
     practice and gender discrimination suit against him, showing that
     the he routinely awards custody to the mother based on the same
     reasons used to deny me custody.  What I have found though, is
     that guardian reports are sealed by the court under the guise of
     "protecting the privacy of the children", so it it impossible to
     gather enough evidence against a guardian.  The "good ole boys"
     will continue to dispense in-justice in NH and all other 49 states
     using an agenda that requires wearing the resources of the father
     so thin that he is no longer willing or able to lash back at the
     system, and ensuring that anything that may be used against the
     "good ole boys" in a higher court is simply not available.

     The responses to this note are just what I expected them to be.
     There isn't anybody who can cite one case where the father was
     awarded custody based on parenting ability simply because there
     is no such case.


     Regards,
     Gary

    Gary:
    
    As I read this string, this thought crossed my mind: 
    
    You're approaching this question with the expectation that things will
    be logical and just -- you're doomed to failure.  There is neither
    logic nor justice in the system you're examining.
    
    Nevertheless, good luck.
    
    					andrew

    I've said this before in other notes.  There is no such thing as a
    father who can take care of the kids in the eyes of the almighty court
    system.  You are just a peon and your sole purpose in life once you
    have been married is to provide support for your wife and kids.  You
    want custody, you have to get down and dirty.  Lie, cheat and fabricate
    any type of evidence you can against her.  Attack her to the point
    where she will physically and/or verbally assault you in front of the
    whole world then slap her with a restraining order and throw her out of
    the house.  If you don't have the guts for the dirty work then either
    hire some slimy private detective or go over your finances and figure
    out how you are going to survive after the court rips apart your
    paycheck.
    

re .6    
>    You're approaching this question with the expectation that things will
>    be logical and just -- you're doomed to failure.  There is neither
>    logic nor justice in the system you're examining.

   Unfortunately, the court has already failed me.  I am now quite clear
   on the fact that there is no justice or logic to our system.   

re .7
>    want custody, you have to get down and dirty.  Lie, cheat and fabricate
>    any type of evidence you can against her.  Attack her to the point

   That is exactly the tactic used by many women to ensure that the father is
   completely alienated from his children.  This MIGHT get you custody, but
   most likely will only result in contempt charges using the "logic" that
   you made it all up as a means of obtaining custody.  Even if you are
   successful, you have defrauded the children of their rights to know
   their mother and you have defrauded the mother of her rights as well.
   What really needs to happen is for fathers to take back OUR court system
   for the sake of our children.

    Gary,
    
    	Why not tell the folks out here about your case.

    There is a theme here, Gary. You think the world should act honorably,
    with justice, logically, and so on... and are bitter that it does not.
    OK, it doesn't. Now play the game that exists, NOT the one you wish
    exists. Keep your eye on the goal. Get access to your daughter. Use
    what means are available to get there. Later you can express remorse
    about the perfection of our courts, etc. For now, accept reality and
    GET OUT THERE AND DO IT.

  I am in the process of getting access to my daughter and it
is often easy to lose sight of that goal with all that is going
on around me.  So, thanks for the advice, Hoyt.

When you become personally affected by oppression that is so
traumatic, I think it is difficult to keep yourself from becoming
part of the solution.  I didn't mean for this note to become
focused on what my problem is (see note 627.47 if you want to hear
it anyways) and my case is certainly far from the worst.
Perhaps I am too naive, thinking that our court system should
be fair, but that is what they teach you from time you enter
elementary school until you complete your education.  We are in
the "me generation" and I must admit, I am having trouble adjust-
ing to such thinking.  Hundreds of thousands of people in Moscow
just stood up to oppression and were successful.  If the same
thing were to happen in this country, instead of fighting the
coup leaders, everyone would be out selling coup d'etat t-shirts,
commemorative coins etc...  IMHO, there is much more to life than
taking advantage of some other person or system to satisfy my own
self serving interests.

Regards,
Gary

    RE .8
    
    Think about having temporary custody of your 4 year old daughter and
    her mother has visits 2 days/week for 3 hours at a time.  Next, think
    about being some night with the guys and one of them says.  "oh yeah, I
    saw your wife and daughter in "any sleazy bar you can think of here"". 
    Next, you follow wife and daughter on one of her visitation days and
    you see them go into "sleazy bar" at 3 pm and exit at 6 pm.  I don't
    I'm depriving my daughter of knowing her mother.  She's much better off
    without her.  Oh, and btw, at 6 pm mother and daughter jump in a taxi
    to get home because mother is hammered.  You follow taxi and recover
    daughter after she exits from taxi.  Mother staggers into house and
    never even sees daughter go with you.  This mother would have gotten
    custody had I been more honest in court.  I feel no guilt or remorse
    about anything I've done and my daughter and I are living happily ever
    after.
    
    

    .12
    
    Sounds like you did your daughter a big favor. Many guys would state
    that the child belongs with her mom reguardless if she is a.........
    That sort of line makes me sick to my stomach. Children are the nations
    future resource that cannot be taken for granted. And saying other wise
    is the biggest cop out ever imagined. Cannot understand whats the big
    deal about caring for a kid if your the single dad/Mr. Mom. Yes, like
    the moms, its lots of extra work. But for me, like them,  its worth it 
    all to know that she is in safer hands. 

    > Children are the nations future resource ...
    
    I think I know what you mean, but I find the words you chose somewhat
    amusing.
    
    - M