Conference quark::mennotes

    
    Ron;
    
    	what a rotten deal, you may have to find another divorce
    atty. I am not sure.  WHY, do you have to pay the B#*$h soooo
    much money after only 4 years of marriage? 
    I feel for you and those kids, sounds hard for you, be careful
    on your next romance. good luck & keep us up to date.
    
    
    Bob

    
    
    Ron,
    
    I can sympathize. Been there too, but so bad.
    All I can say is that I am not paying as much 
    for two kids and was married 12 years.
    
    Depending on where you live, I got an atty in
    Westboro. She did right by me.
    
    Rick A

    
    Sorry for you!
    
    Another case of that pendulum lopping off the guys head.
    
    You weren't proved a "Bad" dad, and she wasn't proved a "Good"
    mother, why does she automatically get the kids?
    
    I lived with two roommates for 2 years after my divorce, that
    was after living in my car, for a month or so, till it died, 
    then sometimes living in the lab or staying out all nite and
    going to breakfast at 5 am, so I could close my eyes on the
    table for a couple of hours, before work.  Then there was the 
    boarding house in Gardner for 2 months with the cockroaches and
    other critters.  This was because I had to give 33% to my ex,
    28% to the Feds, 6% to the State, 5% to Fica and 2-1/2% to Medicade,
    for a grand total of 74-1/2 % to someone else.  
    
    Maybe you should think of going for custody and having her pay, but
    I think if you have a male organ, then you don't have a chance, unless
    she is an axe murderer or something.  The only reason we get screwed
    has to be because of our anatomy.
    
    Best of luck.
    
    /art 

    Ron,
     I would try going to the courthouse and asking to see a copy of the
  divorce papers. If all those agreements were stated in front of the
  judge then they should appear in those papers. I would certainly talk 
  to another attorney and find out what you can do to rectify the
  situation. 
                                            Jill       

    re .0.

    Welcome to marriage, divorce, and men's/children's rights of the 90's.
    Your story is not new.  I've heard it a thousand times.  I may be
    getting cynical in my old age, but right now I think the only hope
    is for it to get worse.  To get bad enough men will finally band
    together in a political force strong enough to have some clout.
    Right now we're getting reamed one at a time with the rest of us
    denying/praying that it will never happen to us, or thinking it's
    too late to help us personally.

    fred();

    
    
    A guy I know has been divorced for 11 years with 2 kids 19 & 22.  Judge
    just ordered him (3 years ago) to give his wife $7000 towards a new
    car.  She makes the same amount of money that he does.  He pays the
    mortgage payment on the home in which she resides.

   <<< SSAG::DISK$ARCH2:[NOTES$LIBRARY.QUOKKA]NON_CUSTODIAL_PARENTS.NOTE;2 >>>
              -< Welcome to the Non-Custodial Parents Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 358.6                   Can Father get Custody?                      6 of 8
CSC32::HADDOCK "Saddle Rozinante"                    43 lines  16-AUG-1995 09:52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    re .5

    A good deal of my story is in these files.  A few things that help
    are:
    1) It really does need to be done.  Custody battles are hard on kids.
       It is a choice of the lesser of evils.  Getting custody initially
       is tough, but getting it changed can be almost impossible.  Even
       when it does really need to be done.  But, as these files tell,
       it can be done.
    2) Tenacity slightly higher than the average pit bull.  You're going
       to get very frustrated.  It took me 3 tries and 9 1/2 years.
    3) Learn to be your own lawyer.  Unless you have a wagon load of money.
       Even if you do have a ton of money, it can be very difficult,
       especially if you are male, to find a lawyer that will really fight
       for you.  Learn to file your own motions and, if necessary, plead
       your own cases.
    4) Even if you have a lawyer, learn as much as possible about family
       law and divorce law.  Most Universities and public libraries have
       a set of law books at least for  the local state.  Don't be
       intimidated by the rows of volumes.  The family/divorce laws are
       only one section.  Very few lawyers, if any, know all of the laws.
       It will be slow going at first.  Reading law books is a skill that
       has to be learned, but can be learned.  It is emotionally very 
       tough.  You are going to get very angry when you find out just
       how badly you've been shafted.
    5) The kids are old enough for the courts to listen to and are willing
       to say, in court, that they want the change.
    6) Never, ever get behind in child support payments.  The courts will
       tell you that child support and visitation/custody are separate
       things.  That is only true for the mother.  They will bludgeon you 
       with it if you are behind.
    7) Stand up for your visitation rights.  Learn how to gather evidence
       and file contempt charges.  The court will probably just slap her
       on the hand the first couple of times.  You may have to go back
       several times, but after a while, she will get tired of paying
       a lawyer or get the message that you won't put up with her 
       interference, or the the judge will get tired of her b.s. and stop
       viewing her as the poor little victim.  Make sure you really do
       have a case, though, or it can backfire big time.
    8) DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT.

    fred();
    

    Thanks for all the replies;
    
    I can add a few other things regarding my divorce...
    
    As stupid as this makes me sound/feel...I trusted my Attorney to 
    look out for me...he always said "better to agree about it before
    seeing the judge, because he's seen where a judge can take the 
    complete side of the ex-wife...and then add some on himself !!
    
    This made the whole idea of even fighting for my rights a pretty scary
    thing...ya know, it was like...what if the judge says this or that...
    
    I guess that I thought that it was in my best interest at the time 
    not to 'gamble' it in front a judge.
    
    But, now I'm seeing the whole illogical aspect of the entire divorce.
    I have been made destitute, my ex will never REALLY work, so she'll 
    always rely on someone else, and my kids are a means of "support" for 
    her....when if the court had given them to me (which would have
    required me NOT listening to my attorney, but doing what I felt I
    wanted to...) then we could have continued to live in the house where
    we were, they wouldn't have had to move schools...etc.  I was the only
    income during our marriage...
    
    I agree totally that I should have directed my attorney, and learned
    to "be my own attorney".   And even if I wasn't awarded the kids, at
    least I could say to myself....I tried.
    
    Thanks again,
    
    Ron.

    Ron, I'm not sure what the time limit is, but if you feel that you were
    not represented properly, you can file an appeal on the divorce
    agreement.  My ex did this to me and dragged the dam divorce for over
    3 years.  This was after she agreed to the terms that were in the 
    document that we both reviewed and signed before going in front of the
    judge.
    
    Let me make a couple of points here about your divorce agreement.
    
    1) You and your lawyer and your x and her lawyer should have reviewed
    this divorce agreement prior to seeing the judge.  Each
    change/modification should have been ititialed by both you and your x
    and each page should have also had the same thing done.  Then both of
    you should have had to sign this document.  If the document that you
    ended up with is not the same one you signed, you may have a case
    against your lawyer and your x and her lawyer.
    
    2) The Judge should have reviewed this document and asked both of you
    if you agreed to it ect.
    
    3) Don't go back to the same lawyer, get your file from him, its
    yours, you certainly paid enough for it.  I fired my first lawyer
    because he seemed to be too friendly with my x while my x lawyer was
    trying to rip me a new a*hole.  My second lawyer was alot smarter and
    of course more expensive.  I ended up spending over 10k by the time
    the appeal was over.  My x thought she could get more than 85% of the
    marital assets and get alamony ect.  I was married to her for 8 years
    and lived with her for 4, we had no kids together but she had 2 boys,
    1 was almost 18 and the other was going on 17.  I had custody of my
    son from a previous marriage but it still did not matter.  She lived
    in our marrital home for almost 2 years for free.
    
    4)  If you don't stand up for yourself, nobody else will... No matter
    how much you pay them.  I asked alot of questions and researched some
    on my own.  Talk to other guys that have gotten a divorce and try to
    find a lawyer that seems to win.
    
    Good luck and hang in there...
    
    Dom
    

    Look real careful at what is motovates an attorney.... and you might
    wanna take up hunting them for sport and recreation.:) Remember, your
    attorney is Your Employee. You have the last word! 

    
    I sure can feel your anguish!   I've been there too.
    
    I had better luck when I learned how to represent myself in court.
    This was after most of the divorce was over and she moved out of state 
    with the children. I went to court pro-se (represented myself) and got
    a court order for her to drive 1/2 way and the right to see my own 
    children for 1/2 of the summer. I also got child suport payments
    reduced when the children are with me for the summer vac time.
    
    I would suggest you learn court protocol and rules and go pro-se.
    Means spending numerous hours sitting in courtroom and lots of reading.
    
    Try not to become angry and bitter although it's hard not to!
    
    
                                    Bill 

    Focus, as Bill has stated, your anger into creative ways to win. Asin,
    find out what your rights really are as in a pro-se lidagation would
    do.:) Hit the local law libaries and their stacks on the issue. Or as
    each issue comes up, look it up. As in, custody, and/or proper division
    of property under the statues of the law.
    
    

-- What do you call 250 divorce attorneys buried alive ?

-- A great start!

Luckily, I'm not divorced, nor do I see one in the immediate future...

but my two brother-inlwas, had some pretty significantly different
experiences with divorce although in both situations, their ex-wifes
caught the "All-around-town-itus" like Rons ex..  
The differnece I feel was their attorney's.  One had an excellent 
attorney who knew what he was doing,, and virutally manipulated
the other attorney at will.. as a result, this brother-inlaw, rightfully, 
retained custody of the children..  

My other brother-inlaw wasn't that lucky,, he wound up with a sub-human
life-form, no-backbone-what-so-ever-stiff of an attorney, who never
once did anything for him accept cash his checks...  When he was 
suggested to stop paying the councel fees from another attorney, was
the day he finally enacted a little bit of revenge...  The lawyer he
supposedly owed the remaining fee for, was basically told she had
been paid enough for the service rendered, and no more payments would
be sent, so he says, 'Get in line behind my exwife, and take me to court!!"

Another issue is the judges... they're ALL for the most part, apparently
biased to the 'Child belongs with the maternal mother' thing, wether
shes a drug adict, axe murderer or not...


From Jim's (bro-inlaw 2) experience, you probably can't change
anything..  It's not fair, and it really sucks,,, but without lots
of time invested and much more money, fightint this system will
be something you probably something you don't have the strength for..


good luck...

/r

    It is no wonder that when I was sixteen I said to my friends that I
    would never choose to be married and that if for somme reason marriage
    was neccesary then a large legal pre-nuptual agreement would be made. I
    even had an agreement made up when my last girlfriend and I had lived
    together for a full year, making us common law. I have very little to
    lose but if I was to lose an unreasonable proportion I would surely
    suffer great woes. 
    
    I worked for the government one summer for two months and in that two
    months I learned the most important lesson I have ever learned, COVER
    YOUR ASS. It is the only one you have.
    
    good luck basenoter.

	"I'm not even gonna bother getting married. I'll
	 just find a woman I don't like and give her a house."

har har
-stephen

    humm.... or Marriage is a wonderful instutition. But, who wants to live
    in an instutution? (W.C. Fields)
    
    

    I had an interesting discussion with another married man this weekend
    and referenced those horrendous divorce experience in these notes, plus
    other about restraining orders, and male bashing, etc.
    
    Having read the last two notes prompts me to ask if there is any kind
    of trend in the US (or perhaps in other countries also) for males to 
    not marry because of the fear of getting worked over by ex's or divorce
    attorneys.  As quoted in the latest US News and World Report, 54 out of
    every 100 marriages end in divorce.
    
    Your thoughts?

      From all of the stories I've read, I might as well stick my head
    between my legs and kiss my a@@ goodbye.  I am in the process of
    getting divorced and I have four kids ages 7,6,5 and 2.  I knew
    there was a reason for trying so hard to get her to change her mind
    about getting the big D.  Should I shoot myself now or later {^:

If you're just starting on the road, you can make choices that will even the
odds for you.  The most important thing is to consult a good divorce lawyer
who will outline for you the consequences of various options you have.  Don't
just "give in", but don't be nasty about it either.  Go for shared custody
if you possibly can.

It doesn't have to be suicide.  Many of the men who relate these horror
stories didn't take the necessary steps to protect themselves early in the
process.

Document EVERYTHING.

				Steve

    .17 The answer is yes. I know many men who have out and out refused to
    marry. They will date, but when the girlfriends look longing into their
    eyes with that look of marriage, they will either break it off, or run
    like hell the other way. And when it comes to unprotected sex, even if
    she is on the pill, got a fram, got what ever... they will wear a
    condum for all reasons, but, their last chance of safty against
    unwanted pregnecies. 
    
    I have one school age friend who was married once...... and that was
    some 15 years ago. 

re 190.18

	In most marriages there isn't quite enough money.   So
the simple solution is to get a divorce.  This of course increases
the expenses because now two households have to be supported instead
of one.   Surprise !! There still isn't enough money !!

	And often both parties are bitter.   Neither one got what they
really wanted.

	You need to know what you want to try to salvage from this
situation and you need to know what your rights are.  Try not to be
angry and to negotiate with you wife ... maybe mediation.   Should
produce the best solution you can get.

	In terms of kissing it goodbye, if most of the assets in the
marriage were acquired after you were married, you probably have to
try to split them evenly (except that if gets the kids, she may need
to keep the house until the kids are emancipated.)

	In terms of CS, if you were in Mass, you would probably have to
pay about 1/3 of your gross, plus 1/2 of uninsured medical expenses.
An overly simplistic analysis says, you get 1/3, she gets 1/3 and the
IRS gets 1/3.   It will be a lot easier for you to live on 1/3, then
for her and the kids to live on 1/3.   You BOTH lose financially on
a divorce.   But you may both win emotionally.

	Assuming your ex doesn't work, you may have to pay alimony until
the youngest is in school.  If you have pay alimony, try to get her to
agree (in the written agreement) to a time limit.   If you lived in
Mass, and she gets a job which earns more than 15k, your CS will get
reduced.

	Hey, it's a lot for you to have to pay, but not the end of the
world.	Talk to a lawyer.   If he won't explain the guidelines in
your state, get another lawyer.

	And if you use this as an opportunity for personal growth,
you might end up happier than you were in the marriage.  Best of
luck.

    A sad note, Some men, see a no way out, and either take their lives
    and/or take their lives and their families. Recient account of a man
    blowing up himself and family behind a shopping mall in the family car.
    
    Some find that there are no other solutions, and proxi-sucide is an
    alternative to it all.                                 

    I have advised many men in the beginning of a divorce to get a
    restraining order to kick her buns out of the house and file for
    divorce and custody of the children, also make sure she pays child
    support according to the state guidelines.  Very few listen till
    it's too late. Go right for the main artery!
    My experience has shown that when men are ***nice*** they lose 
    everything including the right to see their own children 1/2 time.
    This is a very bad time in history to be a man in America.
    There are exceptions but for the most part Dad and his children 
    will lose out in the aftermath.
                                                Bill 
                                           

    I have to reply here. I'm(we) are going through some serious turmoil
    about my soon to be husband and "OUR" ex wife. I say OUR because, I
    might just as well be the other battering ram she uses to torment her
    child. I think that more men should lobby together for parental
    rights. It tears my heart out to see him upset because he's scared
    enough not to rock the boat because she has the power to take away his
    child if he looses. She quit her job, moved to MA, took his child away,
    hasn't been employed for 22 months, doesn't plan on being employed, and
    to boot, moved to MA for ..get this .. Higher Unemployment!!
    
    She calls collect now, it costs her too much for his son to call on her
    long distance bill. His son...I can handle calling collect, his ex..not
    on your life. 
    
    I don't necessarily believe the child is better off with the mom..I
    think the child is better off where thier lives are able to progress
    into healthy individuals, not dependent on welfare, not watching the
    boob tube all day and definately not being taught that it's ok NOT to
    work for a living. His son is now starting to assume the guilt for all
    of this because MoM told him "daddy and her are fighting because Daddy
    wants him to live in NH and mom doesn't want to be lonely". He's only 
    five years old and he's a nervous wreck. He's so happy at our house. He
    tenses up at the exit before his mom's house.  This is normal?
    
    
    mm
    

    Yep. Its normal.. Kids do such when they live in fear. And when they
    are as young as they are at 5... Funny, not paying child support is
    child abuse.. yet, not seeing your child is not child abuse? Seeing
    your kid get the shakes and nervous because he/she is going home? Yes,
    motherhood in the eyes of the court is as wrapped in a flag as tight as
    spandix. And the terrible thing about it all is that men will continue
    to be villized so long as we do stupid things like proxi-sucide, or OJ
    the ex, or break restraining orders. Vs fighting like hell for fair and
    just divorces. The madness will continue if you just lye there and
    continue to take it. 
    
    As a young man, I was told, the way to be heard is to speak up, the way
    to be seen is to stand up. And the way to get your civil rights, is to
    fight like hell in court!! 
    
    Yet, a local Fathers Group in New Hampshire, had an illegal search and
    seasure of names of its members from a grand jury investagation. Spear
    headed by the local barr association. Talk about loss of civil rights!!
    
    In the 60's it was termed illegal for the search and sesure of record
    for the NAACP, in the 80's the KKK. Yet, men in New Hampshire are as
    low on the food chain as Pam Smarts remarks about not shooting Paul in
    front of the dog as so not to tramitize it. Nor getting blood on the
    white rug.....
    
    

    An interesting twist to this issue is the story of a woman I know
    is going thru a divorce and her ex husband is suing for 1/2 the value of 
    ***her*** house that she had before the 5yr marriage. 
    She is very upset about this because she has to pay legal expenses
    to defend herself and given worst case (for her), a judge could 
    force her to pay her ex  $$$$$.  The children are hers from a previous
    marriage.  Kind of the reverse of what happens to men too often.
                                                     
    

    Chances are that it won't happen. He is leveraging something
    negotiable. I am certain there is lost of his pay check involved into
    the maintence of ****HER**** house. Which, oh, by, the painful way.
    Becomes joint marrital prop as soon as they do their vows.
    

Re: .27

> Becomes joint marrital prop as soon as they do their vows.
    
This is not necessarily true in New Hampshire, and perhaps other states. 
NH law specifies that assets brought into the marriage and family
heirlooms are not automatically marital property.  However, if the other
spouse pays any mortgage or other expenses for the house, then it becomes
much stickier.

				Steve

    Steve,
    
    I can show yha cast studies where, if you have external genitalia, the
    min its a legal deal. I can show you a case were a man was married to a
    woman for less than 6 months. And he has had his house for some 20+
    years. And she got half. 
    
    There are cases where all parties signed a pre-nep, and that was
    thossed out of court by our beloved justice of this here granit headded
    state!:)
    
    Guess yha had to have been there at Fathers United.:-)

I'm sure you can.  With houses it can be a difficult issue, but the law
as worded is not the simple statement you made.  Judges can and do 
interpret things as they like.  As for pre-nuptial agreements - these are
generally ignored if the marriage has lasted any significant time, or if
the judge feels that the parties did not sign it on an "equal" basis.

I am not disputing that gross inequities and abuses exist - they do.  But
it seems to me that many of the men who find themselves screwed put themselves
at risk by not seeking competent counsel early, by being "too nice" and just
saying yes to everything, or by assuming that "that's the way it is".

I think it is a disservice to men to simply whine (and that's the way it
looks to me) that "if you have external genitalia", you're hosed. 

				Steve

    Wellpppp..... whine? What kinds do you like? Rose? Zinfield? Rine?:)
    
    Sorry ol paint! Wine or not, guess you had to have been there.;(
    

    
    rep -2.
    
    >I think it is a disservice to men to simply whine (and that's the way
    >it looks to me) that "if you have external genitalia", you're hosed.
    
    
    They didn't do a genetic test on me.  So it must have been the
    "external genitalia" test. 
    
    Hosed is to nice a word, I can think of several more descriptive and
    more to the point adjectives.
    
    Someday Men and Women may be equal, equal in the workplace (pay, rank),
    and equal in the homefront, but as for Divorce, men take the brunt
    of the inequity, and I can only see one reason for it, and it's an
    external reason.
    
    Sometimes pumping gas in Phoenix doesn't look all that bad, but
    then I'd be a "DEADBEAT" dad, wouldn't I.
    
    Just my experience, /art

It's not that simple.  Men get the shaft because MOST men, less now than
in the past but still most, leave all aspects of child-rearing to their
wives.  This has encouraged society to treat fathers as "walking wallets"
and fostered the myth that "children are better off with the mother".

Until these attitudes change a lot, there will be little progress made.

					Steve

    
    
    RE: .33 "Men get shafted because MOST men, less now than in the past
    but still most, leave all aspects of child-rearing to their wives."
    
    
    I hope you have something to back this up.  I think it's the biggest
    load of garbage I've read in a long time.  Check out where you say the
    word "all".  I don't think that was even true 30-40 years ago.
    
    

Re: .30 Steve

>As for pre-nuptial agreements - these are
>generally ignored if the marriage has lasted any significant time, or if
>the judge feels that the parties did not sign it on an "equal" basis.

I think this is simply outrageous.  If a man and a woman want to get
married but don't want to invite the court system into their lives in the
event that they want to end the marriage, they should be able to draw up a
contract specifying what will happen to their assets if they get divorced.
Such a contract should be legally binding.

How can we free ourselves from this kind of judicial tyranny?

Maybe one method would be simply to live together instead of getting
married, but even than the courts have stepped in and awarded "palimony".

				-- Bob

Re: .34

You've got to be kidding....

Re: .35

I agree with you, but as I understand it, there is a general reluctance to
consider these enforceable as there is an argument that one party was
not properly represented, was coerced, etc., etc.  I'm just telling it like
it is, not saying that's the way it should be.

				Steve

    
    NO, I THOUGHT YOU WERE WITH REGARDS TO YOUR ENTRY.

    No, I was dead serious - and while a small number (relatively speaking)
    of men have truly taken on the day-to-day child rearing tasks
    previously left to the mother (changing diapers, clothes shopping,
    taking the kids to the doctor, dealing with school, etc. etc.), 20 or
    more years ago it was almost unheard of.  Among people here, typically
    well-educated and with good incomes, true sharing of child-care duties
    is more common, but in the population in general, it is not.
    
    					Steve

    Steve,
    
    Can you decode that some more?
    
    

Simply put - the number of fathers who come even close to sharing parenting
duties equally with the mother is STILL pitifully small in the overall
population.  As long as that's true, as long as women are encouraged to drop
out of the workforce to provide child care, as long as women earn significantly
less than men, then the inequities in the courtroom will continue.

				Steve

    And where are you getting your stats from? Or is this a personal
    observation in behalf of N.O.W.?

N.O.W.?  What do they have to do with it?  I haven't seen any information from
them on this subject.

This is based on my own reading and life experience.  When I took my son to
the doctor, I was the only father there.  When I look at the faces of the
PTO board at my son's school, I'm the only male. 

Do you have "statistics" that say otherwise?

				Steve

    
    
    I disagree that the problem is the number of fathers contributing to 
    child-care.  I also have a problem with the definition of "child-care"
    put forth my most advocates of father-care.  For most of those 
    father-care is providing more or less a second mother.  There is
    more and more recognition that fathers provide their own unique and
    vital contribution to child-care, and the older the child (up to a 
    point) the more vital that contribution becomes.

    The main problem I see in this case is the number of men who live
    in denial that it will happen to them ( unmarried,  in-love, newly
    married), the number of men who hope to God it won't happen to them
    (married but want to keep the peace at any cost), and men who have
    lost hope (have been raped by the system but believe it is too late
    for any change to help them personally).  That only leaves those
    who are currently being raped, are screaming for help, and/or fighting
    line h**l--and are being told to stop their whining.

    fred();

    Fred,
    
    I agree with a lot of what you say, but I am puzzled by your term "a
    second mother" - it suggests that you buy into the notion that only
    mothers are capable of the day-to-day care that our society thrusts
    onto women.  Absolutely, fathers do provide unique contributions, but
    what's driving the current inequities is the financial and social
    imbalance that the traditional roles create.  Until fathers are
    recognized as being equally capable and available to provide the basic
    child care necessities, the courts will continue to automatically
    assign custody to the mothers and support payments to the father.
    
    I detest the "Mr. Mom" monicker - it says "here's a father doing a
    mother's job", rather than "here's a father being a parent".
    
    					Steve

    
    re .44

>    I detest the "Mr. Mom" monicker - it says "here's a father doing a
>    mother's job", rather than "here's a father being a parent".

    However "Mr. Mom" is exactly what most of these groups want to see.
    We're just finding out, after a couple of decades of "A woman needs
    a man like a fish needs a bicycle--just don't let the child support
    be late" that fathers _do_ have a non-motherhood role to perform
    in the family.  Basically that of teacher, role model, moral instructor, 
    enforcer, and all around hardass (as far as the kids are concerned :^\).
    Our generation often chooses to ignore our moral teachings, but all too
    many kids today don't even know what morality is to start with, and
    I attribute that to too many kids with no father in the home (and all
    too often no mother either).  

    A father playing mommy up until they are 5 or 6 is fine.  After that
    they do not need a second mommy, a friend, or a buddy.  They need a 
    father.
    
    fred():

    
    Interesting, we hear Mr Mom and the Father being a parent.  This seems
    to imply that the role of Father had no value in the past.  I think
    that the evidence which is staring us in the face today (the amount of
    violence and other problems) in our youth.  The role of Father and
    Mother are different.  Both valuable, but different.  That is not to
    say that a Father cannot be loving and nurturing, or that a Mother can
    not be the breadwinner and/or disciplinarian, but both have value in
    rearing children.
    
    Mike

    What is sadder, is when there is no father in the house hold, there
    becomes less disipline. And many children go out of the home looking
    for a father figure. Some find it in unsavory places on the streets.
    Watching a documentry on local Boston tv.

Re: .45

"these groups"?  Please elaborate.

There are indeed enormous social pressures to keep things the way they are.

				Steve

    
    re .48

    >"these groups"?  Please elaborate.

    As Rush calls them--National Association of Gals, or NAG.

    >There are indeed enormous social pressures to keep things the way they are.

    There is also growing evidence that we have been headed full speed in
    the wrong direction, and growing pressure to slam on the brakes.

    fred();

   Ok, so everybody's in agreement at some level - there are inequities,
   some men will-be/are-being/have-been screwed by the system, etc...
   
   So... what steps need to be taken to start resolving this, and by
   whom?
   
   - Tom
   

    
    re .50

    I have come to the conclusion that men are going to have to get
    organized into groups with some political clout.  Since that 
    seems to be the only thing that polititians and policy makers
    understand.

    You can start by voting for politicians who support family issues
    and policies that will encourage families to stay together instead
    of breaking apart (for instance--currently most states will not give 
    AFDC to families where both parents are in the home).

    You can speak up and oppose those men-hate groups that have tried
    so hard to denigrate the role of men in society.

    You can join and support with time or even a few bucks Men's/Father's/
    Children's rights organizations like Father's United.  These
    organizations are perpetually financially broke since they do not
    receive Government moneys and the members are usually broke themselves
    (having already been bled dry by the system).

    You can join/support conservative organizations like Concerned Women
    of America that support family values.  Concerned Woman of America
    is a women's organization with over five million members.  As opposed
    the the claimed 250 thousand currently claimed by N.O.W.  Yet the
    only women's organization you ever see mentioned in the press is
    N.O.W.--wonder why.

    fred();

As far as I have been able to tell from published statements, NOW is fully
behind efforts to level the playing field as regards child support, custody,
divorce settlements, etc.  I realize it's popular to ascribe all sorts of
"evil" intentions to NOW, but it just isn't so.

The groups which seem to be the most vocal opposing changes in this area are
Christian religious groups.

					Steve

    Funny, on the internet, there was a womans shelter, that got leveled
    under the 'Rico Law'.... Did you see that one?
    
    I'll try to find it again and get the address for it. But, if you are
    able to surf the net. Try Deadbeatdads and Mens Issues.
    
    

    
    re .52

>As far as I have been able to tell from published statements, NOW is fully
>behind efforts to level the playing field as regards child support, custody,
>divorce settlements, etc.  I realize it's popular to ascribe all sorts of
>"evil" intentions to NOW, but it just isn't so.

    As far as I have seen, NOW has been fully behind collecting child
    support by any means possible, but very quiet on custody, visitation,
    and divorce settlement issues.  But no matter.  N.O.W. is quickly 
    becoming irrelevant to nearly everyone but the press anyway.

>The groups which seem to be the most vocal opposing changes in this area are
>Christian religious groups.

    Don't know where you got that one.  Opposing changes in the re-definition
    of "family" maybe, but religious groups I have seen are mostly pushing 
    for traditional-family issues--Kids having both a mother and a father
    and keeping those families together.

    fred();

    Guess it goes to say, when was the last time you saw anyone
    representing a mens group from N.O.W. on issues that women have been
    barking about for a long time. Like men taking responsibility to raise
    kids. And when it comes to raising kids, and there is a man who is
    deservant of such, don't see them trying to lend a hand to the sexism
    in our beloved court systems. Its our own hastle and cause to fight,
    execpt if you start to win.......
    

    re:52
    
    I havn't read everything that NOW publishes but what I have read from
    them is degrading to all men.  The same goes for the MZ Foundation.
    
    Perhaps you could tell us where we could find anything NOW publishes
    that attempts to "level the playing field as regards child support,
    custody, divorce settlements, etc."    
    Not to say you are not telling the truth but I would be very surprised
    if you could find any evidence that NOW supports anything but the 
    womens side to any issue!
    My children and I are casualty's of the divorce wars of recent decades
    and I am always looking for signs of change in the positive direction
    regarding these issues.                  Bill
    

    > I havn't read everything that NOW publishes but what I have read from
    > them is degrading to all men.
    
    Wow.  Are you serious?  Here are a few tiny examples of what NOW
    publishes that are certainly not degrading to all men.  The first two
    are taken from the history of NOW available online, and the second two
    from the NOW 1966 Statement of Purpose adopted October 29th, 1966 at
    the first national NOW Conference.
    
    " NOW's official priorities are economic equality, including an
    amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will guarantee equal rights for
    women; championing abortion rights, reproductive freedom and other
    women's health issues; opposing racism and opposing bigotry against
    lesbians and gays; and ending violence against women. "
    
    "One of NOW's strongest concerns is gaining recognition of the value of
    women's work, both in the home and the paid labor market. NOW first
    popularized the slogan, "Every Mother is a Working Mother," and the
    phrase, "women who work outside the home." "
    
    "The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full
    participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all
    the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership
    with men."
    
    "NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost,
    are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have
    the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that
    women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the
    challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our
    society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American
    political, economic and social life."
    
    
    Now, if you think these statements are degrading to men, I don't think
    you understand them very well.  More on what NOW is really about can be
    found online at http://now.org/now/home.html which is their home page.
    
    DougO

    
    I'd say a lot has changed since 1966.  And mo observastions say that
    NOW is quite selective in what they mean by:
    
>    "The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full
>    participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all
>    the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership
>    with men."
    
    Much more heavily weighted on the "privileges" part than on the 
    "responsibilities" part.
    
    fred();

    "Much more heavily weighted on the "privileges" part than on the 
    "responsibilities" part."
    
    Fred,
    
    I don't know what you meant by this?  Could you help me to understand
    your position?
    
                                     Patricia
    
    

    
>         <<< Note 190.59 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>
>
>    "Much more heavily weighted on the "privileges" part than on the 
>    "responsibilities" part."
>    
>    Fred,
>    
>    I don't know what you meant by this?  Could you help me to understand
>    your position?

    The most prominent case is that of "child support".  NOW is big on
    collecting "child support".  NOW is also big an protecting AFDC.
    The question I keep asking every politician every time I get a chance
    (and I am yet to get a straight answer) is, "What is the difference
    in a man who won't/can't work and support his children and a woman
    who won't/can't work and get off welfare"?

    You'll see these women rant on about "equality", but when the going
    gets tough they will sob and cry about how hard it is for a pour
    little female and how someone should be taking care of them.  
    Patsy Schroeder(sp) (U.S. Representative, D, Colorado) got to
    thinking a few years back that the "feminist" movement was powerful
    enough to sweep her into the White House.  Then when she found out
    just how much power the "feminists" _didn't_ have, she quit, sobbing
    about how everyone was picking on her.  Even Gloria (A woman needs a 
    man like a fish needs a bicycle) Stinem(sp) ran and found the biggest 
    sugar-daddy she could find when then going got tough, then gave him 
    the boot when things got better.  Even Gloria now says that the
    "feminist" movement has now departed significantly from it's original
    goals.

    fred();

Re: .60 Fred

>    The question I keep asking every politician every time I get a chance
>    (and I am yet to get a straight answer) is, "What is the difference
>    in a man who won't/can't work and support his children and a woman
>    who won't/can't work and get off welfare"?

I think in many cases the difference is that the woman is tied down at
home looking after her children while the man is not.  Unless affordable
daycare is available, it could be very difficult for the custodial parent
to get a job outside the home.

I believe the solution is for the government to provide incentives or
subsidies to create affordable day care, and to end the bias against men
becoming custodial parents.

				-- Bob

    Gee... I have a house, and a child, and pay child care like many other
    working people..... So, I must be tied down too? <looking for the rope
    burns on wrist, arms, neck>
    

    
    re .61

>I think in many cases the difference is that the woman is tied down at
>home looking after her children while the man is not.  Unless affordable
>daycare is available, it could be very difficult for the custodial parent
>to get a job outside the home.

    I heard a person from Social Services in Colorado on the radio the
    other talking day about how women _had_ to quit work and go back on
    welfare because welfare was a better deal.  Well, I'm sorry people, but
    I don't consider welfare being a better deal to be a legitimate excuse
    to quit your job.  Also in Colorado, under certain conditions, Social
    Services will pay for childcare.  

    fred();

Re: .62

Presumably you have a job that pays well enough to let you afford child
care.  This isn't the case for many women currently on welfare; even if
they could find jobs (and just the process of looking for a job becomes
more difficult when they can't afford day care) the jobs they find will
probably not pay them as much money as you are making, especially if they
are part time jobs.

				-- Bob

Re: .63

>    I heard a person from Social Services in Colorado on the radio the
>    other talking day about how women _had_ to quit work and go back on
>    welfare because welfare was a better deal.  Well, I'm sorry people, but
>    I don't consider welfare being a better deal to be a legitimate excuse
>    to quit your job.

The welfare system should be set up so that it's always better to work than not
to work.  It's a failure of the system; while I agree that people should
have enough pride to *want* to work even if they could make more money by
being on welfare, I don't judge these people too harshly.  They're just
doing what Capitalism tells them to do: make as much money as they can.

>  Also in Colorado, under certain conditions, Social Services will pay for
> childcare.  

I'm glad to hear it - that's a step in the right direction.

				-- Bob

    
    In Michigan also I believe welfare pays for child care and medical
    while single moms can hold full time jobs. Sounds like a step in
    the right direction to me. I think most people feel better about 
    themselves if they can hold down a job and have some independance.
    
                                   Bill
     

    .64 
    
    Gee, I pumped gas, flipped burgers, and went to college days and
    nights. And supirse... I too haven't had, like many, a pay raise in over
    5 years.... What gives Bob? And whats even more frightning... I worked
    two jobs too.... not counting being a dad, homemaker a job.... 
    

    What of all the women and men who ARE working?? What credits do you
    give them? Besides those who get up and go to work and those who dont?
    

    
    
    reply .65

>The welfare system should be set up so that it's always better to work than not
>to work.  It's a failure of the system; while I agree that people should
>have enough pride to *want* to work even if they could make more money by
>being on welfare, I don't judge these people too harshly.  They're just
>doing what Capitalism tells them to do: make as much money as they can.

    Yet if anyone tries to change this system they are met with howls of
    "Nazis", and "starving children".  Which was my original point.

    fred();

Re: .67

Well, you've been there and I haven't.  Maybe you're right that lack of
day care isn't preventing women from getting off of welfare, but I'm sure
there are knowledgable people who would disagree with you.

Re: .68

>   What of all the women and men who ARE working?? What credits do you
>   give them? Besides those who get up and go to work and those who dont?
    
As I said, I think the welfare system should be set up so that a person
is always better off working than not working.  An affordable day care
system would benefit the working poor (and maybe even the middle class),
not just people on welfare.  In fact, its primary purpose would be to get
people *off* of welfare and into full time jobs.

The welfare system needs to be redesigned to eliminate perverse
incentives.  Currently you lose government assistance if you make more
than a minimal amount of money, so if you go out and get a part time job,
for example, you end up losing more money in government assistance than
you gain in income from the job.  (At least this used to be the case;
maybe the Earned Income Credit has fixed this to a large extent.)

If you're a woman, you lose government assistance if you're living with a
man, so the government is paying to break up your family.  In my view,
both the man and the woman should be "encouraged" to go on workfare or get
regular jobs, and if anything there should be a financial *incentive* to
both of them for staying together.

				-- Bob

Re: .69

>>The welfare system should be set up so that it's always better to work than
>>not to work...
>
>    Yet if anyone tries to change this system they are met with howls of
>    "Nazis", and "starving children".  Which was my original point.

I think it's possible to reform the system without making the poor fend
completely for themselves.  For example, if you weren't working you might
get a minimal amount of money.  If you went out and got a part time job
you'd get less money from the government, but the total of the money you
get from your job and from the government would be substantially more than
what you were getting before.

Ideally, everyone who was capable of working (aged 18 to 70 and in good
health) would have to get a job, and if someone couldn't find a job the
government would help them look for one or create a WPA-style job for them.
No one should have to starve.

So what about non-custodial parents who don't make enough money to make
their child support payments?  They should pay what they can afford, and
the government should pay the difference (but probably the government
would pay less than the father/mother would have to pay if he/she were
working.)

You shouldn't be thrown in jail because you can't *afford* to make child
support payments.  If you can afford to make payments but don't choose to
make them, then jail might be appropriate.

				-- Bob

        re .70

>As I said, I think the welfare system should be set up so that a person
>is always better off working than not working.  An affordable day care
>system would benefit the working poor (and maybe even the middle class),
>not just people on welfare.  In fact, its primary purpose would be to get
>people *off* of welfare and into full time jobs.

    Bob, just because it is easy to do, does that justify doing it?
    If I walk by your desk and there is a $100 bill laying on the desk
    would you be non-judgemental for me for taking it because the system
    you set up for handling your money makes it so easy?  Somehow I think
    not.

    However,  we are in basic agreement that the system is broke.  My point
    is that the welfare system remaining as it is, and government support
    of women, has a lot of support.  Whereas the turning of the screws
    tighter and tighter on "deadbeat dads" (not intending to start an
    argument over whether or not it should be) has a lot of support by
    those same people.  

    There is another solution--giving custody of children to fathers
    who can and want to support their children.  And we've seen lately
    what NOW thinks of _that_.

    fred();

Re: .72

>    Bob, just because it is easy to do, does that justify doing it?
>    If I walk by your desk and there is a $100 bill laying on the desk
>    would you be non-judgemental for me for taking it because the system
>    you set up for handling your money makes it so easy?  Somehow I think
>    not.

Fred, since we're basically in agreement I don't want to spend too much
time arguing about a point where we don't agree.  Having said that, though,
I don't think it's fair to compare the person who stays on welfare because
they'd make less money if they got a job to the person who steals $100.
The first person is acting legally while the second person is not.

One reason that I don't judge the first person too harshly is because I've
done essentially the same thing myself.  When I was a freshman in college
I was getting a government grant, and I supplemented this by getting a job
in the cafeteria in my dorm (work study program).  One day I was told that
I'd earned too much money in the cafeteria.  From that time on, every
dollar I earned would mean that I'd receive one dollar less in government
grant money.  Did I keep working in order to save the government a buck?
Hell no!  I like to sleep in as much as the next guy, so I quit.

This sort of thing happens all the time in business.  If a farmer can make
more money by having the government pay him not to grow crops than he can
by actually growing something, which do you think he'll do?  Businesses do
all sorts of unproductive things because it will lower their tax bills.
In general, people will act in the way that the system gives them an incentive
to act.

				-- Bob

    re .73

    Bob,  It may or may not be legal, but I bet we could get into a real
    rathole as to whether it is moral and ethical.  And before you 
    dismiss moral and ethical too quickly, slavery was legal, segregation
    was legal, denying women and others the vote was legal, and more too
    the point, it is perfectly legal to support one cause and ignore
    or even oppose another similar situation but....

    What about the argument that men who avoid paying child support are
    just taking advantage of the lax system?

    There was a black guy on McNeil-Lehrer(sp) the other night who said
    that these programs that force the confiscation of someone's money to
    support someone else amounts to nothing more than legalized theft.  To
    the point where someone _can't_ take care of their self I disagree.  To
    the point were someone _can_ take care of their self I do agree.  If it
    weren't for the 40%+ of my paycheck that goes to support one tax or
    another, I'd be able to take care of _my_ kids a lot better.

    fred();

Re: .74

>    What about the argument that men who avoid paying child support are
>    just taking advantage of the lax system?

If they are legally obligated to pay child support but don't because they
know it will be hard for the authorities to catch them and make them pay,
then IMO they are just as guilty as the guy who steals $100 because he
know he probably won't get caught.  They aren't just taking advantage of
the system, they're breaking the law.

Now in the case of someone who finds a legal way of avoiding paying child
support, by impoverishing himself, say, then I say don't waste your time
blaming the guy who takes advantage of the loophole.  Spend your time
fixing the loophole.  (But if the man is legitimately impoverished then
as I said I don't think he should be punished.)

>    There was a black guy on McNeil-Lehrer(sp) the other night who said
>    that these programs that force the confiscation of someone's money to
>    support someone else amounts to nothing more than legalized theft.  To
>    the point where someone _can't_ take care of their self I disagree.  To
>    the point were someone _can_ take care of their self I do agree.

I don't believe in alimony.  A man shouldn't have to support his ex-wife;
she should go out and get a job.  (And by the same token, a woman
shouldn't have to support her ex-husband; he should go out and get a job.)

I do believe in child support.  The custodial and non-custodial parent
should each pay their fair share of the cost of raising a child.  The
"fair shares" would depend on the relative incomes of the two parents,
i.e. ability to pay.  And if neither parent can afford to pay the cost of
raising their children, then the government should step in and help them.

				-- Bob

    re .75

    The key word here is _can't_.  Also it is not the government that is
    supporting them (an attitude that has helped get us into the mess we're
    in), its the taxpayer ( The Rich as the Gephart(sp) likes to call us
    ;^}), that's me--and you.

    You also seem to also keep equating legal with moral, and you ignored
    the situations that I pointed out that were decidedly legal, but
    decidedly immoral.

    However, this argument over welfare is somewhat of a moot point. 
    Since congress has passed  this week and the President will sign
    bills that will seriously change the welfare system.  Those 
    changes will be legal, and violating them will be illegal. Yet
    there are those that argue that doing so will be immoral.

    fred();

Re: .76

>    Also it is not the government that is
>    supporting them (an attitude that has helped get us into the mess we're
>    in), its the taxpayer ( The Rich as the Gephart(sp) likes to call us
>    ;^}), that's me--and you.

The government makes welfare payments and we support the government
through our taxes.  We (collectively) also elect the government, so in
that sense the government is "us".  But it isn't individual taxpayers who
make payments to the poor, it's the government.  (Yes, there are also
private charitable organizations, but that's different.)

Personally I don't mind the fact that part of my paycheck goes to support
people who are less well off than I am, especially when those people are
children.  The "mess we're in" isn't as bad as the mess the poor were in
in the bad old days before FDR.

>    You also seem to also keep equating legal with moral, and you ignored
>    the situations that I pointed out that were decidedly legal, but
>    decidedly immoral.

I'm not equating legal with moral.  It's just that I don't think it's all
that immoral to stay on welfare when getting a job would bring in less
money.  As I said, I did essentially the same thing in college when I quit
my job in the cafeteria.  The real problem is the welfare system that
gives people perverse incentives to stay on welfare, discourages them from
getting low paying jobs, and encourages poor families to break up.

As for the situations you brought up where something was legal but
immoral, I didn't think they were relevant because I'm not disputing your
contention that what's legal isn't always moral.  I don't think staying on
welfare is as immoral as slavery, or as immoral as segregation, or as
immoral as denying people the right to vote.

>    However, this argument over welfare is somewhat of a moot point. 
>    Since congress has passed  this week and the President will sign
>    bills that will seriously change the welfare system.  Those 
>    changes will be legal, and violating them will be illegal. Yet
>    there are those that argue that doing so will be immoral.

Whether or not the decision to change the welfare system was a moral one,
once it becomes law it will be the duty of government employees to enforce
it.  Those who oppose the new law should try to change it through the
political system.

Just because the welfare laws are changing doesn't mean that there is no
longer any point in discussing them.  The law might be changed again in
the future.  The real question is what law would be the best.  Personally
I think both the current welfare laws and the law being proposed by
Congress are flawed.

I agree with the general concept of reforming welfare by restoring the
incentive for people to work, but from what I've seen of the new law I
think it's too harsh.  If thousands of people become homeless as a result
of it maybe public opinion will shift and the law will be changed again.

				-- Bob

    
    
    Hey, I know a guy who just had to give his ex $7000 for a new car.  He
    has been divorced for almost 15 years and the 2 kids are 18 and 16.  He
    is paying the mortgage on the house that they live in and his ex makes
    as much as he does.
    
    
    

    
    
    re .77

    Back to the point of discussion here, which you've actually helped
    to prove, that certain thing become legal (being able to stay on
    welfare because it's a better deal) and certain things are illegal
    (dodging child support payments, and certain things are illegal
    but ignored by the system (interference with visitation rights)
    because of the pressure (or lack of it) brought upon the system by 
    certain groups, namely NOW, who claim to be "equal rights" organizations.

    But one more comment on you discussion:
    
>Personally I don't mind the fact that part of my paycheck goes to support
>people who are less well off than I am, especially when those people are
>children.  The "mess we're in" isn't as bad as the mess the poor were in
>in the bad old days before FDR.

    I have no trouble either (as I've said several times already) with
    people who _can't_.  My problem is with people who can but _won't_,
    and people who want do confiscate _my_ hard earned money to 
    enable them to do it. 

    fred();

.78 Hey, I know a guy who just had to give his ex $7000 for a new car.  He
.78 has been divorced for almost 15 years and the 2 kids are 18 and 16.  He
.78 is paying the mortgage on the house that they live in and his ex makes
.78 as much as he does.

	Where did this happen ??

	I can't help but wonder what the rest of the story is.   Was this
part of the original divorce agreement, or the result of a recent judge's
ruling ?   If it was a recent ruling, perhaps there was some reasoning
which isn't apparent here ?

	You said he was "paying the mortgage on the house that they live in".
Do the mortgage payments count as child support, or will the house be sold
when the youngest reaches 18 and the guy gets 1/2 or all of the proceeds ?

	If you said you knew a guy who had been paying 1/3 of his gross
as child support for almost 15 years, and he also had to make the mortgage
payments and he retains no interest in the house and then on top of that
he had just be ordered to pay her another $7k it would sound pretty
bad.

	Sometimes what sounds like a horror story really isn't.

Re: .79

>    I have no trouble either (as I've said several times already) with
>    people who _can't_.  My problem is with people who can but _won't_,
>    and people who want do confiscate _my_ hard earned money to 
>    enable them to do it. 

Agreed!

				-- Bob

    
    
    RE: .80  She took him to court to get the money and the judge ruled in
    her favor.  He is paying extra child support and alimony for a few years 
    so as he can keep all of his retirement instead of his ex getting half.  
    This is in Maryland.
    

    There are obviously inequities in the way custody is awarded and in
    some cases in the way child care is awarded.  I respect that the men in
    here are most likely responsible men who have been hurt by the system
    and therefore are angry.  I would suggest that what women and men both
    need to work for are laws regarding employment, custody, child care,
    day care, support that are equitable to women and men.
    
    Most children who are on welfare are in fact being abused in that they
    are living in poverty and living with what is less than adequate for a
    child to grow up in a happy healthy way.  If there are living healthy
    adult parents to that child, both are responsible for the care and
    nurturing of the child.  Both should be accountable for making the
    right decision for the child.  I don't see how eliminating welfare has
    much to do with equity in child support payments.
    
    The real root of the problem in my opinion is gender stereotyping and
    it's negative effects on both women and men.  The stereotype that men
    are suppose to provide the financial support and women are suppose to
    provide the emotional nurturing causes the oppression of both men and
    women.   Perhaps we should work to eliminate the stereotype!
    
    As a woman, I do see equity in child support payments as a woman's
    issue as much as a man's issue.  I also see the issue of pay equally as
    a man's issue as much as a woman's issue.

    
    re .83

    One thing to consider when considering AFDC, poverty, and child support
    is that the child support paid by the NCP does not got to the children.
    It goes to repay the state for the AFDC paid to the CP.  So up to the
    point where the child support exceeds AFDC payments (at which time
    the CP will be removed from AFDC) the child support makes no change
    in the living standard of the child.

    That is also why these sob stories of families being "forced" on
    welfare by "deadbeat" dads are, unless the expected child support
    far exceeds AFDC, purely b.s.  In fact the standard of living of
    the children may be decreased by the fact that, as we have 
    discussed, the cut off point for welfare is often far less than
    the AFDC, child care, medical care, etc provided by AFDC.

    As I have said before.  The only real solution to some of these
    problems may be to give custody of children to fathers (who should
    have just as much right to custody as the mother, equality and all
    that) who are willing and able to support their children.  I know
    that, excluding the cost of sending my kids to private school,
    it costs far less to support my children to a standard of living
    far in excess of what they had than the amount of child support
    I was paying.  With private school lumped in, it's about break-even.
    The difference is that the money spent to support the children
    does not have to first go to support a second house,  theex, and her
    boyfriend (who she addmitted in court was living off the child 
    support).

    fred();

    wow fred. 
    My heart goes out to you. We are planning a future and plan to be
    married soon. The CP is living off of the CS weekly. She literally up
    and quit her job, moved to another state to "start a new life" I guess
    that included a better unemployment payment... We've spoke to lawyers
    and the only thing they are concerned with is food, clothing and
    shelter. Well, we cloth him, we think she feeds him, (poptarts, mickey
    dee; and wendy's) and he is obviously living in her apartment. 
    
    We have nothing to stand on. We have to literally wait until she snaps
    before we have any ground to fight with. 
    
    I commend you on your persistance and efforts..
    

    After reading all these notes I am glad that I am as cold and heartless
    as i am. 
    If i think i am going to have intimate relations with a girl i make her
    tell me about her past and i divulge mine. if i think she is lying
    which is most of the time, its good byes all 'round
    Before the first aniversary of living together with my last girlfriend
    we signed and dated an agreement that stated that what i bought i keep
    and what she bought she kept. 
    i dont make much money but that is not the issue. i have seen too many
    men get screwed, like my brothers for instance that i am not taking any
    chances. it takes too long to get back on one's feet to be fiddling
    around with legal fees and the like. 
    
    Guys, if she thinks you are being parinoid and foolish for asking not
    to have to trust her, dump her. Blatent self-intrest rules the day.
    You would be surprised how many women feel the same way as I do. They
    don't have to trust me when I am BOUND by a LEGAL agreement. Trust and
    the breaking of trust seem to me to be important issues surrounding
    marriage and divorce.
    
    chris
    

    "Blatant self-interest rules the day."
    
    I always thought that when a person decided to "bond" with another,
    love was the motivating factor. And love, I thought, was manifested by
    the fact that the other person's welfare became more important.
    
    It's a sad time we live in if between men and women such self-interest
    rules must prevail.  No wonder over 50% of the marriages fails.  No one
    is in it for the the long haul.  I even wonder if people no how to love
    "in sickness and in health" anymore.
    
    Hmmmmm....
    
    Paul

    Love is just another four letter word...:(

    
    
    You think your ex is bad.....
    
    
    
WEIRDNUZ.402 (News of the Weird, October 20, 1995)
by Chuck Shepherd

LEAD STORY

* According to an August story in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-
Sentinel, Kevin Moore, 45, has been hounded for at least eight
months by legal actions instituted by Anne Victoria Moore, who
claims--incorrectly, according to police--that he is the Kevin
Moore who was once married to her.  She perseveres even
though various government agencies have informed her that the
man she is harassing is 11 years older than, six inches shorter
than, and facially dissimilar to, her ex-husband.  First, she placed
a claim on the wrong Moore's house, then one on his bank
account, and, in the latest action, she filed charges against him
for failure to pay child support. [Roanoke Times-Ft. Lauderdale
Sun-Sentinel, 8-31-95] 

    My ex took out a frivolous restraining order against me. One condition
    is that a family member pick up and deliver my 10 year old son because
    I'm supposed to keep 200 yds. away from her. I violate this condition
    every week because I always go pick him up and bring him home. My ex
    knows this and has told my son she doesn't care (frivolous restraining
    order). Does this mean we are both violating the order ? I am going to
    speak to her about cancelling the order but first I'm trying to
    determine the legality of her actions. 
    
    Mike

    
    My knowledge of restraining orders is that they become invalid if
    you violate it and she doesn't turn you in the first time.  She can't
    let it go and let it go, then all of a sudden decide to enforce it.
    It also becomes invalid if _she_ violates it by comming within xxx of
    _you_.
    
    But then I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.  So you should
    probably contact a "professional" before trusting you freedom to 
    my information ;^}.

    fred();

    Reguardless of the fact that it is a contrived or convience restraining
    order. Under no circumstance should you violate it. If the ex decides
    to pull the big suprise, your cought, and there is time in the big
    house, and there usually a loss of your job here at Digital. Is it
    worth the gamble? Talk to your HR rep about doing time in the jail. And
    where the lines of demarcation really exist.
    
    Insofar as visation, write a letter to your attorney about the problem
    to have him/her write your ex's attorney about the problem, to settle
    meeting or exchanging the child in a common area. Like a parking lot in
    a mall. Yes it is a pain in the ass to do it this way. But remember it
    is a pain in the ass for her to do make this change in a parking lot
    too. 
    
    Norm, for those who have followed my inputs here, had one of these
    bogus restraining orders. Was invited in by the ex, was arrested. Lost
    his job.... Simple.... Now he has to find another job, pay arreages,
    still pay for attornies both sides, etc etc. 
    
    Hopefully you might understand that a restraining order is what it
    means. Stay away from her/him/them. You can make life more interesting
    if you play by the rules in this for there is an oppisite and equal
    reaction.:)
    
    

    ..don't get on the phone and call her up and try to settle it as a
    'you and I' thingie. You can get your tushy cought in the sling for
    phone horrasment. When a restraining order comes down, you should take
    it for what it means! Let her contact you via your attorney. If she
    calls, let her talk to Mr. Answering Machine. Stay aloof till the
    restraining order in expired. 

Mike,
     Here in MA the police will arrest you if they see you violating a
restraining order (and know there is one). I don't know where you are.
My suggestion would be to abide by the restraining order - to the letter.

     Also the standard restraing order bars phone contact too.

     Please don't ignore the order. Use the legal system to change it if
necessary but don't ignore it.

Peter

    I'm in Mass. I'm allowed to phone and arrange visitation, which I
    do. At least by the divorce decree I'm allowed to phone and arrange
    visitation, maybe I'll read the restraining order and see what it says ! 
    I really didn't pay much attention to what the judge was saying
    and am unsure of what exactly the conditions are. My ex has said
    nothing about my calling to arrange visitation, no objections of
    any kind.
    
    Mike

    What do you mean you weren't paying attention to what the judge was
    saying????
    
    My ex and I have mutual restraining orders that just state that we are
    not allowed to interfere in the other ones life, but it does not
    restrict us from being in contact with each other.  
    
    I have had to get a restraining order against my ex in the past (which
    is why when we finally divorced this is what my lawyer suggested) and
    that stated very clearly how far away from me he was to stay and I had
    the choice of asking that he not be allowed to call me at home or work. 
    He was then given the opportunity to come to court one week later
    before the judge would make the restraining order good for a year. 
    Were you given the opportunity to state your case and tell the judge
    that it was a "frivolous" restaining order?
    
    Roberta

     I'm taking my ex wife to court to try and get modifications made
    to a restraining order. I'm also taking her to court for contempt
    for not following the visitation provisions of the divorce decree,
    but she doesn't know about the contempt yet, I just filed yesterday.
    I'm being taking to court for an alleged restraining order violation,
    her boy friend says I drove by his house.
     I'm going to file a complaint against the boy friend for stalking me,
    he admits in his complaint against me he followed me on a particular set
    of roads and identified me as the person who drove by his house.
    I think he saw my car in front of the bar room and followed me to
    establish a time and then fabricated the portion of the ride that
    went by his house. I was also in traffic court on Tuesday the 27th
    and have a encore with the judge March 25.
     Now to the point. Since my court docket isn't completely filled I'm
    looking for some more action. My divorce becomes final March 20th.
    unless I or anybody contests it. Just what can I contest ? Provisions
    of the divorce, the reason for the divorce or what ? Has anyone ever
    contested a divorce before it becomes final ?
    
    Mike  

    
    You probably cannot contest the divorce itself.  Remember "no-fault"
    divorce means that the woman has no fault.  It also means that one
    party or the other has to have no reason for the divorce other than
    "I wan to".

    You can contest the provisions of the divorce like property settlement,
    support payments, child custody, or visitation, but be prepared for
    a fight, and you'd _BETTER_ contest it before it becomes final or
    you are up the proverbial creek.

    If you go in for contempt for the visitation, be prepared to back it
    up with _evidence_ not just "she said, she did".  One of your best
    pieces of evidence right now is to keep a log/journal off everything
    that is said and happens between you and anyone concerned with the 
    case.

    If you haven't yet, check out SSAG::NON_CUSTODIAL_PARENTS.

    fred();

    
    I have evidence for the contempt charge. Visitation is to be
    arranged between the parties by telephone. Thats the way it
    has been working, until she changed her phone number to unpublished !
    I picked my son up on the way to school the day after the number 
    change and asked him for it and he told me he was told not to give
    it out. He got nervous when I asked again so I told him he didn't
    have to tell me, I'd find a way to fix the problem. This also deprives
    me of my almost daily after school phone conversations.
    He called me a few week nights to take him out ( I'm sure he was 
    urged by the ex ) but I had to say I couldn't. I'm going for the
    restraining order change March 6th so I can't let my ex change the
    rules at the last minute.
    
    Mike   

    On the restraining order violation--what you will need is someone who
    can/will testify that you were somewhere else when they say you were
    violating the restraining order.  Or at least be able to show that they
    can't really _prove_ you were the person they thought was doing the 
    drive-by.  A car that _looks_ like yours isn't enough.  What is funny
    is for them to swear up and down that absolutely, positively they 
    know it was you, then bring in witnesses and evidence that shows
    you were somewhere else.  
    
    fred();

     I have witnesses at the bar I left and at the bar I was arrested
    at ! With hands cuffed behind me I was able to reach into my
    jacket pocket and get my pepper spray out and ditch it between
    the seat and seatback. Good thing, my FID was revoked with the
    restraining order. Maybe I should tell the cop about the pepper 
    spray in his cruiser, I wouldn't want anyone to mace him, he's
    my neighbor. But I digress.
     Witnesses won't help. To violate the restraining order as alleged
    would only account for about 1 minute. And I can't prove that he
    drove by as I walked about 30 feet from my car to bar A. I can
    prove he followed me from bar A to almost bar B, because in his
    statement he traces this path and says thats when he identified
    me and wrote down my license plate number. Of course this is the same
    plate number my ex and I had for over 10 years, I wonder if she
    remembers it ? He also stated I was wearing a black leather jacket.
    I think that would be hard to determine at 8:45 P.M, in the dark.
    I own two winter jackets, a black leather jacket and a black leather 
    jacket. He has seen me a few times in a black leather jacket.
    
    Mike
     
     

    On any occasion as you drove past his house, did you make any lude
    justers to the beau? Were you driving past the house to get from point
    A to B? If you were going from A to B you passed his house, your
    allowed to do such. This is a public road. If you made lude justures,
    snooped, stalked him, etc. Then your in deep doo-doo. 
    
    Some times this sort of crappie is used as a second prong on an
    attacking fork to villianize you father. Best defence is having a good
    offence thingie. 
    
    Norm was arrested like this on several occaisons. Norm would have to
    pass the house of the ex to go to his folks place. The ex would have
    him arrested for passing the house and say he was in violation of a
    restaring order. IF you can prove that there is NO other way to the A
    to B part, with out going thru some unprudent maner to get there, then
    you have a chance. If you messed with the cop, got him mad, rude, etc.
    then you also in doo-doo. Always behave when your being cuffed, don't
    wise mouth them, the 'Please and Thank you' arrest will help you when
    the cops show up to testify. You don't want to go down resisiting
    arrest.
    
    Did you ever have a gum shoe run a back ground check on the beau? Does
    the beau have a prior sex offence, is he a pedifile(sp), a bank
    rober/fellon. These could be things that could also help you change
    custody. Things that endanger the childrens welfare.
    
    

    ..get another jacket other than black. And get a plate change asap!! 

    You are allowed to have That Phone Number!! This is part of a violation
    of visation!! If you don't get anywhere with this, and the courts drag
    it out... Mail your vistation secual to your attorney a month in
    advance of secual. Have this secual mailed to the opposing camp to be
    passed on to the ex. And then have her respond via the attorney. This
    is expensive for both but shows that your doing what is in the best
    interest of the child and that your attempts to contact the ex to see
    your child are being violated...
    
    When ever you pick up or drop off the kids from this point forward,
    also get someone to ride shot gun with you. A witness, and if possible,
    a cam-corder to record the exchange or denial of the transefer is
    recorded. 
    
    re changing license plates: the longer you have the new one on, the
    harder it is for them to MO you. And if they do falsely accuse you
    under your new plates... you have a grounds for false arrest, false
    impresement, and other fun things that could cause them real pain.
    Perhaps ownership of their personal properties, real and or otherwise. 
    
    When I was making a run with Ron to Keene NH, this story is posted in
    mennotes, had either one of us been arrested, detained, or etc by the
    police, for the ex had no REAL restraining order, we could have owned
    Keene NH. or had our divorces paid in cash.:) My conserns was never to
    loose my job here with digital. Sooo, I was able to slip out on em very
    well,, mostly out of pure freeking fear!

Re: 190.12:

>	 Best defence is having a good offence thingie.
    
Words to live by,
:-)
-stephen

    
    Of course I didn't make any lude gestures, I didn't drive by in
    the first place.
    
    Mike

    .106 Good!! My point is so long as your not, which I believe you were
    not doing such, for one case I had talked to did such. And had been
    talked to about doing such. A helpful hint is to take a pen and note
    book with you. Write down when you leave, when you arive, and paths you
    take. And document when or where you are during such and such a time
    ever day. Thus you have an aliby Reguardless. I was doing this for a
    bunch of months when things started getting wierd. I learned from a
    fellow fathers united member. The black Daily Minders that most office
    supply stores have are very helpful in this reguards.
    
    re -2 back: Steve!:) 

    
    	Re Mike Menne
    
    	You were arrested for violating a restraining order because you
    	allegedly drove past her boyfriend's house? I thought your wife
    	had the restraining order...what does this have to do with you
    	driving past her boyfriend's house?
    
    	Is she alleging that you knew she was there, and were stalking or
    	harassing her? 
    
    	I think I missed something here.
    

    
    You didn't miss anything. The restraining order covers her and
    his address. She is not claiming I was harrassing or stalking
    her and she was not there per the police report. The boy friend
    is claiming that I drove by his house and they both say this
    made them fear for their safety. I told the judge, when he granted
    the restraining order, that I would be back because she just wants
    the order to harrass me.
    
    Mike

    
    	re Mike
    
    	Now I got it. Thanks.
    
    	A woman can get a restraining order at the drop of a hat. There
    	doesn't have to be proof of anything, either. All they are good 
    	for is to harass the other party and make life miserable....the
    	problem is you can actually face jail time for violating it. You
    	can actually go to jail because you said 'Good morning' to someone.
    	Yet, a woman can legally take half (at least half) of all of your 
    	assets, your home, half your pension, and try to make you pay
    	alimony for a long time into the future. Can destroy you, both
    	financially and emotionally. Can break up the family unit. All
    	because of no other reason than she wants to start 'dating' again.
    	And this is perfectly LEGAL.
     

    But, IF you did not make any lude jestures, threats, etc. their case is
    moot. And you should be able to sue for defermation of charater, lost
    time and money, and false arrest. Hopefully. 
    
    

    
    	George, he already said he wasn't even there. About your friend
    	Norm..you said he was arrested several times for driving past his
    	ex's house....what happened to him in court? What kind of penalty
    	did he get (assuming he was found guilty).
    
    	Even if the penalties are minor, if you're found guilty, you now
    	have a CRIMINAL record to put on your resume'.
    

    The problem, for Mike, now is how to prove a negative.  How to prove
    he was not there.  Like so many other of these "trial by accusation"
    things men face today.  Now that he knows this is happening he can
    take measures to protect himself in the future, like having witnesses
    or making logs/journals, or audio or video tape.  One of the things
    I did with my ex was to make sure I was _never_ alone when dealing
    with her.  I bought a device at radio shack to connect a tape to my
    phone and _every_ conversation with her was taped.  The only
    alternative, which is probably what Mike's ex wants is for Mike to
    cease to have _any_ contact with his kids.

    But what to do about _this_ situation.  Mike mentioned that the
    boyfriend said he had followed Mike.  If I am not mistaken it is also
    a no-no for the one with the restraining order to be deliberately
    going within the prescribed distance.  If Mike is so dangerous to
    be around, then what in tarnation was the boyfriend doing following
    _Mike_?

    fred();

    So, it says that both parties are covered on the ONE restaining order?
    I though it took two to cover two differnt parties?
    
    

    With Norm, he was able to prove that he didn't make any threats, he did
    drive by the house on a PUBLIC ROADWAY, to see his folks. And there was
    NO other way from point A to B without going so far out of the way it
    was rediculas. You have to make a threat, you have to make a lude
    jesture, you have to do something to get a restraining order. Something
    that says, "I fear for my life" without any proof didn't work for the
    ex. Norms car was also a common plane jane car. A white Caviliar(sp)
    chevy. And this was a very common model. The other thing he did was
    went around with a polorid and took pictures of all the models in
    parking lots, and on street corners around the city of Manchester.
    Covered the license plates with some white tape, and then asked the ex,
    while doing a pro-se, if this is the car she saw. And thru a bunch of
    them on the table in front of her. Asking her to pick out the car she
    saw. She picked up a car with the Wrong plate number. 
    
    Another time, she said to the court system that he was horrassing him
    when she was going to work. And make a point of where and when. I went
    out with another Father and survaide the premise of where and aprox
    when. There was no way anyone could make the claims she did. She was at
    some spot at an intersection, and said he was at another intersection. 
    And no way you could see the other intersection with our without folage
    on the trees!
    
    So, when ever you get one of these, you need to play dective and try to
    show to the court system that there is no possible way there could be
    absolute positive ID/MO on such a sighting. Less of course, Elvis was
    with him when this happened.:) Get some poster board, a camera, and
    make a map and take picutes of where or when. In this case, its harder
    to do such if such Elvis sightings happened near the ex or the beau's
    abode. For IF the restraining order says for him to stay away, then he
    is in troubles. But, if there isn't a clause of Mike and any of his
    agents, send in a friend to help survay the Elvis sightings.:)
    
    

    IF your found not guilty, then you do not have to put this on your
    resume. So, as Fred says, this a good reason why men like Mike should
    join the local Fathers support groups.:)
    
    

    Please excuse my very terrible spelling guys and gals. I am trying to
    resond to this between phone calls.:) Humble opoligies please.

    
    I've never had to deal with a restraining order directly my self, thank
    goodness.  That was on that the ex didn't think of for some reason.  So
    this may take some checking out with a lawyer, but my understanding
    is that if you have a restraining order on someone, you cannot go near
    them either.  I don't know if that would get the same penalties or
    just nullify the restraining order--I've heard both.  Probably depends
    on the state.

    fred();

    I never had to deal with a restaining order either. But, I prayed that
    I never got cought either. And I was scared to death of getting cought.

    Norm was arrested 3 times for this prank. And three times he was found
    Not-guilty. Three time he was lead away in an awaiting cruiser, thrown
    into the Valley Street Jail, three times walked out of the court house
    a free man. There is hope, if you do your Homework. If you go in with
    the premis that your word is golden. Forget it.. If you go in to court
    with the lost dog look, your lost. Get your homework done, get your
    self together, and walk in like a man who is inocent, but has allot to
    prove. It doesn't go unoticed in front of the judge. 

        
    
    The boy friend doesn't have a restraining order on me, my ex has one
    that covers 2 addresses, but it doesn't and can't cover him.
    
    I agree, if the guy considers me a threat why was he following me ?
    I am considering charging him with stalking, but I want to see my
    lawyer first. 
    There would be nothing illegal for me to approach the guy as long
    as it isn't within 200 yds. of his house and I wasn't stalking him.
    I hope to run into him on neutral territory, I have some choice
    words to say about him and his girl friend, I may be fortunate
    enough to get him to assualt me.
    
    Right now I'm just waiting for tomorrow when I get the ex into court 
    to try and get the restraining order changed to reflect reality.
    I've always picked up/dropped off my son at the ex's place with her
    full knowledge and consent, and at times the boy friend was there at
    pick up so he knew she didn't care about the restraining order under
    those circunstances. My ex must have talked to her lawyer and found out
    she wasn't supposed to be letting this happen annd is trying to change
    the rules. In her defense, she is not trying to prevent me from seeing
    my son, she just wants the rules changed and I don't. 
    I hope the summons for the contempt of court charge I filed againsr her
    on Feb. 29 comes soon. Although, I'm surely going to bring up
    visitation refusal and the contempt charges at tomorrows hearing.
    
    As for the guilty penalities, not more than 2 years in house of
    correction nor more than $5000 fine or both. 
    
    
    Mike 
    
    

        
    Well, as expected, the judge denied modification to the 200
    yd provision of the restraining order. He is an idiot, he
    said he didn't have the power to change it because it involves
    child visitation and that is a matter for Probate and Family court.
    The restraining order came from his court and he surely can change
    it ! My lawyer told me this after the hearing. He was there on other
    business but he listened to my case.
    I explained to the judge that the 200 yd. distance has much broader
    implications then visitation. I then listed a few significant events
    I was deprived of attending and will be deprived of attending that 
    involve my 17 year old daughter Caralyn:
    
     Feb. 17
      Eastern Mass. High School Swimming Championships (UMASS Boston)
    
      She won 2 individual Silver medals and a Gold on a relay team.
      The Gardner High girls swim team won the meet.
    
     Feb. 24  
      Mass. State High School Swimming Championships (UMASS Boston)
 
      She won individual Gold and Silver medals and a Gold on a relay team.
      The Gardner High girls swim team are the state champs.
    
      April
    	United States Junior National Swimming Championships in Kentucky.
    
    
      March 1st thru 3rd
    	My 10 year old son Brandon swam in the New England Swim League
        Championships at Dartmouth College.
    
      I pointed out that I was assistant coach for his Little League team
      and it would be a real hassle taking him to practice and games if
      I couldn't conviently pick him up. I may have to pull him out of 
      Little League.
    
    The asshole judge could care less. Well, at least my ex found out I
    filed contempt of court charges against her. She actually had a lawyer
    representing her nad a smirking boy friend for moral support.
    
    
    Mike
    
    

    Welcome to the real world.... I am sorry that this is happening to you.
    And your not alone becoming a distant uncle in your daughters life.
    Some children will not see thier fathers attend graduation nor see them
    marry because of issues like this. 
    
    Norm had his truck set on fire, had his phone tampered with, and his
    mail messed with. His ex works for the US Post Office in Manchester,
    and he got slammed with the restraining orders like yours.
    
    

    
    
    	I agree with Mike..the judge was an idjit. Restraining orders have
    	a purpose, but they need to have a sanity check applied to them.
    	Men can effectively be removed from a large portion of their
    	children's lives because of the misapplication of restraining
    	orders.
    
    	As a side issue, here in Massachusetts, a person that has a r-o
    	against them must immediately surrender their firearms if they
    	have any. Besides being a blatant violation of their rights, it
    	sucks. A friend of mine, an avid hunter/outdoorsman, had to
    	give up this hobby because of a r-o his ex took out.
    
    	

    If a restaining order is sited against you. Does this stop you from
    getting new guns?

    
    
    	In Mass, yes, because you have to surrender your FID card.
    

    
    I was smart. Prior to the divorce I got most of my guns out of
    the house. The official story is they were and are out of state
    and are not subject to the laws of Mass. I will never surrender
    my guns. I have a right to self defense that supersedes any law,
    always did, always will. I didn't surrender my FID. At the 
    restraining order hearing I told the judge I wanted a written 
    statement from my ex stating that she has my FID or she destroyed
    it. She denied both and that's the last I heard about surrendering
    anything. I expect it to be brought up at the violation trial.
    
    Mike

Re .127 and several previous


The readership of this conference is potentially very large.  Any Digital
employee can read it.  If our various security measures are not perfect, some
people outside Digital could read it.  And any reader could print a note and
give it to somebody else.

Personally, I would not write anything here that I would not want to see used in
court against me.  This would not keep me from speaking my mind, but I might
leave out some of the details to protect the innocent, namely me.  And I would
be careful of language that might be considered libel, slander or contempt of
court.


Judge:  "Young lady, are you trying to show contempt for this court?"

Mae West:  "No, your honor, I'm doing my best to hide it."

    I have a question and I may be a little naive, but if there are so many
    incompetent judges (and we know that there are...) what can be done to
    remove them from their jobs?
    Is there a formal process?
    
    Thanks for any insight you can provide.
    Nancy

    To remove a judge, you have such a uphill battle to prove that they are
    incapable of preforming their jobs. And the money to do such is beyond
    logic or reason. 
    

    
    For a while they had a real effective way of removing judges 
    in Columbia. I think things have settled down somewhat recently.
    
    
    Mike

    
    You can help campaign against the re-election of the bad ones.  Most
    people just vote for the ones in office like lemmings.  Especially
    in states like Colorado where the judges have all been appointed 
    over the last 20 years by Democrat governors then just stand for 
    "retainment" every 6 years.  More have died in office than have been
    removed.  

    I went after one a few years back.  Picketed the court house.  Stood on
    busy street corners with my picket sign.  Called every radio and TV
    station in the area.  Put adds in the newspapers.  Got several,
    "Gee we'd like to help (even from lawyers) but we have to go before him
    again", but only a couple of guys actually helped.  MADD didn't even
    want to criticize him.  He got about 20% less vote than the others
    up for retention.  If I had been able to run a decent campaign, I may
    have got him.  A couple years later NOW was fixing to campaign against
    him when he died, still in office.  

    Funny thing, though, a judge who has a personal relationship of any
    kind with you cannot sit in a case where you are a party.  A bit of
    poetic justice was the judge in question had to withdraw from my case,
    and those who were afraid to speak out against him still had to put
    up with him.

    Why not lawyers?  There is a section in the "Code of Professional
    Conduct" that governs lawyer's behavior that says falsely criticizing
    a judge in public can get you in a _lot_ of trouble.  Most lawyers
    won't even take a chance on losing their license, even if they _know_
    the judge is a creep.  Only one case I can remember.  There was a 
    Judge in Denver many years ago that got to yanking the _lawyers_
    around so bad anyhow that the lawyers finally went against him.
    Even then he was not removed from the bench but finally retired.

    fred();

    Most judges are appointed around here. 

Probably the only way is to get a big stink raised in the newspaper - but
I doubt you'd find any newspaper editor or columnist interested in this
case (if it was a decision against a woman, it would probably be on page 1).

				Steve

    
    	One thing that bothers me is the sheer arrogance that many of
    	these judges show, especially in probate court. The power that
    	they have over your life and assets is way out of line. After
    	all, they are mostly just politically connected lawyers.
    
    	If you try to speak your mind, they'll slap you with a contempt
    	motion.
    
    	I agree with Fred, who's said this only about a million times...
    	it's time for men to organize. Where do I sign up? What's the
    	first step we can take? Any ideas?
    
    	John
            

    C.O.P.E, DADs, Fathers United, pick one. There is a listing in the
    early foot notes of this file. To add to this, If any have read 'Men
    are from Mars, Women from Venius', men tend not to be joiners. Men tend
    to go to the caves and heal or lement about their wounds. When I went
    to the Fathers group, I found that for the two hours I go some mental
    health, srink work. And I got some legal support because most of these
    groups discuss their cases. You learn from them and their cases. Esp if
    you help others. This all would sum up to $500-700.00 total if you were
    to spend this for going to your srink for two hours and going to
    councle with your favorite attorney for a few hours. And you learn what
    the legal game is. No, your not going to become a F. Lee Baily type.
    But, it will help take out of the game, the mistical or the smoke and
    mirrors of what your rights are, what your legal rights are not, and
    how to become a better consumer to your legal rights. Plus, you can get
    a vote for your canidate by being in a group and inviting the canidate
    of choice to your meetings to listen to your Real problems. Weather
    they are state, local, or fed office seekers. 
    
    

    
    It's very difficult to get men to organize in these groups unless it
    benefits _them_ personally.  I've detailed several times many of
    the reasons why.  Denial that it will happen to them, don't wan to
    aggravate the little woman, to broke emotionally and financially,
    etc.  

    One alternative is to get active politically.  VOTE!  Beyond that, give
    a few $$ to the candidate that at least supports "family values" and
    two parent families.  It doesn't have to be a lot, even $5 or $10
    is a help.  If the candidate that you like isn't in your district
    where you vote, give them a few dollars to help them along,  maybe
    even a couple hours of your time to help sway a few other votes.
    
    One thing I find encouraging is the swing of the political mood
    back to the "right".  Support for two parent families and the move
    to repeal no-fault divorce.  We need to be backing and supporting
    these candidates.  Pay particular attention to _female_ and "minority"
    candidates like Christie Todd-Whitman and Alan Keys.  Because just
    as the real reason that the "Civil-Rights" movement was a success was
    not Black people demonstrating.  It was White people who said, "You 
    know--this isn't right.  We need to do something about it", the 
    change will come from women and minorities who say "You know--this
    isn't right.  We need to do something about it".  Also encouragin
    is the number of women who are mothers, sisters, girlfriend, and
    second wives of men to whom this *bleep* is happening who are among
    the most ardent supporters of Children's and Men's rigits.

    fred();

    But, if you change that head set about it benefits whom, when... and
    give an hour a month at a min. you can probably make change. Ever so
    little change is better than no change at all.
    
    

    I was in Worcester Probate Court Wednesday for a Contempt charge
    against my ex. Of course, when she got the summons she filed counter
    charges saying I was in contempt because I owed her money, $182.75.
    Her lawyer is an idiot. The evidence they had against me was for 
    prescription drug co-pay and college application fees. The majority
    of the bills were from before we were divorced and there was never
    any pre-divorce court orders. The divorce decree says nothing about
    being obligated for this retroactively. One piece of evidence was
    a money order for $200.00 that my daughter purchased with her own 
    money and in her name for enrollment in Springfield college. Nothing
    in the divorce states that she can't help pay her way and she fully
    intends to do just that. She also split some application fees with 
    her mother. It was a flimsy case at best and I felt confident I could
    win, I really only owed my ex about $17 for drugs and I probably owed
    my daughter $50. Of course my ex never said I owed her any money until
    I filed the contempt charge, but I digress, back to her lawyer is an
    idiot theme.
    I waited until 11 for them to show up, they were supposed to be there
    at 9, but this court allows you to be 2 hours late. At 11, when they
    were not there, I put pressure on the clerk to get me before the judge
    because this was a default. I got to the judge and it was real hard for
    me to request that he not issue an arrest warrant for her and that I
    was dropping the contempt charge. I went against my nature and took
    the moral high ground.
    I couldn't imagine why they defaulted but when I got too work I had a
    phone message from Fitchburg Probate court ( branch of he Worcester
    court) asking why I hadn't shown up and to call the court ! The idiot
    lawyer and my ex went to the wrong court ! I didn't bother to call the
    court, the case was already disposed of, but I did call the idiot
    lawyer's office. She wasn't there, probably still in Fitchburg, so I
    informed the secretary that my ex had defaulted in the case and the
    idiot lawyer could call the Worcester court to find out the
    consequences of defaulting.
    
    I go to court June 4th for the alleged restraining order violation
    mentioned in previous replys to this note. I will probably waste my
    ex's time and not show up and have my lawyer get a continuance. I can't
    state here how I can pull this stunt and not have a default arrest
    warrant issued but I definately can pull it off. I'm hoping my ex
    will realize my de-escalation efforts and drop it, but if she doesn't
    I'm not worried because we believe that she doesn't have a valid
    case against me.
    
    Mike
    pro se  
    

    
    I was in Fitchburg District Court June 4th for the alleged restraining
    order violation. We blew off Gardner District Court in favor of a jury
    trial. As is customary, my lawyer, the DA and the judge met behind
    closed doors to review the case. My lawyers position, supported by
    case law, was basically that there was no criminal case. Even if the
    accusation were proved true, the law is vague and the section of the
    restraining order I was charged with violating couldn't be proven.
    The judge said he was inclined to agree. Based on that we waived the
    jury trial. The DA wanted to deal and we didn't but he got the judges
    attention. The three of them met 2 more times and the judge put
    pressure on my lawyer to accept the deal. The deal was that I obey the
    restraining order for 6 months and the case would be dismissed. There
    were no other conditions I had to adhere to. My lawyer and I didn't
    like the deal, we wanted an absolute not guilty, but he warned me
    of the pitfalls of alienating the judge. I chose not to get involved
    in games with the DA (DA's are the scum of the earth) and the judge
    and we accepted the deal.
    
    Mike