Conference quark::mennotes

    I am a custodial parent too. I have had it shoved both ways. I am no
    getting a min amount of child support from the ex. But, she does take
    our daugther on her visitational times. The ex has yet to take Eva for
    a week or two vacation. But, life. 
    
    The hostility is in lew of the system that serves a heavy hand, and now
    you are reading the resentment. I am sorry you feel weak, disturbed,
    etc. Many of these people do not live a very high life style either,
    dispite what has been said in stats written by women for women and for
    the goverment to read. I know men who are living in the ruffer side of
    town, some on friends couchs, and even a few in a car. There is a
    couple who are living in tents along the Merrimack river in Concord NH. 
    
    Yet 70% of all divorces are started by women. So, 70% of all men are
    rasputian, neanderthals, who dig beating on their wives, drinking the
    pay check, and other assorted nasty's. 
    
    I wish you could have seen the face of Norman, a father who has paid
    child support, and has not seen his daughters in 5-6 years now. Ever
    Sunday, he stands in front of the West side Manchester church, waiting
    for his daughter to be dropped off by the ex. And every Sunday, he goes
    home, no visitation, no child, and sometimes crys himself thru the day. 
    
    Norm has lost his lawyer, money has to be paid for the child support,
    the maintence, and of course the ex's attorny as he tries to wadge his
    war on the system that keeps him from seeing his children. 
    
    Perhaps, if your note does anything, besides bring pitty upon yourself.
    You should go see these men, in their pain, suffer thru the system.
    They would love to have a woman like you, who would insist on them
    taking the children for visatation... they would love to be involved
    with their childrens lives. Not a distant uncle woundering if they will
    ever see their children as adults.... 
    
    peace
    

    ...I wish you could have been with me... as I just about bought the
    farm in an alley in Pepperell Mass. As I was trying to prove that my ex
    was engangering our daughter as they lived with a self admitted child
    molester... 
    
    One night, around Christmas time... I had no car to snooze in, and
    there was not enough snow to hide under the tree as I was doing gum
    shoe work for a gum shoe. See If you hire them to do your work, it cost
    $1,000's!! So, you game goes, you walk the line of getting cought. And
    if you get cought, you go to jail, you loose your house, you lose the
    battle. Imagine that... I was just trying to prove beyond reason of a
    doubt of what was going down.... So, I sat behind a trash bag filled
    with leaves that I brough along. 
    
    The saying goes, you put them to bed at night and get them up in the
    morning to find.... So, I had tried to get up early enough to see the
    beau come out of the apartment, I had one eye open and one going off to
    laa-laa land. And finally I dozed off. It snowed, it was cold, I woke
    up, I could have blown my cover on this. I could have frozen to death
    in the alley... But, I love my daughter to endanger my own life... 
    
    It took a bunch of hot baths to wash out the cold of winter that had
    set into me. It had taken another week to get my courage up to go out
    there again.... What do you do? Let her fall into the hands of this
    man? I Pray God Almighty for Salvation and deliverence from evil. And
    went back to work....
    
    

    George, I'm sure Graziella has seen stories like these all too often.
    I don't think she's disputing any of what you describe.
    
    I think it comes down to bitter adults using children as pawns, weapons
    to hurt the other parent, and not realizing how much this hurts the
    children stuck in the middle.
    
    I do agree that sensible & caring divorced "partners" who truly put
    their children first, are all too rare in this world.  But then I 
    haven't been thru it myself so can't imagine the depth of emotion
    that occurs in divorces.
    
    What I can't figure out is how people can go from loving someone so
    much, having children with them, but then grow to hate them so completely
    that you'd like to ruin their lives?  How is that possible?
    
    Sue

    Beats the hell out of me why the do. They do it..... It is no picnic!
    

    Do you mean "they" as in other people ... of both sexes?  Or "they"
    as in women only?  Because it happens on both sides - hating your
    ex and putting your kids in the middle.
    
    (I'm not talking about the legal/financial ramifications of this,
    I'm just talking about the emotion involved).
    
    Sue

    Always both sides. But, I can show you some grim stats that show that
    men are denied visatation more than they are given a golden op to
    partake in the raising of the children. And I am not pulling this stuff
    out of the hat, or out of my butt side.
    

    No, I know you are not.  I know traditionally how the legal and
    financial scaled have tipped. 
    
    That's why I specifically asked about the emotional side of it.
    
    Sue

graziella 
	Thank you for entering a sensitive and caring note.   You
    sound like the kind of ex many men wish they had.



George
	I know you have many awful stories.   They should be told, but
    maybe there is another note which would be more appropriate to enter
    them in ??   If there isn't another note which seems more appropriate,
    please make one, and move your entries there.   This woman already is
    facing raising her children with no assistance.    She did allow
    visitation.

    Just as much as there are other places for her to post her side of the
    story. Like Womennotes. She wants us to read, she will get a reply.:)
    Not trying to be a bad guy. Not trying to hop down her throat. She
    doesnt want sympathy, but, she is getting it. Kinda like a Monty
    Phython skit about arguments.
    
    I paid for an argument and I want an arugment.
    No!
    See its in the contract that I will get an arguement!
    No.
    :)
    

    But as the story goes. 
    'I cried because I had no shoes, till I met a man who had no feet...'
    

    George,
    	I understand your pain. I've been there.
    	It's unfortunate that many who feel the need to speak are
    	absolutely clueless!
    

    re .3

    All to often we try to lump all into one neat little ball.  For women 
    like .0 I have the deepest admiration.  Sadly .0 is more the exception 
    than the rule.  Too often we offer only criticism for those who do
    deserve it and too often we do not give credit to those who do care.
    To those (men _and_ women) who do work and sacrifice to make their
    marriages work.  To those ( both men _and_ women) who do work and 
    sacrifice to support their children.  To those who do pay the "child 
    support" and to those who go out of their way to see that the _children's_ 
    right of visitation is upheld.  To those women like my wife who have
    been a better mother to my kids than their real mother.  To those people 
    I do give (althought I do not express it nearly enough) my sincerest 
    respect and gratitude.

    The following contains some very personal stuff.  I do not do it for 
    sympathy. I'm beyond that.  History has vindicated me.  Maybe to give
    some understanding of "the dark side".  It was not easy for me to write.  
    It may not be easy to read.  You may hit "next unseen" now:


    

    
>    I do agree that sensible & caring divorced "partners" who truly put
>    their children first, are all too rare in this world.  But then I 
>    haven't been thru it myself so can't imagine the depth of emotion
>    that occurs in divorces.

    No one who has not been through it can understand he depth of emotion
    that these situations bring.  If they could there'd be a lot less
    divorce.  Too many (both men and women) kid themselves that "it will
    be better for the kids", and will believe it will be better for
    themselves also.  Then reality hits with a force of a blast furnace.

    For some reason I had a better idea than most about what divorce would
    do to my kids, and that divorce meant abandoning the children to a
    parent that was (to put it nicely) less than idea.  As such I stayed
    in a marriage for 9 1/2 years that, looking back, should not have 
    lasted more than a year, and probably wouldn't have if she had not
    already been pregnant.  But even my understanding was _nothing_ like
    what reality would be.

    Contrary to the propaganda that some groups would like people to 
    believe, men _do_ love their children.  Men go to work and spend
    the majority of their pay to support families (whether married or
    not).  Men go to battle and die to protect their children and try to 
    give them a better life.  In divorce the mother usually gets to keep 
    the children, but children are forced to separate from a parent they 
    love (in spite of what the CP wants them to feel) and father's
    are separated (forcibly if necessary) from children they love.
    That kind of b.s. was supposed to have gone out with the Emancipation
    Proclamation.

    There's no making someone understand the the absolute RAGE felt when
    a CP sits on the witness stand and _admits_ that her boyfriend  is
    living off the welfare and child support, and the outrage when one's
    5 year old son talks of drugs being used in the house, or of a handicapped
    7 year old daughter being left alone in charge of younger siblings,
    then being punished because she was unable to control them and punished
    because she did try to control them, or of the house being set on fire
    by the youngest daughter when the kids were left alone at home and
    the 9 year old who put out the fire being punished because he was not
    able to control his younger sibling.  For the PC in file, I don't for
    one minute say it is right, but I do know why so many men go over
    the edge.  If it hadn't been for some very good friends....it still
    scares me to go back and remember it.

    fred();

    
    George, you can hit "next unseen" now so you won't be too
    embarresed....
    
    SYS$SET_FLAME(%VAL(1));
    
    
    
    If a woman had done and gone throught to protect her child what George
    did,  someone would have made one of those TV movies about it by now.
    But instead he gets some of the people in this file.....
    
    fred();

    Ciao,
         Thanks for entrering your note. It helps lend some balance to this
    theme of NCP vs CP here. I'm in a very similar situation to you - the
    main difference was that i was the NCP and the CP died. Now That I am
    the full time single parent I can't see how she managed but she did and
    we were better friends after the breakup than before.
    
         I know many other single parents and have heard many horror
    stories from both men and women. I really can't say that I agree that
    the majority of situations are bad.
    
         I don't think I agree with the 70% of divorces started by women
    statistic. Maybe the legal procedings are started by women 70% of the
    time but I think that in most cases the breakdown of a marriage the
    responsibility of both parties. If a man abuses a woman physically,
    emotionally, financially, by infidelity etc isn't it he that is
    initiating the divorce.
    
    Peter.  

    Peter,
    
    Sorry to burst the bubble. But, this is a stat!! 70% of the divorces
    are filed by women. Not men. I am not pointing fingers that women are
    as neaderthalic as us neanderthalic men.;) But, if the Foo sh*ts you
    gotta wear it.
    
    Bottom line, I rather doubt that 70% of all us neaderthal men are home
    beating the wife, kicking the dog, and neglecting parental guidence of
    our children.
    
    re Fred: Blush! Blush! Blush!:) 

    
    re .14,.15

    I'll admit that a lot of divorce actions are filed by women because
    the slimebag just took off and didn't bother, or that he is abusive.
    However, it's hard to find a divorce these days that isn't claimed
    to be filed because _he_ is a slimebag.  Poor women, they don't do
    anything wrong ;^\.

    The problem with all this "abuse" business is that it has been carried
    to such an extreme that the MIGO affect has set in, and those who
    really _do_ need the help are becoming the biggest victim of the
    radicals.  

    fred();

    If .0 or anyone else around here ever wants to go for a ride with me
    and another father to really watch a denial in visitation go down. Your
    invited. Coffee is on me, and so are the crying towels. 
    
    I will introduce you to Norman, and several other dads who are not
    seeing their kids. Perhaps a ride to the rivers edge in Concord might
    give a rude awaking to what is going down.
    
    

    RE .17
    
    The one in Concord NH. Is that the guy under (sort of) the old bridge
    over the Merrimack River (rte3)?

    Nope. A group of them live along the river in the woods. Some are hard
    core alk's. But, a couple were dads, working, tossed into the street by
    the system. No place to run, no place to hide....

    There was a tent fire a couple of years ago..... one was the neighbor
    to a working father...
    
    

    George,

    RE: ...
    
    >>>    Perhaps, if your note does anything, besides bring pitty upon
    >>>    yourself.


    >>>    Just as much as there are other places for her to post her side
    >>>    of the story. Like Womennotes. She wants us to read, she will
    >>>    get a reply.:)
    
    
    I don't want to trash your points. Actually for what concerns myself
    you didn't  need to enter details because although I didn't know them I
    already guessed that life had not been a bed of roses for people like you 
    or fred(). 

    I didn't invalidate that the least bit. And I still do not.

    As I said in the title of my note I just tried to give an alternative 
    view. Which in my book read: this is ALSO possible. Period. 

    I obviously stepped on your toes and I apologise for hurting you.

    Still, pls keep you pity for better use, I do not need it or look for
    it. I've  tried to express this in my PS but my command of English is
    probably not good  enough to properly pass the idea along.

    And if I entered this into Mennotes instead of Womannotes, this was
    EXACTLY what I wanted to do: to talk to men. If and when I'll want to
    talk to women I'll do that through Womannotes, thank you, it sounds
    logic. But again I didn't want to hurt men, just plain talk, is this
    still possible in USofA? 

    Last point I wanted to make: I firmly believe I'm nothing special. I
    live in Italy and  what I see around myself is that there are a lot of
    people getting divorced:  some of them have extreme stories to tell for
    the bad and for the good, many  others (like myself) are just common
    people that try to go through experience  in life with some balance. So
    no martyrs nowhere, just plain people trying to  go on in life with a
    bit of brain still at work.

    I will not reiterate my thoughts in here in the future. I just felt I
    wanted to  add this because if I stepped on your toes, you were not
    that easy also. Not  that it scared me the least bit, though !! ;-)

    If anybody feels like anything of what I wrote can be of any use good,
    otherwise it can go right into the drain. 


    As you say, peace :-)

    graziella

    .21 
    
    No one is pitting you. No one should pitty me either. Just bringing
    this whole issue out of the closet and on to the table to discuss.
    
    Yes, it aint easy being a working parent, a Mom or a Dad... And don't
    worry about stepping on my feet.:) I got my dec safty wing tip shoes
    on.;)
    
    

    ....and there is also this to add... 
    
    My ex told me that she didnt love me, and wanted to leave. She had
    'fallen out of love with me'. Guess it was because I was working two
    jobs, managing two apartments, cause she *wanted* to stay home with our
    daughter. Sure.... Understand. 
    
    So, I asked her where was she running off to. 'I don't know, but I
    will tell you when I get there, and IF you try to stop me, you will
    Never see your daughter again'. So, by most reasons its called parental
    kidnapping. But, because she is mom, these words dont stick. If it was
    Dad.... I would in jail, daugthers face would be plastered on every
    milk carton across the land.... 
    
    So, about two weeks later, I find them... She was shacking up, sorry,
    moved in with a man in Maine in a mobile home. Sounds like a country
    and western song yet? O.K. Try looking at a map, keeping a streigth
    face, and looking for a white moble home, a red VW rabbit with NH
    plates, and a Sears car carrier.
    
    She called the new beau several time before she left, and the calling
    phone number was on the tele bill. So, now you have a 3 digit code that
    covers about 3-4 townships. Anyone have a clue how many white mobile
    homes there are in any given hamlette in Maine??? 
    
    Want to know what its like to drive all night, then go to work in the
    morning? Want to know what it is like to live on less than 2 hours of
    sleep? Men have no feelings about their children? Men are a bunch of
    neaderthals? ... beats me...
    
    

    ... so the happy ending? 
    
    I finally get custody, I loose an apartment building over it all. In
    bankruptcy, and have my health, a roof over my head (an apartment
    building) two house cats.:)
    
    

	To Sue, Graziella, & Peter,

	Your input is welcome and your questions are valid.  Being caught 
	up in the whirlwind of divorce and the aftermath I have found solice
	and valued information in here (Mennotes) and in the NCP conference.
	Some people have come and gone in this notes file because, I feel,
	they cannot take the truth that people like George and others have
	spoken.  I know I couldn't take it at the beginning of my cycle. 
	I found out differently.  I was wrong.  I should have listened.  I 
	feel guilty about not being more proactive in 'fixing' the problem.
	I guess I limit my contribution to 'sharing' my experience and my
	observations.  

	Graziella - I did not take your message as being designed to pity 
	you.  I do think the language difference has hampered you. No matter,
	as I tried to just take your words as a statement of what is. 
	I'm not sure how to answer your questions.  

	Peter - Yes, there are a multitude of reasons why people get divorced
	but what I think others are tring to tell you is that when you get 
	right down to it most (70%) divorces are initiated by the woman yet 
	she inherits *NO* blame, financially or otherwise from that action.
	Yet, despite the moniker 'No-Fault Divorce' the MAN is assumed to 
	have done some or all of the things you listed to cause her to file.
	This assumption is born out time and time again in Divorce court.
	Where is the proof ?  He is assumed guilty and must fight like hell
	to prove he is innocent and that is to *only* get to keep 1/2 of the
	assets and 1/2 (if he's deemed to be a Saint) custody.  

	Sue - Your question/comment about the emotional aspect of Divorce 
	prompted a thought.  If I am allowed a generalization here; I feel 
	that men can and have maintained marriages for reasons other than
	love for the woman he married.  It's just not as important in the 
	grand scheme of things for him.  Women, increasingly, being more 
	emotionally-centric and feeling all the pressures of the world 	
	telling them that they deserve whatever they want NOW, mixed in with
	the fact that their emotional love wanes with her husband, opts out
	of the relationship.  Once gone (and filled elsewhere - and not 
	always another man) it cannot be retreived nor can she seem to come
	to terms with 'less' than what she feels she deserves.  This has been
	a driving force in most women I have talked to when initiating a
	divorce.  Peter - The 'Other' stuff (emotional abuse, physical abuse,
	economic abuse, etc.) all comes out *AFTER* she see's a lawyer.  
	Beleive me.  I know of this firsthand.  And think of this: After the
	divorce doesn't the following occur ?  She's moves the lover into the
	house or moves in with him and flaunts it in your face (can you say
	emotional abuse ?) - She now has you paying 1/3 of your money to her
	to do with what she pleases and rendering you close to insolvent
	(can you say economic abuse ?) and what is the difference ?  The 
	only difference is the marriage contract is over and you have no 
	legal recourse to fight it.  Indeed, the system has put you exactly
	in the supposed reverse place that she filed to get out of !!!!

	I say, to each individual, take responsibilities for your own 
	actions.  If you want out of the marriage and you've chosen to go
	your own way then do so and cut yourself off financially from your
	former spouse - determine the true cost-of-raising your kids and 
	split that cost 50/50.  Responsibilities and time spent with the
	kids should also be split 50/50 *unless* one parent opts not to 
	take his/her 50% and then that's when the financial balance should
	shift.  

	Regards,

	Chuck

    ...agian. Not to step on toes, not to pee off the public.... 
    
    Ever go head to head with and attorney? You have to pay for hers, you
    have to pay for the GAL, and you cannot afford one for yourself? It
    happened to me, as it has to Norman, Fred, and many others. 
    I stood before the marital master, the opposing camps attorney from hell, 
    and had to do a non-emotional, professional, debated, and often heated 
    defence. Its so easy to sit here and tell the war stories as an after
    the fact. Its so easy to say that you could do it, till you stand
    before all, shaking in your shoes, hands trembling, trying not to show
    the fear that exist inside you. Trying to show a professional display
    of facts without getting emotional, poker-faced.....
    
    And when I went up against the GAL's attorney, it was the same thing.
    And you have to smile, you have to have the poker face when its
    necessary, you have to keep your wits about you and be clinical about
    the whole bloody thing. The opposings camps attornies will try to trip
    you up, try to catch you in a lie, or try to trip you into
    contradiction. The ex has a buffer, has a paid mouth piece, you have
    none. You make to much but are forced into economic hardship, and
    affording an attorney is a luxury that cannot be. And a free attorney
    is not afforded because you make to much.....  
    
    And the ex can sit there, crys a tear, and you know that your chances of
    winning diminish because she can cry, and you the man cannot because its 
    a sign of weakness, must take it standing up.
     
    And when the show and tell was done, and you know that you might have
    lost the whole game, walk up to the opposing camps attorney and shake
    their hand in a professional manner. And smile. As underneat you wish
    like hell that killing a$$holes was legal.
    
    I am telling this real life story to all because its such a popular
    thing to bash men. Yet, to be a man today isn't easy as many others
    would be lead believe.
    
    peace
    

        re .26

    ditto, ditto, and ditto.

    There's a saying that every hour spent fishing adds an hour to your
    life.  In this case I figure the stress-related health problems I
    now have will probably take 10 years off my life.  (Not for sympathy,
    I'd still do it again if I had too).

    Going into a place where one small screw-up can cost you years of  work
    and preparation.  Where you have to pitch a no-hitter to win and even
    then there's no guarantee.  Up against trained professionals where
    showing your emotions can get you thrown in jail for contempt.  The
    future of your kids on the line.  It would have been easier to face off
    with six-guns at high noon.  There you'd just be dead if you lost and
    wouldn't have to watch what happened to your kids because of it.
    But todays warriors don't use guns.

    fred();

>    There's a saying that every hour spent fishing adds an hour to your
>    life.  
    
    ... which you've just wasted by going fishing ...
    

    .28 True cause if you were not in the libaries, doing research on the
    topic. If you were not sleeping in the alley, or off looking in
    someplace Maine... Your good as dead... so you shorten your life span
    vs increase...
    
    Another Ron, was asked to leave his house. He was living with his s2bx,
    two children from her casual encounter, and a daughter thru his love.
    He was told to provide support to suport the family of four, even
    though the daughter was his real responsibility. Didn't have enough
    money to live in his car, nor in a motel. Spent is final days on the
    floor of a cellar, on a sleeping bag, till the police got the final
    order to remove him from the celar.... He spent two weeks in his car,
    then went to a local church, where he was looking rather destuted. And
    the minister took him in till he was able to get on his feet. He lost
    40 pounds, which wasnt good for a man who was on the lean side......
    
    The upshot, is he got custody, he now resides in Cal, with his daughter
    and a step son. He was more of a father to the children that were not
    his, than the orginal dads... Guess 70% of all dads are bad....
    
    

    ....another time, this same Ron was told he could not see his daughter.
    His ex told the local police that there was a restraining order against
    him, false acusation. He wanted so badly to see his daughter sing in a
    Christmas pagent. Yet, if he went, he would be tossed in jail even on a
    false charge. it had been said that the local police in Keen would have
    trumped up something.
    
    I wired up Ron with a pocket mini recorder and and extended mike that
    went out of a hole in his pocket and ran up the inside of his shirt, to
    his colar. We went to church to see his daughter. And I was his second
    set of eyes. The reason for the wire was to keep all honest.
    
    So, I stood there, and his ex came in and stood next to me. Not saying
    a word, she left and went across the street to call the police. The
    trap was sprung and I excorted a crying Ron to his car. Leaving a side
    entrance, thru the cold winters night, to his car. We skirted along the
    shadows edge to his car. And left town via back roads. I drove till Ron
    felt strong enough to drive us. An APB was set upon us, and we parked
    in the shadows of the a neighboring town hall, in front of the police
    station. I watched him take a drag from his ciggerett, exaust rose out
    the open window, and we watched them scramble to find a couple of
    rasputians whose knuckes dragged along the frozen ice paths of Keene
    NH. Later we were both told that IF we had been falsely arrested, we
    would have enough money thru a law suit against the town to fund our
    divorce wars. I didn't want to chance it. I could not stand the though
    of being in jail, loosing my job, looking like a criminal that I wasnt.
    
    What did this man do to be denied this simple act to see his daughter
    sing? Why do many custodial moms deny visation so openly and cruely?
    Why are fathers leaving their children behind? I guess perhaps this
    story might help some insight.....
    
    peace
     
    
    
    

    ...this Ron also stood up against his s2bx's attorney. He could not
    afford one either. He wanted custody of his daughter, and because the
    daughter was a gravy train, money attached, the ex fought to keep
    custody. The ex, because there was no child support coming in from the
    two casual contact fathers, dumped the two boys into the care of the
    state of NH. Into a foster home under the pretence that they were
    trouble and she could not handle them. Ron only wanted his daughter.
    And was not able to take custody of the step sons because he was not
    their bio father. 
    
    So, I watched Ron stand up, against the odds, watched him give a non
    emotional case. His hands trembled when he held paper in his hand.
    Other than that his voice was, calm, non emotional, and he smiled when
    he could. The ex's attorney tried several times to do the trip up. And
    yet, he was able to cooly handle it. 
    
    And when the opposing camps attorney caved in, starting to breath fire,
    there was little restraint from the judge towards her as there was
    restraint towards Ron. Ron walked the fire walk, and talked the fire
    talk. And all said and done, was still not close enough to win.
    
    

    ...another night job...
    
    Same Ron had no idea of where the ex lived, this is Illegal for him to
    be denied information of his daughters where abouts. Less there is a
    restraining order, or there is a charge of battering. But non exist.
    So he had a Hint that she lived in Ringe. And we drove around town,
    late hours as so not to be seen. And not to be notices. 9pm runs were
    the hour of the day. Thats when most people figure that tv and sleep
    were top of the days order.
    
    He had a topical graphical map of the town and we drove every other
    night around these streets looking. We would take turns driving. The
    spotter would wear a black cloth over his face to aclimate his eyes to
    the darkness. And when it was time, would remove the mask and we would
    drive with the passangers side head light covered. 
    
    Ron would maybe get visitation of his daughter on a weekend, over night
    at the Nashua Mall. And weekends he was denied, we went out. So, about
    two months after cruzing we found them. But we needed to get a positive
    id on it. And this time we had to walk the street because too much
    traffic would bring attention. Some hunting sprays of swam masked us
    against the barking dogs. We took along dog biskets to feed them if we
    pass any outside. 
    
    Finally we walked down the public road, and with field glass's, and
    cammara, we were able to positively run a plate and number to figure
    this was the place. This is all we wanted to do, was to make sure that
    the child was in a proper house. And that she was in state someplace.
    
    Again, if we were cought, its the big house for us both.....
    
    

   George,
   
   re: .32

>>    Again, if we were cought, its the big house for us both.....

   Why was that?  You've stated that there were no charges of abuse and
   no restraining order... what "crime" did you commit by driving on
   public roads and looking at stuff like cars?
   
   curiously,
   
   - Tom
   

    Big house. Jail. the pokie, gray barmotel.:)
    
    What crimes commited? Gee, one can say stalking, one can also say
    horrasment, how about loitering? There is a bunch of stuff you can get
    your hand slapped for. Just as Ron and self were just one step ahead of
    the Keene police on a trumped up false restraining order, you Just dont
    want to have it hanging on your head. The oppoising camp, as well as
    many of the people who feel that men is born with sin would wave the
    finger at us during our stand-up routines in court, and this would be a
    trip up use against us by the opposing camps attorney. False or other
    wise, we would be trying to defend ourselves in front of the judge vs
    attacking the real issues in court. Like being denied visitation, or in
    my case, proving that the ex had a pet-a-file(sp) living with my
    daughter. 
    
    Norman was falsely arrested but the City of Manchester police dept.
    Three times he had them waiting for him at his apartment. Three times
    he had an aliby, he was having dinner with his parents who lived in
    another town. Three times he was found NOT GUILTY of charges. Yet,
    Attorney Pat Murphy would use this against him in his stand-up in
    court. Its a pain in the ass to try to keep Murphy on course. For she
    would take the whole thing down a rat hole and then all issues would be
    postponed for another time. You have a desinated time, pre-arranged.
    One hour, two hours... etc. And you have to stay inside that time.
    Otherwise a continance would have to be issued. And for Norm, it might
    be another 6 months before he gets a chance to bring up the non
    visation issues again. Murphy purposedly would do this to keep Norm
    from seeing his daughter. She hates the Fathers United group. Because
    these men, who did their homework would beat her sometimes. And there
    was some sort of personal vengence she war she was wadging against him.
    Using the system to hide behind.
    
    

    
    Once again this looks like a good case to be able to file your own
    papers for contempt.  If you have a legitimate case and good evidence,
    make her defend her actions in court.  At the very least you will serve
    notice that you aren't going to put up with the b.s., and sooner or
    later she'll get tired of paying an attourney to defend such actions.
    
    The court proceedures and laws are differen for every state, but start
    by looking up the sections on "civil contempt".  The clerk of the 
    courts cannot give you advice on law or the judge, but they can, and
    don't let them tell you they can't, give information on forms and
    proceedures of fileing.  Also the rules of pro-se (defending  yourself)
    say that you cannot lose a case simply because you did not file the
    right forms in the right format.  The judge must give you the correct
    proceedure and give you a chance to correct any errors. 
    
    fred();

   I'd have trouble swallowing harrassment and stalking... I thought
   those had something to do with following someone and bothering them...
   it sounds to this listener like you two spent most of your time being
   anywhere *except* around the person you were trying to find.  I'm at a
   loss to see how it could be harrassment or stalking when you were most
   often somewhere else than the person in question...
   
   As far as loitering, well, that's a possibility, but even then someone
   would have to really be a @#$@#$ to try that one.  I would think that
   loitering involved a decent amount of time in one place doing
   nothing.. again, not what you described.
   
   But, you've already stated that some folks really don't want to make
   it easy, or even possible...
   
   peace,
   
   - Tom

    With Norm, he has filed contempts, and won, and still he has to file a
    contempt on the contempt. And this is a pain in the rear! I don't know
    where he is with his case. He had been giving mortgage money to his ex
    to pay for the mortgage on the house. She blew him off in bankruptcy,
    she spent the mortgage money and Norm had to face the gang in
    bankruptcy court this time. 
    
    Tom,
    
    With the sort of stuff that you dont want to get cought at.. Take this
    into account. Norms ex did a 'keep him away from me!!' and thru a
    temper tantrum in the court halls. And of course, the bailif was ready
    to cuff the dude just because he was standing down the hall from her.
    
    Norm had his truck set on fire, his mail tampered with, and the ex
    works for the post office, his phone has been tampered with, Norm has
    tried getting the police involved. But they say its a marrital matter.
    And he hasnt been married in a number of years. Its like the french man
    who was made to wear womans clothing, sit on a donkey, and paraded thru
    the streets because he could not keep his ex wife in line.
    
    The reality of it all is that there is no justice in court, and If you
    have allot of money, you might be able to get off a murder rap. But,
    most of us are not, and most of us have to work our 40 hour jobs to pay
    for the attorney. And if we get tossed into jail, you will loose your
    attorney. 
    
    

    
    re .37

>    With Norm, he has filed contempts, and won, and still he has to file a
>    contempt on the contempt. And this is a pain in the rear! I don't know
>    where he is with his case.

    It's easy to get discouraged with the courts in contempt cases.  You
    may have to go in more than once to get anything done.  That's why it
    is better to know how to file yourself rather than pay a lawyer $1000 a
    pop.  Yes it's a pain in the rear, but sooner or later the court will
    take action. If there is anything a judge doesn't like is someone not
    following is orders.  Particularly if they've already been held in 
    contempt for it before.  If you do it right, every denial of visitation 
    and every additional contempt will be one more nail in _her_ coffin. 
    Sooner or later she'll hear the bars clang behind her.  The judge will
    find her much less credible and be much less sympathetic to her cause.

    There is also a thing called a "directed order".  Which is basically
    a _direct order_ from the judge saying "I said do it, and I mean it".
    A directed order is usually pretty easy to get, and if you violate one 
    of those, judges tend to get really bent out of shape.  First file for 
    directed order, then file for contempt of the directed order if she 
    doesn't comply.  

    fred();

    Norm is filing all the stuff himself. I havent talked to Norm in a
    while. He is still venting. I have had to put some space between many
    of the gang and myself because I felt out of sorts. I could not get
    over my own pain. And time and distance did the trick. See, you have to
    get on with life. I did my part for them, I was asked to help two other
    men. I think I have helped a dozen or so. Sometimes, you must remember
    that the best revenge is to live a good live, and prosper afterwards.
    You have to get strong again and I felt that I wasn't. So, I will do
    other things for a while. Like stick my neck out and tell people what
    it was like. Tell them the pain, and heartburn of it. Fred is right, I
    could fill a bloody book. See, man is born with sin, and every day it
    seems we have our nose rubbed into it. Like a cat or dog that missed
    the papers. And when you step in front of the judge, the fieces is
    all over your face again. 
    
    More? I can fill this bloody disk if you want. How about some guy who
    use to go home to his wife, afer a good days work, and he would get his
    nightly beating from his wife. She was taking martial arts. And he took
    his life over it, because the Exeter police refused to help him out.
    Perhaps, he should have been dressed in drag, and taking for a ride
    thru the streets on an ass because he could defend himself....
                                                                  

    The main reason why we went out to Ringe to find Rons ex and daughter
    was that IF she didn't show up, she might be on the lamb (bolted, taken
    off to parts of the country unknown to us). And a drive by once in a
    while to see if the curtains were hanging in the windows were the acid
    test. No door bell ringing, no phone call horrassing, just make certain
    she and daugher were still in state. Documenting denied visitations,
    documenting that she was here last, maybe she will leave a trace of
    where she will be next sorta stuff. When you bolt, you can never leave
    an empty trail. There is always a scrap of info left behind, in the
    trash, on the floors, with the phone company...... 
    
    Things like this still give me the woolies.. I sit and wonder when the
    ex has my daughter if she will return with her or not. For the longest
    time after I gained custody, I had a packed suit case, with clothing,
    military issued foods, film, etc... incase she took off and I could go
    after them at a moments notice. It was a number of years later I was
    able to unpack the suit case..... still, when the are late,..... I pace 
    the floors like an expected father... wondering.......if this time....
    
    

George,

You should write a book.  (but make sure you have a
spell-checker ;-)

Stories like yours make me lose sleep sometimes.

tim

    Thanks! Promise to have the spell checker.:) 

    
    Ciao,
    I respect you for entering your story into Mennotes. It's good that we 
    see both sides of this issue.
    I'd like to also hear from the Custodial Moms out there who have 
    intentionally skipped town with our children. I wonder if they know the
    pain and anguish they cause their own children just trying to get even
    with the former spouse.
    Ciao, the things you said that make parenting difficult like getting 
    up early to get them ready for school etc.  I would gladly do all those 
    things just to be with my children. It would bring me great joy!
    You sound like a good responsible Mother! If only more were like you.
                                           Bill                         

    ... get them up to go to school, read them a bed time story, teach them
    to ride a bike, help them thru their first school crush, be there when
    life has its good and bad moments, be there when they finish school, or
    when they someday have their own children. For many dads, wind up as a
    distant uncle, or worse, a vision to never be known but as a figure in
    a scrap book of pictures.... 
    
    

    
    There was a friend of my wife and I who died a few years back.  His
    name was Carl Smith.  Known to everyone as Smitty.  Smitty is high
    on the list of the nicest, most respectable men I have had the 
    honor to know.  A couple years before, Smitty had been sitting on
    his front porch when a car stopped in front of his house.  A tall
    man in his mid forties got out and came up to the house, and asked
    "Are you Carl Smith", Smitty answered, "Yes who wants to know"?
    The man replied, "I'm your son".

    So bitter had Smitty's wife been that she so poisoned the children
    to the point that it had been over forty years before his son had
    came to find him.  Smitty had given up trying to have any contact
    with them because of the hatred he faced every time he tried.  They 
    lived in the same state, and Smitty had always lived in the same town, 
    and the same house, so he wasn't that hard to find.

    They came to his funeral.  The son,  a daughter that he hadn't seen
    since she was a child, and several grand-children he had never seen.
    The tragedy was not only what Smitty missed out on because of this
    woman's hate, but what the children and grandchildren missed.  They 
    missed a lot.
    
    fred();

    Well, what can I say? I've been deeply touched by all the stories
    entered up to now but in particular by notes .43 which put in simply my
    very thought when I finally decided to end my marriage.
    
    At a certain point in time I felt really trapped into my soon to be
    single mother of two life and all the troubles I could foresee. After
    quite some think and re-think I finally realized that, regardless of
    any other implication, it was indeed in my power to fly away only by
    myself. So I realized that I was not forced into that decision by a
    higher power but it was in my power to make a well-thought decision.
    
    And I ended up thinking that no matter what future will present me
    with, I'll never do anything which could imply myself separating from
    the kids due to my own choice. After that this specific aspect of the
    choice I was going to make (wether to stay or leave, basically) was all
    set, no regrets no nothing.
    
    The only thing that I meant by writing the less amusing part of being a
    single parent of two, was to basically say that it is not a bed of
    roses all the time.
    
    But I believe this is useless to say.
    
    For what concerns the horror stories, what can i say. It might be
    because of the kind of my friends/acquaintances, or maybe because of
    myself being misinformed, naive or whatelse, or maybe because of the
    Italian society being less extreme that the american of today. I DUNNO. 
    
    As a matter of fact I definetely knew of bad stories happening, but *IN
    MY DIRECT EXPERIENCE* this is kind of seldom and I tend to see these
    stories as one of the two extremes of a given spectrum. And I believe
    more into looking into average than extreme. Still keeping in mind that
    extreme may indeed happen.
    
    Again, what can i say? The stories George, fred() and others told are
    definetely horror stories (and TO ME they fall into the extreme
    category). It seems TO ME that you people are involved in some sort of
    supporting men network.
    
    So my HONEST question to you is:
    
    do you think that what you saw and experienced is somehow more focused
    on the true stories chapter but still into the extreme side, or do you
    honestly think that majority of cases end up being horror stories
    anyhow?
    
    Let me say, absolutel no offence implied, that if the answer is the
    second one, I feel more and more right in thinking that USofA is a
    truely interesting and beautiful place to visit AS A TURIST but, thank
    you, I'd rather live on this side of the pond.
    
    ciao
    graziella (call me Alice in Wonderland, I feel like that quite often
    anyhow)

    These stories, are as much a part of America as driving Fiats are in
    your side of the pond. I think that your out of touch of what is
    happening here and it is showing very much.
    
    

re .0

salve graziella, mi ha fatto molto piacere di leggere le tue notizie!
purtroppo, mi pare che ci siano gente in questo file chi non hanno ancora
capito niente! (excuse my poor italian grammar :-)

[translation: hello graziella, i was very happy to read your note!
unfortunately it seems, that there are still people in this file which
haven't yet learned!]


you've started a great discussion here graziella, thank you so much.

having only read the base note so far, i'll say this much:

being a 'walking wallet' is cool! it's THE VERY LEAST and SIMPLEST
a non-custodial parent can do to contribute to the upbringing of 
his child. ideally, being a 'walking wallet' comes at the BOTTOM 
of a long long list of efforts.

don't be fooled. divorce is rarely easy and the so called good, reasonable
ex'es (which everyone whishes they had had) are THE VAST MAJORITY once the 
non-custodial parents learns to
- put the concern for the children's well-being FIRST and FOREMOST, 
  and thereby to
- put pride and ego behind,
- work out a strategy on how to get close to the children,
- realise that the ex as the custodial parent is the SINGLE and BIGGEST 
  INFLUENCE on the children,
- implement the strategy with all necessary patience and REASON, even 
  if this means to
- swallow the blows BELOW THE BELT which the 'self-possesed' ex is 
  still dealing out liberally,
- not involve the children in the post-divorce quarreling and bickering,
- never to talk bad about the ex infront of the children, the children
  have a NEED to honour BOTH their parents! (if the ex doesn't know this
  yet, the realisation of this will dawn one day.)
- cope with the loss, pain, frustration, anger and feelings of guilt and 
  helplessness when the children seem so out of reach and when all good 
  efforts appear to be in vain,
- look for and be reassured by the little signs of progress, 
- not expect too much at once, 
- stay with the strategy and implement it one step at a time,
- be patient,
- think,
- forgive,
- BE patient,
- take an interest in the ex'es life,
- try at least to be patient,
- rekindle links with the ex'es family,
- listen and forgive,
- give the children full attention in the moments spent with them
  and not to let them know how difficult it is to get back to a 
  normal relationship with them,
- caringly and honestly explain why mummy and daddy can't live 
  together any longer,
- ensure the children understand it is NOT THEIR FAULT that their
  parents no longer live together,
- reassure the children that BOTH parents love them,
- LIVE the love for the children.
of course, with all this, not to forget to send that monthly pay-check.


all the rest follows. 

the ex will turn out to be a nice ex and the way to the children
will be wide open and unlimited. it may take years and one day others 
will say: "now isn't this a lucky bugger, whish i had had a nice ex 
like that!"


this reply is not directed at you, graziella. it is directed at 
whoever feels the NEED TO WHINE about being reduced to being 
a walking wallet! 

to put it mildly, i am a tad cynical of non-custodial parents who
go about doing this: being merely a walking wallet is NOTHING!
if you want to be considered just a walking wallet then it's
about time you get your back-side into gear and learn to be just
a bit more than just a walking wallet.


learn to be a walking wallet willingly. you will get a full heart 
in return. and that's cool!




andreas.

    re .48 
    
    After reading your reply, I can only come to three conclusions.
    
    1) You have never been divorced, at least in the US of A
    
    2) You are a woman ;)
    
    3) Give me some of what you are taking because I want to live in Disney
    too ;)
    
    

Andreas is not a woman, but neither does he live in the US.  Still, I agree
with what he says in terms of it being what you should strive for.  Many
divorced couples manage to achieve this goal, but many others do not.

				Steve

    Andreas thinks many of us US men are neanderthals. We cannot pee on a
    flat rock without getting our feet wet. Yet, you can try if you wish. I
    have worked at this game too. Trying to do whats best for my daughter.
    Seems the game is still a one way street. Wish ol Andreas could come
    sleep in a car with some of the gang I have met. Perhaps sleep on a
    couch, or in a tent along the Merrimack. But, this seems to be just a
    whine with that wine.
    

    May this one ask why "united dads" or whatever, don't take these guys
    in off the streets and house them in their own homes?
    
    Meg, who has done her share of sheltering people who have been peeed on
    by the system.

    George,
    
    I know you've had it bad, and other men have had it worse than you.  
    But, not all women are bad or out to see men suffer.  I hope that 
    with the passage of time you'll come to see that.
    
    I don't want to speak for Andreas, because neither you nor I know
    how he thinks, but perhaps he was trying to soften the blow for
    Graziella.  Whether you intended it or not (and I'm sure you didn't), 
    you were rough on her.
    
    Sue
                                           

    Many of these men have tried to get help from big orgs like the United
    Way. And the responce has been a big no. And there is other groups who
    feel that these men would take away from a limited fun from the
    goverment and so they are where they are. They are in the cracks.
    Federal monies and block grants are not slotted for working men who
    make more than x amount of money. This is why many cannot get free
    lawyers like their ex's, or why there is no relief for them
    financially. They are cornered into these spots because the attornies,
    the system, and others WANT them there. It makes it easy to carve with
    your knives, them into small pieces.
    

    George,
    
    Let me try rephrasing this again.
    
    Are you and yur friends actively working to get these men off the
    streets?  Winter is fast setting in.
    
    meg

    I am not. Would you like to help?
    

    I have taken in two men, one at a time during the divorce games. I am
    not able to at present because I have my daughter. And it is just a two
    bedroom abode.
    

    Sue, 
    
    No, I did not say this about women being evil. I am just making point
    that if you Have not walked the walk. You cannot really talk the talk.
    And I know a bunch of them who have. Andrie has no clue, but to snub us
    neanderthal men. And .0, am not trying to step on her toes either. Just
    making fact that there are others out here who are not as vocal as I
    am. And IF you wish. I will be more than happy to introduce you to some
    of them.
    

    Sue,
    
    I had it easy compaired to some of the others. I had it very very easy. 
    I am not an angry father, or an angry man. this is like saying that if
    your a woman, and you have to put it out on the line saying that your a
    bitch. No! Your just doing what has to be done or said. As I am trying
    to convay.
    
    Peace

    George,
    
    You make the point that unless someone has been thru it, they cannot 
    possibly know what it's like.  That's absolutely true.
    
    But also, everyone has a story to tell, and you have no idea what 
    Andreas knows or has experienced, so I take exception to you saying 
    "he has no clue".  You don't know him.  
    
    This is supposed to be a forum for intelligent discussion, isn't it
    ...so how about some suggestions on how to make things better, instead
    of always the same negativity over and over?!  People tune that out...
    
    Sue 

re .49


check out 117.53 and check out WHAT'S COMING!





andreas.

re .53


>   how he thinks, but perhaps he was trying to soften the blow for
>   Graziella.  Whether you intended it or not (and I'm sure you didn't), 
>   you were rough on her.


sue, spot on!
    


andreas.

george,


i have learned the hard way and had it not been for a supportive mate at
the time, a reluctant and shrewd attorney, and most of all, the enormous
miscalculations by my ex, i'd be well gone by now.


first off, i have something to get off my chest. 

fasten your seat belt.


SET /FLAME=ON

let's get one thing straight soldier: as a custodial parent you are
hardly qualified to sit in front row and TALK FOR ME, a non-custodial 
parent. i've D*MNED well "walked the fire walk" and "talked the fire talk". 
moreover, i know SH*T STREET INSIDE OUT AND I DON'T NEED YOU PISSING DOWN 
ON ME for the outcome of my TOIL, SWEAT AND TEARS!

SET /FLAME=OFF



thanks. i feel better now.


having gotten this over with, let's get down to some real talk.


i've now read this string and you are right. the system IS against us
men and we're quick to be removed in hand-cuffs because they think of 
us as neanderthals. AND NOT JUST IN THE US OF A. as i see it, you got a 
cushy number over there in the US, you're downright CIVILISED compared 
to where i hail from: in switzerland, at the time, the ONLY way under 
the law for me to get custody was to proove that my ex was MENTALLY INSANE! 
go figure my chances. [at the time that was the ONLY ground on which the 
man would get custody of the children. in the meantime the law has changed 
a bit and we're adjusting to more civilised standards - that was F*** ALL 
use to me at the time when i went through the mill though]


talking of war stories. you're right. when a man, moving in a hostile 
environment, is faced with the risk of getting clinically and brutally
severed off from his kids, you're talking WAR and you're well advised 
to look at the conflict in military terms.


in this light, your help for other men is commendable, george. but had
i gone about it the way you describe in your war stories i would have
ended in a dead end street. it's ineffective, imprudent and downright 
irresponsible. in order to gather the intelligence material which you 
need to stay in this war, with your approach of covert actions in the 
cover of night, you're spending hours on end shivering, you end up catching
pneumonia, have a low yield at best and risk being picked up and thrown
into jail, lose your job and end up on the scrap heap as a consequence.


men who've been to war don't talk of war easily. and i've d*mned well 
been through it and have learned the hard way.


consider the prehistory 
- the ex in england getting an injunction order on me so that i can't 
  see my kids (on NO GROUNDS other than my having punched my fists against
  the walls in DESPAIR until the walls are covered in blood).
- a court and a police force in britain which are not free of nationalistic
  bigotry and which are quick to act on some phony injunction and to dismiss 
  a FUMING FOREIGN NEANDERTHAL. [the country doesn't exist where there is 
  a police force free of nationalistic bigotry!]
- an ex dictating the conditions of divorce to me under the most ARCHAIC
  LAWS in MY COUNTRY, switzerland, THAT'S where we had to divorce, that's 
  where it was surest for the ex to expect SAFE CUSTODY and ROYAL FINANCIAL 
  REWARDS (at least that's what her greedy attorney had her belief!)


having had the kids withheld from me for all of eight months i have no
choice but to consent to the divorce trial under these preconditions and 
to grind my teeth in the process. I HAVE TO GOT TO GET TO SEE MY KIDS!

as it turns out later on in the trial, the injunction order which had withheld 
me from the kids turned out to be toothless and i had been coerced into the
divorce trial needlessly simply because i was too enraged ever to THINK!

the deed is done, the trial has started.

consider the odds. it wasn't a case of facing off one-to-one at high noon.
it was a case of facing piles of lies, a greedy attorney, an archaic law
giving all rights to the woman, a socialist judge ('bad news, woman-friendly')
and too much work and stress and too little time to face this show-down.
it was a case of one rifle against the big guns of the system. nukes all over,
ready to blast the hell out off you.

in the first session i took them on all alone and overconfident and scr*wed 
up royally. the ex'es attorney is piling up a stack of lies and then asks
that i do not get to see my children for the NEXT TWO YEARS. i lost my cool, 
i struggled with remaining calm, i shot my fires. the judge smiled at me. 
in all likelyhood he had rarely seen such a ridiculous defence.

the first round behind me, i went to get a credit, an attorney (to heck with 
the cost, this is REAL) and NOW started THINKING about my odds.

it now became clear that this was not just a case of facing the hostile
ex. it was a case of facing the might of the system behind her; a gigantic 
arsenal of weaponry which is all directed against you the minute you make 
the wrong move.

soldier THINK. you're fighting for your life. your life is worthless without 
your kids. FACE the facts and PLAN how you're going to get to them. the
only thing which was clear is that life without my children was meaningless
and that this was going to be a long long struggle.

i got to work on the strategy of this war between UNEQUALS. 

FIRST, contain the the damage already done. PLAY BY THE RULES, lull the 
enemy into a sense of security.

SECOND, offer no front where you can be attacked. your means of retaliating 
in kind are limited to non-existant. you'd stand no chance.

THIRD, use the only weapon you have: INTELLIGENCE. GATHER intelligence.
attack and confuse the 'enemy' when you have the maximum measure of surprise. 
do what is completely UNEXPECTED. be generous, be kind. hide your feelings 
and swallow your pride. this is the quickest, most effective, most terrible
and most calculated way to get into the lion's den. the war now becomes
a cold war as you gather documentation for the eventual stand-off.

the dispute in court is the tip of the iceberg. and what use is any gain
by the law in MY FAVOUR in my country when that law cannot or can only with 
a lengthy procedure be enforced in the country in which my ex lives in!

my odds to get to where i wanted were considerable.

what THIS one soldier has learned is this. the most lethal weapon is a man
disconnected from his kids relying on nothing but intelligence to get back
to them. fortunately, in time, as the image gathered by intelligence becomes 
larger, as the kids draw closer by the fruits of the effort, the man becomes 
human again and there is no longer need for war.

my ex an i have come along way on this, despite of the difficulties and 
the distance between our two countries. my ex wife still lives in england
with our children. i visit them every month. i spend an inordinate amount
of money on phone bills and we all spend our vacations together. the
future and the possibilities on how this will continue are wide open.
there are no obstacles that my ex now puts in the way.

i also recognise that i wouldn't have come this far had the odds against 
me not been so considerable from the outset. this was not a friendly divorce.
i couldn't have gone through all this without the help of many women and men.
needless to say that anyone who is willing to help, recognising that for a 
man, fighting for his kids is not a piece of cake, has my deepest respect.

we really need to change this sick system together, men and women, and the 
implications of this are far reaching.


thanks for listening,

andreas.

    Sue, I'm sure you don't think that George is not speaking from 
    intelligence.  Your comment suggests that.  George is speaking from
    truth as he knows it.  I have also seen many a guy get the boot while
    the whining wife never stops taking from him until he either splits
    and looses everything he worked for or he does something desperate.
    The point is, the man is usually the one that is put out because he is
    considered the only person who should be the financial responsible person
    for the children.  What happens to the man when his home and family now
    have another man living there, the place that if it were not for him,
    they would not have.  He does not get gratatude, just demands.  So, as
    George says, until you have walked the walk, you really can't talk the 
    talk.  Sure, some men don't get a raw deal and some women do get a raw
    deal.  But the plain simple fact is that most of the time, the man gets
    more than his share of the financial burden while the woman meets
    another man either before the split up or shortly after and the
    children do not receive the total benifits of the fathers financial
    contribution.  I could get into more detail of what I have seen but I
    have too much work to do.
    
    Dom

    Dom,
    
    I know that; I don't disagree with anything you said!!
    
    Sue

have you ever thought about why guys seem to be getting
the rough side of the deal in divorce trials?





andreas.

    
    
    
    
    
    re .67
                                                                           
    Sure, I know why.  The woman can kick you out of the house anytime
    she feels like it and you can't do a damn thing.  She does not even
    have to have a valid reason.  Your problem is that you think that
    because she is a woman, she will not do anything wrong. Remember, the man 
    is always wrong. If he realizes this and bends over backwards and hands
    her over everything that she wants and asks for because she has had a 
    child with him, someday, she will start treating him like a human being.  
    As a matter of fact, she can kick you out and then have you pay her bills 
    so she can live there whith whom ever she wants and its totally legal here 
    in the good old US of A.  People are people, good and bad, you have to
    take each case differently because the people in it are different. 
    Somehow, the laws of this greate country seem to focus in one
    direction, for the actions of the minority.  In other words, alot of
    laws that have been created in this country IMHO were created to
    protect the few and not considering the effects of the mass.
    
    I agree with you on one point, keep the kids out of this, it sounds
    like your X did not have the same sense as yourself by keeping you 
    away from them for so long.  I just think your advise is totally out of
    touch, the parents should be both held financially responsible.  The
    custodial parent should be expected to work and if the CP gets another
    mate, that income should be considered.  Remember, the CP may have been
    responsible for the breakup in the first place by already having
    another mate in mind ect.  This happens alot, because the breadwinner
    was too busy working his A*S off to support his family in the first
    place and was not home enough to keep the family together.
    

    I wonder what the judge is going to do to me on Dec.21 ? I am alone
    in the 4 bedroom home while my wife and 2 children live in a 2 
    bedroom apartment. She realized she couldn't afford to stay in the 
    house so she got the apartment. We split all home furnishings, the cars
    and I gave her half of the known cash assets. We have worked out an
    agreement where I can keep the house ( may want to sell, waiting for
    divorce outcome ) until my 10 year old finishes high school. I give 
    her the amount she requested for child support and we agree on the
    other details. She told me the child support amount is what her lawyer
    said would be fair. Neither of us is getting screwed in the deal, we
    both can financially survive. Does anyone think the judge will try to
    f*** things up for us ? I do.
    
    Mike 

re .68

>                                I just think your advise is totally out of
>   touch, the parents should be both held financially responsible.  

dom, of course both parents should be held financially responsible. in all 
normal cases that is, where both parents had been in work before the split up.
exceptional cases need special attention. eg. where one parent is tied to the 
home due to sickness of a child demanding full-time attention, or where there
are pre-school children involved or in transitional periods where one of the 
parents needs to reenter the working life after a long absence.

i've never said anything to the contrary. i'd go a step further and say that 
it should become the norm for both parents to share custody aswell. not just
the financial burden.


>                                            Remember, the CP may have been
>   responsible for the breakup in the first place by already having
>   another mate in mind ect.  

'responsibility for the breakup' is a sticky issue. in my experience courts
aren't really intersted in this one as in more than 90% of cases the 
responsibility goes to both.



andreas.

re .69


your note makes a nice change mike to the misery reported in here; much of
which is quite unnecessary if you ask me.

if her lawyer is good (ie. knows the guide-lines and limitations) then 
i don't see why the judge should rule against the agreement which the two 
of you have come to.

good luck to the both of you.



andreas.

re .63, what a pathetic note!

    Hi George,
    
    RE: Note 194.47 

    >>These stories, are as much a part of America as driving Fiats are in
    >>your side of the pond. I think that your out of touch of what is
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>happening here and it is showing very much.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    (Emphasys is mine, of course)
    
    In my reading (and of course I might be wrong) this spells something
    like: "You don't have a clue, therefore pls shut up"

    This is not the first time it happens and it is one of main reasons
    that sent  me back to be a read-only noter whenever I've tried to post
    anything.

    Given that I'm reading files like mennotes/womannotes (for quite
    sometime indeed - I've been working at DIGITAL for 17 years now) to
    UNDERSTAND something that I might very well be out of touch from ...
    what should I do to feel entitled to partecipate to the discussions?
    Should I pass a test maybe? Where is the questionnaire? Who is gonna
    give me the blessing? YOU ????

    Having said that I also would like to add that George noting style,
    although very personal, does not bother me the least bit. I'd
    appreciate it more though, to be presented with information more than
    with private nightmares even if they are shared by a big network of
    men. By that I mean: how the laws work, which is the process and so on.
    
    Also, unless American men and women do not belong to the same human
    race I and the other people that I know do, I still believe that the
    same story has usually more than one side. Instead of moaning over and
    over about how mistreated men X, Y and Z have been (by now I guess I
    understood the stories), I'd really appreciate somebody stepping out
    and saying something along the lines of "So and so happened to me and
    that has been hell, but if I had done this and that maybe things would
    have happened in a different way". Maybe, of course, just maybe. And
    pls believe me I DO NOT MEAN THE LEAST BIT TO INVALIDATE THE ACTUAL
    STORIES. 
    
    I'm still chewing on what I read in the previous postings, and I'm very
    happy that more voices entered the  conversation. I'll post my own
    thoughts later on I guess

    Ciao
    graziella

graziella,


thanks for sticking around!

the fact of the matter is that us men are often a pretty hopeless bunch 
when communicating over this medium and particularly on the tricky
subjects of divorce, wallett, the ex'es SO and so on. it is easier to 
wallow in self-pity, make snide remarks or to cultivate some imaginary 
enemy (and to thereby justify an anger).

don't ask us to be self-critical we've got it tough enough! ;-)

kidding aside, there are definitely different dynamics involved with
men-men, women-women, and intergender discussions. i've researched this
theme quite a bit this year (in two notes files) and am happy to post
pointers or a synopsis if you're interested.


and don't give up on us, graziella, your input is needed in here!



salutone,

andreas.

>>    Note 194.73     Dads and walking wallets .. an alternative view?       
>>    73 of 74
>>    DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have"     1 line  
>>    8-NOV-1995 18:41
>>                                       -< WOW! >-
    
>>    re .63, what a pathetic note!
    
    
    
>>    Note 194.63     Dads and walking wallets .. an alternative view?       
>>    63 of 74
>>    DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have"  163 lines  
>>    8-NOV-1995 09:21
>>                                  -< soldierly talk >-
    
    
    Andreas, did you make a mistake here?  You replied to your own note...
    
    Lets face it folks, we all have different situations in our personal
    lives that create long lasting impressions.  Obviously some of us have
    had worse situations than others.  Some of us have come out of our 
    relationships scared due to situations beyond our controls and
    obviously have an opinion.  If you were/are lucky enough to have a XSO
    that was not trying to ruin your life and put the screws to you big
    time than thats greate, it does'nt happen all the time.
    
    
    re .69  Mike, your soon to be XSO must respect you and sounds like a 
    decent intelligent human being.  She could have had you removed and
    taken at least 36% of your gross pay for child support and then had you
    also pay the mortgage and taxes ect.  I ought to know, I did for over 2
    years...  The judge will usually go with the divorce agreement that you
    and your XSO have agreed to unless he feels that it is unfair. 
    Remember, she can bring you back to court anytime in the future as long
    as the kids are still in the her care.  You need to be there in front
    of the judge in order for the divorce to be granted.  You should also
    be reviewing the divorce decree to make sure that it is something you
    can live with.   Please let us know what happens.
    
    
    Anyways, lets not forget that everyones situation is different when it
    comes to divorce and everyone should do what is best for all, but that
    is not always the case.  The laws seem to be unfair when it comes to
    MEN, they have a hard time with obtaining custody even though they may
    actually be a better parent and can provide a better environment and
    they usually get stuck with most of the financial burden.  I think the 
    fair thing to do would be joint custody in all cases, except when either 
    partner is abusive and split the financial obligations for the child
    support.  If this were to happen, I think you would see alot less
    divorce.
    
    Dom 

    re .75 
    
>>    the fact of the matter is that us men are often a pretty hopeless bunch
>>    when communicating over this medium and particularly on the tricky
>>    subjects of divorce, wallett, the ex'es SO and so on. it is easier to
>>    wallow in self-pity, make snide remarks or to cultivate some imaginary
>>    enemy (and to thereby justify an anger).
    
    
    Andreas, I hope you don't think that you speek for all men, hopefully 
    just yourself ;)
    
    I for one find your generalization of men to be humourious, but then
    again, it is probably a reflection of who you are and how you have
    delt with situations in the past.  I for one promote communication and
    believe in equality.  You can give your view points and we can give
    ours.  Its too bad you have such a poor opinion of MEN.  For the most
    part, MEN have contributed alot to this world both in PEACE and WAR.
    MEN have created many magnificent things in the past and are still 
    doing it today and will in the future. 

re .76


dom, .73 was intentional and another way of saying 'glad i put some
distance behind this thing'.

i haven't much to add to what you write other than saying that i firmly
believe that every point of view counts. george's, mine, yours, graziella's
and even that of our ex'es. though the ex'es can still in cases send tempers 
flaring. i understand that.




andreas.

ps. now let's get back into the play.... real shame you picked up that
    little trap which i had set up for george! >;-) :-)

    I will really stir things up here and ask "why?"  Why do you think
    men are, in many cases, given the short end of the stick in divorce 
    situations where children are involved?
    
    Ok...ready guys...could this situation have developed because our
    society is, and always has been, a patriarchical society, with women 
    as second class citizens, to be kept at home, "barefoot & pregnant"
    as some would say, to be "taken care of" by men?  When courts find
    in favor of mothers could it be the old mindset that we have to 
    take care of mothers/children who are now alone in the cruel world
    with no husband/father to take care of them?  
    
    To generalize .... could the situation be, in fact, the fault of 
    the men who've always "been in charge"?
         
    ...just trying to stimulate conversation on this quiet Friday.
    
    Sue
    
    ps I didn't say anything about my opinions of this subject.  I'm just 
       posing the question.

    Sue,
    
    your not implying that the oppression of women hurts men too are
    you?(;-)
    
                                       patricia
    
    

    I'm a little confused, can you explain to me how we (ALL) men today are
    oppressing (ALL) you woman.  Or do you mean that some men are
    oppressing women... 

    Perhaps its the fact that in the 1968 elections. Most of the voting
    public were women, and voted men off to Viet Nam?

    There is a systemic oppression of women that goes on.  All women are
    subject to it.
    
    It is the subconcious or unconcious things that happen.   
    
    All men who are not part of fixing the problem are part of the problem. 
    
    
    What is more subtle but is clearly evident hear is that there is also a
    systemic oppression of men.  Fixing the problem of the oppression of
    women will fix the problem of the oppression of men as well.
    
    The way it plays itself out for example is that men have a clear
    advantage in the work force.  Statistics will tell you that on average
    women make less than men.  On average, there are many many more men in
    higher positions than women.
    
    The same set of subconscious assumptions that give the man the
    advantage in the workforce gives the woman the advantages in child
    custody cases.  The assumptions that men perform, protect, and provide,
    and that women nurture and care for children play themselves out in the
    oppression of both women and men.
    
    On average women are encourage not to perform to their maximum in the
    workforce and men are encouraged to perform to the maximum in the
    workforce.
    
    On average women are encouraged to nurture their children while men are
    discouraged from nurturing their children, particularly young children
    and girls.
    
    The assumptions and there impacts are insideous.
    
    I stand for equity for men in the divorce courts just as I stand for
    equity of women in the work force.
    
                              Patricia

    Rauh,
    
    women did not vote men off to Viet Nam?
    
    men children learn from the time they are born that their role is to
    fight and kill and prevent themselves from being killed.
    
    It is sad, but it is not women doing it to you!
    

    .84 GO re-read your history books. Who were the most counted for in the
    elections of 1968? And who was the winning canidate in 1968? 
    
    

    George,
    
    I believe the "winning" candidate in 1968 was Richard Nixon, who
    in 1975 ended that chapter in our history and brought the remaining
    service *people* .... not just service*men* but women too, home.
    
    To tie your reply back to Patricia' *stellar* explanation, those women
    who served in VietNam filled *support* roles....traditional roles
    for women...nurses, administrators, etc., instead of leadership
    roles.  "Behind" men, if you will, rather than beside men.
    
    Can we avoid ratholing with talk of voting numbers and get back to my 
    question?  
    
    Dom - to respond to your question, Patricia summed it up best ... I
    was speaking in general terms and averages.  
    
    Sue 
    

    
>>    There is a systemic oppression of women that goes on.  All women are
>>    subject to it.
  
    Can you give me more detail of what this oppression is?
      
>>    It is the subconcious or unconcious things that happen.   
  Again, more specifics as to what these subconcious or unconcious things
    are.  
>>    All men who are not part of fixing the problem are part of the problem. 
  
    I guess I can't fix what I don't know.  If you treat a person as a
    person and forget the gender part, I can't see any problem.  
    
>>    What is more subtle but is clearly evident hear is that there is also a
>>    systemic oppression of men.  Fixing the problem of the oppression of
>>    women will fix the problem of the oppression of men as well.
    
  How will this happen, can you put some real meat behind this statement.  
    
>>    The way it plays itself out for example is that men have a clear
>>    advantage in the work force.  Statistics will tell you that on average
>>    women make less than men.  On average, there are many many more men in
>>    higher positions than women.
  
    I think this statement has some merit.  I remember my early years at
    Digital about 15 years ago when I was asked to train this woman who was
    transfered to our department.  She made over 10k more than I did and I
    was training her.  I think in Digital, you see more woman in power
    positions than the average nontech type of companies. I have worked
    for 3 different women since I have been with Digital and had no
    problems with that.
      
>>    The same set of subconscious assumptions that give the man the
>>    advantage in the workforce gives the woman the advantages in child
>>    custody cases.  The assumptions that men perform, protect, and provide,
>>    and that women nurture and care for children play themselves out in the
>>    oppression of both women and men.
   
    What advantages are you specifically talking about?  My current boss is
    a male and my two co-workers are female.  We all pretty much have the
    same opportunities ect.  I see no advantages, at least in my situation.
     
>>    On average women are encourage not to perform to their maximum in the
>>    workforce and men are encouraged to perform to the maximum in the
>>    workforce.
  
    How does this happen, do managers tell women not to try or not work to 
    hard or don't bother trying because you are a woman and you can't
    possibly do anything great?  Please tell me exactly how women are told
    not to perform to their maximum.  
    
>>    On average women are encouraged to nurture their children while men are
>>    discouraged from nurturing their children, particularly young children
>>    and girls.
    
    Gee, I see alot of guys spending tons of time with the kids and I
    myself use to change my son's diapers, wash him, feed him ect.  If I
    had a little girl, I think it would be the same. 
        
>>    The assumptions and there impacts are insideous.
    Can you expand on this and give detailes of the assumptions and the
    impacts and why they are insideous.
  
>>      I stand for equity for men in the divorce courts just as I stand for
>>    equity of women in the work force.
  This is great, I agree with you 100%.  
>>                              Patricia
    
    
    Dom

    .86
    
    >I believe the "winning" candidate in 1968 was Richard Nixon, who
        in 1975 ended that chapter in our history and brought the remaining
    
    Didn't Nixon leave office in August of '74?

    You're right, and in trying to remember the chronology, I was 
    wondering if I got my date right around the pullout of the 
    troops.  Was it April '75?  But, then wasn't it Nixon/Kissinger 
    who got "the credit"?  I'm young enough that the memory's fuzzy....
    
    Sue

    The divorce system in MA is designed to help women with children when
    the man is a sh**. In my experience (much of my life waiting my turn in
    the Probate Court) this is unfortunately the vast majority.
    
    If the woman is a sh** there is no protection for the man. It's not
    justice but it is reality.
    
    I'm a NC male and there are 2 things I want to see changed:
    
    1.	Enforcement of the mans right to know his children. None of this 
    "oh I just decided to move to la la land and you will never see your
    children again"
    
    2.	Child support is income from which there is no benefit,  just like
    alimony. It ought to be tax deductible, just like alimony.
    
    Now - where is the National Organization of Men (not these weirdo we
    hate women groups) and how do I sign up to help get these things done.
     
    
    

RE .90
    
>>    The divorce system in MA is designed to help women with children when
>>    the man is a sh**. In my experience (much of my life waiting my turn in
>>    the Probate Court) this is unfortunately the vast majority.
    
You are absolutly right about the courts, they don't even consider giving
    the man custody or usually joint custody.  I have to admit, I've seen
    some slim bags in court but most of the time I could not hear much of
    what was being said.  I can't say that most of the men were SH**s, most
    of them were pretty much shaking from being so nervous, maybe you
    really don't know what is going in the background to make such a
    judgement, I don't really know.  I think the biggest problem is the 
    lawyers, they want to make as much money off of you as possible 
    (cost me over 10K).  
    
>>    If the woman is a sh** there is no protection for the man. It's not
>>    justice but it is reality.
    
    I can't argue that point and I think that alot more women are realizing 
    this weakness in the law and are taking advantage of it.
    
>>    I'm a NC male and there are 2 things I want to see changed:
    
>>    1.	Enforcement of the mans right to know his children. None of this 
>>    "oh I just decided to move to la la land and you will never see your
>>    children again"
    
    I know someone right now that is being threatened with this and has been
    for a while.  She seems to just want to make him miserable.
    
>>    2.	Child support is income from which there is no benefit,  just like
>>    alimony. It ought to be tax deductible, just like alimony.
    
    I agree, and there ought to be a way to ensure that the money is spent
    on the children and not on things that don't benifit the children.
    
>>    Now - where is the National Organization of Men (not these weirdo we
>>    hate women groups) and how do I sign up to help get these things done.
     
     I don't belong to any of these organizations so I don't have an
    opinion on the groups.  However, writting to your local lawmakers and
    voting for people who support your views are one way of getting your
    message across.
    
    
    

    It would be nice to see women held accountable for actions like
    pergery, false-a-fying(sp) arest, as in saying that the STBX hubbie has
    done X & X and he hasn't has has been proven other wise, she should be
    held accountable as men are. 
    
    I guess I have already told the story about Norm, whose ex has tampered
    with his mail, and she works at the Manchester post office, setting his
    truck on fire, and tampering with his phone. And he HAS proven she was
    involved and NOTHIG is done about it. This has nothing to do about the
    bloody rat hole of oppressions either. IT is just what is fair in
    divorce and what isn't. But, if you wish to go rodent hole. I can and
    will take us there. I have allot of stats on the rodent hole issues.
    
    

    .84
    The League of Women voters supported Richard, both times thru. Women 
    did indeed vote men off to fight in Nam. They sent their sons, their 
    husbands, their brothers to the graves.... Sent them to the streets 
    where 70% of the homeless are men of the Viet Nam... 
    
    Many and of that time... more women blew off their husbands they voted
    to send to Nam in divorce...

The League of Women Voters NEVER supports a specific candidate.

			Steve

    As I cruise thro this note, something struck me.... everyone telling
    their stories, the pain, loneliness, emptines... etc... there is an
    old saying:
    
    "Don't take this personally, but this is the universe".
    
    This IS life.  Pain, happiness, love, success, etc... My story doesn't
    make anyones' look good.  However, we all have to put it behind us.
    
    How?, Time, networking with friends.. whatever it takes.  The kids are
    the bottom line.  Not money, none of the BS.  I really don't care
    whether my ex gives me money (he doesn't) I will make sure that they
    are feed, clothed, etc... its the love, unconditional love to them...
    from me.  I don't have $$$.  I'm always "broke" and wish I had more
    but the kids, for all of you out there, is the bottom line.  If 
    you keep looking in the rear view mirror, you'll crash.  Sometimes,
    it takes a while (longer for others) to get back on their feet.  Seems
    like nobody understands.  No, they WON'T.  Keep on keepin' on.
    
    For the fathers who can't see their children, fight like hell and back
    again.  I represented myself.  Or to save big lawyer fees, do whatever
    paperwork you can submit to the courts yourself, just have a lawyer
    read them over before submission.  I do feel for you who dont get
    to see your kids.  Write letters and phone, but keep copies of
    those letters and phone bills.  If the kids come back in 10 years
    and say "you never tried to contact me after divorce" whip out
    those letters.  
    
    Unfortunately, I see both men AND women playing the games.  It 
    really is sad because only the kids suffer.  But it is reality.
    Nothing will change the way bitter, anger people take out their
    s*&t out on one another.
    
    Ah, its better the 2nd time around.  I know what I will be looking
    for next time......
    
    Hang on and hang in.  Sometimes, there is a blessing in disguise...
    somewhere, somehow.... God doesn't give us what we can't handle....
    
    Later...
    HCH
    
      

    .86 Richard also wanted us to come home with honnor. What ever the hell
    that will buy a dead man these days. 

Re: .90

>    2.	Child support is income from which there is no benefit,  just like
>    alimony. It ought to be tax deductible, just like alimony.
    
Why should child support payments be tax deductible? Why should the rest
of the tax-paying public subsidize child support payments? If the NCP
making the payments had custody of the child and spent the money
directly, or if there had been no divorce and the family were intact, the
money spent on the child would not be deductible. 

Alimony payments are not a tax deduction, they are a reduction in income
and they are only a reduction in income to the person paying; the person
who receives the alimony still has to claim it as income and pay tax on
it. The general effect is that the income transferred as alimony
payments is taxed at a lower rate.

I will agree that not having a say in how the child support is spent is
a real aggravation, but I haven't a clue how an equitable and
enforceable system could be set up to monitor and/or correct, though.

And before you get your knickers in a bunch, I am an NCP and I pay
more than $12000 per year in child supprt. In my particular case, my
benefit is knowing that what I pay supports my child's standard of
living. I also know that child support is not always spent for the
child's benefit.

-stephen

    Same comments and inputs as the other women on this subject ...
    
    Divorced for 2 years now but, in harmony with the father of the
    children. We both wanted the separation to be a success, if the
    marriage was not ... He can come whenever he wants at home (but not 
    without calling before) to see the children, he takes them on vacation, 
    give me the alimony we both agreed on ... We still have a lot of respect 
    one for eachother if not more now than before ...
    
    It's difficult for me to understand that some women can take advantage
    of their mother status to get more money from their ex partner but I've
    seen it in my own family, so I know it exists. The only thing I can say
    is "I will do it differently" and ... I'm doing it different. I strive
    for equality and justice in my life, so I guess I can do nothing else
    but being fair and equal with people around me. 
    I try my best not to make them pay for previous experiences which have 
    not all been fair according to my standards. If we all started to
    believe in justice and equality (on both sides), and act accordingly,
    I'm sure there is already a lot that would change in our little
    lives ...                               

    Thanks for your input!:)

    
    RE:99
    
    Nice to hear that some women do care if dad sees his children.
    I hope this is the attitude trend of the future so our children 
    will suffer less than this generation when breakups occur.
    Good input. 
                                   Bill

    The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






I have kept watching this file once its replies hit 45.  I can't believe 
how angry some people are.  I would also like to offer some positive 
feedback.

Everyone who goes through a divorce starts out angry.  Maybe its because
you feel like a failure and the "what if I tried harder's" hit home.  Well,
maybe not everyone, but having "walked the walk" and talked to several
other people I can safely say that a vast majority of people feel that
way.  The only thing that has helped myself, and a few others that I
have become friendly with over the past few months is TIME.  

When I realized that my spouse and I were no longer compatible and had
grown apart it was obvious that for the sake of OUR child, it was better
for them to be in a situation living with TWO separate parents.  It
is a very hard decision but the best one if you think of what is best
for the CHILD.  It is not the best thing for parents to stay together
for the children's sake, like most older people had led us to believe.

The other important thing that we realized when going through the
procedure was that the state gives the guidelines for the income 
given to the custodial parent.  Its not something that you just ask
for.  Its a formula which equates to the amount of income both parents
make and the childcare finances that equate to the income that the
CP will receive.  Period, end of story.  I don't even believe Alimony
is something that is given out now these days.  Its the income that
the parent will need to support the child.  Given the formula, I can't
see any parent having more than what they need.  Heck, in my case
I will receive $150 a week and my child care is $110.  That gives me
$40 a week to feed and cloth my child.  I hardly see myself "taking
extra money" from my spouse.  And its what I should have.  Ya I 
would love to have more money but do I have a right to have that 
money because my marriage failed?  NO, I don't.  And I'll learn
to adjust.  Because that is just the way it is.  If there was a way
that I could get more would I go for it?  No, because it would only
cause more animosity between my spouse and I and who would suffer?
OUR child, because of a few dollars?  NO THANK YOU!  Hopefully,
because we are trying to be so understanding that if the child
needs something that I am not able to provide for them my spouse
would step in and give it to them if they could afford and I 
couldn't.  One can only hope anyways and you always have to have
hope.  If you don't have hope and your child sees that, what kind
of a life will they have?  They will grow up angry and pessimistic.
How can a parent wish that on their child??

Once we worked through the anger, depression and every other emotion
that comes with a family tearing apart, we were able to see that 
our child needs both of us and put together a schedule that is 
compatible for both our jobs and our child.  We were able to divide
the assets that we have and decide where the child should live. It
was a hard thing to do, but we know that hating eachother is only
going to cause more pain in our child's life that is already 
confusing enough.  How could we hurt our child more than we already
have by creating a human being and then taking their two most loved
people in the world and saying, "your only going to see one parent
at a time from now on?"  I still cry to think that this will be
what its like for them for the rest of their lives.  I also know
that having happy parents will be better for them in the long 
run; even if its one parent at a time.  I watched our child's
reaction when I entered depression and it was not a happy sight.
I had to be strong for the sake of them.  

True that not all people can do this but hopefully, anyone who has
children is mature enough to know that the life of their children
is at stake and do the right thing.  I know that we did.

re .79ff

>   I will really stir things up here and ask "why?"  Why do you think
>   men are, in many cases, given the short end of the stick in divorce 
>   situations where children are involved?

>   To generalize .... could the situation be, in fact, the fault of 
>   the men who've always "been in charge"?


as harsh as it sounds, i think you're on to something here sue.

it stands to reason that as long as the majority of the better paying jobs 
and material assets are held mostly by men, men are predestined to be deemed
by the courts as being the better financial providers and thus forced into 
the role of non-custodial parent (in cases where joint custody arrangements 
can't be reached).

also, given that the judicial system and the legislation behind it are merely
reflections of societal realities i doubt that focusing on the courts only 
by insisting that the courts give men more equal treatment will have any 
significant chance of success in balancing out the present inequalities.

i think the problem of balancing out the inequality must be tackled at a more 
profound level.

patricia, to the charge of "men oppressing women" i plead "NOT GUILTY"! not 
guilty, but perhaps, IGNORANT. as a white, middle-class, heterosexual male 
with a good education, i may be totally unaware that the odds in society are 
usually in my favour, ie. until another reality hits me in the divorce courts,
where i as a man am faced with a blatant inequality and where i am forced to 
operate from a position of underdog; this is, to me, a rare experience and 
provides a brief glimpse on those lifes who experience inequality as an 
everyday reality.

"not guilty" patricia, but hopefully, not ignorant either.

the system IS wrong, and the system is not just the judicial system but much
of society.

i am envious to some degree of women's, african american and gay movements.
why? because people in such movements have done their home-work. they have
had to learn to operate in a system of inequality and have forged their own
identities in the process.

when confronted with proponents from such movements, i as a middle-class 
white male of the old guard am quick to find myself being placed on the 
stand, being charged with accusations of "oppressor". 

how to respond to that and what about my identity, confidence and self-respect 
as a white middle-class male!?

no, an oppressor i am not. but i concede that i DO place an undue burden on 
myself if i go about thinking that i and my kind alone should be responsible 
for running the world's affairs, the economy, and to solely provide for and 
protect my family. these are tasks which are enormous. they are big enough 
to share. and by welcoming your participation in carrying the burden, i as a 
white male, stand to gain unthought of benefits. i no longer need to put my 
well-being at risk to solely provide, i gain more time and access to raise 
my children, and what's more, i find myself alongside many more helping minds 
and hands which are willing to carry that enormous burden and to thereby make
that load one which is easier and altogether more pleasurable to carry.

i am convinced, that only when equality has become a reality for all, will
much of that needless pain caused by inequality be a thing of the past; and
that we as men stand to benefit most from true equality.




andreas.

re .96, .99 and .102


thank you for entering these thoughtful and encouraging notes.

it is heartening to find that there are so many divorced single parents
which willingly keep the door open for their ex'es to remain involved in
the raising of their children.





andreas.

Re: .103

Andreas, I'm puzzled as to why you don't allow for the notion that the father
might be the preferable custodial parent - you seem to assume that the choice
is either the mother gets custody or the two share custody.  This is sort of
a rhetorical question, because the courts also tend to believe that 
custody ought to go to the mother automatically, even if the father is willing
and able to provide proper care.

					Steve

    Andreas likes to stur the pot.:) Right Andreas!:) 
    
    Insofar as the anomyous entry. Yes there are good and bad. And when the
    good is good, its good. When the bad is bad, its miserable. And be
    thankful that no one is tampering with your mail, or your phone, or
    trying to set your car on fire as Norms is/was. 
    
    

    
    The problem, as I've grown to see it (for the umpteenth time) is men.
    Men who won't get up on their collective hind legs and demand fair
    treatment.  Every time "The Knights Who Say 'Ngeeee'" say "Ngeeee"
    (ie sexist, bigot, homophobe, oppressor, wife-beaters, etc, etc) men
    cover their crotches and their eyes and curl up in the fetal position
    and plead, "Stop, stop, your right, I can't take it any more, I'll
    stop, I'll be good".

    Some of the biggest supporters of children's/men's rights that I've
    run into are women--girlfriends, second wives, mothers who actually
    see what happens to men in the majority of divorce cases.

    I have to agree with Meg on one thing.  The number of men who actually
    go out and DO SOMETHING to help improve the situation are few and far
    between.  As pitiful as NOW has become, the number of men willing to
    stand up is not even on the scale.  So we bury our heads in the sand
    and deny, hope, pray, lament that it won't happen to _us_ (again),
    and let the system rape us one at a time.

    fred();

    And if you try to stand, your some sort of revengeful sickie, who has
    nothing better to do than to pick on the status quo. Or in my case, I
    was called an 'Angry Father' in the GAL's report. Nothing said about
    the real underlying reason of why I was angry. Just some sort of
    rasputian, again, trying to get even with his ex.
    
    Re issue a few responces back on alimony: It is not handed out as
    frequently as it has in the past, but it is handed out. And I have told
    the story of the couple who filed bankruptcy over it. Child support
    guidlines are not always followed by the judge and the system. The
    bottom line is always interperted. And sometimes HAS left a few men
    living on couchs, cars, and tents. Or just bugging out. 
    
    

    .107   Try and stand up to the Judge, it will only cost you money of
    which most of it has already gone to support you and your X + kids
    existance.  This means that you have to go out and get another source 
    of income which does'nt leave you with much time to join a group to
    fight this.
    
    Dom

         re .109

    Men tend to have this thing that if it isn't going to benefit
    _ME_, then why bother.  And therein is the problem in a nutshell.

    You can, however, campaign to have the judge removed from the bench.
    If you openly campaign against a judge, that judge can no longer sit
    on a case that you are involved in.  It's called personal interest.

    You can become politically active without costing you much but time.

    You can learn to develop cases and file your own contempt charges.
    If you make sure what you're doing and make sure you have a case,
    then it shouldn't cost you anything but some time and some filing
    fees.  

    Like I told my kids.  In days past you needed to know how to hunt,
    how to use swords, spears, bow and arrow, crossbow, and gun to feed
    and fight and protect your family.  The weapons of today's warrior
    are math, science, language, history, literature, law, politics...

    fred();

steve (.105), personally i welcome the idea that a father might be
considered the preferable custodial parent but, as you imply, there 
is not much chance that this notion gets a fair assessment in the 
present-day (court-room) reality.

george (.106), sure, why not add some spice to this discussion! :-)


re .107

>   The problem, as I've grown to see it (for the umpteenth time) is men.
>   Men who won't get up on their collective hind legs 

fred, i scanned the titles of this file and there doesn't seem to be a topic
on men's movements. there is one topic on the subject over in womannotes.

i agree with you that men ought to be getting on their collective hind legs
and i think men ought to be coming up with their OWN views and perspectives.
in this regard, other movements, like the women's movement, seem to have
a head start on us men. it seems to me that too often still, men's views today
are but poor reflections of other collective views (the oppressor, the bigot,
the homophobe, ... etc.)

i expect that the end-effect of us men getting on our collective hind legs
will be not just that we develop our own perspectives, but that we stop
reacting with that defensive reflex when being confronted with other
perspectives, and that we thereby become better (more valuable, mature,
reliable) partners for change.

i think we can all agree that we are in a period of transition -- where the
roles of men and women are being redefined -- and that the world of our grand-
children will differ significantly from the world, which our grand-parents
have found themselves in. also, i think that every responsible individual
is called to participate in this process of change.

what then is the message of the collective male voice that we should be
coming up with? can we define it?

>   Men who won't get up on their collective hind legs and demand fair
>   treatment.                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
    ^^^^^^^^^

in my opinion (and that's just adding my $.02's worth to this collective
message) we should be doing more than demanding fair treatment. we should
be encouraging, promoting, guaranteeing and protecting fair treatment. we
should employ our skills and assets to make it happen. and not just in the 
divorce courts, but in all walks of life, particularly in the work place 
and in our families.

i just don't think that we as men can credibly be concerned with fair
treatment if we restrict ourselves to just the divorce courts.

apart from the fairness issue, there is another one which comes to mind.

there are many of us men who'd like to take a back-seat in the areas where
we as men have traditionally been in the front-line: the high-flying jobs
at work and in public office, with all the increased health risks and the 
plethora of problems which come from being in those poll positions. 
instead, to turn our attention to (or reclaim our rightful place in) 
areas which have been either withheld from us or which we as men have 
neglected, like taking more of a lead role in the raising our children.


in the end, a men's movement might share the same objectives (equality,
right to self-determination) with the women's movement and can only mean 
a positive step towards realising these mutually held goals.




andreas.

    re .111

>i expect that the end-effect of us men getting on our collective hind legs
>will be not just that we develop our own perspectives, but that we stop
>reacting with that defensive reflex when being confronted with other
>perspectives, and that we thereby become better (more valuable, mature,
>reliable) partners for change.

    The value has always been there.  We have allowed the role to be 
    devalued.  Not only devalued, but vilified.  Heck, why keep the so&so 
    around to support the family when she can kick him out and _keep_ the 
    support?  Why stay around and support your kids when someone else will 
    do it for you?

    Men are not and should not be second mommies.  We are just now 
    re-discovering that men have a significant but separate role (above and
    beyond financial support) in the upbrining of our children (Thank you
    Dan Quayle), and that many of the current ills of our society can be
    traced to the abdication of that role.  The fight to reclaim that 
    position has just begun, but at least it as begun, which it hadn't  14
    years ago when I was thrust unwillingly into the battle. 

    fred();

.112> Men are not and should not be second mommies. 


what makes you refer to fathers as "second mommies"?

i hope you're not setting yourself to be accused of devaluing 
this important male role!!! 




andreas.
;-)

         re .110                      

>>    Men tend to have this thing that if it isn't going to benefit
>>    _ME_, then why bother.  And therein is the problem in a nutshell.

    Your opinion of course and we all have one.
    When the deck is stacked against you, its a real battle that not 
    everyone is up to.
    
>>    You can, however, campaign to have the judge removed from the bench.
>>    If you openly campaign against a judge, that judge can no longer sit
>>    on a case that you are involved in.  It's called personal interest.

    Try to find a lawyer that will stand by you and then watch how the
    other Judges treat you.  Get real, and don't be surprised if you are
    charge with contempt and see what kind of a deal you get after.  Don't
    you think Judges talk to each other...  Also, you may find yourself
    being taken away in a strait jacket to la la land.  
    
    
>>    You can become politically active without costing you much but time.
    
    Time is money and sometimes the amount of time you would have to take off
    of work could either jepardize your job or make you broke.
    
>>    You can learn to develop cases and file your own contempt charges.
>>    If you make sure what you're doing and make sure you have a case,
>>    then it shouldn't cost you anything but some time and some filing
>>    fees.  
  
    Why not just spend a ton of time and money and become a lawyer to
    defend yourself...  Get real, again we come with the taking a ton of
    time off of work to spend time at the courthouse during the day.
    
>>    Like I told my kids.  In days past you needed to know how to hunt,
>>    how to use swords, spears, bow and arrow, crossbow, and gun to feed
>>    and fight and protect your family.  The weapons of today's warrior
>>    are math, science, language, history, literature, law, politics...

    Some of this make sense, but knowing all of these subjects does not
    necessarily gaurentee you success.
    
    fred();

.111> instead, to turn our attention to (or reclaim our rightful place in) 
.111> areas which have been either withheld from us or which we as men have 
.111> neglected, like taking more of a lead role in the raising [of] our 
.111> children.			       ^^^^^^^^^


"significant role" is the better and less ambigous term than "lead role".



andreas.

        re .113

    >what makes you refer to fathers as "second mommies"?

    I went into this a few notes back. Because it seems that when most
    people talk of men "taking a role in raising children" that what they
    are talking about is being a second mother.  The _father_ role, as
    disciplinarian, teacher, moral instructor, and general hardass, is
    every bit as important, especially in later (teen) years.  I believe,
    and so does my wife, that society has been done a great disservice
    by trying to make women men and trying to make men women.  Men and 
    women have different capabilities, but when put together (can you
    say "family values") the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  

    fred();

    Hence the title of Mr. Mom is more in Freds support. I call myself that
    cause I do it all. But, I am really doing what it takes to get it done.
    And I guess there is no real good pigon hole title, either pc or non-pc
    that I can call myself. Execpt.... Dad.:)
    
    Andreas, It also seems that perhaps like the base noter. You feel,
    reguardless that children should be with mom? Is this the drift your
    sending out?
    
    

    
    reply 114

>    Your opinion of course and we all have one.
>    When the deck is stacked against you, its a real battle that not 
>    everyone is up to.

    If you've read any of the things I've said before, you'll note that
    what I have said is the only ones trying really do anything about
    the problem are the ones least capable (financially and emotionally)
    of carry on the fight.  

>    Try to find a lawyer that will stand by you and then watch how the
>    other Judges treat you.  Get real, and don't be surprised if you are
>    charge with contempt and see what kind of a deal you get after.  Don't
>    you think Judges talk to each other...  Also, you may find yourself
>    being taken away in a strait jacket to la la land.  

    One of the things that is hard for me to do when trying  to convey my 
    experience  to others is to not appear to be bragging.  I do not always
    succeed.  For that I apologize.  However, one of the things that kept me
    going during those years was the hope that somehow I could pass on what
    I'd learned and the example that IT CAN BE DONE.

    Been there, done that.  You're right, you won't find a lawyer to do
    it.  They have to go back before the judge and try to get money from
    other clients.  However, subsequent judges have to be careful to 
    appear to be fair or be accused of personal influence.  The first
    judge I had was one of the worst.  When I went back the second time
    I was assigned the same judge.  My ex filed for the jurisdiction to
    another state.  I knew that no way could I carry on the fight from
    1000 miles away.  If I kept jurisdiction, then she had to fight the
    long-distance battle.  I knew the judge was probably just itching
    to dump my case.  At that time, and before he issued his order, he
    came up for re-election.  I knew my chances were slim to get him 
    removed, but I took my picket sign and went out on the street corners
    and in front of the courthouse.  I got some media coverage.  I had
    several tell me "gee, we'd love to help, but we have to go back before
    him" (a couple were lawyers).  I didn't get him, but I took a major
    bight out of his election returns.  Only then did I find that he
    had to withdraw from my case, and those who didn't help were stuck
    with him.  The second judge kept jurisdiction.

    I ended up losing the second attempt, but I blame that on my lawyer,
    not on the judge.  That's when I decided that I couldn't do any worse
    as my own lawyer.  I read up on the sections of "family law" and used
    previous papers as examples to file my own motions.

    The third judge disqualified himself from my case without comment. The
    fourth judge threw my ex in jail for contempt twice and gave me
    custody.

>    Time is money and sometimes the amount of time you would have to take off
>    of work could either jeopardize your job or make you broke.

    Just what is valuable here?  I had to file bankruptcy.  I had to go
    back to school to learn a new trade--but I have my kids.  This is
    WAR!

>    Some of this make sense, but knowing all of these subjects does not
>    necessarily guarantee you success.

    It's a bayonet charge across a minefield into the fog.  Again
    what is at stake?  Even a one in a Million chance is better than
    Zero, which is what you have if you don't try.  I find it's easier
    to look myself in the mirror if I try and fail than if I have to 
    wonder "what if". 

    fred();

    Lawyers will strike deals in your behalf, often without your concent. 
    And you will usually sign a paper to such when you go for the dance with 
    the devil. And you can also ask your laywer to cut the poop with a letter 
    stating such. But, still, laywers often do not have your best interest 
    in heart. They want the money and want to make this another rubber 
    stamp job. Fast foods and fast divorce cases. 
    
    I don't know what happens in divorce courts where .0 is or where
    Andreas lives. If they are anything like what we face here.... 

re .116

>                                                              Men and 
>   women have different capabilities, but when put together (can you
>   say "family values") the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  


what about the (many) cases where a single parent has to raise the
children ALONE? i don't see much chances of success if the single parent 
is a father who professes to be just "a disciplinarian, teacher, moral 
instructor, and general hardass".

particularly (but not exclusively) in the case of the single parent, the
parent is well advised to OUTGROW him/herself! 

i discussed this very theme recently with a man who seemed to have a similar 
point of view as fred... below, i reproduce my list of (imo) qualities which 
are required of a father in addition to being a "disciplinarian, teacher" 
and "moral instructor":

- to lead by example, 
- to not preach,
- to encourage, 
- to share fun,
- to be patient, 
- to listen, 
- to correct,
- to joke,
- to question, 
- to make up,
- to build confidence, 
- to partake in matters which seem insignificant,
- to foster in those you raise the confidence in their own proper means,
- to not let personal expectations get into the way of parenting,
- to hold high, above all, the god given right and need, of those that 
  you lead, to make their own way in life,
- to be encouraged by every step which reduces dependance on the parent.



being a "general hardass" sounds like the lazy-mans option to me!!!

but i agree with the following:

>                                                              Men and 
>   women have different capabilities, but when put together (can you
>   say "family values") the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  

which is why i think that even for divorced parents it is preferable that
both father and mother remain involved in the raising of the children; no
matter who has custody.

raising kids alone is not an easy job, and whoever does it as a single 
parent is thankful for all the help s/he can get.




andreas.

    re .113
    
    Although I agree, in general terms, with what Fred has been
    saying, the mention of "second mommies" set off a warning
    bell in my brain too. 
    
    Fred, am I right that you would like a return to the traditional
    roles of men/women where the raising of children are concerned?
    ...and all of the related fallout & implications to society
    (ie the male-dominated society where women are kept in a supportive,
    nurturing role)?
    
    Sue

    re .120
    
    Again this was mentioned before, but I don't have time to go look it
    up.  "Recent" studies (by someone who was trying to prove the opposite)
    have shown that the most telling statistic by far as to whether a child
    will end up on the street, pregnant, drop out of school, use drugs, get
    in trouble with the law, go to jail is--the lack of a father in the
    home.  It cuts across all races, religions, geographies, and financial
    status.  Yes, single parents can, and often do, succeed.  But as I've
    asked, just what is important here?
    
    fred();

re .117
    
>   Andreas, It also seems that perhaps like the base noter. You feel,
>   reguardless that children should be with mom? Is this the drift your
>   sending out?
    
not at all, george.

i think in divorce cases it's up to the parents to decide who is going
to have custody or if custody is shared. and if the parents can't decide
then it will be the courts decision.

as i recall, in my country men are now about 10% of the single-custodian-
parent population (what a word!). based on this figure alone i wouldn't go
and conclude though, that only 10% of the men population are up to the job 
of being single parents!

personally, i'd think that in most cases either one of the parents are 
equally suitable for that job.




andreas.

    Rathole -
    
    I saw a piece on one of the TV news programs a couple weeks back
    (after Louis Farrakhans Million Man March) about a mens organization,
    predominantly white, that is gaining support across the country.
    Keeping women outside the arenas/stadiums passing out programs,
    making coffee, etc...this organization is trying to restore men
    to the head-of-the-household role, with Mom right behind him,
    helping where needed as the "little woman" should.
                                                                   0
    Anyone know the name of the group?
    
    Sue

    >Anyone know the name of the group?
    
    	Promise Keepers.

    re .121

>    Fred, am I right that you would like a return to the traditional
>    roles of men/women where the raising of children are concerned?

    What I am lamenting is that we've (almost) taken a very valuable
    part of child rearing and not only devalued it but vilified it.

>    ...and all of the related fallout & implications to society
>    (ie the male-dominated society where women are kept in a supportive,
>    nurturing role)?

    On the afore mentioned tv show that talked about the lack of fathers,
    they played segments of women wide eyed and panicy, "You mean we are
    going to have to give up our freedom"?  Again I ask, just what _is_
    important here?  Actually I think that these hare two separate issues.  
    Just ask my wife if she is "dominated"...hee,hee.
    
    fred();

.124

>                        this organization is trying to restore men
>   to the head-of-the-household role, with Mom right behind him,
>   helping where needed as the "little woman" should.

>   Anyone know the name of the group?
    

sue, this sounds suspisciously like "PROMISE KEEPERS", which is, as 
i understand a religious organisation trying to send men back to their
families and to restore men as "spiritual leaders" of the household,
as at least one supporter i know has claimed.

check out topic 1121 in 9395::CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE for a lengthy
debate on the subject.




andreas.

    re .121  
    
    Sue, I agree with you 100% on your concerns.  The single parent must
    take on both rolls if the other parent is not available due to death
    or simply not around.  However, when both parents are sharing the
    child rearing, it should be just that, not you do these things because
    you are a woman and I will take care of these things because I am a
    man.  
    
    re Fred:
    
    It sounds like you have accomplished alot in your situation and if
    every man stood up like you did, I'm sure things would eventually get
    better.  However not everybody situation is the same, the X leaving
    town ect.  Sometimes its more of a mental abuse than anything else.  
    Your situation warrented drastic measures but what if she said you
    were abusing her and the children and she was leaving to get away
    from you, even though these charges were false... You would be out
    of luck and needing a lawyer for a whole new set of reasons.  People
    can scam the system and screw you up big time, even to the point of
    fighting for your freedom without a smigen of evidence.  The system
    really needs to change and maybe we should have a ## million man
    walk to washington to send a message.  But then we would be labeled
    whiners and asked if we needed some cheese with that wine. ;)

re .122


you tell us fred, what is important here?

are you suggesting that when push comes to shove the men should take charge
of the kids so that the kids don't end up on drugs? 




andreas.

ps. i like the idea of that march, dom!

    
    re .129


>    Your situation warranted drastic measures but what if she said you
>    were abusing her and the children and she was leaving to get away
>    from you, even though these charges were false... You would be out
>    of luck and needing a lawyer for a whole new set of reasons.  People
>    can scam the system and screw you up big time, even to the point of
>    fighting for your freedom without a smidgen of evidence.  

    Been there, done that.  History (and court transcripts) has vindicated 
    me.  Like I said, she was the one that did two turns in the slammer
    for contempt.  What it did to my children is what keeps me trying to 
    change things.

>    The system
>    really needs to change and maybe we should have a ## million man
>    walk to Washington to send a message.  But then we would be labeled
>    whiners and asked if we needed some cheese with that wine. ;)

    Naw you don't have to put on a "million man march" to be called that.
    Just stick a couple notes in mennotes ;^}.

    fred()

    
    re .130

    >you tell us fred, what is important here?

    The children, of course, and giving the best chance possible.  Has 
    anything else lasted longer than the pyramids?  

>are you suggesting that when push comes to shove the men should take charge
>of the kids so that the kids don't end up on drugs? 

    When push comes to shove _somebody_ had better take charge.  Men tend
    to be better at that part of "parenting" (ie hardass).  Should take 
    charge long before that.  Because by then it's (probably) too late. 
    Again, as I said before, in the "Leave It to Beaver" family,  Ward was
    the one that the kids didn't mess with :^/.
    
    fred();

.132


>    >you tell us fred, what is important here?
>
>    The children, of course, and giving the best chance possible.  Has 
>    anything else lasted longer than the pyramids?  

ah, now that sounds better.

i was about to get confused with all the talk of war.


>>are you suggesting that when push comes to shove the men should take charge
>>of the kids so that the kids don't end up on drugs? 
>
>    When push comes to shove _somebody_ had better take charge.  Men tend
>    to be better at that part of "parenting" (ie hardass).  Should take 
>    charge long before that.  Because by then it's (probably) too late. 

like dad's to the rescue, right?

if "taking charge" is about keeping the kids out of trouble i am all for it. 
if it's about fighting armed up to the teeth over the kids in the courts, 
so that the mother stays out in the cold and that dad can assume control, the 
message s*cks, in my not so humble opinion.

it cannot be in any parents interest to be cut off from the children and
most of all it can't be in the children's interest if this happens.

with all this talk of war and family values, what are we to advice parents
which are going through divorce. try to work out an amicable agreement or
fight to death? and isn't the reason for having courts so we don't bash 
eachothers heads in over a dispute? seems to me, with applying foresight,
conciliation comes out way on top over litigation. it may not be obvious at
the time, but it works in the long run. it had better work this way, it's 
best for the kid's sake.





andreas.

    War is just that Andreas. War with the courts. Hey you were blatting
    soldier to me a number of replys ago. Wish to be refreshed on the
    number there soldier? So, whats this poop about your poop and Freds def
    on war?

.134

then reread that note george, ...and .73 and .78

i've done some distance since then.


good night squire,

andreas.

    re .133

    The military terms are a bit of hyperbole and metaphor.  However,
    as I said before, I think that it would be easier emotionally to
    fight it out in the streets with six guns than go into court as 
    your own lawyer (although I've never actually fought it out with
    six-guns, nor do I intend to, so what do I know ;^) ).

    Also a few back again, I gave a list of things to consider if/when
    fighting for custody.  Number 1 on the list is--make sure it needs
    to be done.

    fred();

>    Keeping women outside the arenas/stadiums passing out programs,
>    making coffee, etc...this organization is trying to restore men
>    to the head-of-the-household role, with Mom right behind him,
>    helping where needed as the "little woman" should.
    
    Promise Keepers as mentioned earlier.  This discription is incredibly
    biased.  I am no fan of the common christian-right models of male/female 
    roles in a marriage or as parents but branding Promise Keepers on this
    dimention only is a great dis-service IMO.  From what I read the
    starting point for the organization is that many men are too focussed
    on careers and on making bucks and not on their spirituality , their
    marraige, or their kids.  I think the goal of refocussing their lives
    is tremendous while I might pick a lot different tatics. 
    
    Greg
    

.134> War is just that Andreas. War with the courts. 

hahaha! that sure sounds funny george. :-) you can't be meaning war
AGAINST the courts! of course, staying with the hyperbole and the metaphor, 
soldiers *DON'T* go to war against institutions which serve their country's
public interest, such as the courts... THIS type of war is more the reserve 
of anarchists and terrorists! as a soldier you oughta be out there 
*PROTECTING* the courts from these weirdoes!



andreas.

.136>  Also a few back again, I gave a list of things to consider if/when
.136>  fighting for custody.  Number 1 on the list is--make sure it needs
.136>  to be done.


based on which criteria do you determine that you have a case in order to
fight for custody?




andreas.

    For those who don't live in MA and find it hard to understand ...
    
    MA has a No Fault divorce option that is mostly used by people without 
    children and cases where it truly is an amiable divorce on both sides.
    The other options lay blame and guilt on one party through an
    adversarial legal process. 
    
    It can be advantageous to prove that your spouse is the worst thing that 
    ever walked the planet.
    
    You are guilty by accusation, and the the laws of evidence don't seem to 
    apply.  
    
    You lawyer will fill you up with your rights under the law which,
    strange as it may seem, are in direct conflict with the rights of the
    other person. 
    
    People are hurt, angry, scared and just about every other emotion you
    can think of. 
    
    ... and that's how the most important person in the world becomes your 
    worst nightmare.
                
    I know that each case is as different as the people involved and accept
    that I am generalizing. 
    
    
    
     
    
    
    
    
    

    
    re .139

>based on which criteria do you determine that you have a case in order to
>fight for custody?

    That's getting a bit personal, but to name a few:
    No income for mother and boyfriend other than child support/afdc
    Moved and changed schools five times in 1 year.
    Reports from kids of boyfriend using drugs in the house.
    Boyfriend charged twice of abuse of oldest son.
    Attempt to turn custody of oldest son over to state.
    9 year old and or 7 year old left alone in charge of siblings.
    Found 7 year old alone when I stopped to visit.
    House set on fire by youngest when left in care of siblings.
    Two children sexually molested by babysitter.
    CP found guilty of contempt twice for denial of visitation.
    etc,
    etc,
    etc.

    re WAR
    The weapons are different, but the mindset is the same.
    Smarter than the average bear, more tenacious than than the average
    pit bull, and very, very lucky.

    fred();

    re .140

    Colorado has No-fault divorce too--the woman has no fault no matter
    what she's done.

    In Colorado you can walk out of your job and be met by a man that
    asks if you are xxx.  Then he will hand you a envelope.  The envelope
    contains divorce papers and a restraining order.  She doesn't have to 
    have any evidence to get a restraining order.  Just an accusation.
    You can't go home.  You can't even say goodby to your kids.  You can't 
    even get your things.  

    Then you may find that she has moved her boyfriend in to sleep in
    your bed and drink you beer and have sex with your wife--and you
    get to pay for it all.  And there ain't *&^%$ you can do about it.

    And women think they have no power.....
    
    fred();

    Soldiers do go to war against the system. They are called Patroits.
    Patroits believe in a cause, as you believe in yours, and Steve
    believes in his. Fred has his, Meg has hers. See, in life you have two
    courses. Passive, or active... I took the active route. I did want to
    give my daughter a Good life. I didn't want her to be dragged around
    from one mans abode to another to another. I am in the marrital home, I
    am paying the bills, and making it work. Parking the truck between the
    white lines every day at work. See, there not only needs to be love and
    nurturing with a child. There neeeds to be Stability. And I am that
    stable person in my daughters life. I am a Patroit. I believe that I am
    Doing what is right not only for my daughter, but for the next
    generation of people behind me and behind her as well. For if you have
    disfunctional parents, you will hve disfunctional children who will
    grow up to be disfunctional adults. And people like fred, and Dom, and
    self who are standing up to the status quo in the notes are trying to
    do the right thing, trying to set the seed of responsiblility into the
    hearts of all who walk the same paths we walk. 
    
    War is war. Execpt you do not always have to use real bullets. You can
    use paper, mylar (35mm cameras), and use yourself. For it is a better
    warrior who can defeat a nation state without lifting a spear.
    
    Peace
    

    re .142
    
    Divorce papers and restraining order !  that's all ?
    
    No criminal charges ? no federal charges ? no civil rights violations ?
    
    I guess some people just have it easy :-)
    
    
    
    

    to .143
    
    Please remember that both males and females strive to have that life
    for their children.  Not always does a male provide and not always does
    a female.  
    
    And try not to be so angry! I know its hard but life is too good and
    you should enjoy it.  If not for you, but for your daughter.
    
    cj

hey george, that's one great beautiful note which you wrote there!

you make a lot of good points with regards to "stability", "dysfunctional
parents" and the parents responsibility.

i'll get back to you on those issues. the only point i am making here
all along is that there ARE alternatives when it comes to courses of action,
that there are no HARD AND FAST rules on what to do when parents separate
and that only the parents involved can know what is best for their children.
and if one of the parents has temporarily lost sight of the children's
best interests as regards the long-term implications of actions taken in the 
heat of the divorce-battle, then the other parent is called on in particular 
to act in the best interest of the children and to take the most approriate
actions in his/her judgement.

what i've missed out in this discussion so far, is the implications of
fighting for sole custody. deciding on this is a tough call on any parent 
to make, and a big responsibility to take on. 


i'll be doing some thinking on this topic over the weekend.

c u later,

andreas.

        re .139

    >based on which criteria do you determine that you have a case in order
    >to
    >fight for custody?

    I went back and took another look at this.  I originally thought that
    you meant why did _I_ fight.  Then I realized that this could mean a
    generic _you_.

    Above all, be honest with yourself.  If you are fighting for the
    wrong reasons you will not be able to stay the course.  

    Are you really fighting for the kids?  
    Are you fighting to get back at her?
    Or are you fighting for your own ego?
    Or on the other side, are you making excuses to avoid a fight?  
    How long are you willing to fight?  
    What price are you willing to pay?  
    Is there any material possession you have that is more important 
     than your kids?
    Are you willing to take on the system itself if necessary?
    Do you understand that the odds are that you will likely lose?
    Can you live with yourself if you don't at least try in spite of
     the odds?

    Most states in the U.S. decree that the children should go to the
    parent who is best able to care for them.  In most courts, this is a
    joke, but you have to consider: 
    Will the kids really be better off with me?   
    Will the difference be worth putting them through a custody fight?  

    I've always said (honestly I believe) that if my ex had been a half 
    decent mother, I would not have put my kids through the fight.  But 
    after some long hard considerations of these things, once the decision 
    was made, I never looked back.

    fred();

    The rules are simple when it comes to divorce. Do you think you are
    right in custody? Do you think you are the better parent? If your
    answers are yes. Then you do what is right. Even if you loose. For each
    time we give the opposing camp a run for its money. We just might make
    them also, a better parent. For the fear of if they dont do it for the
    right reasons is always going to be in their heads. And we are
    responsible adults, and we must give to our children what we can. 
    
    Children are NOT exclusively moms or dads. They are on loan to us from
    God Almight for 18 or so years. Then they belong to someone else or to
    themselves. 

    cj,
    
    This is a common problem with much of todays thinking of men in divorce
    when they wish to have custody. There is the pigion hole, name slot,
    calling men angry. I am not angry. I have long since passed this point.
    I am well underway in may good healthy things of live. And This term of
    calling me angry is not the right word. Its like if a woman does
    something that is right, with courage, calling her a bitch? Is that
    right? 
    
    Females and males do have there points. But, men as a whole, do not go
    for custody because of sterio typing, and pigion holing, and certainly
    name calling. And yes, there are some wounderful parenting going on.
    But, why, is teen pregnancy and juvinile crime on the rise when there
    are more single women head of house hold then men? Why are there
    children having children? Role models? Why? Dont you think that it
    might be time to give men a better chance at it? Or a fair chance than
    being the CP kaa-hoo-na? As I said earlier. Children are on loan from
    God Almighty. And many feel to the contrairy. 
    
    Re war: There is a tape called, 'War'. It is a reading of Master
    Sung(sp) a 10th century futual warlord. Many of his thinkings are good
    ideas to live by when you warring with the instutitions. Wooosers...
    Spelling stinks when you as tired as I am.:)
    
    

re .148


>   Above all, be honest with yourself.  If you are fighting for the
>   wrong reasons you will not be able to stay the course.  

>   Are you really fighting for the kids?  
>   Are you fighting to get back at her?
>   Or are you fighting for your own ego?
>   Or on the other side, are you making excuses to avoid a fight?  
>   How long are you willing to fight?  
>   What price are you willing to pay?  
>   Is there any material possession you have that is more important 
>    than your kids?
>   Are you willing to take on the system itself if necessary?
>   Do you understand that the odds are that you will likely lose?
>   Can you live with yourself if you don't at least try in spite of
>    the odds?


to this excellent check-list, i have one more point to add; a guiding 
principle, to keep in mind all the time:


how will you explain your actions to your children when they ask you
about them?






andreas.

it seems that in the days of inequality, when parents quarreled over 
children, it was easier to decide on which parent should get custody.

the thought of parents quarreling over children conjures up that old story 
of king solomon sitting in judgement over two women quarreling over a
child, each claiming to be the child's rightful parent.

with equal rights for men and women today, what would a solomonic judgement 
be, in the case of a father and a mother quarreling over custody of their 
children?

taking the case to extremes, ie. given that both parents could equally
provide for the children and given that both parents love their children
equally, and also given that shared custody was not practicable, who should 
now get custody of the children? what would your judgement be in such a 
case, all things being equal between father and mother?

this is a hypothetical case and i only make it to highlight a question
of principle.

if we are willing to concede differences between a mother's and a father's
approach to child-rearing, then looking at two quarreling parents who can 
equally provide and who equally love their children, who should be given
custody? can we still apply the principle of equality? or, in other words,
are the differences between a mother's and a father's approach to child-
rearing on an even scale?

if we were faced with such a case in reality, i believe we as fathers would
have to concede that when it comes to children, mothers will always be that
little bit "more equal" than fathers, simply, by having been bonded to the
child a full nine months ahead of us.

based on this, i would think that a solomonic judgement in a case of a
father and a mother quarreling over custody of a child, with all things being 
equal, we should LET THE MOTHER DECIDE on the fate of the child.





andreas.

    
> if we were faced with such a case in reality, i believe we as fathers would
> have to concede that when it comes to children, mothers will always be that
> little bit "more equal" than fathers, simply, by having been bonded to the
> child a full nine months ahead of us.

    This father does not concede such a thought.  I could just as easily say
    it should the father in cases of ties because after all we decided the
    sex of the child.  (That argument is just as full of air as yours IMO).
    
    
> based on this, i would think that a solomonic judgement in a case of a
> father and a mother quarreling over custody of a child, with all things being 
> equal, we should LET THE MOTHER DECIDE on the fate of the child.

    If the judge believes each parent is equally capable I would let the child
    choose if they were old enough.  This certainly would work for
    teenagers and for kids younger then that.
    
    If the child is too young then I doubt Solomon would give the decision
    to one of the parties with a vested interest.  
    
    Greg
    

re .153

>                                                 I could just as easily say
>   it should the father in cases of ties because after all we decided the
>   sex of the child.  

not quite. the father does not decide the sex of the child consciously.
whereas carrying the child to term is a conscious decision by mother, with
all the hormonal changes and the early bonding which then takes place.
none of which is experienced by the father.


    

andreas.

    FWIW (for what it's worth) I am against letting children choose which
    parent to live with.  The children  will choose the parent best able
    to "buy" them with money or with lax discipline, and will try to 
    blackmail the CP with "well I'll just go live with dad/mom then".

    I don't think parents are ever equally qualified.  For the very
    young, the children may need more "mothering", but the older the
    children get the more "fathering" they need.  I heard one judge say
    that he favored the mother because she was more likely to stay
    home and take care of the child.  How is she going to do that unless
    supported by alimony, "child support", or welfare?

    Yes, I can already hear the cries of "domineering", "brute",
    "controlling", etc.  It seems that at least once a week we are treated
    to a TV movie about some poor, brave woman fleeing from her sadistic,
    Neanderthal husband.  But I believe, backed up by studies mentioned
    earlier, that the lack of fathers in the home is the major cause 
    of juvenile problems in our society.

    fred();

    
    Re:152
    Andreas,
    I cannot agree with you that mothers should should have the edge 
    over custody choice. You are a very intelligent man but you're 
    wrong on this one!  
    also a reply to another note of yours:  How do you explain to your
    children when they grow up that you didn't fight for custody? 
    
                                            Bill

    
    Andreas,
    Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude in my response.
    I should have said I don't agree with you instead of "you're wrong.
    
                                           Bill

    Re .151
    
    Reading this string, there are obviously some 'old timers' here. 
    
    In my case Andreas summed it up in .151. I know that one day my boy
    will be a man. I will have to look him in the eye and explain my
    actions or lack of them. That reality is what keeps me focussed.
    
    I cannot even begin to imagine how his mother will explain what she
    does. But I know that I have to support her for his sake. 
    
                                                
     
    
    
    
    
     

RE Note 194.159    
    
    
>    I cannot even begin to imagine how his mother will explain what she
>    does. But I know that I have to support her for his sake. 
    
    I fear for the future when these children who have been scared by
    divorce come to realise, boys especially that their mother denied them
    the right to see their father because of spite, hate, vengefullness,
    etc.
    
    Think about how you would feel. These women may be setting the cause of
    treatment towards women back decades. Some of these boys especially
    are going to take one hell of a woman hate trip...
    
    Steve
    
     

re .157



bill,

fwiw, i could have made a case for custody even back then, during the 
divorce trial. and had i wanted to will my way to custody, i have had since 
the openings to fight and (as certain as i could ever be) to win in a battle 
for custody, even though the mother of my children is and always was, to use 
fred's term, in the very least a "half-decent" mother in my assessment.

>                                           How do you explain to your
>   children when they grow up that you didn't fight for custody? 

when my children grow up, they will hopefully, be as unbroken and intact
as i could have ever wanted them to be.

as they enter teenage years, they may yet end up living with me as their 
father, whatever their mother and i decide it to be. we discuss this theme 
often, but we won't be fighting in courts over this issue.

as you may glean from some of the notes which i've entered into this file, 
i have fought for my children under the most averse circumstances and i 
consider it a success that between the parents, we have by now reached a 
level, where we work mutually for what is best for our children. and this is 
not a tale out of disney-world. its a story which is also much about 
loneliness, emptiness, heartbreak and tears, certainly as far as i as the
non-custodial parent had to endure due to the erratic behaviour of my former 
spouse.

but, its a story which -- as the children grow up -- is likely to end with 
a happy ending and its also a story worth being told.

the bottom line for me is that in court battles over custody, the courts 
cannot know what either one of the parents is going through and that those 
who risk to lose most, will always be, inevitably, our kids. which is why,
i recommend, if it is at all possible, for parents to work towards 
conciliation rather than litigation.

i agree with george that our kids are, in a sense, "on loan" to us as
parents and i also think that our responsibility as parents does not end
with divorce. in the end, our kids, as grown ups, will be judging us as 
parents, and its only natural that by then we as parents hope to find 
them on "our side".

what do i hope for my children to say to their parents when they're grown 
up? "how could you two, mom and dad, have ever remained married for so long!"

in my kids case, their parents divorce was a turn for the better. our 
marriage was hopeless, but we do our best as parents in the rearing of our
children. in the meantime, we no longer need to keep one another on eachothers 
toes with prospects of custody battles. but as a possibility the court remains
there, as a last and mostly useless resort (-imo-).




andreas.

.158, not to worry bill, i didn't think your reply was rude. your note was 
good input.

.159, 'old timer'? i take this as a compliment! thanks. :-)





andreas.

    
    re andreas

    If you are looking for absolution for not fighting for your children,
    I (nor anyone else) can do that.  It's a decision you have to make
    and you have to live with.  It may seem that we look down upon someone
    who does not fight.  That is not true.  Having been through the fight
    I am fully aware why so many men just chuck it all and walk away.
    I am fully aware why so many men go off the deep end (for the pc,
    no I do not say it is right or I condone it.  Just that I understand
    it).

    The reason I did it--because I couldn't not do it and look myself
    in the mirror.  I knew that win or lose, my kids would someday know
    I cared enough to try.  My oldest daughter is the first female on her 
    mother's side that anyone can remember to finish high school.  Now
    she is a junior in college.

    The major concern here is the vast numbers of children who _would_
    be better off with the father and are denied that right.  Yes 
    right.  It is the _child's_ right to live with the parent most
    capable, and it is the _child's_ right to know for themselves the
    NCP.  It is that right which is so routinely violated by today's
    system.

    fred();

no fred, i am not seeking absolution of neither mine nor your position.
as i wrote earlier, my only goal was to post an alternative view.

there ARE alternatives and it is up to us to choose the most appropriate
course of action with regards to our children.

whatever this course of action is, its about what you wrote there:

>   The reason I did it--because I couldn't not do it and look myself
>   in the mirror.  

also, don't get the idea that i do not fight.

i am as convinced as you are that my struggle is real and i am also told 
that i do something which is unusual. we do the same but we do it differently
and our concern is to break a vicious cycle on a spiral which would have 
been pointing downwards had we not intervened.

i haven't much to add to what you wrote otherwise.




andreas.

re .150
   
>> And yes, there are some wounderful parenting going on.

Yes, there is .. by both sexes.  And, it is wrong, in the awarding of custody, 
that men don't get (as often as they should) the chance to show what they can 
do.

>>    But, why, is teen pregnancy and juvinile crime on the rise when there
>>    are more single women head of house hold then men? Why are there
>>    children having children? Role models? Why? Dont you think that it
>>    might be time to give men a better chance at it? 

In my opinion, teen pregnancy and juvenile crime are on the rise because
of the break-down of the family, not because women are the heads of households.

It's a bigger issue than that.  It's seeing your parents battle, seeing them
    hate each other, fight over you and every penny that it takes to raise 
    you.  

Why does a girl have a baby?  To have something that will love her 
unconditionally.  She thought her parents would do that, but now she 
feels like "my Mom or Dad didn't love me enough to stay around".  "I want
something that won't leave me."

Juvenile crime - the same thing.  "Gee, Mom and/or Dad aren't here/don't
care what I do.  They're too busy fighting with each other."

George, it's the lack of *joint* participation in the raising of children, 
it's feeling that one parent *hates* the other, that one isn't there/doesn't 
care/left...whatever the child believes (regardless of how the child arrived 
at that belief ... and it's always Mom turning the child against Dad!)

It's not that Moms are universally bad custodial parents.  It's that families
aren't families anymore.  They don't work together for the good of each other.
Who cares if they live apart or are divorced - they still have to work together.
That's what's missing.
                                                                               
Sue

    :-) :-) BIG TYPO ON MY PART!!!
    
    It should say "it *isn't* always Mom turning the child against Dad"
    
    Big difference!! :-)
    
    Sue

    thanks Sue,
    
    That is what I thought you meant, but I wasn't sure.
    
    It is difficult to be the primary parent and have a kid who believes
    that her father is a saint, because he and his girlfriend sleep in
    seperate bedrooms on the (rare) weekends she visits, and this must be
    the way they always handle things.  Mom must be scum because her steady
    friend and she occaisionally sleep in the same bed, and Dad reenforces
    thias with comments about mom. Been there, had to have a chat with the
    ex on this, didn't tell the kid that one reason her father and I split
    had something to do with finding him and the girlfriend on our
    diningroom floor doing the "horizontal bop."
    
    meg

    re .165 sue

    It appears to me that you are falling into the trap that you are doing 
    the thing that you are accusing everyone else of doing--Trying to shove 
    everything into one neat little bundle.

    Is it so hard to admit that there _are_ women out there who are just
    plain bad people let alone bad mothers, that there _are_ bad mothers.
    This dirty little secret of feminism that not all women are victims.
    There are women out there who _will_ use their kids and keep their
    kids in an unsavory situation just to get back at their ex.  

    If you don't do any of this _fine_..._good_.  I think the predominant
    attitude in this file has been the utmost respect for women who try
    to work out problems in marriage, and if they can't work out those
    problems, then will work, even against their own feelings sometimes,
    to make sure the child has _two_ parents, and for men who _do_ pay
    child support, and _do_ try to maintain a relationship with their
    children in spite of their feelings.  As I've said before, it takes
    a lot more maturity to have a good divorce than it does to have a
    good marriage.

    The reason that this is predominately women is that women predominately
    get custody.  They have more opportunity.  My problem is with a system
    that violates the _child's_ rights.  A system that looks at this as a
    one-sided men-only problem.

    fred();

    fred();

    
    re .167

    Looks more like an admission and attempted justification of guilt 
    than anything else.  Yes it is hard.  Especially when the actions
    of the NCP (former CP) have done so much damage to the children.
    But, as I said, it takes more maturity to have a good divorce than
    to have a good marriage.

    fred();

re .165


> Why does a girl have a baby?  To have something that will love her 
> unconditionally.  She thought her parents would do that, but now she 
> feels like "my Mom or Dad didn't love me enough to stay around".  "I want
> something that won't leave me."

that's it! i have never thought of it this way!

and why does a boy get into crime?

it's for getting the recognition and respect from his mates. something 
he's never had or not enough from his parents.

your note makes an impressive case for those much talked about 'family
values'! typo and all, as you say, it cuts both ways.

it's never too late to commit to the family. divorced or married, this 
bit is secondary.




andreas.

> In my opinion, teen pregnancy and juvenile crime are on the rise because
> of the break-down of the family, not because women are the heads of 
> households.
    
    A social condition for which men on the whole should accept more 
    responsibility (no, I'm not going to produce stats).  Let's face 
    the music on that.
    
    On the other hand, if you aren't one of those men responsible for 
    the breakdown of the family ("no fault divorce" is a cruel oxymoron 
    in the eyes of the child), overall I don't think the picture is as 
    bleak as has been presented.  Oh sure, there are always exceptions, 
    and those saddest of stories, but the playing field _is_ leveling 
    for those committed to the good fight from start to end.  Progress 
    starts with commitment.  There is no apology obliged nor forthcoming 
    for a good fight...
    
    Glenn
    
    
    "And if we poison our children with hatred
    	Then the hard life is all that they'll know..."
    
    

            re .171

>    A social condition for which men on the whole should accept more 
>    responsibility (no, I'm not going to produce stats).  Let's face 
>    the music on that.

    Granted there are a lot of men who could, but don't.  I feel sorry
    for them more than anything else for what they miss.  But there are
    a lot of men who would......but can't.  It's a bit difficult when 
    staring down both barrels of a restraining  order, or when filing
    for contempt costs $1000 a pop for a lawyer to do a half-baked job
    because he knows not much is going to happen anyway.

    On the other hand, as you said, I have seen the ice beginning to
    crack.  The need and value of fathers is becoming more apparent.
    Citation in Contempt can be a nasty weapon for those who know
    how to wield it.

    fred();

    
>    But there are
>    a lot of men who would......but can't.  It's a bit difficult when 
>    staring down both barrels of a restraining  order, or when filing
>    for contempt costs $1000 a pop for a lawyer to do a half-baked job
>    because he knows not much is going to happen anyway.
 
    But how is that a man is left in this position and a woman not in 
    a system where the laws (on the books at least) are egalitarian?
    I'm not naive to the prejudices of the standing judges, but the 
    lessons are clear: don't leave the house, don't leave the kids, 
    maintain control over a fair share of the money, behave yourself.
    Stand up against false claims; lies are the most damning evidence.
    It might not be enough but you can at least start on equal footing.
    The lawyers aren't working for nothing for the woman either, and 
    they're guaranteed nothing from the other party in a contested case.
    It's imperative to keep a clear head and make good decisions from
    the start.
    
    I found a good lawyer (I was lucky in how I found him, but...).
    I may be that rare exception but I've reached the point where I 
    consider him to be a friend.  I could tell from the start with the 
    questions he asked and advice he gave that his focus was on the 
    welfare of the children, while the opposition was digging in 
    on the financials.  And yet the same guy who is willing and 
    committed to fight like hell to the end based on the specifics of 
    my case, sadly, advised me early on to "stay away from the men's 
    groups".  I'm not kidding.  That was obviously a blanket opinion 
    but I think it's probably a healthy one.  I guess there is strength
    in organization but based on what I see with the politicization of
    groups like NOW then consistency is only fair.  I prefer the 
    approach of a personal commitment to a larger force.  One where
    support for what's right transcends gender division (and, yes, I 
    do believe that more often than not the "fault" designation applies 
    to custody divorce than "no fault", that right against wrong is 
    absolutely relevant).
    
    Glenn
    

    
>    I found a good lawyer (I was lucky in how I found him, but...).

    There are probably men who would pay good money for his name :^}.

>    Stand up against false claims; lies are the most damning evidence.

    Claims of xxx abuse don't hold as much power as they used to.  It
    used to be an automatic trump card.  Judges have become very skeptical 
    of such claims.  That tends to happen when nearly every case they see
    contains some claim or other of some sort of abuse.  If you can mount
    a half decent rebuttal, the claims will not hurt as much as many fear.
    (As I said before.  The real victims of this tactic by the CP mother
    are children and women who really do need the help and protection).

    Whatever you think of Newt Gingrich(sp) I heard a quote by him over
    the weekend that I think is worth keeping, "We believe that the Big
    Truth will eventually win out over the Big Lie".

    fred();

.171


'fight' is as good a metaphor as any. 

the question is, do you fight to destroy or do you fight to build.

some of you 'fighters' in here are so tense and terse, you seem to 
forget that life is for living.

right cj? (.146)




andreas.

    A few back:  Statement that men have the major responsibility for
    	the break up of the home.
    
    How so?  Please expand.
    
    Paul

> some of you 'fighters' in here are so tense and terse, you seem to 
> forget that life is for living.
    
    Believe me, I haven't forgotten...
    
    I may be terse but I ain't tense and a peaceful easy feeling is
    the only thing riding on my conscience...
    
    
    Glenn
    

    
>    A few back:  Statement that men have the major responsibility for
>    	the break up of the home.
>    
>    How so?  Please expand.
    
    Desertion, abandonment, whatever you want to call it, is a huge problem 
    that men own a major responsibility for.  No?  And you don't have to tell 
    me that it can work both ways...
    
    Glenn
    

            re .178

>    Desertion, abandonment, whatever you want to call it, is a huge problem 
>    that men own a major responsibility for.  No?  And you don't have to tell 
>    me that it can work both ways...

    As I see it there are at least five ways...

    1) He is a jerk and walks.
    2) He is a jerk and she throws him out
    3) She is a jerk and walks
    4) She is a flaiming-b!!ch and throws him out.
    5) She is a flaiming-b!!ch and he is driven out.

    It is the last category that is most difficult for the man.  Especially
    if there are children he cares about.  It's either put up with her
    c**p or abandon nearly everything he has, a good size portion of what
    he will have, and his children to the tender care of a flaiming-b!!ch.
    Kind of like the old joke involving a midget standing on the edge of
    a urinal saying, "Give me your wallet or I jump".

    The problem is that men are the _only_ ones being assessed responsibility.
    Like the old nursery rhyme:

    Sugar and spice and everything nice
    That's what little girls are made of.
    Snakes and snails and puppy-dog tails
    That's what little boys are made of.

    fred();

re 194.168    

>>    re .165 sue
>>    It appears to me that you are falling into the trap that you are doing 
>>    the thing that you are accusing everyone else of doing--Trying to shove 
>>    everything into one neat little bundle.

'Scuse me?!

>>    Is it so hard to admit that there _are_ women out there who are just
>>    plain bad people let alone bad mothers, that there _are_ bad mothers.
>>    This dirty little secret of feminism that not all women are victims.
>>    There are women out there who _will_ use their kids and keep their
>>    kids in an unsavory situation just to get back at their ex.  

Fred, I don't know how many different ways there are to express my view 
that there are good and bad parents of each sex.  I believe I've done
that in each of my entries (.3,.5,.7,.53,.60,.66,.79,.86,.89,.121,.124),
(or I've asked a question to clarify), and have tried to show that I do 
support men on this issue.  Fred, take the time to re-read my .165 ... my 
second sentence, and each example further down, I've typed "Mom and/or Dad".  

How you can read my replies, then ask me "Is it so hard to admit that 
there _are_ women out there..." is beyond me.  Frankly, I don't think 
you've heard a word I've said.

Once more .... there are good and bad MOTHERS *AND* FATHERS and fathers  
should get more of a break in the courts.  That's my view, Fred.  There's
a "neat little bundle" of mine... if that's what you want call it.

>>    If you don't do any of this _fine_..._good_.  

You call it, Fred.  Read my replies, then try to decide whether I do or not.

>> As I've said before, it takes a lot more maturity to have a good divorce 
>>than it does to have a good marriage.

Agreed.

>> My problem is with a system that violates the _child's_ rights.  

Agreed....as I alluded to at the end of my .165 when I said that parents
should work *together*.

Sue

    I have a question about #4 & 5 ... her being a flaming b*itch.
    
    Why does the man feel he needs to/should be the one to leave?  Why 
    doesn't the husband get a restraining order against the abusive partner,
    in this case, the wife? 
    
    Doesn't a restraining order tend, in most cases, to set the tone for 
    most of the interaction that follows?
    
    Sue 

    
    re .181

>    Why does the man feel he needs to/should be the one to leave?  Why 
>    doesn't the husband get a restraining order against the abusive partner,
>    in this case, the wife? 

    There have been whole strings on "domestic violence" of women against
    men.  My first response to your question was to laugh--which is usually
    the first response of authorities.  Also there is no way to get a 
    restraining order against mental, verbal, and (can I say) financial
    abuse. 

    fred();

re .179


where do you live fred? the field _IS_ levelling out in case you haven't 
noticed. 

heck, even my socialist, 'woman-friendly' judge was fair and just.

as for the violence (.183), as we have discussed so often in this file, 
this is sadly a field where men still retain the upper hand...




andreas.

    re .183
    
    So, if your, and very often the authorities' response is to laugh,
    isn't that another example of the stereo-typing....the automatic
    behavior, the idea that "Oh, he's man, so he must be more "dangerous"
    than she could ever be"?!  
    
    Ok, maybe I am niave and not having been thru this, don't know what 
    it's like, but it sounds to me like a woman doesn't have to provide 
    much in the way of proof that she is being threatened to get a 
    restraining order.  Why should that be any different for a man?  
    
    Sue
                                                               

    
>    where do you live fred? the field _IS_ leveling out in case you haven't 
>    noticed. 

    In Colorado, "domestic violence" is just a code word for "wife
    beating".  Violence against men is considered comedy--read the
    comic Andy Capp lately?

>   heck, even my socialist, 'woman-friendly' judge was fair and just.

    Yea, I finally found one too--after nine year and three other judges.
    I have noticed that things are changing though.  "Family Values, 
    "Promise Keepers" and such weren't even mentionables when I was thrown
    into the fray.  Yet, even in this file, it seems to be a rather novel idea
    that men really _do_ care about their children.

>as for the violence (.183), as we have discussed so often in this file, 
>this is sadly a field where men still retain the upper hand...
     
    Men do not have a corner on violence.  Women just do less damage--
    but not for lack of trying.  And, as I said, there are no laws against
    the mental, verbal, and financial abuse women are so good at.  To
    put up with that kind of abuse, or to walk and abandon the children
    (because she will in all likelihood be given custody) to that kind 
    of abuse can be a tough call.

    fred();

.185



sue, as i see it, its more of a case of being "different" rather than being 
"more equal" on the subject of violence.

as i wrote in 89.84, the fact that men are more inclined to use violence
in domestic situations can also be used to our advantage in the courts;
since it follows that we as men are more vulnerable to false claims of 
abuse.



andreas.

    
    re .185

    Because it is reverse discrimination and bigotry of the most heinous
    kind.  And those who dare to speak out against it are "whiners",
    "wooses", and "sissies".  As I mentioned before, The Knights Who Say
    "Ngee".   (Actually I'm rather surprised (pleasantly) that we haven't 
    seen many of those labels thrown around in this discussion so far.  
    Maybe things are changing a bit).

    fred();

        re .187

>as i wrote in 89.84, the fact that men are more inclined to use violence
>in domestic situations can also be used to our advantage in the courts;
>since it follows that we as men are more vulnerable to false claims of 
>abuse.

    I disagree.  Men are _not_ more inclined to use violence.  They just
    do more damage when they do use it.  And if a man uses violence,
    even in self defense, then _he_ is the one hauled away.

    fred();

>    I disagree.  Men are _not_ more inclined to use violence.  They just
>    do more damage when they do use it.
    
    That's not a trivial distinction, though.  In fact as far as I'm 
    concerned it's the most important distinction on the matter of
    domestic violence.  I'm much more concerned with the emotional 
    abuse, and yes, in its various forms, it certainly can be used 
    in court.
    
    Glenn
    

    
    re .190

>    That's not a trivial distinction, though.  In fact as far as I'm 
>    concerned it's the most important distinction on the matter of
>    domestic violence.  

    Again we've beat this one to death a couple times.  The Knights Who
    Say "Ngee" will try to lump them both together in order to come up
    with the statistical numbers to back up their argument.  Then in the
    same breath separate them out to foo-foo violence against men.
    Damage or not (by either sex) it hurts.  And the man has three
    choices.  1) put up with it, 2) abandon his kids, 3) defend himself
    and be hauled to jail.  

    To open another can of worms (and another dirty little secret of the
    "domestic violence" issue) if you've ever been around foster care or
    as in my case I know someone in the "child abuse" section of Social
    Services, you will find that violent women will most often direct
    their violence against children, where they _do_ do damage.  (No I am 
    not talking spanking and discipline here).  So that brings us back to 
    1) put up with it, 2) abandon the kids, 3) be sent to jail.

    >I'm much more concerned with the emotional 
>    abuse, and yes, in its various forms, it certainly can be used 
>    in court.

    It is not illegal, however, and is difficult to prove.  And in a 
    she-said-he-said situation, most judges will tend to believe the "poor 
    little woman" rather than take a chance with the "big bad man".

    fred();

re .191



child abuse is not a matter to take lightly. in this matter i have found
the authorities swift to respond to allegations.


>>    That's not a trivial distinction, though.  In fact as far as I'm 
>>    concerned it's the most important distinction on the matter of
>>    domestic violence.  
>
>    Again we've beat this one to death a couple times.  The Knights Who
>    Say "Ngee" will try to lump them both together in order to come up
>    with the statistical numbers to back up their argument.  Then in the
>    same breath separate them out to foo-foo violence against men.
>    Damage or not (by either sex) it hurts.  And the man has three
>    choices.  1) put up with it, 2) abandon his kids, 3) defend himself
>    and be hauled to jail.  


when the woman resorts to physical violence the man has more than three 
choices.

he could FIGHT BACK.

for instance, when his wife charges at him he could stick his head out of
the window and SCREAM for help!

this will alert the neighbours (they will be witness to the fact) and it
will stop the wife in her tracks.

this method of fighting back is very effective, it only takes cunning and 
courage and you don't need to lift as much as a finger in self-defence!
more, you get the backup for your case.




andreas.

as for your can of worms fred, if you need them that badly, i suggest you
take a break and go fishing.




andreas.

    re 192, 193.
    
    I think you and I do come from different places.
    
    fred();

.194


not at all that different fred.


to me, your recent notes here indicate a bad image of women. you're entitled
to that view, just don't forget to use the "IMO". if you claim to speak for
more than yourself you will encounter opposition.


thanks,

andreas.

    
    The Knights Who Say "Ngee" have spoke.  How dare I disparage women.
    Oh No!  Someone said "Ngee".  I can't stand it!  AAAAARRRRRRRRGGGG!

    Yeah, Right.

    fred();

hahahahahaha! 


right on, soldier; think i'll go fishing instead ;-)




andreas.

    
    
    Andreas,
    
    Why not make the assumption that the person writing the note is
    speaking for themselves unless they say otherwise instead of the
    opposite.  With your logic,  everyone would have to precede everything 
    they say say or write with IMO.
    
    
    Mike

a question of protocol?

imo? 

:-)

look away fred ;-)

hehehehehe >;-)



a general remark: when not qualifying a generalisation as a personal 
opinion, it does seem that the message becomes more controversial and that 
this in turn is more likely to lead to a summary dismissal of the message
rather than its consideration.

see the generalisations in .75 and the reaction in .77 for an example.

would mellowing down the message with qualifying it as a personal opinion
serve to better get the message across by reducing the controversial content?
the generalisation could be backed up by examples. then, to which extent do 
individual examples retain validity in generalisations? 


what a can of worms!!!!


arrrrgh!!!



"-imo-" has its merits at times. makes life easier, imo.



andreas.

    Now, I have not taken the time to read all of the replies for the
    last few weeks.  Since my time at DEC is short, I wanted to enter my
    input, maybe one last time.... particularily to Andreas, or any
    person, male or female, who has had difficultly with a long, tiring
    divorce (ha, who hasn't)....
    
    First and foremost, ANY parent who created a bond with their child(ren)
    in the first formative years, has created something that will NOT go
    away.  If you, for whatever reason, cannot see your children, that
    bonding is indeed there.  Period.  And, I speak from experience.  My
    children do not see their father (his irresponsible choice) but they
    miss the contact with him.  Periodically, we get a phone call or
    letter, and then they pay the emotional price for a few weeks.  The 
    bond is indeed still there.  And, I will never take away the 
    opportunity for him to see them again.  Ball is in his court.....I do wish,
    for all of the children's sake, that there weren't bitter anger parents
    that feel headgames will make them feel better or more powerful.  
    In reality, it happens often.  Have hope that the bond is strong.  
    They will not be children all of their lives.  One day they will 
    grow and they will make choices of their own, 
    without the control of an angry parent.
    
    In addressing why women often get custody... do you think it is because
    we have been the primary caretakers since adam and eve.  Think about
    it, did your father interact with you??  If so, you're rare.  Most
    fathers of our generation did not interact with the children.  Fathers
    were the breadwinners, mothers raised the children and kept the house
    in order.  So, why are you surprised that women are the primary winners
    of custody  battles.  The change, I suppose like everything that is
    changing in our world, is a slow process of men winning custody.  It
    is not the norm for men to raise the children, is it the womans
    traditional role.  And, hellllllooooo, but women are indeed different
    than men (a good role model woman) in their ability to fulfill the
    needs of children.  Again, fathers are changing.  They are
    participating in rearing the children more than ever before.  Society
    has not yet caught up in these changes.  Understand that I am NOT
    saying men should not get custody.  Each case is different.  In my
    case, am I not the best suited parent to raise the children?!!  Most
    definatley.  So, don't be angry that our unjust justice system will
    screw you.  It is not use to men fighting for the children.  It is not
    the road our ancestors paved for us.  It is up to YOU and YOU and YOU
    and YOU to change it.
    
    It must be very painful not seeing your children if you are a
    responsible parent.  If your only contact is letter writing and phone
    calls then drench the kids in letters and phone calls, gifts for
    birthdays, christmas etcc........ don't fall off the world so that
    they do not hear from you.
    
    Whitney Houston has a new song out, and one of the lines is
    "....sometimes we don't know the when's or why's...." it is true, isn't
    it...use your difficult times as stepping stones.  Don't let it sink
    you.  Whitney Houston goes on to sing that friends that understand will
    be there and eventually, you will be able to exhale....
    
    Some tips on those lonely, sad nights; go to a live comedy show, watch
    a sit-com.  Your are ALLOWED to laugh.  It is the best thing for you. 
    I am sure I could get a few with all of these men jokes that just flew
    across my email....:-)
    
    Have a good one guys and gals.....
    
    Helen 

    .200 There are men who DO raise the kids, Who DO go home and take an
    active part in the domesticated chores of child rearing, and house
    cleaning. I have met them. They have to fight harder to win custody
    because they are men. Mr. Littleton was one. With the birth of his
    first child, he would leave parties early to go home to be with
    child, that both parents were attending, to bottle feed! 
    
    It sometimes apears that men set themselves up for failure when they
    refuse the chance to gain custody because they are told by their pier
    groups that women are the better care takers of children. And stats of
    reciet time say other wise, esp when they become teens.
    
    The ruff road ahead of men in the custodial battle will not smoothen
    out till men break this sterio typing that the are in capable of child
    nurturing. That women are the only caretakers capable of nurturing
    children. And when the famillies, on both sides of the camp also feel
    that men are capable. For they are a big part of the pier grouping that
    cast the vote of mens capibilities. Encouragement and nurturing from
    parent/grandparents. Often mens sterio typed fathers who believe that
    women are the only, and your better off chasing other skirts than to
    involve yourself in such a sacrid thing. Sacrid as America and apple
    pie, thelogy, and as tightly wrapped in the flag as mother and child.
    For when ever we hear why men should go to the defence of other
    nations, like Bosnia, there is that usual cry that there are women
    being raped and children being killed, and We must send Men to die. For
    thats the only thing they are good for. Making money and dieing in
    some other country. 

    re .200

    A big part of the problem is that there is a lot more to childcare
    than changing diapers and spooning formula.  Yes, that is a big part
    of the first few years, but just try to change a diaper on a teen 
    ager ;^) (or a 5 year old for that matter.  The problem is not that
    fathers are not involved in childcare in their own way.  The problem
    is that the "father" role has been ignored, downplayed, and downright
    vilified.

    You speak of the "traditional" role of motherhood, and speak of a
    traditional father role of provided and breadwinner.  The father's 
    traditional role has gone much beyond that, albeit unrecognized.  If
    nothing else just _being_ there represents a continuity, security, and 
    stability.   If nothing else as an example of personal responsibility
    of staying home and working and supporting family and children.  We are
    finding more and more that the older the child gets the more he/she
    needs a strong influence and discipline in  their life.  A strong
    influence of discipline and personal responsibility; a good example to
    follow.  Yes, it is usually the mother that stays awake nights and
    feeds and changes diapers,  but it is the father who stays awake nights
    waiting for the teenager to bring themselves and the family car home
    in on piece, who lays  awake wondering where money for college will
    come from, or even how to motivate the kids to even understand the
    value of college.  The "just wait 'til your father comes home" backup
    of mom.  The father who gets to butt heads with the obstinent teen ager
    bent on self destruction because teenagers are _not_ capable of
    rationally and intelligently making some decisions.  That is why we
    have parents.  Otherwise we could kick them out at age 13.  Traditionally
    it has been the father on whom it falls, without backup, to just get
    it done.

    Another myth is that father's don't have emotional ties to their
    children, and once again it seems that this is measured in how much
    "mothering" a father does rather than in the toughlove of dealing with
    a snarling, spitting teen ager.  And yes,  all this is changing.
    And maybe someday the forced separation of family members that 
    supposedly went out with the Emancipation Proclamation will indeed
    be a thing of the past.

    fred();

>    And, hellllllooooo, but women are indeed different
>    than men (a good role model woman) in their ability to fulfill the
>    needs of children. 
    
    The implication being that different is better.  I'll again stick 
    with the specific case...
    
>    Each case is different.  In my
>    case, am I not the best suited parent to raise the children?!!  Most
>    definatley.  So, don't be angry that our unjust justice system will
>    screw you.
    
    You lost me here.  Apply this wisdom to other injustices, ones that 
    in particular apply to you, and see how well it fits.  Anger is not
    bad if it is controlled.  I'm not talking about rage, where the anger
    takes control of you.  But in general anger is a damned good  
    motivator to do something about the condition.
    
    As far as I'm concerned, parental rights are more important than
    employment rights, voting rights, or just about anything else I 
    can think of.  If you can't get angry about injustices here, then
    you're probably not human...
    
    Glenn
     

    At the risk of opening a rat hole ...
    
    IMO the prevailing attitude in the U.S. is that women are capable of
    being both the Mother and the Father, and that men have no qualities or 
    skills that can benefit a child. Debate the number if you want, but I 
    have read that around 70 percent of the nations children have little or 
    no male influence. 
    
    No one seems too concerned about this, but I wonder how it will change 
    America. 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    a few years I guess we will all find out what this means to America. 
    
    
    
    
     
    
    
    

    
    Re:204
    
    Interesting!  Where did you read that 70%  children have little/no male
    influence in America?    Let me know so I can read it too.
    
                                           Bill

    re .204

    We are already finding out in the increasing rate of school dropouts,
    welfare moms, deadbeat dads, drug usage, gangs, juvenile crime, 
    inner cities turning into "Lord of the Flies" breeding grounds ,
    etc.  As said before, recent studies indicate that the most telling 
    statistic in all of these is the lack of a fathers in homes.

    fred();

    
    adendum .206

    One thing that really drove this point home was watching "The Beatles
    Anthology" and trying to explain to my kids why the Beatles were 
    such a "big deal" for their day.

    fred();

    The inner city 'Lord of the Flies' are looking for a father figure. Go
    figure!:) So, they go looking in all the wrong places... on the
    streeets... alienation of the fathers, alienation of the society,
    alienation of the system to do what is right.
    
    Insofar as judges in need of more help. Seems if they could do what
    they could do right it would help some of us.

it seems to me that traditional roles for fathers have done more to keep 
fathers away from children rather than bringing them closer to their children.
(re 165.35)

as fathers today we have much more of a _choice_ to be around our children 
than our fathers did; now increasingly even to the point of taking a back 
seat at the work-place in order gain more time with our children. the 
emancipation from traditional roles as proclaimed by women must necessarily 
mean for men the chance to take on new roles aswell. not as 'second mommies',
but as fathers who are comfortable with being the primary care-providers. 
this change is a process which we are all called to participate in and to 
bring in our individual and collective male perspectives.

the system _is_ changing and the choice is there. we have only ourselves to 
'blame' for what we make NOT of it!




andreas.

    The future can be a disaster if we do nothing execpt stand and do
    nothing.

exactly! as i see it, every single effort to make that "equality in difference"
a reality is an effort which counts and probably goes a long way to pave the
way for those which remain 'unmoved'.




c u tommorrow!

andreas.

    
    re .209

>the system _is_ changing and the choice is there. we have only ourselves to 
>'blame' for what we make NOT of it!

    Not necessarily.  To some degree there are individual men who have
    been allowed by society to shirk their responsibilities.  My sister-
    in-law was being thankful for the man she married rather than her
    old "flame".  The "flame" is now on his fourth marriage with about
    six kids between them.  On the other side was my wife's niece who
    was bragging about how she "had the good since not the marry either
    of the fathers of her children".  Yes there are plenty of "deadbeat
    dads" who've cut and run, and men also have to shoulder some of the
    blame for a society in which men serve basically at the whim of the
    female and where fathers have become as disposable as the diapers.
    "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"--just don't let
    the child support be late.

    fred();

    .211 So, what are you doing for the cause? Attended any fathers
    meetings? Give money to their cause? Take in a wayward dad who is a
    destatute in divorce? Attend a visitation denial run? Gone to any
    divorce trials/hearings/fianls/pre-trails? They need your moral support
    as we all did. They need your shining face there to gain streingth
    from. Have you taken any vacation days off to help a father like this
    in need? I know that I have, so has Fred... 

    re .204,.205
    
    From a womans magazine ;)  

    The results are coming out. Many look for daddy on the streets, many
    are in jail, join the wrong gangs, kill, have children as in children
    having children. Some are druggiest.... Guess the stats are out already
    on this one.

    
    I just want to point that this string was better than most because 
    many women entered presented their opinions and points of view.
    It's good to hear from all sides.
    
                                                  Bill

    It's been 7 years.  My ex and I were still living together, sleeping
    together, discussed our separation agreement in bed; we'll have our
    real estate lawyer draw up a document, we'll both sign, that's it.
    Hunky-Dory. 
    Shortly after I moved into my apartment.  I get a call from ex. 
    "...I've been thinking...maybe you should get your own lawyer...
    It got ugly.  After the migraines, ulcer, insomnia, I caved.
    Ex's lawyer was bigger than my lawyer.
    If we had kids, I would have sold my soul to get a better lawyer.
    We recently reconciled our emotional baggage over some "holiday cheer",
    We both recall each other, then, as possessed by sheer evil, consumed
    by obession, paranoia, and rage.
    In the abovementioned state of mind, selling my soul would have morphed
    me, permanently. 
    Our kids would have grown up perfectly maladjusted enough to Menendez,
    or worse,
    be lawyers.
    "Two separate hit and run accidents; one involving a stray dog, 
    one involving a lawyer.  Which is which?  
    The one involving the dog had skid marks"
    
    

    Re on the hit and runs: One is a lawyer the other is a skunk.:)

    Lawyers are why things get so messy and expensive...  After all, who do
    you think they are really looking out for?  They need two mercedies,
    3 homes and 10 weeks of vacation per year all over the world.  Now who do
    you think pays for this?  I think the world would be alot happier and
    healthier place without lawyers, lets start a revolution and make this
    country a lawyer free nation and at the same time, get rid of the IRS.
    I bet you crime goes way down if this were to happen, because who would
    defend these slime bags?  If we were'nt forced to pay for these slime
    bags lawyers, do you think lawyers would volenteer their time?  Lawyers 
    IMHO are nothing but criminals stealing people blind either directly
    when you hire them and they drag everything for a long as they can or
    from the public through the public defendent system.  People that don't
    work for a living can use these scum bags to make a hard working
    persons life miserable, it happens all the time.  Lawyers are the
    lowest form of life on this planet IMHO.
    
    Whew, got that off of my chest, now I can breath :)
    
    Dom

    George,
    
    The fellow who murdered the lawyer in Boston had married his ex-wife
    after a very short courtship, had made life difficult for several
    UN-interested women he had worked with earlier, had threatened suicide
    on several previous occasions if women didn't go out with him, and 
    told a fellow he used to work with that he very much wanted to get
    married.  On one occasion he was escorted out of the John Hancock 
    building by Security because he wouldn't leave a young woman alone
    ...she didn't want to go out with him.  
    
    George, do the words "mentally unstable" mean anything to you?
    His wife realized all too quickly how unstable he was and divorced 
    him.  (Too bad she didn't realize before she married him...then she 
    wouldn't have had to go into hiding to protect her own life).
    
    Silver star?!  Get real!!
    

    Yeah, and all those previous women were wrong, and the management
    of the company that had him escorted out of the Hancock Bldg
    must've been anti-man too, right?
    
    And the male friend who decided he was too unstable to continue 
    socializing with must've been anti-male too, right?

    
    I am of several opinions on this situation.  On the one hand it seems
    that every other group of violent offenders are regarded as pour
    victims, and burning down the neighborhood is reason enough to fork
    over several $B of tax dollars to them.  While men are regarded as
    just "bitter" psychopaths that should be locked up to prevent them from 
    having even the thought of doing violence.

    On the other hand there are many remedies to the situation that men
    themselves have not begun to take advantage of.  

    And on yet anther side, I do not condone nor agree with the actions, 
    but, having been "through the mill" myself, I sometimes wonder how it 
    is that so _few_ men flip out and go over the edge.

    fred();

    Common Sue, George is right and you know it...  Just because you got
    one guy who was unstable before he shot his wifes lawyer does not mean
    that they don't have it in for us men...  Look at all of the other lawyers
    that have gotten killed by the screwedoverhusband lately...  And by the
    way, where did you get this info on this guy, care to post the
    article?  Sue, why don't you go to the flex notes and get pumped up ;)

    re: 194.218
    
    I realize now that my reply would have been better suited to NOTE 190 
    "My ex mutated into a drooling, sniveling, snarling...
    That I did respond to "Dads are walking wallets... lit a short fuse in
    me, on which I will shortly elaborate...  
    I have since been cohabiting with/engaged to my SO, who is the
    NCP of a 10 year old boy, and a 14 year old girl.  What I have seen
    over the last four years has been a gut-wrenching struggle for power,
    head trips, and mind games.  It's taken every fiber of my being to
    evolve above what I've been witness to, while working on my own mental
    and spiritual growth.  And it always shocks me to see my SO mutate into
    a drooling, sniveling, etc., whenever he is in his ex's presence.  When
    this happens, it always affects the kids, who later act out their own
    version of head trips and mind games in order to gain power.  It's a
    downward spiral like I've never seen, which scares the hell out of me,
    because I've been there, and escaped, numerous timess, and never want 
    to go there again.
    
    What's important though, is that we all have the ability to evolve
    above what seems like a perfectly hellish destiny.  I know this because
    my relatioship with my SO is a healthy one, built on respect and
    communication.  And our relationship with the kids is also based on
    respect and communication.  And they perceive in us, an alternative
    lifestyle, which they are allowed to compare, and judge, and decide for
    themselves.  This is the light at the end of the tunnel for them as well 
    as us.  Although *we* could not perceive of our disfuctional family 
    situations when we were growing up, seemingly condemned to repeat it in 
    our adult life, we can choose to alter that path at any time; when we are 
    ready.
    
    It takes a hell of alot to keep a relationship and family together.
    Too many families today are created by 2 people who are not ready,
    componded by a system that profits from our mis-fortune, which diverts
    all of our attention to the appropriation of the almighty dollar.
    
    Let's all just crawl out of our self imposed rat-holes and remember
    this:, it STILL isn't about money - life is much bigger than that.
    
    
    

    .277 Your right about the money issue. Too bad we cannot get our court
    systems to think that way.
    
    Re Susan: There is in Mass The Womans Bank of Boston. Where they give
    goverment loans to woman held business. They finally hired some men to
    run the bank a short time ago. There is a race called the Bonny Bell
    road race, its held on Columbis Day every year. Men need not apply to
    this road race. There is several womans only gyms in the greater Boston
    area, there are no men only gyms, there are womens days, ever hear of a
    mens day? Donno.... Guess sexism is alive and well. 
    
    I had been told by a GAL, who is an appointed person by a govening body
    who knows certainly of sexism, that I am incapable of rasing a child
    based upon a premis that I am a man and my daughters mom is a woman.
    There is clearly in Mass an underlying issue of alienation of men and
    their children. And when the system starts to acknowledges that men are
    capable people vs neanderthals perhaps there will be less of this sort
    of thing of lawyers blood running in the streets due to some madman
    rasputian unstabled from hell.
    
    
    

    
    re .227       Try life without it...  
    
    How about making both parents equally financially responsible and watch
    the whining begin. ;)

    No, Dom, George is not right.  He said this guy should get a
    "silver star".  This guy was not the typical guy_who_gets_screwed
    _over_by_the_court.  As for where I get my information, it's
    the same place that *most* people get *most* of theirs - the TV news
    and newspapers.  (The fact that we are given as much info as they
    want to give, with whatever slant they want to put on that news, is
    a whole other story).
    
    Sue
    
    ps Now be sure and change the subject to tell me about how much first
       hand information you have...when the point of the matter is, you 
       don't have any more first-hand info on this guy than I do!! 

    Sue, I asked you where you got your information to see if it was from
    the newpaper or TV which as we know will publish anything they want
    without verification or authentification.  He does not deserve Silver Star
    since I still see a buch of lawyers still around ;)  
    
    Like I said, lets make it a 50/50 deal on the financial support of a 
    child and watch the whining begin...  

    Re .229     IMAGINE

    Perhaps if this guy was given half a chance than the typical no chance
    maybe he would not have gone balistic. When they go balistic, now you
    can point your fingers and notch one up for your side vs trying to
    solve the problem. Solution to this problem is what is needed. Not the
    bigger jail. 
    
    Do you think if I had been cought that I would have been give a heros
    welcome for trying to get my daugher home? I rather doubt it. I would
    sumise that I would be branded another rasputian stalking the ex and
    rasing hell with the populas. I would certainly have been branded a
    dangerous criminal type by the press and media because trash sells.
    Good deeds don't.

.220   Lawyers are why things get so messy and expensive...

	Isn't this a little simplistic ??   Sure there are some lawyers out
there who like to keep a fight going so they get more fees, and they don't
help resolve things.   But there are some lawyers who genuinely try
to help people clean up an unhappy chapter of their life.    IMO, in ALL
divorces there is shared responsibility.   Is it useful to focus on
the lawyer ?    It's not useful to claim that all lawyers deserve to be
shot.    Isn't the real problem the inability of the husband and wife
to agree on terms of a settlement, and then live by it ??

	George, when you suggest that the person who recently shot his
ex's lawyer deserved a silver medal, you do a great disservice to the
cause of men.   I don't know all of the facts, but what was presented
in the media made a fairly convincing case that the murderer was crazy.
I haven't heard anything which left me with any sympathy for him.
Men don't need him as a poster child !

.233	Perhaps if this guy was given half a chance than the typical no chance
.233	maybe he would not have gone balistic.

	Unless you have some new information, IMO you are off base here.
Half a chance for what ???   After a short marriage she wanted out and he
didn't want to let her go.    She was lucky he didn't kill her.     He was
an abusive nut case, and now he's a murderer.   Please don't try to make
him the poster boy ... you hurt your cause !!!    We know the woman isn't
always right just because of her gender ... don't try to claim the man is
always right because of his gender.

    Geee. The man did loose it. But,, the system does push these men to the
    brink. So, I cannot with draw my statement about giving a silver metal
    for his act. Insofar as setting men back for their cause. Thats your
    personal opionion. Mine, was stated. And I take offence to the:
    
    "Men don't need him as a poster boy"
                                    ^^^ Please, he is a man. Not a boy as
    you are a woman and not a girl.
    
    

      <<< Note 194.235 by AIMHI::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa" >>>
                                                                           
    >>>>I cannot with draw my statement about giving a silver metal  for
    >>>>his act.
    
       Then why did you delete .221 & .223 ?

    I deleted them because I gave up, and threw my arms up.... I even
    deleted this file from my notebook for a few hours because I get tired
    of it. And so, I deleted these notes because I get tired of the
    constant zings I get because I make a personal statement about a lawyer
    getting his ticket punched.
    
    I have been to a number of divorce cases in support of other fathers
    and have seen my share of unfairness in the system. I have seen the
    system impoverish men to the point where they could not afford an
    attorney to defend themselves. And watched a judge sit by as the
    opposing camps attorney ripped a new rectum into the face of guys like
    Norman, whose car was set a fire, his mail tampered with, and his phone
    messed with. Norms ex works for the United States Postal Office in
    Manchester NH. 
    
    Once I had the privilige to witness a man get slapped by his ex, and
    when I got on the stand to take his defence, I was branded a
    malcontent, and maveric because I was a member of the local fathers
    group. I was the second set of eyes, and know that if I lie, I could do
    time for it. So, I don't lie, I have allot at stake here. 
    
    How about you? Do anything good for anyone lately?

    .236 I would sumize that If you read any of the other notes I have
    posted here you will reconize that I have been to allot of cases on my
    own time. My personal vacation time. How about you?
    

    

    Don't worry George, I find that people start with the personal
    attacks when they can no longer argue facts and logic.

    Ever notice how those who cannot argue facts and logic and attack
    the argument must resort to attacking the person instead.  I call
    these people the "religiously liberal left".  They can't argue fact
    and logic.  They can only attack those who dare to disagree with 
    them.  They are as committed to their ideology as much as the
    "religious right" are to theirs, and cannot explain it any better
    than the "religious right" can theirs, just that anybody who dares
    disagree with them are "bad people".

    Once again the "Knights Who Say Gnee" have spoken.  I haven't heard
    it in this file for a while but I heard it on the radio the other
    night--someone going on about "bitter" men.  Are women who've been
    raped and now cry out for justice just "bitter"?  Are parents whose
    children have been stolen and killed and molested just "bitter"?
    Is someone who's gotten AIDS from a blood transfusion just "bitter"?
    Are women and minorities that have suffered in justice just "bitter"?
    According to these standards afforded men they are.

    George is also making another good point.  Men do complain a lot, but
    how many are out there actually trying to _do someting_ about the
    problem?  And I think that that is the source of George's frustration.
    Maybe what the guy did was totally wrong, but at least it was
    _something_ other than sticking his tail between his legs and whimpering
    because some *bleep* said "Gnee".

    fred();

    How about you? Do anything good for anyone lately?
    
    Yes I have, but what does that have to do with the fact that you stated
    that this man should be given a silver medal for murdering another man?
    What type of medal do you think he deserves for shooting a Boston
    Police Officer?  Gold or Bronze?
                                                       Mark
    

    Shooting the officer, no, thats where the metal comes back.:)
    
    Insofar as the original question. I ask this because I would like to
    know if you have seen first hand what happens in the court system with
    men. I would like to know if you have personally felt the injustic of
    the system fall upon you. Perhaps have sexism live and flurish within
    the system that is the bottom line against it. Perhaps, an org that you
    have belonged to... have you ever had your civil rights jeopordised as
    the fathers group has in New Hampshire. Names summited before a grand
    jury. That was against the law in the 60's with the NAACP, in the late
    80s with the KKK. Why is it so O.K. to do with a bunch of men who are
    looking for fairness in the court systems that we defend with our blood
    on forien soils? In the name of what kinda freedom is this pompus act?
    These are attornies who have rousted our names up, like dogs. Maybe I,
    as many others can feel for this person who shot the ex's attorney
    because of the unfairness that you seem not to be understanding. Yes,
    he was wrong. But, you and many others cannot see that he was Wronged. 
    
     

.241                                                                  Maybe I,
.241    as many others can feel for this person who shot the ex's attorney
.241    because of the unfairness that you seem not to be understanding. Yes,
.241    he was wrong. But, you and many others cannot see that he was Wronged. 

	Once again let me ask:   What unfairness did he suffer ??
How was he "Wronged"?


.237    I have been to a number of divorce cases in support of other fathers
.237    and have seen my share of unfairness in the system.

	When you write like this, there are a lot of people in this
file who will believe in you and want to support you.  You are talking
from personal experience and the stories are both awful and believable.
When you start adding hyperbole you are going to lose support.


.239    Don't worry George, I find that people start with the personal
.239    attacks when they can no longer argue facts and logic.

	I find it ironic that most of .239 appears to be personal attacks !


	Fred and George ... the issue which was raised was about the
nut who killed his ex's lawyer.    Not in the heat of passion, but he went
out and stalked the guy ??    And George said he should get a medal
for murder ???    This guy wasn't trying to find his children after they
had been spirited away, or to save his children from molestation
by the ex's boyfriend.   He wanted possession of his exwife.   Plain and
simple.   I have read nothing which suggests he was "pushed ... to the brink".
If you have other information, please supply it, I would like to learn.

.239    Maybe what the guy did was totally wrong, but at least it was
.239    _something_ other than sticking his tail between his legs and whimpering
.239    because some *bleep* said "Gnee".

	If this is the poster person you want, you aren't going to get much
support, here or in the statehouse.   This guy is the one they keep making
laws about.   Norm is a much better choice.

	If you read carefully, you might figure out that most of the people
here do support the idea of equality.   But this man who killed his ex's lawyer
is IMO a "bitter man".   Drop him.   Please keep up the fight for men's
rights, but pick who you support.

    
    re .242

>.239    attacks when they can no longer argue facts and logic.
>
>	I find it ironic that most of .239 appears to be personal attacks !

    And you counter with a.....? ( Hint: you provide no fact or logic why
    it is to be considered a personal attack, or why I am incorrect in
    my statements).

    Not a personal attack.  Just an observation that those who start with
    the personal attacks have already lost the argument because they have
    nothing left to back their position except personal attack.  (Think
    about this when you are watching the Evening News).

>I have read nothing which suggests he was "pushed ... to the brink".
>If you have other information, please supply it, I would like to learn.

    I have no personal knowledge of the incident other than to say that
    he is just as much a candidate for "victimhood" as many of these
    other groups that are given many $B of taxpayer money.

>This guy wasn't trying to find his children after they
>had been spirited away, or to save his children from molestation
>by the ex's boyfriend.   He wanted possession of his exwife.   Plain and
>simple.   

    Care to explain why your assumption is any more accurate than George's.

    fred();

AIMHI::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa"               19 lines   3-JAN-1996 14:16
    
  > Insofar as the original question. I ask this because I would like to
  > know if you have seen first hand what happens in the court system with
  > men. 
         I am a divorced male. Divorced in 1994. If my experience is 
    different than yours does that mean my opinion is invalidated? 


  >I would like to know if you have personally felt the injustic of
  > the system fall upon you.
                                   No.
      
 > have belonged to... have you ever had your civil rights jeopordised as
 >  the fathers group has in New Hampshire. Names summited before a grand
 >  jury.
                 Once again, No.

 > These are attornies who have rousted our names up, like dogs. Maybe I,
 >  as many others can feel for this person who shot the ex's attorney
 >  because of the unfairness that you seem not to be understanding. Yes,
    he was wrong. But, you and many others cannot see that he was Wronged. 
  
         He did not shoot his ex-wifes attorney because of the unfairness   
     that you some how feel that I don't understand. He was not wronged.
     He was unstable to say the least. This is NOT a case of some poor 
     male done in by the evils of the law. This is NOT a case like yours
     or Norm's. Read the facts before you start your usual ranting and 
     ravings about all the knuckle dragging Neanderthals who have been 
     wronged by the Courts.
         And yes George, I have read all of your notes and admire the
     fervor which you seem to put forth to right the wrongs of the screwed.
     This is not one of those cases.
                                             Mark

    
    re .244

    > He did not shoot his ex-wifes attorney because of the unfairness   
>     that you some how feel that I don't understand. He was not wronged.
>     He was unstable to say the least. This is NOT a case of some poor 
>     male done in by the evils of the law. This is NOT a case like yours
>     or Norm's. Read the facts before you start your usual ranting and 
>     ravings about all the knuckle dragging Neanderthals who have been 
>     wronged by the Courts.

    Again I have seen no information that supports this assumption any more
    than supports any other assumption.  The only _fact_ that I have seen
    is that the guy flipped out and shot his ex-wife.  _Why_ is known only
    to him.

    fred();

    Mark,
     Perhaps this was not the case. Shooting people isn't the end all to
    the problem. Perhaps, though, It did draw enough attention. And perhaps
    for the good or the bad. Maybe some good will come forth from it all.
    What many fail to see is how the media can play a guy like this out to
    be the absolute villian of the century, the monster in the lurks of the
    court room. His major problem was he lost it and blew away some
    attorney.
    
    Its too bad you didn't go thru the game as hard as some of the others.
    Perhaps you might be open to my idea that this guy might be another
    victum of the system.

    Note 194.246 by AIMHI::RAUH "
    
    >>Its too bad you didn't go thru the game as hard as some of the
    others.
    
       Ya, it's a real shame.

    Mark, maybe your divorce was a simple one, (JUST ASSUMPTIONS) no kids,
    no property, short marrage ect.  If there is one hostile person in a
    divorce, the cost and stress factors go way up.   The fact of the matter 
    is that the lawyers try to take over complete control of the situation 
    including communication.  Whatever written communication you see cost you 
    a bundle and every phone call cost you a bundle.  Your not suppose to 
    contact you soon to be X and they are not suppose to contact you, only
    through legal means.   This is only so you can keep these people in the
    lap of luxury and mostly at the MANS expense.  Some lawyers are not
    ethical period and deserve what they get.  Its a darn shame when
    someone goes over the edge because of someone elses actions.  Hopefully,
    when they are pushed over the edge the only person/people that would be
    affected would be the ones that did the pushing.  Its a real shame when
    someone is stripped down to the bare bones with everything that they
    have worked for being taken away.  I hope it never happens to you, or
    anybody else for that matter.  Stop taking everything everyone says
    in this conference so seriously and only state what you know to be
    facts as facts and or let us know when its just your humble opinion.
    Remember, we are all looking at life threw rose glasses and everybodys
    perception of life is from what they have experienced.  I for one never
    took George seriously about the medal thing but I did feel some
    connection if you will with the thought itself;) 

    If attornies are so dam wonderful, how come there was this program the
    other night that Fred informed us to watch? I have seen an attorney use
    the legal system to force a man into bankruptcy. Then when he was, and
    his tools sold, and was no longer able to make the high payments of
    alimoney and child support. The same attorney had this man before the
    courts, again, making charges that he was under employed! This man
    owned a pool business, the business was sold to pay the debts of the
    ex's attorney. No payment plan to pay it off. Forced Bankruptcy. So,
    now he is working for $5.00 in a junkyard. Another man, also, same
    game. Owned a woodworking shop. No bargains, no considerations, just
    anti up. Worse part, This mans ex works for the state of NH as a
    personel rep. And certainly used ther powers to win, and to crush Mr.
    Vogal into the ground. So, Mark, if your ability to make a wadge was
    taken away, and you still owned, and even in bankruptcy there are a
    number of bills you cannot discharge. And attorny fees are one of those
    you cannot discharge... whould you start to feel like a few of us?
    There is help for women who have children, in or out of wed lock, but
    help for you as a middle class wadge earner doesnt exist. Not even Dr.
    Jack Kavorican(sp) can make a legal house call for your distraught
    soul. And your worth more dead at this point than alive....... 
    
    There have been a number of cases where attornies have been shot at,
    and lived. But, the case was blown off because this was a bittern
    man/dad.
    
    

    I don't know how many people have tried to own their own business. I
    know many Deccies who were self employed. And know the heart burns of
    being your own boss. And to those men and women, who know what it is
    like to gamble and win or loose. Many know there are no safty nets, no
    corp welfare because their business isn't big enough. I know a bunch of
    these people who struggled, went with out, even peddled a bike to work
    because they didn't want to use gas in the car execpt to run the
    business. And some attorny takes from them. Forced their hand into
    bankruptcy. Having you apear before not only a local court judge to
    sell it off. Now you go before a federal judge, with hat in hand. Again
    its all our fault.... I know personally, I lost an apartment building,
    I am lucky, I went in with a guy who was self employed. And watched him
    get pummled. All he had was the cloths on his back and an old rusty
    looking chevy truck. A coffee, a story, and some empathie was all I
    could do for him.

>WMOIS::MELANSON_DOM                                  22 lines   4-JAN-1996 13:44
                              -< chill out Mark >-
  > Mark, maybe your divorce was a simple one, (JUST ASSUMPTIONS) no kids,
  > no property, short marrage ect.
   
    Nope, was married a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. From start to
   absolute finish it was approximately 21 years, 2 months, 19 days and 16
   hours. 2 daughters, a house and the ex owned a convience store and worked 
   part-time as a calciumtologist. (The study of milkmen)
  
 >  Whatever written communication you see cost you 
 >  a bundle and every phone call cost you a bundle.  Your not suppose to 
 >  contact you soon to be X and they are not suppose to contact you, only
 >  through legal means.

    WE worked out who got what and then told our lawyers to draw up the
   agreement. WE stayed in charge. The day some Divorce lawyer tells me who 
   I can and can not talk to is the day I find a new lawyer.
   
  >  This is only so you can keep these people in the
  > lap of luxury and mostly at the MANS expense.  Some lawyers are not
  > ethical period and deserve what they get.  Its a darn shame when
  > someone goes over the edge because of someone elses actions.

   I agree, some lawyers are not ethical. The same can be said for any
  profession. Whatever they deserve as punishment does not, IMO, include  
  being murdered on some City street.

  > when they are pushed over the edge the only person/people that would be
  > affected would be the ones that did the pushing.

    ^^^^^^^^ And everyone invloved in the "pushers" life.


  >I for one never took George seriously about the medal thing but I did 
  >feel some connection if you will with the thought itself;)

    I felt no connection with the thought itself. Sorry, my thougts and my
   divorce were different than those who express thier views in here. What
   else can I say and what else can you do? Get a lawyer and sue me :-)

Most lawyers are ethical, honest and competent professionals.  Some are scum.
Unfortunately, it's the scum that is the most visible.

				Steve

    Lawyers become polititians, and polititians become corrupt. Whitewater
    anyone? Surfs up!:)

    .252 Congrads! Your marriage lasted that long. Mine was 7 years to the
    date. 

> Most lawyers are ethical, honest and competent professionals.  Some are scum.
> Unfortunately, it's the scum that is the most visible. 


... and a person usually gets the lawyer s/he deserves.


after all s/he pays for them!



andreas.

    Andreas! Hey Happy New Year!!:) 
    
    Contrair to your laywer therom. State side... well you might go into
    their office with the premise that they are all good guys.... but when
    the do some great things, like negotate behind your back a settlement,
    or go into the judges chambers with out you, and sell your soul to the
    system, you might change your ideas. Perhaps, as I wrote in another
    entry.... Loose your tools, business, etc to pay their bills. Why it
    might lead to gun ownership and target practicing on a few thingies.:)
    
    Why I knew one guy, and his lawyer not only negotiated a supervised
    visitation, which wasn't needed, commited him to finicial heatburns,
    but help him get into all kinds of neet things. In the end, he had to
    pay and pay and has yet to see his kids. Gee... Another neanderthal
    bites the big one..... 

>   Why I knew one guy, and his lawyer not only negotiated a supervised
>   visitation, which wasn't needed, commited him to finicial heatburns,
>   but help him get into all kinds of neet things. In the end, he had to
>   pay and pay and has yet to see his kids. 


why george, you make that guy sound like a right nerd. he should have kept
his lawyer on a close leash and should have given him clear instructions 
instead of allowing him to go off the deep end.




andreas.

    Most people don't understand that their attornies work for them, not
    the other way around. Sides, many sign a waiver to the contrairy that
    allows the attorney to sell the soul to the system. Hey, its just
    another neanderhal dad going to get his evil justice.:)
    

    re .253
    
    Gee Steve, now that you said that, it must be true ;)  I wonder what
    the count is  ### ethical to ### scum.  You must have these numbers
    or you have interviewed all the lawyers in the US and have compiled
    a list right?  Can you publish this list so we can all benifit?
    Next you will be telling us that most all politicians are
    competent professionals and some are scum unfortunately.  Please
    provide that list also ;)

Unfortunately whenever any disturbing incident comes to the attention of the
public via the media there are always comments by the status quo to the effect
that "most of our ______ are fine _________s and what we have here is a glaring
exception".  In effect this is dismissing the incident in terms of it having
any meaning about what usually or frequently happens; It is saying that the
incident does not teach us anything about the area.  Actually the incident may
be very meaningful, but how are we to know if it's are rare exception or a
frequent fact.

    Is that any worse than "all ____ are scum"?
    
    				Steve

    re .262
>>       Is that any worse than "all ____ are scum"?
      
    Well since you asked, yes ;)
    
    Steve, maybe I should have qualified that with (DIVORCE LAWYERS), at
    least from what I have seen.
    
    			Dom   
    

    
    Hey Mark,
    Good to hear that you and former could discuss things and come to
    agreements.  You didn't mention how often you see your children!
    I consider the children more important than material things. 
    If both of you were able to agree on a workable equal sharing of
    Your children then my hats off to both of you!!
    
    I had a good lawyer. He worked hard and charged a fair price.
    My criticism is with the political process and current social attitudes
    that devalue men as loving nurturing parents.
    It is appalling that there are no laws to prevent custodial parents 
    (Mothers mostly) from moving away with children.  I hope that one
    aspect changes soon.
    
                                            Bill

re 203.262

>    Is that any worse than "all ____ are scum"?

Exactly the same.

The divorce lawyers I have dealt with acted in a reasoned and professional
manner and advised me on the legal issues and probable outcomes given certain
courses of action.  Perhaps this was partly due to my not looking for a
"shark", and partly by my own desire to protect my rights while avoiding
an outright battle.  I had the opportunities to "go for the jugular" at times,
but declined - that wasn't how I wanted to handle it and the lawyers I
consulted (two different occasions, on the second occasion, the lawyer who
had originally handled my divorce was no longer in private practice) supported
me in that.

If you pick a lawyer by calling 800-SUE-ME, you will probably get the lawyer
you deserve.

				Steve

    My Lawyer was not as much a problem as my X's.  My X's first lawyer
    finally came to an agreement with my lawyer and we signed papers 
    and went in front of the judge ect.  A week later, I got a letter 
    stating that my divorce would be final in 3 months and then a couple
    days after that, I got another letter stating that she got another
    lawyer and was appealing.  She stated in the letter that she thought
    she was getting all these things like Alimony, for me to continue to 
    pay all of her other living expences like mortgages, taxes ect. Her
    appeal got rejected 3 times in the lower courts and she was going to try
    and push it to the appelet court.  I won't go into what finally made
    her give up, but lets just say that your not suppose to sell items that
    you don't own. Both of her lawyers were female and treated me like SH*T 
    while my lawyer was very personable ect.  When the divorce was finally 
    about to be over, my lawyer would not release the final papers until I 
    paid him in full.  During the 3 years that it took my divorce to become 
    final, I had never fell behind our agreed upon payment schedule.  It 
    ended up cost me over 10K and my X spent about 30k all out of our assets.
    Her second lawyer seemed to be worse than the first and what I would call 
    an ambulance chaser.  Maybe what they should do is pass a law that limits 
    how much a lawyer can charge you for a divorce, then maybe they would not 
    drag it out so long.  Oh yea, the first lawyer I hired was a real bute,
    he never returned my calls and when we had our first meeting, it look
    like he was being too friendly with my X if you know what I mean. 
    IMHO, most divorce lawyer drag it out if they can and charge you as
    much as they can and thats not right.

  >>  Note 194.264 by SALEM::PERRY_W
    >>    Good to hear that you and former could discuss things and come to
    >>  agreements.  You didn't mention how often you see your children!
      
        I see one of them everyday as she lives with me. The other one
    lives on her own and I see her whenever the occasion arises. Like
    when she needs some of my money:-(
        We have no problems, other than the usual, with our children. Their
    response to the divorce was basically "it's about time".

    Does anyone know of any states that don't have reciprocity laws with
    Mass. regarding the attachment of wages ? How would one go about 
    finding out this information ?
    
    Thanks,
    Mike

    re .369
    
    Reciprocity is a Federal mandate.  It's called URESA.  When it comes
    to child support and attachment of wages, etc _all_ states have
    reciprocity.   It is also a Federal felony to cross state lines to
    avoid paying child support.

    fred();

    I thought I heard on a legal segment of a talk radio show that the
    Federal stuff was overturned. Child support is a state issue and the
    Federal pigs have no business sticking their noses in it.
    I also read in the newspaper that Mass. couldn't get at some guys pay
    check in New York, but unfortunately he had property in Mass. which
    they did steal. I'm certainly not looking to cross state lines to avoid
    child support, but I'm going to move to another state to get the Mass.
    DOR out of my paycheck. I'll handle the payments without government
    intervention, thank you. 
    
    
    Mike

    
    re .271

>    I thought I heard on a legal segment of a talk radio show that the
>    Federal stuff was overturned. Child support is a state issue and the
>    Federal pigs have no business sticking their noses in it.

    I haven't heard anything about that happening.  Had better check with
    "professional" before you leap.

>    but I'm going to move to another state to get the Mass.
>    DOR out of my paycheck. I'll handle the payments without government
>    intervention, thank you. 

    URESA has been around a long time.  You may still have to pay through
    DOR.  Be very careful.  I've seen guys try to cut out the "middle
    man" in these child support things and end up paying _twice_.   If
    you do do this, make darn sure you have proof that it was paid--
    canceled checks are good.

    fred();

    
    
    
>    I thought I heard on a legal segment of a talk radio show that the
>    Federal stuff was overturned. Child support is a state issue and the
>    Federal pigs have no business sticking their noses in it.
    
    Personally I'm glad the feds have stuck their noses in it.
    
    
>    I'm certainly not looking to cross state lines to avoid
>    child support, but I'm going to move to another state to get the Mass.
>    DOR out of my paycheck. I'll handle the payments without government
>    intervention, thank you. 
    
    Any what about those who moved out of state and stopped making
    payments?  Do you propose that each of 50 states make individual
    agreements with each of 50 states (that's 2500 agreements) to chase
    down these non-paying folks?  It's exactly issues like this that it
    makes sence to have the feds play a role instead of creating a 2500
    agreement mess IMO.
    
    Greg
    

    I don't understand something here: why is it preferable to have to
    write a child support check over simply having it withheld from your
    weekly check (i.e. "garnished")?  It costs a buck, right?  I'm having
    trouble understanding the downside of this...am I missing something?
    
    tim
    

>    I don't understand something here: why is it preferable to have to
>    write a child support check over simply having it withheld from your
>    weekly check (i.e. "garnished")?  It costs a buck, right?  I'm having
>    trouble understanding the downside of this...am I missing something?
    
I believe there are three major reasons:

1. The system is subject to error and those errors are very difficult to
correct. With garnishment, an amount, often incorrect, is simply taken
and getting anything back is a daunting and often impossible task. See
other notes in this file for stories of garnishments taken twice, taken
long after they are supposed to end, taken redundantly by competing
agencies, etc.

2. Garnishment of wages can have a negative impact on your credit
rating. For some creditors, garnishment reduces your disposable income,
increases your risk and can taken as a sign that you are not responsibly
paying your just debts.

3. Some people would find having their wages garnished embarrassing and
humiliating. 

-stephen

    
    
     Be careful with garnishments. 4 years ago I won custody of my son. I
    had paid support thru garnishment for a good 9 years. Well I thought
    everything was taken care of until I went to buy a new truck. My credit
    report showed I owed the state of Mass. $12,000. To say the least I was 
    a little upset. What it was is the court forgot to or lost the proper
    paperwork. It took me months to get it straightened out.

    One of my co-workers had his wadges garnished for years. And it took
    an act of congress to get from under the payment game long after the
    children had become amansipated(sp). The DOR owes this man close to 18
    months back child support that he paid into it. Chances of DOR cutting
    him a refund are the same odds that you the reader, will get a ride in
    an alien space ship, pilotted by Elvis. And if you still think that
    your chances are good, you will also be given a labotomy and set free
    to roam and forage afterwards.
    
    

    Nobody of sound mind would ever want the Mass. DOR latching on
    to their pay check. Their ruthlessness and incompetence are
    of legendary proportions.
    
    The DOR lowlifes are threatening me for back child support I
    don't owe and never did owe. Because it took them 4 weeks
    from court order to wage attachment they accused me of not
    paying for 4 weeks.
    I have cancelled checks and a notorized letter from my ex stating
    that I don't owe her any back support. I'm only sending the notorized
    letter as evidence for the DOR review. That way when they lose the
    evidence I can quickly send new evidence. Maybe they can get it
    right in 2 tries.
    
    Mike

.274 I don't understand something here: why is it preferable to have to
.274 write a child support check over simply having it withheld from your
.274 weekly check (i.e. "garnished")?
    
	I'm aware of several issues here.   First remember divorce often
leaves the parties feeling injured, and perhaps overly sensitive.
Garnishment used to be for "Deadbeats", and having it ordered by
a judge makes it feel like you are being declared a bad guy.

	And then there is dealing with DOR.   The letters they write
when then think you are behind threaten lots of nasty stuff, like taking
your tax refunds, and ruining your credit rating.   They do
provide a automated voice mail system you can talk to.   But this system is
geared to custodial parents to lodge complaints, not to correcting errors.
About the only thing you can do is write them a letter, (certified, return
receipt requested) with your evidence.  Submission of evidence like
copies of paystubs showing the garnishment, and canceled checks seem
to be ignored.   Requests for what evidence would be recognized are
also ignored.   Lawyers don't want to get involved, even if you pay them.

	Certified letters from the custodial parent stating nothing is owed
seem to help.

	So you have a guy who feels like he has been abused by his
ex, is paying too much, but he paid it, and now the DOR jumps down
his throat, and won't look at evidence of compliance, and won't tell
him what is needed.

    DOR provides an automated voice system to tell them what a bunch of
    hoo-la-gins they are. And they are going to really listen to you when
    they take someones moneys 18 months long after the face. And chances
    are they are really going to return that money... 
    
    I have also another story of a man in Laconia NH, Jan. Jan was giving
    his entire check to his ex wife and kids. Not even going by the $400.00
    a month guideline that the state allows you to have in your pocket.
    Like $400.00 per month is really going to let you live high on the hog
    or anysuch. So the ex decides to raise hell with his life. Jan finds a
    lovely woman to move in with, and while asleep in their beds one night.
    The sheirf via court order from DCYS, under comand of our beloved court
    system in NH, was dragged in his underware, thru the snow from bed to
    an awaiting car. Cloths were provided after the fact by the girlfriend
    who was histerical that such a jack booted affair exist in our beloved
    country. There is NO recourse against such false arrest and false
    charges towards the ex who lied, towards DCYS for they like the court
    system are imune from prosucution.
    
    Funny.... no one considers the rights of these men. Proven guilty
    before the fact, for man is born with original sin, and this must be
    true. No wonder there are so many fatherless children....

    re .280
    
    There is recourse against the state thugs, but you have to be willing
    to pay the price if you get caught.
    
    I used the DOR voice system a few days ago. I traversed the menu
    until I got to a "customer service representative". I started
    telling her what I thought of their methods and she hung up on me.
    Before the conversation started a message stated that this call
    is being recorded. Do you think they monitor the calls to make sure
    the reps are treating the customers politely ?
    
    Mike

    Do I think they are monitoring the calls to make sure they cornhole
    everyone. Sure!:) This happened in 1990/91. 

Well, if I sift through all the anger and hype, I take it that the
primary problem is with DOR screw-ups...so be vigilant.

Got it.

Thanks,

tim

    
.280 I have also another story of a man in Laconia NH, Jan. Jan was giving
.280 his entire check to his ex wife and kids. Not even going by the $400.00
.280 a month guideline that the state allows you to have in your pocket.
.280 Like $400.00 per month is really going to let you live high on the hog
.280 or anysuch. So the ex decides to raise hell with his life. Jan finds a
.280 lovely woman to move in with, and while asleep in their beds one night.
.280 The sheirf via court order from DCYS, under comand of our beloved court
.280 system in NH, was dragged in his underware, thru the snow from bed to
.280 an awaiting car. Cloths were provided after the fact by the girlfriend
.280 who was histerical that such a jack booted affair exist in our beloved
.280 country. There is NO recourse against such false arrest and false
.280 charges towards the ex who lied, towards DCYS for they like the court
.280 system are imune from prosucution.

	George, we would like to support your efforts to work for men's
rights, but this account is incomplete.   All it says is some guy got
busted in the middle of the night.    Maybe he deserved it, maybe he
didn't.   You haven't provided enough information for me to decide.

	What is the rest of the story ?   If the sheriff arrested him
there must have been a charge.   Was the charge nonpayment of support ?
If so, was he behind in his payments ?   Is this a case where ordered
support exceeded his current income ?   If so had he filed asking for
a reduction ?   Had he ignored a summons to court hearings ?   Was the
charge abuse of his ex or the children ?   Did he beat up his ex or the
children ?   We need to hear more facts.

    The charges were false and trumped up by the ex. And supported because
    of the vilianizing of men as a whole. I think I have made this as clear
    and as accurate as I possibley could. Please understand that I did not
    use Jans last name because I have not gotten a verbal nor written
    permission to tell his story here. I did use his first name to give
    understanding that this is not a creative writing class in my behalf or
    for others. 
    
    Getting tossed in jail by the system is a common practice when you are
    accused of not keeping up with child support. The plan is to sqeeze
    money from a rock via the emotions of the mans supportive network.
    Great game. It works too. 
    
    The question McClure from me to you, what org do you represent if your
    looking to provide support to these men?
    
    What these men and others are asking is to hold people and the system
    accountable as you would hold us accountable for your actions. It seems
    that CP and the courts become inmune from prosucution(sp) when stuff
    like this goes down. I am certain that thru me an the writing of others
    here this would be the jist of what all is said. But, instead, I have
    percieved thru the writings of others here that men are a bunch of
    whinning whimps. And every time anyone tries to defend such, is like
    trying to pick a fight with the 'Tar Baby' of Tales of the South. 

I saw an interesting article in yesterday's Nashua Telegraph about a proposal
in NH to make various modifications in the rules and laws affecting NCPs, 
including a reduction in child support if there is part-time custody, plus 
making it more difficult for the CP to prevent visitation without cause.

				Steve

    What page. I have the paper in front of me.

I don't recall - was at the top of one of the pages.  I'll look when I get home.

		Steve

    Page 10, Feb. 15.  "Proposal would increase rights of non-custodial
    parents"  It starts out "Parents who don't have custody of their
    children could pay less in child support and gain more rights under a
    bill being considered Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The
    bill would allow the courts to consider the cost of visitation to
    parents who have their children on weekends and school vacations when
    setting support payments.  ... the bill, which also makes it a crime
    for parents with custody to interfere with court-ordered visitation,
    and increases penalties for those missing child support payments in
    some cases."
    
    					Steve

    RE visitation:
    
    Penality from what to what?
    
    IMHO penality for interference of visitation should be a felony
    
    Steve

    Only if it is enforced as well as CS laws are. 

    What is the penality for refusal/obstruction of visitation right now?
    
    Your name and picture on a poster of milk carton?
    
    Your arrest?
    
    Denial of Givmint rights?
    
    
    Get REAL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Is seeing/visiting a parent a basic human right of both the child and
    the parent? 
    
    Does anyone disagree...?
    
    So therefor, a woman denying lagal court ordered visitation is denying
    the child and other parent a basic human right.
    
    Does anyone disagree...?
    
    

    
    re .293
    
    I've been advocating for years that violation of visitation is a
    violationf of the _child's_ right as much or more as the violation
    of the NCP's rights.
    
    fred();

    .292 Right now, there is nothing to stop or obstruct visation. You
    might, after a few hundrend thousand dollars, convince the court to
    change custody. Very rare. You can state that the child is sick, or
    worse, tell the court that the NCP father is a child abuser, wife
    beater, get a life time restraining order and vola! Never see the NCP
    father ever again. 
    
    

    re .278
    
    	The DOR has made a determination in my case, well sort of, maybe I
    think. I got mail from them Mar. 18 or 19 stating that after a
    comprehensive review of my case they determined that I didn't owe back
    support and they were not going to "REVOKE MY LICENSE AT THIS TIME".
    That 4 page letter came from the Worcester office and was dated
    3-15-96.
    	On Friday Mar. 22nd I get a 1 page letter from the Boston office.
    The envelope is post marked Mar. 21 and the letter is dated Mar. 09-96.
    This letter states I owe money and they are going to take action
    against me. What incompetent jerks. Two offices handling the same case
    and not keeping in touch with each other. I'm willing to bet they start
    to harrass me on State income tax issues.
    	If anyone knows where I can get plastic or other high explosives
    please contact me off line.
    
    Mike

    Send the Boston office a copy of the letter from the Worchester office.
    Sent it return receipt.  Then if they proceed with any action against
    you, haul their fannys into Federal Court for unlawful prosecution,
    harassment or something.

    fred();

    That won't do any good Fred, these are goverment employees. Reading is
    not a required skill set.:)
    

    re .289
    
     That won't do any good Fred, these are goverment employees. Reading is
     not a required skill set.:)
    
    Yea, but of they can write enought to make an X on the reture receipt
    to prove they got the evidence you don't owe the money, the court
    won't care much.
    
    fred();

    While this advice is useful, I still haven't found the high explosives
    needed to resolve this matter to my satisfaction (smiley face for the
    PC challenged).
    
    Mike

    
>                      <<< Note 194.300 by PASTA::MENNE >>>
>                    -< street justice before court justice >-
>
>    While this advice is useful, I still haven't found the high explosives
>    needed to resolve this matter to my satisfaction (smiley face for the
>    PC challenged).
>    
>    Mike
    
    Not that I don't understand your attempt at humor here (and your 
    frustration), but there are the humor challenged around who will try 
    to accuse you of actually  wanting to imitate the OKCity bomber.  Huh
    George :^)??

    fred();

    Had an interesting chat with Norm over the weekend. Norm, whose ex and
    her pals have set fire to Norms truck, messed with Norms mail, and his
    telephone. Norms ex June works for the Manchester U.S. Postal office.
    
    Norm was able to get the ex's attorney, Pat Murphy, up on charges of
    visational interference, and a host of other things. But, because Norm
    left out one wee little word in his supinia, the whole thing got blown
    off by our beloved court system. Norm could have re-filed, but after
    some 10 years of trying to see his daughter, gave up. Norms ex, June,
    also took the mortgage money that Norm was under court order to pay for
    the house, and blew it to the point of bankruptcy. 
    
    In short, Norm is out of the game, tired, bankrupt, and still unable to
    see his daughter.