Conference quark::mennotes

    So cold around here this past weekend. I saw a divorce attorney with
    his hands in his own pockets.:)

I think you're attacking the wrong problem.  Instead, we should make it much
more difficult to get married.

				Steve

just to stir the pot a little: ;-)

when i read that in germany today, there are as many single households
as there are married households, i take this as an indication that 
"marriage as a contract for life" is an outdated concept.

as i read and observe, the trend in society is towards 'phased' relationships.
for example the major relationships would be for the following phases in
life: pre-children, child-rearing and post-child-rearing with changing 
partners in each phase (and with life-long partners in relationships becoming 
the minority, if not the exception).

so i'd prefer the concept of marriage as a life-long contract (as it was 
originally devised some 150 years ago), to be updated to today's reality.
a new contractual form which binds both partners to their parental responsibly 
in a fair an equitable manner and in a form which would endure change of 
partners in adult relationships would be more appropriate (-imo-).




andreas.

re .0

>   relationship.  Currently marriage has become little more than a formal
>   "shack up" which is only slightly harder to break at the whim of either
>   party than and informal "shack up".  The break-up of those marriages
>   has thrown a burden of support on society that now threatens to 
>   bring down the mightiest civilization and mightiest country ever in
>   history of the planet Earth.


if "shack up" is what i think you mean (amorous escapade) then a relationship
between two adults based on love, trust and commitment is far more than a
"shack up" and a "shack up" is no match and no reason to break-up a profound 
relationship which is built over years.

compared to victorian times, partners in marriage are today no longer
materially dependant one one another and due to more reliable contraceptive
methods the risks of incurring unwanted consequences from the odd "shack up"
outside wedlock are reduced which then leads to an increased rate of
"shack ups" outside wedlock (when a "shack up" outside wedlock becomes a 
a sign that something is lacking in the marriage).

both these factors, material independance and better contraception, must
necessarily mean that the willingness of two adults to remain together and
to be faithful to eachother in a relationship is much more of a voluntary 
nature rather than this being forced through circumstance. i don't see this
as a negative for working relationships -- quite the opposite, this makes
long-term relationships more valuable and unique. on the other end, with the 
material dependance removed, it is surely better for partners to break a 
relationship when the love has gone rather than grow old together in 
bitterness. in this light, i interpret the increased divorce rates (as we 
see them today) as a sign of a freer and a healthier society (at least with 
regards to the forms of adult relationships which each one of us can commit 
to).




andreas.

    Re. Steve,

    One of the deficiencies in the "men should take responsibility for
    contraception" argument is that it is the way for men to  protect
    themselves from _unwanted_ pregnancies.  However, there are many
    men who _want_ children and families.  

    In years gone by, I believe, marriage was mainly to protect the female.
    To provide a guarantee of support for the female and the children that
    would result from sex with the male.  That trade of sex (and love
    because for men love and sex are closely tied together) for support
    was, IMNO, the main reason form men to marry (sex outside of marriage
    was strictly frowned upon for the above mentioned children that would
    result).  (I'm going to drop another bomb here and ask you to imagine
    what kind of a deal marriage would be for a man if you take love/sex
    out of the equation--Hey we're going to give you this mortgage and
    car payment and woman and kids that hate your guts to spend the 
    majority of the paycheck you put up with your a$$h@@@ boss to earn--
    WHAT A DEAL!).

    What we now have is a situation in which "the boot is on the other 
    foot" so to speak.  We now have a situation where the female can
    *change the rules* of the relationship and marriage on a _whim_ and
    _keep_ the support while denying the love/sex (even while giving 
    it to someone else).  This is another situation where men are 
    "tricked" into fatherhood.  Therefore, I believe it is now necessary
    not only for men to protect themselves from "unwanted" pregnancies
    but also from this "trick" that "it will never happen to me" attitude
    that men have when agree to participate in "wanted" pregnancies.

    I know the next question coming already,  "Why are men so stupid to
    let themselves in for such a situation"?  Well, I'll admit that it's
    easier for me to understand at age 42 after having been drug through
    the hell of 9 1/2 years of divorce courts and custody battles than it 
    was for me to believe as a newlywed at age 19.  If men really could
    understand it at age 19, we'd probably see the population drop
    like a rock.

    fred();

    re andreas:
    
    Shack-up:  American slang for two people living together without
    marrige (a long term or semi-long term relationship).
    
    fred();

thanks fred, learn something every day! :-) though since shack-up is 
hardly an escapade that sends my note down the waste-basket! :-(

hopefully the chance arises to make the point again. this is a great 
topic which you've started here.



andreas.

    Well, I agree with Steve that we should make it much more difficult
    to get married in the first place.

    If the suggestion in the basenote goes through, I'll drop everything
    and go to law school myself (because the lawyers will get a LOT more
    than they do now by the time couples would be finished with the elaborate
    process of assigning the intricate levels of BLAME needed in court for 
    the breakup of each marriage.)

    As for marriage being abandoned altogether, married men still live
    longer than single men, so the dire descriptions of men (as a group)
    living with women and children who despise them are not shared by
    men in general.

    My husband and I are very, very happily married - we both still adore
    each other after being together for five years.  We're equal partners,
    best friends and we make each other smile the way no one else can.

    Many others in this file also share happy long-term relationships (in
    and out of marriage.)  Such relationships are here to stay, no matter
    how cynical any individual may become about marriage.

    The Knights Who Say "Gnee" are going to have a field day with this one).

    If you are reading this file and you aren't worried yet consider this:

    THE RULES OF MARRIAGE HAVE CHANGED!

    If you don't have children now and you get divorced, losses will
    probably be limited to past and current monetary values.  Except
    in states that still have "alimony".

    If you have children SHE *OWNS* YOU.  On a whim she can force your 
    separation from your children,  force your exit from your house,
    force the confiscation of most of your current property, and force
    the continued confiscation of a very sizable portion of your future
    pay for many years to come.  She will almost automatically, no matter
    who was the "at fault" party be given custody of the children,
    the lion's share of the marital property, and alimony/"child-support"
    until the child is out of college.  Under certain circumstance she
    can even make you to pay for her lawyer to do it to you.

    Even if _she_ is the abusive party (to you or to the kids), if you 
    walk away, you will likely be abandoning your children to a less than
    savory situation.  If you can *prove* (and I mean a lot of it) that
    she is abusive to the children, you might have a chance, but---GOOD
    LUCK!

    What can you do about it?  Under todays courts and laws, not a helluva lot.

    If you think you are going to walk away and not pay child support,
    THINK AGAIN!  It is now a felony to avoid child support.  They are
    tightening this noose tighter every day, and in most cases they
    are asking payments be ordered from *day one*.  Course if you are
    planning to walk away from your children, I don't have much sympathy
    for you to start with. Of course if you are not married, the child
    support applies anyway.

    fred();

    
    BTW, I agree that they should make it harder to get married.  A _LOT_
    harder!  Maybe some of those doe-eyed young studs who believe it will
    never happen to them will think twice.
    
    fred();

    
    Oh, and on alimony.  Many states do not have it.  Some states will
    give "spousal support" for a certain period of time, then cut it off,
    but if you are unlucky enough to live in one of those states that
    have full alimony, it's until 1)she dies, 2)you die, 3)she gets
    remarried.

    If she decides to not get remarried, just move her young stud into
    your house, your easy chair, your beer, and your bed, then--
    TOUGH S!!T!  Guess what--YOU GET TO SUPPORT _HIM_ TOO!

    fred():

    After reading the last few notes, one would never guess in a million
    years that most women (including wives and mothers) work outside
    the home and that (per the United Nations) the women of the world
    still perform the vast, vast majority of unpaid labor - the labor
    which sustains family life - on our planet.

    Not to mention that women carry ALL (100%) of the physical burdens
    of pregnancy and childbirth.

    If women got together and decided to refrain from doing any of the
    unpaid labor (and all of the physical burdens of pregnancy and
    childbirth) from now on, our species would become extinct.

    By the way, while married men live longer than single men, it's
    interesting to note that single women live longer than married
    women.
    
    Such a deal, eh?  :}

    
    re .12

>    Not to mention that women carry ALL (100%) of the physical burdens
>    of pregnancy and childbirth.

    A big problem I have with that is that you assume that pregnancy
    and childbirth and changing diapers are _all_ there is to raising
    children, and I could adopt any number of them so long as I was
    willing to settle for something older than a little bundle of cute
    pinkness.

>    If women got together and decided to refrain from doing any of the
>    unpaid labor (and all of the physical burdens of pregnancy and
>    childbirth) from now on, our species would become extinct.

    Hey, I can cook and clean and do laundry with the best of them, and
    the "unpaid labor" that I do in mechanics, carpentry, yard work,
    etc, probably at least equals the amount of work done by most women 
    these days.  Real tough sticking a tv dinner in the nuke-machine ;^).
    Besides, if all men did what you suggest (make sure there were no
    _unwanted_ pregnancies) there'd be no need for any of the other
    "unpaid labor" anyway ;^).

    fred();

    
    re .13
    
>    By the way, while married men live longer than single men, it's
>    interesting to note that single women live longer than married
>    women.
    
    Divorced men have the shortest lifespan of all.
    Such a deal, eh?  ;^}
    
    fred();

    RE: .14  Fred

    // Not to mention that women carry ALL (100%) of the physical burdens
    // of pregnancy and childbirth.

    / A big problem I have with that is that you assume that pregnancy
    / and childbirth and changing diapers are _all_ there is to raising
    / children, 

    What parts of the words 'pregnancy' and 'childbirth' don't you
    understand?  At this point in time, men do not get pregnant nor
    give birth.  Women were pregnant and gave birth in some manner 
    to all 5+ billion people on this planet (without a single exception.)

    / Real tough sticking a tv dinner in the nuke-machine ;^).
    
    If only 'making dinner' were the only 'family life unpaid labor'
    needed on this planet.  It's not (by a long shot!)
    
    / Hey, I can cook and clean and do laundry with the best of them, and
    / the "unpaid labor" that I do in mechanics, carpentry, yard work,
    / etc, probably at least equals the amount of work done by most women 
    / these days. 

    According to the United Nations, the vast, vast majority of the
    unpaid labor (family life tasks) are done by the women in the world.
    The United Nations didn't mention Fred Haddock, specifically.

    One of the network news shows had an interesting comment about 
    perceptions of 'who does what' when it comes to family life tasks.
    They asked a group of husbands to list their tasks, and the wives
    to list their tasks.  Some of the men had 20 or so tasks listed
    for the week (and felt pretty good about it.)  The wives' lists
    extended from the reporter's hand down to the floor (and for several
    feet across the floor) for every couple surveyed.   The male
    reporter found it somewhat startling, to say the least.

    / Besides, if all men did what you suggest (make sure there were no
    / _unwanted_ pregnancies) there'd be no need for any of the other
    / "unpaid labor" anyway ;^).

    There'd still be plenty of 'unpaid labor' for the _wanted_ pregnancies,
    though.

    RE: .15  Fred
    
    / Divorced men have the shortest lifespan of all.
    
    Not true.
    
    The stats are usually given for 'married men' and 'single men',
    NOT 'married men who have gone through divorce' and 'single men
    who have gone through divorce.'

        re .16

>    What parts of the words 'pregnancy' and 'childbirth' don't you
>    understand?  At this point in time, men do not get pregnant nor
>    give birth.  Women were pregnant and gave birth in some manner 
>    to all 5+ billion people on this planet (without a single exception.)

    Last time I checked, it takes 18 years to raise a child.  Not 9 months.

    >    / Real tough sticking a tv dinner in the nuke-machine ;^).
>    
>    If only 'making dinner' were the only 'family life unpaid labor'
>    needed on this planet.  It's not (by a long shot!)

    You ignored he smiley-face.  Which doesn't surprise me.

>    According to the United Nations, the vast, vast majority of the
>    unpaid labor (family life tasks) are done by the women in the world.
>    The United Nations didn't mention Fred Haddock, specifically.

    UNITED NATIONS!  I thought we were talking about marriage in the 
    U.S. of A.  You conveniently forget that in a one income family,
    the "unpaid labor" frees the other partner to go do "paid labor"
    which buys a lot of little things that the _family_ needs.  Like food.
    You seem to conveniently ignore the contribution of the paid labor
    to the _family_.  Such convenient amnesia is not uncommon in the U.S.
    I'll compare you the direct benefit that the woman personally gets
    from her own labor to the direct benefit that a man gets from his
    own labor any day.

    So far, though, you've only tried to rat-hole the argument.  You have
    yet to present any fact or logic that says that the state of "family
    law" in the U.S. is not as I have presented it.

    fred();

    
>    The stats are usually given for 'married men' and 'single men',
>    NOT 'married men who have gone through divorce' and 'single men
>    who have gone through divorce.'

    If they lump never-been-married with married-then-divorcec, I'd find
    it little wonder that "single" men have shorter lifespans.

    Which is all well and good, but what does it have to do with the
    state of "family law" in the U.S. being or not being as I have
    stated it is?

    fred();

    RE: .18  Fred

    // What parts of the words 'pregnancy' and 'childbirth' don't you
    // understand?  At this point in time, men do not get pregnant nor
    // give birth.  Women were pregnant and gave birth in some manner 
    // to all 5+ billion people on this planet (without a single exception.)

    / Last time I checked, it takes 18 years to raise a child.  Not 9 months.

    Meanwhile, women STILL bear 100% of the physical burdens of pregnancy
    and childbirth in our species.  As I said.

    / You conveniently forget that in a one income family, the "unpaid labor" 
    / frees the other partner to go do "paid labor" which buys a lot of 
    / little things that the _family_ needs.  Like food. 

    The family couldn't exist (in any sort of civilized fashion) without
    the unpaid labor being done, of course.

    / You seem to conveniently ignore the contribution of the paid labor
    / to the _family_.  

    I haven't forgotten to mention that most mothers (in the U.S.) also
    work outside the home (doing 'paid labor'.)  The 'unpaid labor' is
    sometimes called the 'second shift' (because it still gets done even
    when women work outside the home.)

    / Such convenient amnesia is not uncommon in the U.S.  I'll compare you 
    / the direct benefit that the woman personally gets from her own labor 
    / to the direct benefit that a man gets from his own labor any day.

    This doesn't make sense.  What will you compare?  Are you talking about
    women's 'paid labor' outside the home PLUS her 'unpaid labor' inside
    the home, or her pay versus his pay, or what?

    / So far, though, you've only tried to rat-hole the argument.  You have
    / yet to present any fact or logic that says that the state of "family
    / law" in the U.S. is not as I have presented it.

    Your presentation of 'family law' was a statement of your opinion
    about how men are 'owned' by women (who seem to do nothing but
    kick husbands out so they can sleep with and support 'studs' on
    the ex-husband's money.)  I'd like to visit your planet sometime. :/

    By the way, who are these 'studs' that live from the ex-husbands'
    money?  Are these guys not males?
    
    If they are males, then it sounds like you're saying that a great
    many males benefit from the support of other males (so it's not like
    males don't benefit from the arrangement you've described, Fred.)  :/

    Seriously, Fred, I realize that you have some very bitter notions
    about divorce, and I'm not going to argue with you about what
    divorce is really like.

    My first husband and I didn't use attorneys for our divorce.  Although
    our marriage was pretty bad, we had a very calm divorce.  We divided
    up our property at the time of the split, and neither of us asked for
    anything else from the other person ever again.

    When I was supposed to submit a financial statement to the court,
    I wrote a notarized statement that said 'Thanks, but I don't feel
    like revealing extensive information about my personal income and
    finances in a situation where we have no financial issues left to
    settle.  Just grant the divorce, please.'  The judge did.

    It's hard to be bitter about this years later (especially when
    I have such a wonderful marriage now.)  Obviously, your mileage
    varies, so I'll leave you to jell in your bad memories some more.

re .8

>   As for marriage being abandoned altogether, married men still live
>   longer than single men, so the dire descriptions of men (as a group)
>   living with women and children who despise them are not shared by
>   men in general.

i wonder what the stats will say in 40 years from now when the bulk of 
today's unmarried people (singles and couples living together outside the
institution of marriage) reach old age.





andreas.

.2> we should make it much more difficult to get married.


i also agree with this statement.

though, and whilst this may sound somewhat cynical, i think a new name
should perhaps be found for what amounts to a life-long union based on love, 
trust and commitment between two adults. successful relationships of this 
nature are fast becoming the exception and they should be honoured
rather than being frowned upon. "marriage" as an institution is losing 
societies support as this form is increasingly taking the shape of a
temporal arrangement. so as the term "marriage" is so devalued, maybe we
should seriously look for a new name to give to those true marriages which 
can pass the test of time and which seem to have been made in heaven.




andreas.

    In the states, like NH that doesnt have alimony. Its called maintence.
    And the judge seems to figure out his/her way to often bury those other
    words into childsupport. And when you try to fight that, your going up
    against some very steeeeeep odds. 
    
    Mr. Littleton paid child support to his NCP ex wife. And she was living
    with another man at the time!! My-my-my! Such fun times.:)
    
    

        re .22

>    Seriously, Fred, I realize that you have some very bitter notions
>    about divorce, and I'm not going to argue with you about what
>    divorce is really like.

    Ah, the Knights Who Say Gnee have spoken.  The old "bitter" cheap
    shot.  Tell me Susan.  Are women who have been raped must "bitter".
    Are parents whose children have been killed by drunk drivers just
    "bitter"?  Are people who've gotten AIDS through blood transfusions
    just "bitter"?

    You won't argue about the state of "family law".  All you can do 
    is try to rat-hole the argument, and have so far provided not one
    argument that state of affairs is not as I have presented.  The
    only conclusion that I can draw from that is that the state of
    "family law" _is_ as I have presented it and you are trying to 
    make some lame attempt to justify it.

    fred();

"shack-ups" can have an up-side too for the alimony/maintenance paying
NCP part. since in england or in switzerland, "shack-ups" are legally
considered much like marriage, i as the NCP paying party was no longer 
legally obliged to pay alimony to my ex once she had lived together with 
her new mate for the duration of one whole year. the same would have happened 
if she had remarried (though without the year's delay).



andreas.

    Fred,
    
    Is there a reason that you are misspelling a respondants name in this
    string?  it truly detracts from your message, since Suzanne and others
    have already pointed this out to you.
    
    It really doesn't help you get your point across, unless you point is
    that women don't matter enough to you to even get the respect of
    correct spelling of their names.
    
    meg

    re .28
    
    Do you have any argument to make other than personal attack?
    fred();
    
    FWIW, I have not been intentionally misspelling her name.  Must be
    one of them Freudian(sp) things.
    

    Gee, I see Susanne mispell Freds name. Frod... ?

    RE: .30  George Rauh
    
    / Gee, I see Susanne mispell Freds name. Frod... ?
    
    And you write this while misspelling my name YET AGAIN yourself, I see.
    
    Suzanne

re .28


meg, fwiw, my name has been misspelt often enough. since its also an unusual 
name, i don't attribute to the misspelling any significance other than that
the writer must be in a rush. on the other hand, if an unusual name is spelt
correctly it does show to me that the writer is making an extra effort as its 
always nice to see one's name spend correctly.




andreas.

    Sorry. I always opoligize when I do such. 

.33

>     as its always nice to see one's name spend correctly.
					   ^^^^^

geesh, talk about freudian slip! :-)

guess this divorce talk is getting to me once again! :-(


andreas.
;-)

    
    The only response to the actual initial argument, so far, has been
    a claim that lawyer's income would skyrocket.  I think not.  First
    of all, lawyers are cheaper than "child support"/alimony (especially
    if given half a chance of winning).  Second of all, stiffer penalties
    and a lesser guarantee of "walking away with the goodies" would likely
    make *both* parties think twice (or at least once) about trying to
    work out their problems rather than heading for "greener pastures".
    
    fred();  

    RE: .26  Fred

    / The only conclusion that I can draw from that is that the state of
    / "family law" _is_ as I have presented it and you are trying to 
    / make some lame attempt to justify it.                       

    What you say is not the 'default TRUTH' until someone else proves
    otherwise, Fred.  (Not to me, at least.)

    I do believe that YOU believe the bitter things you're saying about
    divorce, but in my entire adult life, I have yet to meet ONE WOMAN
    who has gotten rich from divorce.  All (and I mean ALL) the divorced
    women I've ever met in person ended up not getting much.

    Correction - when my sister got divorced, she got half of the proceeds
    from the sale of the family home.  (They had been married for 20 years,
    and she designed the last home they built.)  She got nothing else, but
    the house was worth quite a bit.  She had to put all the proceeds into
    another house immediately, of course, so she wouldn't lose it in taxes.

    The women who get rich from divorce must be hiding somewhere, I guess.
    When I finally find them and meet them, I'll reconsider what you've said.

    Until then, I see your scenarios as 'possible' but not the average way
    that divorce works in this country.  Far too many single (divorced)
    mothers live in poverty (or near poverty) for me to believe that women
    automatically get rich by getting divorced.

    / Are women who have been raped must "bitter".  Are parents whose children 
    / have been killed by drunk drivers just "bitter"?  Are people who've 
    / gotten AIDS through blood transfusions just "bitter"?         

    Fred, I realize that you see yourself as the consummate victim (on a par
    with someone who has been raped or given a fatal disease), but most
    true victims carry their burdens with a lot more dignity than you do.

    I've never known anyone who makes a point of living with the HORROR of
    his/her worst nightmares (and exploding about it on a daily basis) the 
    way you do.

>                                        Second of all, stiffer penalties
>   and a lesser guarantee of "walking away with the goodies" would likely
>   make *both* parties think twice (or at least once) about trying to
>   work out their problems rather than heading for "greener pastures".

stiffer penalties would also force more couples to stay together against 
their will and to continue to dish out nasties to eachother. the kids would
suffer most from such a situation.

    
>   The only response to the actual initial argument, so far, has been
>   a claim that lawyer's income would skyrocket.  

maybe i've missed it, but on which grounds would you allocate "fault" ?

even when we still had a "fault" based divorce in my country, a quick 
"roll on the hay/kitchen floor/carpert" wasn't considered sufficient evidence 
for allocating fault. and this, in the very old days, used to be the classic 
for allocating fault.



andreas.

    RE: .36  Fred
    
    / The only response to the actual initial argument, so far, has been
    / a claim that lawyer's income would skyrocket.  I think not. 
    
    This country won't be 'repealing no-fault divorce' anytime soon,
    whether you think it's a good idea or not.
    
    Women and children still make up the vast majority of the poor in
    this country.  'Family law' isn't going to change to make this
    situation worse than it is.

        re .37

>    What you say is not the 'default TRUTH' until someone else proves
>    otherwise, Fred.  (Not to me, at least.)


    Ah, the old, "You have to prove your point to Suzanne Conlon's (did
    I get it right, satisfaction, else you lose".  Sorry Suzanne,  I'm
    not buying it.

    >I have yet to meet ONE WOMAN
>    who has gotten rich from divorce.  All (and I mean ALL) the divorced
>    women I've ever met in person ended up not getting much.

    Which I can only take, once again, that you think the way things are
    is just fine.  Take note fellas.

    fred();

    re .39
    
>stiffer penalties would also force more couples to stay together against 
>their will and to continue to dish out nasties to eachother. the kids would
>suffer most from such a situation.

    The way that men are now faced with either enduring, or walking away
    from their children and everything they've worked for.

    Actually my proposal makes provision for cases where _both_ parties 
    agree to end the marriage and agree on division of "spoils".

    >maybe i've missed it, but on which grounds would you allocate "fault" ?

    Right now, in the U.S. just about anything would be better, for guys,
    than what we have.

    fred();

    RE: .40  Fred

    // What you say is not the 'default TRUTH' until someone else proves
    // otherwise, Fred.  (Not to me, at least.)

    / Ah, the old, "You have to prove your point to Suzanne Conlon's (did
    / I get it right, satisfaction, else you lose".  Sorry Suzanne,  I'm
    / not buying it.

    You *love* cliches, don't you, Fred?  :/

    What I said was that *I* don't buy *YOUR* presentation of divorce as 
    the 'default TRUTH' until someone comes along to prove you're wrong.

    // I have yet to meet ONE WOMAN
    // who has gotten rich from divorce.  All (and I mean ALL) the divorced
    // women I've ever met in person ended up not getting much.

    / Which I can only take, once again, that you think the way things are
    / is just fine.  Take note fellas.

    I don't buy that things are as bad for men as you claim they are 
    (especially while the vast majority of the poor in this country are 
    women and children.)

    I'm not looking to make women and children POORER than many women and
    children already are (by changing the laws to see that they get next
    to nothing in the event of a divorce.)

    In another notesfile, I saw a man state that women who are full-time
    homemakers are 'working for room and board' (and should get NOTHING
    AT ALL from a broken marriage since the man had paid for everything.)
    I totally disagreed with that idea.  I consider full-time homemakers
    to be partners in the breadwinners' careers, and as such, have earned
    more than just 'room and board'.

    
    re .39
    >
>    / The only response to the actual initial argument, so far, has been
>    / a claim that lawyer's income would skyrocket.  I think not. 
>    
>    This country won't be 'repealing no-fault divorce' anytime soon,
>    whether you think it's a good idea or not.
>    
>    Women and children still make up the vast majority of the poor in
>    this country.  'Family law' isn't going to change to make this
>    situation worse than it is.

    Which I can only take that you think the incredible bias in the system
    as it stands is just fine with you?

    We have to start somewhere.  It's time for men to stand up and take
    responsibility, like you said, for their own circumstance, and part
    of what I said about men starting to think with their brains instead
    of their sex organs.  Not just stick their heads between their legs 
    and whimper every time The Knights Who Say Gnee say "Gnee,  or "bitter", 
    or "whining", or "sexist", or etc, or etc, or etc.

    fred();

    
    re .42
    
>    What I said was that *I* don't buy *YOUR* presentation of divorce as 
>    the 'default TRUTH' until someone comes along to prove you're wrong.
    
    
    But can you present *any* _fact_ or _logical_ argument other than the
    _belief_ of Suzanne Conlon that the facts are not as I have presented
    them?
    
    fred();

    RE: .43  Fred

    // Women and children still make up the vast majority of the poor in
    // this country.  'Family law' isn't going to change to make this
    // situation worse than it is.

    / Which I can only take that you think the incredible bias in the system
    / as it stands is just fine with you?

    What I'm saying is as long as women and children still make up the
    vast majority of the poor in this country, don't count on 'Family law'
    to try to change the laws to make this situation worse than it is.

    / We have to start somewhere.  It's time for men to stand up and take
    / responsibility, like you said, for their own circumstance, and part
    / of what I said about men starting to think with their brains instead
    / of their sex organs. 

    Taking responsibility for birth control is an excellent place for men
    to start (to help their own circumstances and to help many of the
    social problems in this country.)

    / ...The Knights Who Say Gnee say "Gnee, 

    I know that phrases like this are important to you as insults, but I have 
    no idea what this means.  (What is a 'Gnee', and why would a Knight Who
    Says Gnee needed to be quoted as saying 'Gnee', if s/he has already
    been defined as someone who says 'Gnee'?)

    If you want to insult me, it would help if you explain the insult.  
    Otherwise, it just looks like gibberish to me.  Thanks.

    Suzanne

    RE: .44  Fred
    
    / But can you present *any* _fact_ or _logical_ argument other than the
    / _belief_ of Suzanne Conlon that the facts are not as I have presented
    / them?
    
    You haven't presented any facts, Fred.
    
    You've stated your opinion about the way 'Family Law' works, but you've
    provided nothing in the way of solid facts.
    
    I don't feel obligated to believe your opinions, even though I do
    believe that you believe them to be true.

    
>    What I'm saying is as long as women and children still make up the
>    vast majority of the poor in this country, don't count on 'Family law'

    And my proposal states that the current system is the _cause_ not
    the cure of the current state of events.  With _both_ mend and women
    finding out too late the consequence of their actions.

    I also state that it is the _child's_ right to live and be raised
    by whichever parent is most capable, not by the default "who gave
    birth".

>(What is a 'Gnee', and why would a Knight Who
>    Says Gnee needed to be quoted as saying 'Gnee', if s/he has already
>    been defined as someone who says 'Gnee'?)

    In Monty Python's "In Search of the Holy Grail", the questors were
    confronted by "The Knights Who Say Gnee".  When the Knights Who Say
    Gnee said "Gnee", their opponents were supposed to fall on the ground
    writhing in agony.

    Unfortunately, for many men (dare I say _most_)  this works.

    fred();

    
>    You haven't presented any facts, Fred.
>    
>    You've stated your opinion about the way 'Family Law' works, but you've
>    provided nothing in the way of solid facts.
>    
>    I don't feel obligated to believe your opinions, even though I do
>    believe that you believe them to be true.

    Suzanne, I have learned from long experience that I am not going
    to be able to prove anything to you no matter what the logic and
    facts are presented.

    However, I do find debating with you useful in that (dare I say) for 
    people who _do_ know the facts, you likely make a much better example 
    than you do an argument. 
    
    fred();

    fred();

    RE: .47  Fred

    / And my proposal states that the current system is the _cause_ not
    / the cure of the current state of events.  With _both_ mend and women
    / finding out too late the consequence of their actions.

    Your proposal doesn't sound at all concerned about women.  (Quite the
    contrary, in fact.)

    / I also state that it is the _child's_ right to live and be raised
    / by whichever parent is most capable, not by the default "who gave
    / birth".

    If you define 'most capable' as the one with the most money, I disagree.

    The 'most capable' parent is the one who is the most involved with the
    child (not in 'play time', but in the day-to-day CARE AND FEEDING of 
    the child.)

    Interestingly enough, my 'primary care parent' was my father.  I was
    the youngest child and my dad wasn't around as much when my older
    siblings were babies, so he asked my mom if he could take complete
    responsibility for me when I was born.  She said, 'You betcha.' :)

    My dad woke me up in the morning, changed my diapers and gave me my
    breakfast.  In the evening, he gave me my dinner, my bath and he read
    to me before tucking me in at night.  On the weekends, I was the kid
    who went everywhere with my father (when he had errands to do.)  He
    taught me to walk and to sing.  When my mother went into the hospital
    with kidney stones when I was a year old, my dad took a leave of 
    absence from work to stay at home with me for two weeks.

    Most of the early photographs of me show me being carried by my dad
    (or standing with my hand in his hand.)

    If my parents had divorced, they BOTH knew that I would have wanted
    to go with him (because he was my primary parent.)

    In most cases, mothers are the primary parents of children.  (Not all,
    but most.)  The children's primary parents are the ones who should
    have custody.

    RE: .48  Fred
    
    // I don't feel obligated to believe your opinions, even though I do
    // believe that you believe them to be true.

    / Suzanne, I have learned from long experience that I am not going
    / to be able to prove anything to you no matter what the logic and
    / facts are presented.
    
    My Bachelors degree in Philosophy is always useful for identifying 
    to me that you haven't presented logic OR facts - just opinions.  :)
    
    / However, I do find debating with you useful in that (dare I say) for 
    / people who _do_ know the facts, you likely make a much better example 
    / than you do an argument.                                      *******
    
    You do your position a great disservice by being so addicted to cliches,
    Fred.

    Regarding custody, let me add one thing:
    
    If possible (in cases where the parents are handling the divorce with
    a great deal of maturity), the best situation is joint custody, in my
    opinion.
    
    I've heard of a few joint custody arrangements that have knocked my
    socks off (in the ways adults have found to do what is best for their
    children in spite of divorce.)

    
    re .49.
>    Your proposal doesn't sound at all concerned about women.  (Quite the
>    contrary, in fact.)

    Under my proposal, if he really is a scumbag, she gets _everything.
    With my blessing.  'Course that's what she gets now whether he's a
    scumbag or not, so why _would_ you want to change it?

>    If you define 'most capable' as the one with the most money, I disagree.
>
>    The 'most capable' parent is the one who is the most involved with the
>    child (not in 'play time', but in the day-to-day CARE AND FEEDING of 
>    the child.)

    You must have (conveniently) missed our discussion on there being a
    _lot_ more to raising a child (to adulthood) that giving birth and
    changing diapers.

>    If my parents had divorced, they BOTH knew that I would have wanted
>    to go with him (because he was my primary parent.)

    Under todays system, you would have very likely been given to your 
    mother (not just my opinion.  Go take a walk through Quokka::Non_
    custodial_parents if you don't believe me).  Thus the forced separation
    of family members that should have gone out with the Emancipation 
    Proclamation.

    fred();

.49> The children's primary parents are the ones who should have custody.

so there you have it guys. if we decided not to participate in the rat race 
but to devote more quality time to our children we'll have more chances of
getting custody!

that's the only way to go. let them who want the high-flying jobs have them
and let them who want to be primary parents do their jobs; regardless of 
gender.

raising kids is a full time job and deserves as much pay (if not more) as
any other job.

talking of clichees. the real sad clichee here seems to be that too many 
men still think that they and only they should be the money-providers and 
that they thereby lose out on the real quality jobs of life: being the 
primary parent. what in heaven's name is more an important task than this!




andreas.

    
    reply .50
    
>    My Bachelors degree in Philosophy is always useful for identifying 
>    to me that you haven't presented logic OR facts - just opinions.  :)
    
    And I know _Doctors_ whom I wouldn't let near me with a toung depressor
    even if I was bleeding.    
    
    You miss the point, Suzanne, I don't present them for _your_ judgement.
    I present _you_ as an _example_.
    
    fred();

    re .53
    
>raising kids is a full time job and deserves as much pay (if not more) as
>any other job.
>
>talking of clichees. the real sad clichee here seems to be that too many 
>men still think that they and only they should be the money-providers and 
>that they thereby lose out on the real quality jobs of life: being the 
>primary parent. what in heaven's name is more an important task than this!
    
    And I'm pretty sure that you didn't miss our discussion on the roles
    of men and women in parenting.
    
    fred();

.54>  You miss the point, Suzanne, I don't present them for _your_ judgement.
.54>  I present _you_ as an _example_.
    
and what a fine person _she_ is.


re .49


thanks for a touching note!



andreas.

re .55    

>>raising kids is a full time job and deserves as much pay (if not more) as
>>any other job.
>>
>>talking of clichees. the real sad clichee here seems to be that too many 
>>men still think that they and only they should be the money-providers and 
>>that they thereby lose out on the real quality jobs of life: being the 
>>primary parent. what in heaven's name is more an important task than this!
>    
>    And I'm pretty sure that you didn't miss our discussion on the roles
>    of men and women in parenting.
    

just because i posted research papers for discussion doesn't mean i agree with 
them; after all i've commented (obviously not) sufficiently on the subject.



andreas.

re (in support of) 204.26

Let's present an analogy to try to defuse the automatic "gut responses"
already culturally conditioned-in.  Maybe it will suggest some new ways
of looking at the situation for those who can't comprehend what all the
screaming is about.

Let's say you had a first date with a person chosen carefully and
conservatively, analyzed, not agreed until you knew in your gut he/she was
"nice", "safe", "considerate of your feelings".  You went to a movie,
had a great time, went home for a nightcap, then, suddenly -- once inside the
house -- you got raped by this person.

You pressed charges and went to court.  Your former date lied up and down about
what happened.  Many of the lies were obvious but somehow neither the Judge
nor the "neutral" social workers and psychologists could see the dishonesty.
In fact, it was obvious that the officers of the court DID NOT WANT TO KNOW
WHAT THE TRUTH WAS.  They didn't believe you.  They didn't make much effort
to check your story.  Supporting evidence was ignored.  Why?  You didn't
really know.  Maybe they thought you brought it on yourself by dressing in
such an appealing manner.  Maybe what you were telling them just didn't
agree with what they "knew to be true": your date was not that type of person;
he/she couldn't have done it; is a responsible citizen; is a pillar of the
community; is married with 3, no make that 10 kids!; grew up in this state; is
charming; is obviously very responsible; is a professional; etc.  You, on the 
other hand, seem to be angry and distraught and seem to have an attitude that
the court officers "have to listen" to you -- they don't like that.  They're
in control: you'll get what they say you get, no matter which way the scales
of justice tilt.

Now, would this person be "bitter" and, if so, pray tell, against whom.

Might he or she be "bitter" against the rapist?  Surely, but we all know that
"it happens quite frquently".  Bad things happen, there are "bad" people.  We
all know you just have to "get past it", just "get on with one's life".

How about the court and court officers.  What you have here is essentially
the STATE being dishonest and supporting lies.  How would YOU feel?  Do you
think YOU would be "bitter".  Or do you think YOU would be PERCEIVED as
"bitter" if you simply described what had happened to someone?

If you realized that there was an agenda in play and the prevailing idea was
simply that rape was minor, those getting it asked for it, and one must be
careful not to hurt the reputation of the accused "rapist" -- would it make
it easier to take?

Now, if had another person who went out on a very same first date with
someone, went to a movie, had a great time, PERIOD -- do you think
you could understand the situation of the raped person?  Do think you have
any "truth" to shed on the other person's situation: "First dates can be
great fun and work out splendidly!"  Yes, absolutely.  And "it depends on both
people" doesn't it.  But, notice, it may depend much more on what happens
after the rape -- with the system?  Does any of this sound familiar?  Isn't
that one "truth" of the raped -- that how the SYSTEM treats you afterwards
has a lot to do with the impact?  And notice, the SYSTEM treated the
happy first-dater "fairly" -- it didn't have do anything in fact.

Some possible conclusions drawn by the happy first-dater:

(1) First dates are fun.
(2) The system is fair.
(3) I had a great first date, and I'm a reasonable person, therefore those
    that get raped are probably not reasonable persons.

Some possible conclusions drawn by the raped first-dater:

(1) First dates are terrible.
(2) The system is unfair.
(3) I had a terrible first date, and I'm a reasonable person, therfore getting
    raped has nothing to do with the victim.

Notice that there is NO INCONSISTENCY for both experiences to occur with
THE SAME mix of daters involved (some rapists, some nice people), and
THE SAME system (unfair to the raped).

What if the number of first-daters who were raped was relatively low, and they
were painted as "asking for it" and really just angry, selfish, and bitter
and minipulative people (they were not that way from the experience, they
were that way BEFORE the experience).  That might approach what has been
said about some attitudes to rape in past history.

Now, finally, the bottom line: I think if you apply a lot of this to the
divorce arena you will find many similarities.  Since this is already too
long, I'll let you imagine what those similarities are.

    
    re .58
    
    Thanks, (sincerely)
    fred();

    RE: .52  Fred

    // Your proposal doesn't sound at all concerned about women.  (Quite the
    // contrary, in fact.)

    / Under my proposal, if he really is a scumbag, she gets _everything.
    / With my blessing.  'Course that's what she gets now whether he's a
    / scumbag or not, so why _would_ you want to change it?

    In my entire life, I've never met a woman who got 'EVERYTHING' in a
    divorce, whether the guy was a scumbag or not.  I've never met a
    woman (aside from my sister, who got half the equity in the family
    home after 20 years of marriage) who got much of anything in a divorce.

    'Family law' won't be changed to give women LESS as long as the reality
    exists that the majority of the poorest people in this country are
    women and children.

    // If you define 'most capable' as the one with the most money, I disagree.

    // The 'most capable' parent is the one who is the most involved with the
    // child (not in 'play time', but in the day-to-day CARE AND FEEDING of 
    // the child.)

    / You must have (conveniently) missed our discussion on there being a
    / _lot_ more to raising a child (to adulthood) that giving birth and
    / changing diapers.

    The 'primary parent' is the one who does most of these things (and in
    our society, mothers are more often the 'primary parents.')

    This is something else that some men could change on their own.  

    My dad found the job of 'primary parent' to be a wonderful experience,
    even though it meant he had little free time when he was at home.
    (He used to tell me that he loved waking me up in the morning the
    best - he said I would hear his voice and smile at this sound before
    even opening my eyes.  He said it was a wonderful way to start the
    day.  I have memories of breakfast with dad when I was a baby - he 
    would open his mouth when the spoon was at my mouth so that I would 
    open my mouth in imitation.)  :)

    My dad was with me when I took my first steps and he tells me that
    he cried.

    I know that many fathers in this notesfile have gone through such
    experiences - unfortunately, some fathers don't.  Children should
    go to the 'primary parent,' in my opinion, unless the divorcing
    parents are mature and stable enough to handle joint custody (which
    ought to be the primary goal for the sake of the children.)

    RE: .56  Andreas
    
    Thanks, Andreas!!
    
    Suzanne

    
    re Suzanne,
    
    Thanks,  Keep up the good work.
    fred();

    RE: .58

    Honestly, I do see your point.  It can be very frustrating to be in
    a grossly unfair situation, and I've been in a few, so I do know
    how it feels.

    I've known a number of people who have been raped, assaulted, etc.,
    (and I have been physically assaulted to the extent of broken bones
    myself) but as I said earlier, most people carry the burdens of 
    such horrors with a degree of dignity.

    When I see the notes of someone who seethes in unbridled, poisonous
    rage at others for something which happened to him years ago, it
    does sound like 'bitterness', in my opinion.  If he seethed only
    occasionally, or brought his past horrors up in conversation once
    in awhile, it would be one thing.  This constant 'raw, open wound'
    approach (while flaying at the nearest person as though SHE was the
    actual perpetrator of the original wound) is a bit much at times.
    'Nuff said.

    The 'Family law' system certainly needs some review to see how men
    and women are treated, but considering the high divorce rate in this
    country, I find it suspicious when someone tells me that women always
    (or nearly always) get 'EVERYTHING' after a divorce even though I've
    never even met ONE WOMAN who got anything remotely close to 'EVERYTHING'
    after a divorce.

    Let's see some objective studies done on this.  'Bitter' ex-husbands'
    rages simply aren't enough to make it a 'fact' that the system is over-
    whelmingly against men.  If it were true, why are so very many women and
    children living in poverty in this country?

    re .63
    
>>The 'Family law' system certainly needs some review to see how men
>>and women are treated, but considering the high divorce rate in this
>>country, I find it suspicious when someone tells me that women always
>>(or nearly always) get 'EVERYTHING' after a divorce even though
>>I've never even met ONE WOMAN who got anything remotely close to
>>'EVERYTHING' after a divorce.
       
     Suzanne, you must lead a real sheltered life, almost every woman I
    know of gets the marital home to live in until the kids are grown at
    guess who's expense.  Not only that, they can have been with the guy
    only a very short time and still get the same deal. Usually when
    its time to split the assetts no matter how much the guy had before,
    she gets at least half.   Anyways, what planet do you usually live on? ;)
    
    Dom

   I'm not dressed to jump into this properly, but I wanted to reply to a
   single question.
   
   .63, BSS::S_CONLON

>>    If it were true, why are so very many women and children living in
>>    poverty in this country?

   This is not based on any grand study or anything, but here's what I am
   thinking...
   
   I believe the studies I *have* heard about report that a great many
   family units (however you define that is up to you) are not doing all
   that well financially.  That is, folks just aren't making that much
   money any more - inflation, career changes, job changes, what-have-you
   - has basically eaten into people's buying power.  I recall a report
   on the radio a few years ago that stated that many people were 90-120
   days (or less) away from *real* trouble, financially.  And the amount
   of outstanding consumer debt some folks have is scary.  And people, in
   general, are not saving much money - less than 5%, I believe I heard
   on the radio the other day.
   
   So... I interpret this to mean that a great many folks don't have much
   in savings, and are spending what they earn (or so).
   
   Take that situation and then rip it down the middle with a divorce.
   Take a family unit that is "getting by" financially, and try to
   support 2 residences with that same money.  Somehow that just doesn't
   add up for me.
   
   Is there any connection?  Maybe.  
   Is my logic flawed and therefore my conclusion inaccurate?  Maybe.
   
   But it does present something to think about....
   
   fwiw,
   
   - Tom
   

    RE: .64

    / Suzanne, you must lead a real sheltered life, almost every woman I
    / know of gets the marital home to live in until the kids are grown at
    / guess who's expense. 

    Honestly, I've never met a woman who got this sort of deal from a
    divorce.

    I've known several women with ex-husbands who did very sneaky things
    (like put the husband-wife business in his girlfriend's name suddenly 
    so that the wife couldn't get back her investment or hard work, or 
    sell the family house to his brother for $1 so that they wouldn't have 
    any assets when they went to court.  The brother would sell the house 
    back to the ex-husband for $1 after the divorce was over, of course.)

    My best friend was married to a commercial airline pilot.  He got the
    house, and most everything else - she got a used Ford Pinto (acquired
    as part of the divorce settlement because she had no car to get to
    work or to take their baby to daycare).  She also got a few thousand
    dollars and $500 per month in child support.

    The marriage broke up because he fell in love with one of the 'stews'
    at his airline.  Well, the airline went under (Braniff), so he took
    off for parts unknown for several years.  My friend got $0 in child
    support for 3 - 4 years.  When he finally surfaced again, he started
    sending her $50 per month (instead of $500), although he had been
    working as a pilot elsewhere since Braniff went under.

    She was laid off from her job, suddenly, and he was STILL giving her
    $50 per month until she mentioned that she had spoken to the Welfare
    department and they asked a lot of questions about HIM.  He started
    back with the $500 per month again at that point, but she'll never
    see the $15,000 - $20,000 of child support that he didn't pay over
    the years.

    This guy makes over $100,000 per year (and he owns his own airplane,
    big house, nice cars, etc.)

    My friend got her Masters degree but was laid off again, and she and
    her son have been doing odd jobs to get by (including delivering
    phone books and selling their stuff at swap meets.)

    If the guy would take out a loan to repay her for the lost child
    support, she'd have enough of a cushion to get back on her feet
    (she's doing substitute teaching to try to get a public school
    teaching job.)  He can't afford it.  His airplane payments are
    probably too high, and he and the stewardess have two little kids
    of their own now, too.  I'm sure that airplane fuel must be costly,
    too.  (The guy does have priorities.)

    Suzanne, of the Planet Earth

    
    My ex got the house and everything in it.  I got my cloths, and
    a recliner.  She got my sports equipment, and ALL my tools.  She
    gave them to her boyfriend...
    
     I have never missed a child support payment.  
    
    My ex got a deal!!! I even paid the mortgage for 2 years on a house
    which my ex and boyfriend lived in....
    
    MEM
    

    
>   .63, BSS::S_CONLON
>
>>>    If it were true, why are so very many women and children living in
>>>    poverty in this country?

    .0 does address this to some degree.  Both women _and_ men have been
    led by "pop" culture to believe that a man is not necessary in a
    family.  That "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"--
    just don't let the child support be late.  Witness Suzanne's constant
    claims that the only care worth giving is "primary caregiver".  There
    are a lot of men out there who have also bought into that idea. There
    are even books out that expound on how wonderful life would be if you 
    would just get rid of the (*&^.  Recent studies are showing different, 
    and people are getting smacked with cold reality too late.  Especially 
    when as .-1 says they try to support two households on the same money 
    that used to barely (if it did) support one.

    re bitterness:

    Have you ever seen a cause that was not championed by someone who
    was not burnt by that which they were trying to correct?  Sometimes
    anger is a good thing.  I've rarely seen a contented man (or woman)
    change anything.

    fred();

    RE: .68  Fred

    / Recent studies are showing different, and people are getting smacked 
    / with cold reality too late.  Especially when as .-1 says they try to 
    / support two households on the same money that used to barely (if it 
    / did) support one.  

    Well, this supports my impression that women aren't out there getting
    'rich' from divorce.  Even if the woman still gets part of the man's
    income, it will never be more than PART of the income (and if they
    were barely making it in the first place, it won't be enough to keep
    up the 'current' lifestyle.)
    
    If they are only barely making it, then it must be a difficult decision
    to decide to give up some of the income which they all shared when they
    were 'only barely making it' together.  Rather than just being a 'whim',
    perhaps something else has gone terribly wrong in the marriage.

    / Witness Suzanne's constant claims that the only care worth giving is 
    / "primary caregiver". 
    
    Why do you feel the need to make such a blatant falsehood, I wonder.
    I said that 'primary parents' should be the ones who get custody
    (unless the parents are mature and settled enough for joint custody.)
    
    Primary care isn't the 'only care worth giving', obviously.  It's just
    the care which should be considered when deciding custody.  In my own
    childhood, my father was the primary parent (by his own choice, even
    though my mother was the full-time homemaker of the family.)  He was
    my primary parent ANYWAY, and I knew it.
    
    / Have you ever seen a cause that was not championed by someone who
    / was not burnt by that which they were trying to correct?  Sometimes
    / anger is a good thing.  I've rarely seen a contented man (or woman)
    / change anything.

    I've never seen a person who spent most of his energy seething in
    his own poisonous, festering bitterness do much of value to change 
    anything.  (After awhile, bitterness can become an end in itself.)

    Again, 'joint custody' is the best arrangement for children, if the
    parents are mature enough to handle it.

    If divorcing couples could put aside their anger long enough to work
    this out, more 'joint custody' arrangements could be made, in my opinion.

    The parents have to be true adults, though.

    As for my dad being my primary parent even though my mother was a
    full-time homemaker when I was a baby - I was close to her, too,
    but I always knew that my dad was the primary one for me.
    
    My mom took care of me when he wasn't there (and although she did
    a good job of it, too, I knew all too well that my dad was the one
    who fed me, bathed me and read to me at night before tucking me in.)
    
    Kids know these things, even babies.

    
>    Well, this supports my impression that women aren't out there getting
>    'rich' from divorce.  Even if the woman still gets part of the man's
>    income, it will never be more than PART of the income (and if they
>    were barely making it in the first place, it won't be enough to keep
>    up the 'current' lifestyle.)

    And where did I ever say that anybody was getting rich?  .0 points
    out that either/or/both parties often find out too late just what
    the consequence of their actions are.

    What I have said is that _she_ usually gets the lion's share of what
    there is.

>    I've never seen a person who spent most of his energy seething in
>    his own poisonous, festering bitterness do much of value to change 
>    anything.  (After awhile, bitterness can become an end in itself.)

    Oh No! Someone said "Gnee". Oh! the pain! I cant's stand it.  I'll
    shut up, I'll be good, just don't say "Gnee" again!---Yeah Right!

    And every step of the way there has been Suzanne. Maybe you should go
    look in the mirror at some of your campaigns for "equal right".  Never
    In my life have I seen someone who has so adamantly and strongly
    championed "equal rights" than so completely and blatantly support a
    system that is widely recognized by both men and women alike as the
    most biased, bigoted system in the U.S.

    fred();

    
    reply .70
    
>    Again, 'joint custody' is the best arrangement for children, if the
>    parents are mature enough to handle it.

>    If divorcing couples could put aside their anger long enough to work
>    this out, more 'joint custody' arrangements could be made, in my opinion.
>
>    The parents have to be true adults, though.
    
    Can't disagree with you there, but...as I've said.  To have a
    reasonable and logical conversation requires _two_ reasonable and
    logical people.  And when one party _knows_ there is no incentive
    to be reasonable and logical and if they just pitch a *&^%, then
    they will get everthing....
    
    fred();

    RE: .72  Fred

    / And every step of the way there has been Suzanne.

    Not "EVERY" step of the way.  Most of the time, I'm just read-only
    in this file.  You never cease to be seething in your bitterness,
    whether I'm active here or not, though.  You seethe freely no matter
    what.

    / Never In my life have I seen someone who has so adamantly and strongly
    / championed "equal rights" than so completely and blatantly support a
                                     ***********************************
    / system that is widely recognized by both men and women alike as the
    / most biased, bigoted system in the U.S.                          

    Anyone who doesn't seethe poisonously along WITH you exists in 'complete 
    and blatant support' of whatever it is you're seething about, eh?

    I question some of your bitter characterizations about the system,
    that's all, and I'm not interested in seeing others pay the price
    for your lust for vengeance against your ex (by changing the laws
    about what divorce settlements women can get in general) until it's 
    clear what the system is actually doing.

    
    re .74.

    If there was one thing that my ex taught me, it is that there _really
    are_ people out there that really _believe_ that they should have it
    _both_ ways.

    At the cost of repeating myself (but why not since you have done it
    so often) you _do_ make an excellent example of the reason I keep
    fighting.  And an excellent example of why I find so many "feminists"
    such hypocrites and bigots.

    fred();

    RE: .75  Fred Haddock

    / If there was one thing that my ex taught me, it is that there _really
    / are_ people out there that really _believe_ that they should have it
    / _both_ ways.

    Considering the many times you've written blatant falsehoods about
    me here, I wouldn't be surprised to find that much of what you've 
    written about your ex is false, too.  I wonder...

    / At the cost of repeating myself...you _do_ make an excellent example 
    / of the reason I keep fighting.  

    It probably helps you to consider me your virtual 'evil ex' (so that
    your poisonous rage has a tangible target at times, since she's out
    of reach herself.)

    / And an excellent example of why I find so many "feminists" such 
    / hypocrites and bigots.

    You see things in ridiculous absolutes, Fred.  Either someone is 100%
    on your side, or else the person is evil incarnate and deserves to be
    the target of every ounce of misogynist rage you've ever felt towards 
    your ex-wife.

    You are a cartoon, Fred.

    
    Take note fellas (.76).  Suzanne is _not_ unique.
    
    fred();

    Well, I'd like to add one last comment about the basenote.

    Changing 'Family Law' to seek the one person who is 'to blame' in
    a divorce (so that this person can get 'everything') would be a 
    mistake, and I personally don't think our legal system will go for it.

    If the 'stakes' were to rest on the idea of which partner is 'bad',
    it's guaranteed that both sides would claim that the other person was
    the 'bad' one.  The knock-down-drag-out fighting about 'who did what
    to whom' would be so destructive to the people involved (and especially
    the children) that it would be a disaster.

    We've already seen what bitterness can do.  Some people are damaged
    and broken for the rest of their lives over 'who was wrong' in a given
    marriage which ended years ago.

    Courts need to look at who is closest to the kids and try to work out
    something that can be considered objectively fair to the parents and
    to the kids.  Judging 'blame' is not the best way to do this.
    
    Take care,
    Suzanne

    re .78
    
    But _then_ men (and children) would at least have a fighting chance.
    
    fred();

    RE: .79  Fred Haddock

    / But _then_ men (and children) would at least have a fighting chance.

    You say this as if you believe that courts would find that in most
    cases, the WOMEN would be "to blame" for whatever went wrong in the 
    marriage (and that the courts would save 'defenseless children' from
    their 'evil mothers' all over the country.)

    Or, if the women were not actually 'to blame', the men might have more 
    money to hire the kinds of lawyers who could make the women LOOK like 
    they were to blame (so that some small children could be ripped away 
    from the parent they feel closest to if the father has enough money to 
    hire the sleaziest possible lawyer to make the mother look bad.)

    No good.  It's still a recipe for all out war.

    It's better to do everything possible to make 'joint custody' a viable
    option (which won't happen if the parents are fighting tooth and nail
    to assign blame, or if even one parent is set to be bitter beyond all
    comprehension for the rest of his or her life.)

    Without the endless bitterness involved in some divorces, some
    couples can truly reach an understanding in how they part:

    	1.  Never in my life have I received a single penny in child
    		support for my son.  I've earned Bachelors degrees TWICE
    		since he was born [and I'm now working on a Masters degree]
    		instead so that *I* could support him as he was growing up.

    	2.  When I got divorced, neither one of us hired a lawyer.  
    		We settled everything on our own and notified the
    		court (with a do-it-yourself document that was
    		enough for a judge to dissolve our marriage.)

    Things don't have to be nasty, even if the relationship and/or the
    marriage goes very badly itself.

    Going after 'blame' would definitely shove people in the wrong
    direction, in my opinion.

    Fred, I reaalize that you disagree - but since neither one of us
    can change 'Family law' by ourselves, I doubt it really matters.
    
    Take care,
    Suzanne

    On the lighter side (and I'm not sure at all why this reminds
    me of the discussion here...)

    The TV was on when my husband and I were getting ready for work 
    this morning, and we saw a commercial about a couple at the beach.
    Lovely ocean water, children laughing nearby, a sweet moment on
    a beach towel together...  The woman mouths the words "I love you",
    and the man says, "Honey, pinch me."  They show her fingers giving
    his arm a little pinch...

    The scene changes to a black and white shot of the inside of the
    guy's mouth (as he bellows in horror - "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRR!!")
    The camera pulls back and shows him at a computer terminal in a tiny
    cubicle (in a large room filled with people sitting at computer
    terminals in tiny cubicles) - the whole scene is in black and white. :)

    My husband and I both cracked up laughing!  That is one cute commercial 
    (especially for those of us who work at computer terminals in tiny 
    cubicles...)  :-)

    [My son has seen that commercial, and he tells me that if he is ever
    in a situation like that, *NO WAY* will he let himself be pinched!!!
    As he told me this, he made fast motions as if he were slapping away
    little fingers trying to pinch him - 'No! No! No! No!  Stop that!!'] :)

    
    Take note fellas.
    
    Here we have a excellent example of a person who has continually
    fancied herself as a champion of "equal rights", who now that somethng
    involves "equal rights" for men and children wants to call me all
    sorts of names for _daring_ to disagree that the situation should
    remain as it is.
    
    fred();

    
    re .82
    
>    Fred, I reaalize that you disagree - but since neither one of us
>    can change 'Family law' by ourselves, I doubt it really matters.
    
I wonder what my life expectancy would be if I tried to tell NOW, "Well
    you can't do anyting about it, so you may as well just shut up 
    and set down". ;^, (only half a smiley here).
    
    fred();
    

    
    Actually the Governor of (I think) Tennessee has introduced legislation
    to repeal "no fault" divorce in that state.  He's taking a real 
    pounding for doing it, but we may be seeing the first crack in the
    facade.

    fred();

re .60


>   In my entire life, I've never met a woman who got 'EVERYTHING' in a
>   divorce, whether the guy was a scumbag or not.  I've never met a
>   woman (aside from my sister, who got half the equity in the family
>   home after 20 years of marriage) who got much of anything in a divorce.
>
>   'Family law' won't be changed to give women LESS as long as the reality
>   exists that the majority of the poorest people in this country are
>   women and children.


i agree with suzanne here and would like to shed some of my own insights on 
the economic situation of women following divorce.

if women end up on poverty line or close to poverty line following their 
divorce, are their men to take the blame for this? not in the cases which i 
know. in these cases the women -- and this may sound quite heartless -- have
only themselves to blame.

the (sad) reality of the matter is that the great majority of the women which 
i know, in their attempts to settle peacefully and without incuring massive 
debts, have all _settled_for_far_less_ than for what they would have been 
awarded had they opted for a lengthy and hostile divorce! at least in the 
cases which i know the pattern is: woman lives unhappily in the marriage for 
years and finally, when she might have engaged in an affair which served as 
an eye-opener, she decides on divorce. then woman expects to retain custody,
and woman settles for the mandatory child support and a very modest amount for 
alimony/maintenance -- man agrees on these conditions and the divorce is 
finalised. a few years on, the woman realises she lives on or close to poverty 
line and has little means to improve her situation running between a part-time
job and the job of being a CP parent. whilst the man has made a new life for 
himself - his financial situation is hardly impacted, since increases in income
have long offset the moderate amount he pays his ex-wife.




andreas.

re .58


the flaw in your analogy is in the assertion that "The system is unfair."

your analogy only really holds (to some extent) if you single out the 
judiciary as "the system".

the judiciary, as an institution serving the public, is only a subsystem in 
the whole of society.

public institutions have a responsibility to avoid (and sometimes even to
correct) systemic wrongs.

if you look at the system as being comprised of the economy, the public
institutions and the individual, and if you consider that men by far outnumber
women in terms of making money and owning wealth, you can hardly claim that 
the system is against men.

i believe that most of us men are not usually aware of our usually privileged
positions (at the work place). not until we are presented with the bill for our 
privileges in divorce courts, where custody is most often decided on the line 
"better income earner provides materially; lower income earner gets custody". 
in this light the privileges which women have over men when it comes to 
custody are merely a reversal of our own privileges in the work place. if we 
want to be in with an equal chance when it comes to custody, we as men can 
only to so by being more willing to trade traditional male privileges for 
traditional female privileges.

this at least is what it looks like to me.

i can't really agree that men are being raped by the system as little as i
believe that women are being raped by it.

i also know from own experience that the court-room reality in a divorce 
battle is difficult to digest for men accustomed to privileges. but i think 
that in view of the greater picture (the system) men should use the divorce
court experience (ie. experiencing the underdog position for once) as an
impulse to work towards levelling out systemic wrongs in the _whole_ of 
society, particulary in the work-place and in the home. in view of the system 
as a whole, focusing on mens underprivileged position in divorce trials alone
and then making a big noise about it, is to me being a tad dishonest in the 
very least!




andreas.

i wouldn't attribute fred's zeal to bitterness... and heck, even if it was,
it certainly keeps this file on the move! ;-) 


now one more for the base note:


re .41

>>maybe i've missed it, but on which grounds would you allocate "fault" ?
>
>    Right now, in the U.S. just about anything would be better, for guys,
>    than what we have.


are you saying that you're advocating "fault" divorce without spelling out
on which grounds "fault" should be allocated in such divorces? i would think
you have this side of the argument all worked out. after all, it would have
to be the crux of your whole proposal.





andreas.

    
>    Changing 'Family Law' to seek the one person who is 'to blame' in
>    a divorce (so that this person can get 'everything') would be a 
>    mistake, and I personally don't think our legal system will go for it.
>
>    If the 'stakes' were to rest on the idea of which partner is 'bad',
>    it's guaranteed that both sides would claim that the other person was
>    the 'bad' one.  The knock-down-drag-out fighting about 'who did what
>    to whom' would be so destructive to the people involved (and especially
>    the children) that it would be a disaster.
    
    Suzanne I absolutely agree with this.  If family court is screwed up
    now (and I believe it is for both men and women, for both CP and NCP)
    fix it.  However, IMO, the worst outcome is increasing the level of
    confrontation.
    
    Response time to requests for changes (more or less support) should be
    quicker, enforcement of child support and visitation should be
    stricter, mediation services should be provided and encouraged.
    
    Greg
    
                                                                 

    But family law already seeks that single person to be the vilian. And
    its men...
    

    re .91

    Exactly!

    If keeping the peace means that we continue the system that "no fault"
    means that the woman has no fault no matter what she does, then 
    I'll take the conflict, thank you.  The only reason that there is not
    so much conflict now is that so many men do not have the financial
    or emotional capacity to fight a battle they _know_ they will lose
    from the start.

    And given that the majority of divorce is filed by women, the removal
    of the near guarantee (yes there are a few who do lose if the husband
    has the finances to mount an all-out campaign) of walking away with
    "the goodies" would think twice (or at least once) before heading
    for "greener pastures" (only to find out too late that those green
    pastures have already been mowed pretty short).

    Now before y'all start with the "sexist" rants, under the current
    system, there are a _lot_ of men out there who must think twice
    (and three times and four times) before filing because they _know_
    no matter how bad the situation, they will be walking away from
    their children and everything they've worked a good chunk of their
    lives for.  If there's anything "sexist" going on, it's the current
    system.  And the support of the continuation of that system.

    fred();

    
    re .87

>the (sad) reality of the matter is that the great majority of the women which 
>i know, in their attempts to settle peacefully and without incuring massive 
>debts, have all _settled_for_far_less_ than for what they would have been 
>awarded had they opted for a lengthy and hostile divorce! at least in the 
>cases which i know the pattern is: woman lives unhappily in the marriage for 
>years and finally, when she might have engaged in an affair which served as 
>an eye-opener, she decides on divorce. then woman expects to retain custody,
>and woman settles for the mandatory child support and a very modest amount for 
>alimony/maintenance -- man agrees on these conditions and the divorce is 
>finalised. a few years on, the woman realises she lives on or close to poverty 
>line and has little means to improve her situation running between a part-time
>job and the job of being a CP parent.

    Which only goes to prove my point more than anything else.  Where is the
    incentive for any kind of negotiated settlement when the woman _knows_
    she will get everything by taking it into court.  If she don't know,
    you can be sure her lawyer will educate her.  Yes, some who still
    have some smidgen of fairness that has not been overwhelmed by hate
    will negotiate a settlement, but these are in the minority.

> whilst the man has made a new life for 
>himself - his financial situation is hardly impacted, since increases in income
>have long offset the moderate amount he pays his ex-wife.

    What country are you from?  I want to move there next time I get
    divorced. :^, (half smiley).

    fred();

    There was a reason that "no fault" divorces became the rule of the
    land, and that reason was what Suzanne was describing.  My grandparents
    went through a "fault" divorce, and while the parting was fairly
    amicable, it was still ugly.  It requires that one person be the bad
    person, in the case of my GM my grandfather asked her for the divorce
    as he was seeing another person and felt he loved her more.  She had to
    file for a divorce on the grounds of adultery and this had to be public
    information, something my grandmother, a very private person, deplored,
    particularly as they had to make up a fairly long history of this (1958
    in NY) and she had to accuse him of years of infeidelity although the
    affair had only started that year.  A lawyer was absolutely required to
    wade through the crap on both sides and no one came out looking "good"
    before during and after the court procedings, although she wound up
    with a percentage of his retirement (homemaker for 40 years and a
    64-year-old woman has/and had little chance of a subsistance level
    wage, she wound up living with her daughters, not an ideal situation
    for anyone.)  Had she decided not to grant the divorce it would have
    been uglier, more expensive for all, and a farce as far as the marriage
    was concerned.  Had there been minor children around it would have been
    even uglier.  
    
    On the other hand in 1980 when I gave up trying to hold a marriage
    together for the sake of my daughter, I didn't have to drag his name or
    misdeeds through the mud.  Since there was no real property to speak
    of, and he didn't want custody of Lolita, I could and did file
    pro-bono, delivered the papers myself, and agreed to what should have
    been a "reasonable" amount of child support ($25/week and didn't cover
    the cost of child care, let alone buy me diamonds a nice car, or a
    boyfriend, oh and I received that princely sum for a whole year! (memo,
    make NCP's set up the account with the courts and pay it that way, the
    16 dollars I saved him being nice cost my child more than 10K over 10
    years.)
    
    meg
    
    

re .93


>   Which only goes to prove my point more than anything else.  Where is the
>   incentive for any kind of negotiated settlement when the woman _knows_
>   she will get everything by taking it into court.  
	         ^^^^^^^^^^ 

?? - as .87 says, all the woman gets for pretty certain are the kids and she's
pretty modest when its about the dough (whereas she really ought not be!).


>   What country are you from?  I want to move there next time I get
>   divorced. :^, (half smiley).


cut the crap fred -- we have those whinoes over here too, whose existance 
is completley wrecked by their evil spirited ex'es !! ;-,  (ditto!)



andreas.

    
    reply .94

>    There was a reason that "no fault" divorces became the rule of the
>    land, and that reason was what Suzanne was describing.  My grandparents
>    went through a "fault" divorce, and while the parting was fairly
>    amicable, it was still ugly.  It requires that one person be the bad
>    person, in the case of my GM my grandfather asked her for the divorce
>    as he was seeing another person and felt he loved her more.  

    .0 allows for "no fault" divorce in the case where _both_ parties 
    agree to the divorce and settlement.  Which also increases the 
    incentive for negotiated settlement rather than a knock-down-drag-out
    that neither party is guaranteed to win.  Increasing the steaks for
    the "at fault" party also increases the incentive for the "at fault"
    party to negotiate rather than chance losing everything in court.

    Also there is much less stigma attached today to having had an unfaithful
    spouse.

    fred();

    Because Fred is telling the truth it he is a whino? Gee...... I guess
    if the foo sh*ts you should wear it too there andreas.:)
    
    

    re .87 Andreas
    
>>whilst the man has made a new life for himself - his financial situation
>>is hardly impacted, since increases in income have long offset the moderate 
>>amount he pays his ex-wife.
    
    
    Andreas, maybe where you come from thats the way it is...  Over here in
    the good ol U S OF A your paycheck is reduced by up to 36% of gross and
    after good ol uncle same takes his 30% and after the state takes their
    5.9% that leaves you with about 30% of your pay to live off.  I know
    this has been mentioned before in this notes file so I don't understand
    why you post such garbage in here.  
    
    
    re Suzanne
    
    Look at .67, the same thing happend to me.  I also know alot of other
    guys that this has happend to.  Your responses sound like made up
    stories of course which all make women look good and the men look bad.
    As far as I am concerned, you are just making up alot of fud and not
    really contributing to this conference.  I think Fred Haddock has you
    pegged right on the nose.  I for one will just simply ignore your input
    to this conference as it is just a one sided full of fud garbage.
    
    Dom

    
    reply .95
    
    >]?? - as .87 says, all the woman gets for pretty certain are the kids and she's
>pretty modest when its about the dough (whereas she really ought not be!).
    
    In the U.S. the "modest" dough often amounts to her pay plus half
    (at least) of his take-ome (taken right out of his paycheck before he 
    sees it).  (Taxes eat 39% at last count, she gets 1/3, and he gets
    what's left).  And it's a _felony_ to try to avoid it.
    
>cut the crap fred -- we have those whinoes over here too, whose existance 
>is completley wrecked by their evil spirited ex'es !! ;-,  (ditto!)

    No crap.  We're talking about two different systems here.
    (Whineos--The Knights Who Say Gnee have spoken again).
    
    fred();

re .99

>   In the U.S. the "modest" dough often amounts to her pay plus half
>   (at least) of his take-ome (taken right out of his paycheck before he 
>   sees it).  (Taxes eat 39% at last count, she gets 1/3, and he gets
>   what's left).  

as regards the entitlement _on_paper_ it is very similar in this country
too. as i said in .87, _in_practice_ however and from all the cases that 
i know of, i have yet to meet a woman who actually gets what she would 
really be entitled to! my conclusion is that for most women (certainly the 
ones i know of) the dough isn't the main issue when they wanted out of the 
marriage.


> The Knights Who Say Gnee have spoken again

since you've now explained what it means:

POOOOOOH! 

(you're supposed to fall dead on your back, remember! :-)



andreas.

.96

>   .0 allows for "no fault" divorce in the case where _both_ parties 
>   agree to the divorce and settlement.  Which also increases the 
>   incentive for negotiated settlement rather than a knock-down-drag-out
>   that neither party is guaranteed to win.  

hey! i see what you're getting at.

this would mean that a majority would divorce via negotiated settlement 
on "no fault" (as they do today), and the minority who're going to drag
it out, will do so on grounds of "fault"!

the idea has its merits. the above was de facto the situation here under
the old law when "fault" still applied. at least 90% of cases were settled
on no fault (even adultery wasn't normally considered sufficient to allocate 
fault) and only a few cases dragged on endlessly until a judgement on fault 
was reached.

under the new law now, which is in place since a few years, there is no 
more provision for "fault" (as far as i know). it was largely welcomed 
by the public as overdue since the main innovation was more equal 
treatment of men and women.




andreas.

    The man I help see his daughter sing for Christmas. Well his ex had two
    children by causual aquaintence by two other men. And these men did not
    pay child support, or lets say she didn't want them to because she
    wanted to have complete atonomy over the children. Anyhow... When this
    man, Ron, was tossed into the street. The children started to bitch to
    the ex about her conduct. And so, the first thing that went was the two
    children who were not getting any child suport for. These two boys of
    9-13 went to the state welfare system. Then the family pets, but the
    little girl of Rons was kept because she was the 'money child'. The
    bread and butter chip to deal with. 
    
    The ex played that chip big time, till he finally won custody. Ron
    tried to gain custody of the two boys in the orphanage, but, for the
    reason he was not a blood relative, he had no say. He could not find
    the bio fathers or the extended family. He tried... Hell of a way to
    treat a kid. 'Hey boy, your daddy ain't paying child support. Your off
    to the state home. Merry Christmas too, here is your tooth brush. The
    car is waiting for you to get out." This is what actually happened. The
    kids went off to the system two days before Christmas. Don't rub my
    nose into the crap about money and mothers please. This sort of
    wrapping the flag in childrens issues makes me sick.

    re .100

>as regards the entitlement _on_paper_ it is very similar in this country
>too. as i said in .87, _in_practice_ however and from all the cases that 
>i know of, i have yet to meet a woman who actually gets what she would 
>really be entitled to! my conclusion is that for most women (certainly the 
>ones i know of) the dough isn't the main issue when they wanted out of the 
>marriage.

    In the U.S. it is _AUTOMATIC_.  She gets it and is taken out of
    his pay by the employer.  If she negotiates for less before divorce,
    she can turn around two weeks later and ask for a modification
    and it will be _AUTOMATIC_ based on the guidelines set up by the 
    state.

    In spite of all the publicity about "deadbeat dads", it is getting
    very tough to avoid support.  Even if you think you are getting
    away with it, they will demand back pay from DAY ONE.  Social Services 
    (aka Human Services, Welfare, etc) are getting _nasty_ about
    collecting where it concerns their coffers (if it doesn't concern them
    its a different story).  To avoid child support (by crossing state
    lines anyway (federal) ) is now a _FELONY_ (read serious jail time
    with murders, rapists and child molesters _and_ a serious loss of
    constitutional rights (to vote and carry a gun for starters) ).
    Janet Reno (U.S. ATTY GEN) is backing this with the full weight of
    the U.S. Government.

    The only good news in that is that it takes away the threat of going
    after increased child support if you demand the the childs visitation
    rights also be upheld.
    
    fred();

    re .101
    
    There may be hope for you yet ;^).
    fred();

re.   1/3 to tax, 1/3 for self, 1/3 for women after divorce.

A couple or replies have hit on this as a bad outcome.  What are your
suggestions for a better outcome?

Here is how I look at this.  I'll assume two kids and a home with a mortgage.
First a language change to be less combative ...                           

1/3 to tax, 1/3 to NCP, and 1/3 to CP for child support

There seem like two basic situations.

1) The CP does not work.  Is 1/3 of the income (in this case the total income)
   for child support unreasonable high?  I would guess not and until
   the CP gets a career started it looks like the CP is getting the bad end of
   the deal ... similar bucks but more mouths to house and feed.

2) The CP does work.  Is 1/3 of the income of the NCP unreasonable high.  I
   would guess yes unless the CP has a very low income ... in this case the NCP 
   probably is getting the short end of the stick.

One way out would be to set different standards depending on the CP working or
not working (25%? or 40%?).  However that has two terrible side effects.  One,
the CP gets more from the NCP if they don't work.  Two, the NCP living amount
fluctuates due to things they don't control.   
                                
It seems two underlying causes create the combatting stories of how men or
women are getting screwed the most.  First, someone earlier mentioned the
maintenance of a second household creates an inherent financial strain on both
households.  Second, the courts are incredibly slow to respond to agreements
that are financially lopsided.

Greg

                                                        
    

    RE: .98  Dom

    "Made-up stories"???  Arrange for a lie detector test and I will
    gladly take it.

    My friend in Kent, Washington is the one with the airline pilot ex-
    husband (and she can verify that he still owes her $15,000 - $20,000
    in back child support while she spent the past three years working
    odd jobs and substitute teaching with her masters degree after being
    laid off in 1992.)  

    Another friend of mine who worked for Digital (but died of cancer
    in 1990) is the one with the husband who sold his house to his
    brother for $1 so that there wouldn't be much in assets when they
    got to court.  My friend got $70 per month in child support while
    her ex married his lover (the woman he left my friend to be with)
    and had two kids with her.  THEY ended up in a nice house with a
    pool in San Diego (he worked as a policeman) while my friend and
    her daughter depended on my friend's getting an education and
    finding the job with Digital.

    The woman with the husband who put their (husband-wife) business in
    his girlfriend's name was a customer of Digital's who I met in Denver
    (she worked for the Denver police department in the area where the
    computers were kept, as I recall.)  She told me her story while I
    was fixing her computer.

    Most other women I've known have similar stories (or else, simply
    didn't want to go through an extended battle, so they got out of
    the marriage with very little.)  In most cases, the husbands didn't
    even want the kids anyway.  Sad, but true.

    The bitter stories about how men are victims of divorce are not the
    WHOLE story about this issue.  Not by a long shot.

    
                         <<< Note 204.105 by MROA::YANNEKIS >>>
    
    
    re.   1/3 to tax, 1/3 for self, 1/3 for women after divorce.
    
    A couple or replies have hit on this as a bad outcome.  What are your
    suggestions for a better outcome?
    
    
    
    
    How about 1/7 tax, 1/3 women, 11/21 self?  :)

    How bout... 1/3 for Uncle Sam, 2/3 for what ever, and self sleeps in
    the car. What a plan.:)

re .103


fred, sounds like you live in a police state! ;-)

i dunno about automatic. here, the judge takes a preliminary measure which
can be pretty draconic based on the circumstances. the guy is charged from 
day one, until the couple reaches a settlement, that is. 

last case i was involved in, the guy had to pay US$6000 per month straight 
away (around 60% of what he made). he took off under the worst possible 
circumstances - just told his missis that he had a new lady and that he didn't
need her anymore (after fifteen years of marriage). i got the guy to go back 
to his missis and to get working on a settlement, since else he would have 
had a really costly ride starting out 'looking so bad' from the outset.
in the end divorce cases are about convincing the judge and as you say fred,
you need to use your brains -- not your b*lls -- for this purpose. at least, 
when there are draconic measures involved judgewise, they appear to do the 
trick as regarding knocking some sense into ones brain!




andreas.

    RE: .88  Andreas

    This is an excellent note - you've really found the very heart of this
    issue.

    / i believe that most of us men are not usually aware of our usually 
    / privileged positions (at the work place). not until we are presented 
    / with the bill for our privileges in divorce courts, where custody is 
    / most often decided on the line "better income earner provides 
    / materially; lower income earner gets custody". 

    Courts give the money to the mother and children because we live in a
    system which mostly provides men with the best opportunities to GET
    the money in the first place.

    / in this light the privileges which women have over men when it comes to 
    / custody are merely a reversal of our own privileges in the work place. 
    / if we want to be in with an equal chance when it comes to custody, we as 
    / men can only to so by being more willing to trade traditional male 
    / privileges for traditional female privileges.

    In our society PRIOR to the 20th Century, men were the only ones (pretty
    much) who could earn decent incomes and men were ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS
    given the custody of the children as part of divorce.

    Divorces were rare because women got absolutely NOTHING (and could not
    acquire decent jobs to make new lives for themselves.)

    Early in this century (THIS CENTURY), a landmark case came up about a
    divorce where the mother was still breast-feeding their infant.  The
    argument was made that the small child needed his/her mother more than
    he/she needed the father (because the mother was breast-feeding.)

    This case changed family law entirely.

    Interestingly enough, at the same time, the 'child labor laws' were
    enacted, so that the mothers now got custody of kids who were not
    allowed (by law) to work for a living.  Before that, many many many
    kids had worked long hours to help support their families.

    The whole idea of 'childhood' is a 20th Century phenomenon, in fact.
    Before that, kids were small adults who often worked as many hours
    as the parents (if the families needed the income.)  Women and
    children worked in slavery conditions for pennies per week.

    / but i think that in view of the greater picture (the system) men should 
    / use the divorce court experience (ie. experiencing the underdog position 
    / for once) as an impulse to work towards levelling out systemic wrongs in 
    / the _whole_ of society, particulary in the work-place and in the home. 

    Excellent point.  If men (as a group) still got the most money in our
    society *AND* they got custody of the kids after a divorce, men as a
    group would have little incentive to fix the biggest wrongs which still
    exist in the workplaces of our society.

    / in view of the system as a whole, focusing on mens underprivileged 
    / position in divorce trials alone and then making a big noise about it, 
    / is to me being a tad dishonest in the  very least!
                                                         
    Absolutely!!!!!

    (I'm still not convinced that the system is extremely unfair to men
    in divorce - I'd have to something more than just bitter tales from
    some of the guys here - but even if the system IS unfair to men, it
    stems from the very real fact that the fathers have more opportunities
    to make good incomes than the mothers do.  If this unfairness were
    fixed, men and women would benefit by things leveling out in all or
    most areas, including family law.)

    re .106 Suzanne
    
>>Another friend of mine who worked for Digital (but died of cancer
>>in 1990) is the one with the husband who sold his house to his
>>brother for $1 so that there wouldn't be much in assets when they
>>got to court.  My friend got $70 per month in child support while
>>her ex married his lover (the woman he left my friend to be with)
>>and had two kids with her.
    
    Suzanne, I'll assume you are talking mass or NH for you friend.
    There is no way that she would get $70 a month unless that was = to
    34-36% of his gross pay and thats the law and there is no exception.  
    And for selling the house for $1, if it was his house before they got 
    married and it was his asset, then he should be able to do what he wants 
    with it.  All I know is that my X's lawyer knew of every dime I spent and
    where it went without much help from me.  Again, the stories you tell 
    don't click with the laws of this area and the general rules.  The IRS 
    won't even let you sell a house or any other kind of property without some
    substancial taxes to pay, they go by fair market value and tax the hell 
    out of you.  You are only allowed to give up to 10k a year to a relative 
    period.  So Suzanne, what other wonderful baloney/fud  do you want to try 
    and feed us with now.

    
>    There is no way that she would get $70 a month unless that was = to
>    34-36% of his gross pay and thats the law and there is no exception.  
    
    Maybe he was a student/unemployeed/underemployeed when the divorce
    occurred.  Maybe this divorce was a few years ago when settlements from
    judge to judge varied GREATLY.
    
    
                                                      

    RE: .111  Dom

    / Suzanne, I'll assume you are talking mass or NH for you friend.

    Duh.  I told you that her husband worked as a policeman in San Diego.
    (That's in Cal-i-for-nia.)

    Her daughter was born in 1971, and they got divorced when her daughter
    was a toddler (which would have been in the mid-1970s.)

    I met this woman and her daughter at Digital in 1982.

    / So Suzanne, what other wonderful baloney/fud  do you want to try 
    / and feed us with now.
             
    Arrange a lie detector test and I will gladly take it.  My friend's
    story is precisely what happened.

    (The family house was in her husband's name because he was the one
    who worked.  They bought the house after the wedding.  My friend was 
    19 years old when her daughter was born, and she was a full-time 
    homemaker until the divorce.  She walked away with $70 per month in 
    child support when her husband found someone else he wanted to marry.)

    Arrange the lie detector test, Dom.  Go ahead.

    By the way, my friend's husband was a San Diego policeman during
    their marriage (and at the time of the divorce.)

    
    BTW ...
    
    I think both "sides" in this argument in here are pretty much being blind
    advocates of their position.  It feels like I'm the only person who
    knows folks who got screwed on both ends.  
    
    I have an aunt whose husband left her for another guy and never paid a
    cent in child support.  This was a while ago and cases like this and
    the $70/month Suzanne story are what led to our current laws requiring
    payroll deductions.  (I'm not advocating this as the best solution but
    old child support horror stories were the motivation).
    
    I also have (male) friends who are divorced and with ex-spouses living
    quite well to do with the help of their new live-in boyfriend while my
    friends struggle to get by.
                              
    IMO it does not bode well for a quick fair resolution of the mess
    family court is if so many people view the world from such a partisan
    vantage point.
    
    Greg
         

    
>    I have an aunt whose husband left her for another guy and never paid a
>    cent in child support.  This was a while ago and cases like this and
    
    that should be "left her for another GAL"
    					 ---
    

    re .113
    
>>        was a toddler (which would have been in the mid-1970s.)
    
>>        I met this woman and her daughter at Digital in 1982.
     
    
    Oh, so your talking about deals and things that happened over 15-20 years
    ago.  No wonder everything you were talking about sounded like fud.
    
    Suzanne, we are talking about the issues today, not twenty years ago
    ect.  Or are you mixing things up from today for one thing and using
    examplese from over 20 years ago for another?  Suzanne, get with whats
    happening today, we are not talking 20 years ago, get it...
    
    
    Lets here some stories like the ones you've been telling that happened
    recently, or at least in the past 5-10 years.  Maybe your opinion would 
    change if you only related to whats happening today.

as examples here show -- it seems like there's alot more dough potentially
up for grabs by the divorced women out there IF only they meant business!!! 
=%-}

scary!!

little wonder why so many people live in single households. consider that
in germany today, already half of the households are by singles (re .3); 
ie. most of them being 'singles' in relationshiops with other 'singles',
each with an own household. if material assests are thus neatly separated
from the start, what's there to fight for other than for the genuine stuff! :-)
presumably folks will now only want to live together if they mean it really 
seriously -- just like in the old days. a strange effect it is indeed that
these modern divorce laws are having! :-)

marriage (and "shack-ups") have already been made harder. do you think not?




andreas.

    Dom, next time you want to accuse someone of 'making up stories',
    get more information (about the area of the country and the year
    the divorce took place) first.  THEN come out swinging, if you must.

    Re .119 Suzanne
    
    Why don't you try and keep in the subject at hand insted of throwing
    alot of fud.  Most of your comments did not reflect that you were
    talking about 20 years ago period.  Otherwise you would have been shot
    down about 50 entries ago.   I still can't understand how you have not
    met a woman that has gotten more that what you have stated in this 
    conference.  According to you, women get almost nothing and you know of
    no woman who has.  So Suzanne, why don't you start giving this
    conference some valid input for whats happening today in the U S of A
    insted of what you have been doing.   Oh and by the way, California is
    probably the worst state to get a divorce in or shack up with someone
    if you are a man.  But, thats the way things are, we all have to pay
    for a couple of bad men and the only way this country knows how to fix
    something is be reversing/changing the laws so that the other party now
    gets screwed insted of an inbetween fair and just law.
    
    Dom
    

    
    Hey fellas,
    
    Go back and re-read .110 with and eye on what I've been saying about
    someone who wants to have it both ways.  Especially in the light
    of trying to _justify_ todays system based on things that happend
    20 or more years ago.
    
    Suzanne,
    
    Consider yourself ignored.  As far as I'm concerned, you've just blown
    what little credibility (if any) you had left.
    
    fred();

re .110


alas suzanne, equality is slow to come.

whilst the courts (and the public sector) are getting the idea, industry is
slow to adjust. personally i'd wish things would move a bit faster. as you
wrote in .49, the primary parent should be looking after the kids if a joint
custody is not practicable. as even my ex says, i am a natural born dad; and
once my kids are grown (under the present arrangement i am the close but far
non CP), i look forward to have another go at being primary parent. next 
time hopefully, without the threat of having to sit in the back row one
day. fortunatley, things have been chaning fast in the last years, as more 
mothers earn the dough and fathers can fill the other important role. but if 
you ask me, change just isn't happenig fast enough.


hey! i am just as good at whining as fred is! >;-) 
:-)


andreas.

re .121


fred, you are more concerned with shutting folks up rather than discussing.

i haven't see you sell your concept on "fault" divorce very well. how about
some input on .89? 

and if it isn't too much to ask, any thoughts on .88?



thanks,

andreas.

    re .109

    >fred, sounds like you live in a police state! ;-)

    It's not as bad as most men think--IT'S WORSE.  And it beats the
    *&^% out of me why men won't/can't get organized into a force with
    some political clout that can get things changed. ----Well, no it
    don't either.  There are several reasons of this:

    The "Gnee Syndrome":
    This note is a pretty good microcosm of what happens when someone
    tries to stand up and change things.

    Denial:
    It will never happen to me, we'll be in love forever.  Marriage means
    forever just like in the old days.

    Fear:
    God I hope it never happens to me.  Maybe if I am just nice enough
    she will see what a nice guy I am and she'll come around.  Just like
    the steer thinks there will be food and water at the end of the 
    alley right up until the hammer smashes his brains.

    It doesn't involve _me_ so why bother:
    Most of the men I've dealt with (with a few notable exceptions), don't
    want to deal with the resulting b.s. unless it involves them
    personally.

    Burnout:
    Has been fighting but is now broke financially and emotionally and just
    hopes he can survive until the kids are out of college.

    There is hope.  The hope is that it's getting worse.  In the U.S.,
    when it gets bad enough is when someone finally does something about
    it.  ("We have met the enemy and have been successful. However, I
    fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible
    resolve--Adm. Yammoto, Japanese Imperial Navy).

    fred();

and by the way suzanne, thanks for an informative note in .110
i didn't know that custody for women was such a novel idea.


that's it for tonight folks!

good night all!

andreas.

    
    Let's look at the joint custody for a minute please.
    
    What is both parents work.  What if one parent makes more than the
    other parent.  Such an amount that if the GOVERNMENT takes 1/3 of their
    income, and the parent with a heavier income gives 1/3 to the parent
    that doesn't make as much, it rarely equals out that both parents are
    able to live in an environment that is acceptable to children.
    
    Each case is different and its impossible to say that men in general,
    or women in general are at fault.
    
    I happen to have supported my husband for two + years while he pursued
    his master's degree.  Sure, he got an unemployment check but it was
    only enough for us to survive.  We couldn't save anything because there
    was nothing left but that was ok for us because we knew that once he
    received that Master's that he would be able to bring in more income to
    the family and we could make up for it.
    
    Say now that we divorce and we want joint custody.  I do NOT get 1/3 of
    his pay.  I get 24-28% because I work full time.  Now split that 25% in
    half because we are jointly supporting our child together.  My husband
    would be left with enough money to buy another house and live not as
    comfortable as we do now, but comfortable enough that if he wanted to
    take our son to the movies, he would have the money to do so.
    
    I on the other hand would not be able to live in a house because I
    would not be able to afford it.  I would have to live in some four room
    apartment and would never be able to take our child to the movies
    because every last dime I would have would go to food and utilities.
    
    So what would I do?  Would I pursue full custody of my child just to
    gain the extra money so I could live in a better place?  My lawyer
    would probably tell me to do so but unfortunately, my mind doesn't see
    as the best option.  Or I should say my heart doesn't.  As long as the
    parents are good parents, the children should spend equal time with
    them.  But, if we were truly good parents, we should be able to make up
    a payment schedule that benefits both of us to be able to support our
    child in the same way.  Unfortunately, no lawyer would recommend it and
    in the end, we would be in a battle for our child. 
    
    So sad but true.
    
    cj

    RE: .120  Dom

    / Most of your comments did not reflect that you were talking about 
    / 20 years ago period.  Otherwise you would have been shot
    / down about 50 entries ago.   

    I said I was talking about the cases I had known about in my life.
    (No where did I say they all took place 5 minutes ago.)

    Even the women I know who have been divorced more recently haven't
    gotten much out of their divorces.

    / I still can't understand how you have not met a woman that has gotten 
    / more that what you have stated in this conference.  

    Ok, arrange for the lie detector test.  I'm telling you that I have
    *****NEVER***** met a woman who has gotten a lot out of a divorce, 
    and that is the truth.  

    / According to you, women get almost nothing and you know of
    / no woman who has. 

    I've never, ever, ever, ever, EVER met a woman who has gotten a lot
    out of a divorce.  Never in my entire life.

    My sister comes closest - she got half the equity on the family home
    after 20 years of marriage.  She (like me) also had two Bachelors
    degrees by the time she was in the process of getting divorced, so
    she supported herself totally.  One kid was in college and the other
    was a senior in high school at the time of the divorce, so there was
    no child support.  She got half the equity, period.  (They sold the
    house she had designed so they could get the money out of it to split
    between them.)

    This was the best deal of anyone I'd ever met in my life (when my
    older sister got this deal a few years ago.)

    / So Suzanne, why don't you start giving this conference some valid 
    / input for whats happening today in the U S of A insted of what you 
    / have been doing. 

    I question the truth about the situation in Family Law today.  I'm
    not convinced that things need to be changed all that much.

    RE: .125  Andreas
    
    / and by the way suzanne, thanks for an informative note in .110
    / i didn't know that custody for women was such a novel idea.
    
    It's a product of the 20th Century (the same century where women
    finally won the right to VOTE.)
    
    Coincidence?  I don't think so.  :)
    
    Good night, Andreas!  Thanks for your notes!

    
    re .126

    >Let's look at the joint custody for a minute please.

    Actually I'd settle for a good Joint Custody system (even though I
    am the CP).  A year or so it was introduced in the Colorado Legislature
    to make Joint Custody(Shared Custody) the _primary_ consideration---
    the "feminists" shouted it down.  Instead they came up with this
    Joint Legal Custody thing.  Which gives you a lot more legal liability,
    a few more legal benefits (like being able to get your child medical
    treatment and school records) and s!!t as far as actual
    custody/visitation goes because there is still a "primary caregiver".

>    I happen to have supported my husband for two + years while he pursued
>    his master's degree. 

    Only a minor slam to you  personally, but I find it rather odd that in
    these days of "equality" that it is *something* when a woman support
    her husband.  A man who won't/can't support is wife is still considered
    a slime.  My sister-in- law has been a great feminist.  First to work
    in a given mine.  Master-Blaster license, all that.  Decided she wanted
    to stay home  and raise kids.  So far as I can tell her husband didn't
    have *&^% to say about it.

    A man whow won't pay child support is a "deadbeat" while a woman who
    won't get off welfare and fulfill _her_ obligations to support her
    children is a "victim".
    
>    So what would I do?  Would I pursue full custody of my child just to
>    gain the extra money so I could live in a better place?  My lawyer
>    would probably tell me to do so but unfortunately, my mind doesn't see
>    as the best option.  Or I should say my heart doesn't.  

    And I admire that, but unfortunaltely, you seem to be in a minority,
    and I've know a lot of women that have said that until faced with 
    reality of 'making-ends-meet".

    >As long as the
>    parents are good parents, the children should spend equal time with
>    them.  But, if we were truly good parents, we should be able to make up
>    a payment schedule that benefits both of us to be able to support our
>    child in the same way.  Unfortunately, no lawyer would recommend it and
>    in the end, we would be in a battle for our child. 

    Would be nice, but like I said, you seem to be in a minority, and there
    is _no_ incentive for a woman to "be reasonable" when she _knows_ she
    will get everything her way if it goes into court.  On the other hand
    the only hope a man has is to go into court and hope the judge will
    be reasonable when she comes in, with big crocodile tears, accusing 
    him of molesting the kids and beating her.
    
    fred();

    re .126 
>>Unfortunately, no lawyer would recommend it and
>>in the end, we would be in a battle for our child.
    
>>So sad but true.
    
    Remember CJ, the woman does not have to go along with the lawyer but of
    course any woman would be a fool not to take the guy over the coals.
    
    So, you admit that the guy usually gets whacked because the woman wants
    to live better and its too bad if its at the mans expence.  So now the 
    man has to live in a small 1 room apartment without enough money to
    take the kids to the movies or even have a girlfriend while the woman
    retaines the house, has her boyfriend move in ect.   In the end, the
    children suffer because they don't get the quality of parenting they
    would have gotten if the divorce was fair.  Its just expected that the
    guy will go out and get two or three other jobs to make ends meet and
    I have seen the X go after the 2nd and 3rd job income to.   
    
    Lets look at yet another example of how lopsided things are in the 
    divorce courts.  Marsha Clark makes alot more money than her X and
    she wants more money from him so she can dress better... Now how do the
    kids benefit from that, care to answer that one CJ or SUZANNE?  The
    laws and lawyers have made it so that a woman can easilly screw over 
    their husbands no matter how good of a person he is and there is not
    much he can do legally. But according two CJ and Suzanne, thats just
    the way it is and its to bad for men cuz we women likes what we got and
    we ain't going to give it up.

    Re Suzanne
    
    Common Suzanne, you presented your data in a current conversation so it
    was taken that way.  Like I said, you sound like your just giving us
    alot of fud.  Oh, and everybody who is married does not by default
    have alot of property ect.   Maybe you don't know any people that got
    divorce that had anything to split up, but again, I think its just alot
    of fud.
    
    Dom 

    RE: .130  Dom

    / Remember CJ, the woman does not have to go along with the lawyer but of
    / course any woman would be a fool not to take the guy over the coals.

    Personally, I don't consider myself a 'fool' for not raking my ex over
    the coals.  (As mentioned earlier, we settled our divorce without even
    hiring lawyers - either of us!!)  

    We made an equitable agreement between the two of us and we both lived
    up to it.  I'm not sorry at all that we took that route.

    / Marsha Clark makes alot more money than her X and she wants more money 
    / from him so she can dress better... Now how do the kids benefit from 
    / that, care to answer that one CJ or SUZANNE? 

    Marcia Clark BORROWED the nice clothes she wore on national television
    during the OJ trial.  Prosecuting attorneys don't make all that much
    money (compared to private practice.)

    Now she has a $4.2 million book deal.  She isn't asking for extra money
    from her ex anymore.

    / But according two CJ and Suzanne, thats just the way it is and its to 
    / bad for men cuz we women likes what we got and we ain't going to give 
    / it up.  

    This certainly isn't anything I've said here (and it isn't what I did
    when I got my own divorce.)  I still have the legal papers from my
    divorce - there isn't a single attorney's name on them because neither
    of us hired an attorney to get our divorce.  (The divorce papers don't
    show any property division at all because it was all done between us
    before we filed.  The papers simply state that all matters have been
    settled already and that our marriage is now dissolved.)
    
    I'd simply like to see an accurate picture of how the system works
    before I agree that it needs to be changed.

    RE: .131  Dom
    
    As far as I'm concerned, your notes are FUD.
    
    So, we're even.  :)

This is a notes file to offer opinions.  Please do not start screaming at
me.  I offered "my opinion" and take offense to the attitude that comes in
the replies about my note.

    Funny, but this is the only notes that I am active in that is always 
    yelling screaming and complaining about the replies people write in.  
    Why is that???  Forget it, I don't even want to know.  I have neither 
    the time or the patience to play the game.

Dom, you are right.. the women doesn't have to go along with it.  But you
are saying that the women would be a fool not to rake her husband over
the coals.  You must know some pretty awful women.  Fortunately for the
world, not all women are that way.  Just the way it is.  I know alot of
guys that are scum but that doesn't mean that all of them are.  Take for
example the men that go to live with the women that gets divorced and 
lives off her husband and in his house.  Is that man right to live off
of the other's man support?  I think not.  

I don't know where you got the idea that I agree that men get whacked
because the women wants to live better and its too bad at the man's
expense.  I was saying that in my case, it would be me, the women, 
who would have to live in a one bedroom apartment.  I also stressed
the it would be great if both parents could live in the same type 
of environment.  You live in a two bedroom apartment, then so do I.
But we both know that its likely impossible to happen.

    You comments with my name capitalized if I would care to comment 
    about I do not care to comment about.  Its a totally different case,
    as I have stressed now three times.  The justice in the USA is not
    always for women or always for men.  It has faults.  Human beings
    are not perfect so there never will be a perfect justice system. 

Lastly, please don't put words into my mouth.  You write that
according to me thats just the way it is and its too bad for men
cuz we got what we want and we don't want to give it up.  I did
not say that and I take offense to the fact that you put words
into my mouth.

Fred,

I also take offense that you think that because I supported my
husband I am upset over this.  We jointly made that decision and
if the situation were reversed and I wanted to go to school we 
would jointly make that decision also. I never said that my husband
was a slime.  I am very proud of my husband.  He has a wonderful
job and the fact that I helped him to do this also makes me proud.
Enough said.

    

Suzanne

	I can't claim to have carefully read every word entered in
this notes file in the last couple of days, but my impression is that
what you have entered has raised the caliber of these notes.  Thank
you for entering them.

	My impression from reading this notes file lately is that some
men, who feel they were treated unfairly in divorces, believe that the
majority of cases (or maybe all) screw men.   They cannot conceive of
a case where a woman gets screwed.  This is absurd.

	IMO, the language directed at you has been offensive.

	IMO, if these men would consider team building, they would
do more for their cause.    Sesame Street had some good segments
on "cooperation".   I wish they would watch them again.

	Guys, please stop squabbling with everyone who doesn't immediately
say "everything you said is right".   Please try to find common ground.
Equality helps everyone.   And remember a few anecdotal cases don't
prove broad trends.

	Maybe instead of getting rid of nofault divorce, it would be good
to start by attacking some of the more absurd laws, such as ones which
hold a man responsible for children which aren't his.

    Fred,
    
    You havwe three women in here who are living proof that all women do not
    rake men over the coals, or even get their rightful support, as the
    justic department points out happens to most women, felony or not.  
    
    meg

    RE: .135
    
    Thanks so much for your note!!
    
    "Team building" does sound like a good idea!
    
    Thanks again,
    Suzanne

    
    Take note guys (last three or so).  Like I said, Suzanne is _not_
    unique.
    
    fred();

    re .136
    
>    You havwe three women in here who are living proof that all women do not
>    rake men over the coals, or even get their rightful support, as the
>    justic department points out happens to most women, felony or not.  
    
    {insert standard tirade about "lying about me" here}
    
    I have never said _all_ women.  I have even said that I admired women
    who could negotiate without taking a pipe-reamer to him.  I have even
    said that probably 90% of the women I know are decent, caring people.
    (but if this keeps up I'm going to have to lower my percentage ;^} ).
    
    fred();

    Yes, it's true - women like me (who refuse to get entangled in the
    worst aspects of divorce, but rather settle things quietly and fairly
    with the ex-spouse without involving lawyers) are not unique.

    Such women are dangerous, though, because misogynistic idiots can't
    point to us to say, "SEE??  *SHE* just wants to take advantage of the
    current system!!!" (when we obviously DIDN'T take advantage of ANY of
    the so-called advantages women get in Family Law.)


    Let's find out what the real system does before we change it.

     
    Take note guys (.-1).
    
    fred();

    Meg, Fred admires us.
    
    It would just be too physically dangerous for him to admit it.  :)

    re .142
    
    Consider yourself ignored.
    fred();

    Too late.
    
    I already consider myself admired.

re .120



so if its not the "ah, but the US of A is different to europe" argument 
its the "NH is different to california" argument?

how about looking for the common ground when engaging in dialogue.

your feedback on topic 41 (and particularly 41.7 - last paragraph) would be 
most welcome.



andreas.

okay, with all the new entries recently (hi cj and others!) i'd like to 
take the opportunity of engaging in constructive dialogue (even if this 
means that i may end up talking to the women in here, plus greg and ::mcclure
only!!!)

here some input to the topic at hand.

re 205.9

>		I happen to believe FAULT should be levied for adultery and
>		Physical abuse with irrefutable proof on either party.  If
>		Adultery has occured that 3rd person should be found and 
>		s/he should be forced to pay for the ensuing divorce.

i don't support "fault" divorce for all, since by this measure cases are 
endlessly dragged out. also (as meg's grandmother, i believe it was) i prefer 
to reduce the courts involvement in private matters to an absolute minimum; 
ie. in cases where agreements can't be reached the court must arbitrate on 
matters of custody and material issues.

now below a potential problem i see with the way that laws seem to be evolving.

the underlying assumption for the problem which i am going to address is the 
well known fact that a "few rotten _____ spoil the _____".

due to the "few rotten _____" the laws become more stringent in order to 
streamline the rotten few. now law applies to all equally, and if it now 
applies to me it must also apply you etc. the net effect of more stringent 
laws is that for the judge, the room to maneuver is substantially reduced 
and that the judges function is itself downgraded to the role of executioner 
of the law rather than being the arbiter. the majority of the people is then 
going to feel misrepresented by the perceived rigid treatment of the law and 
everyone ends up unhappy. all this just because of the "few rotten _____".

this at least is a deficit which, as it seems, the repeal of the "no-fault"
divorce is trying to address.

whilst i don't see reinstituting "fault" as a solution (because of the 
impossibility of legislating what amounts to conflicting moralities in a
multicultural society) i believe the effect of reinstituting "fault" would
all the same mean, that the judge is back as the arbiter with more room
to maneuver, and folks before the judge will more likely feel that they 
get a decent hearing rather than a standard treatment.

it seems to me that it is in the public's best interest to give judges the
ability to be arbiters (by them having sufficient room to maneuver). can 
this only be achieved by bringing back "fault" divorce are or are there 
other means to do so?




andreas.

    RE: .145  George Rauh
    
    / Yes, he admires women like you from your grave site.:) Yep... another
    / one in the pine box.:) :) ;)
    
    Are you saying that Fred *LIED* when he told Meg that he admires women
    like us (who don't use a 'pipe-reamer' on our ex-husbands, or however
    he put it)??
    
    Are you saying that Fred would rather see Meg and I dead?  (Or is that
    you speaking, now?)

    
    re .147
    
>it seems to me that it is in the public's best interest to give judges the
>ability to be arbiters (by them having sufficient room to maneuver). can 
>this only be achieved by bringing back "fault" divorce are or are there 
>other means to do so?
    
    The problem is that in the Judiciary, in the U.S. at least, there is
    still this built-in bias that the "poor little woman" should be taken
    care of.  Not too long ago I heard a judge on tv justify his giving
    custody of children to women in nearly all cases as, "She will be
    more likely to stay home and care for the kids".  SAY WHAT!  How's
    she going to do that unless she 1) goes to work (which puts her
    on the same basis as the man), 2) goes on welfare and neglects _her_
    obligation to support the child, or 3) is able to continue to 
    confiscate enough of _his_ paycheck throught "child support" for her
    to live off of the money that is supposed to support the child.
    There is this strange mix of "old fasioned", and "liberal" ideas
    that is fully supported by "feminists" and on the bottom line ends up 
    taking a pipe-reamer to fathers.
    
    There are _already_ laws that say that the child should go to whichever
    parent is best able to care for the child, but there is also this idea,
    fully demonstrated in this file, that the only "parenting" that counts
    is giving birth and changing diapers.  And that's why we have 13 year 
    old kids running the streets killing 7 year old kids for their Niki's.
    
    There are already laws that state that "marital property", that is
    property acquired during marriage, is to be divided equally.  All too
    often, _all_ property gets lumped in as "marital" property.  And all
    too often the male ends up getting half, or less, of the property and
    _all_ of the debt, including her lawyer, house payments for the house
    that she gets to live in until the children are grown, car payments,
    all past credit cards, etc.
    
    I'm sure it wouldn't take much to come up with individual examples
    of someone on "the other side" getting shafted.  I'm sure it does
    happen, but it depends on who has the better, and more expensive,
    lawyer more than depending on how "fair" the system is.  However, all 
    of which I have discribed is by far more the rule than the exception.
    
    fred();

    Nope. Just being a wise guy, making fun if all this hoplaa. I deleted
    the message because I could see how it could be taken out of text and
    twisted to make it look like something it isnt. See, I am only making
    jest of all this as you can and do. Nothing more than that. Remember,
    all that is in print must be true if your Bullwinkle J. Moose.:)
    
    Mean time.... Where is the soda. I am getting rather dry with this
    pitty pot party.:)

    Suffice it to say that the attitude towards women that has been
    demonstrated (extensively) by at least one guy here is something 
    that is STILL encouraged in our society to some degree.

    The idea that women shouldn't be allowed to disagree with a man
    (and that if women even QUESTION the validity of a point of view,
    it's the same thing as going completely and totally against that
    point of view) is a dynamic which contributes to the divorce rate
    in this country.

    We see it every day.  "How dare you disagree with me?  You're an
    example of everything I've spent my life fighting against."

    If a wife doesn't do things quite right (doesn't vacuum often enough,
    or leaves dishes piled in the sink a bit too much, or doesn't keep the
    kids quiet, or spends a bit too much money, or gets a dent in the car)
    - all hell breaks loose in some households because of the societal
    attitude that men have to keep women in line in order to BE REAL MEN.

    Not all men buy this idea, but some still do.  After awhile, some women
    decide they've had enough of being treated like an errant employee in 
    their own homes.

    The wife's lawyer isn't impressed with some guy who verbally pushes his
    wife around (to keep her 'in line'), so the lawyer legally pushes HIM
    around (and the wife says, "Good.")

    If the Family Law system is stacked against husbands (and I'm sure it
    is stacked against men to some degree), it's probably because men in
    general still hold the position (in our society) of pushing women 
    around in one way or another.  Lawyers are there to push back.

    When we get to the point in our society where women are not pushed
    around (in general) so much, the legal system will move to the point
    of trying harder to get arrangements like 'joint custody' (which is
    more fair to everyone, including the children.)

    [Just to make it clear - I'm not saying that all divorces are caused
    by a husband pushing the wife around.  Far from it!!!  A lot can go
    wrong with a marriage, even when the husband and wife are perfectly
    fair and decent to each other.  Sometimes people simply fall out of
    love or fall IN love with someone else, which is wrong but a human
    thing to do.  I do think that the problems of divorce are exacerbated
    by the societal attitude that men have authority over women.  Men,
    women AND children pay the price for this attitude in the long run.]

    A case in point of the unreasonable way some men treat women:

       "...but there is also this idea, fully demonstrated in this file, 
       that the only "parenting" that counts is giving birth and changing 
       diapers." 

    This wasn't said at all (NOT EVEN ONCE) in this topic, of course.

    This guy creates this lie and shoves it down women's throats as if
    they'd said it.  This is the attitude that hurts men, women and
    children in divorce situations in this country.

    Take note guys (.-1)
    
    There is a tactic being demonstrate here of "divert attention away
    from what you are doing by first accusing the other guy of doint it".
    
    I'll leave it to you to decide just who is doing what becaues in
    this very note (.-1), if you read it with an objective eye you will
    find that there is 1)an accusation, 2)an admission that that is indeed 
    what is happening, and 3)an attempt to justify what is happening to 
    "even the score".
    
    fred();

        Take note guys.(.153)

    I didn't say it was _said_, I said it was _demonstrated_.

    There is a twisting of the facts coupled with an intensity of attack
    that makes me wonder just why the author is doing what she is doing.

    fred();

    Oooh I'm an neaderthal
    and I'm O.K.
    I sleep all night 
    and I work all day.
    
    I pay alimony
    I pay child support
    I go to the laventree
    
    On Wendesday I go shopping
    for butter, guns, and tea

    adendum .154  Notes collision.  .-1 should have been .151.
    fred();

    As I've said from the beginning, I don't know exactly what the system
    does (as a whole) to men and women in divorce.

    I do think the legal system takes measures when someone with more power
    tries to lord over a person with less power.  That's part of why our
    legal system was created in the first place, and it works against men
    to some degree in the case of divorce because some men still try to
    exercise a degree of power and authority over the women in their lives.

    How many times do you suppose Fred will try to incite men against a
    solitary woman who happens to disagree with him?

    
    Once again guys==take note (.158)
    fred();

    RE: .155  Fred Haddock
    
    / I didn't say it was _said_, I said it was _demonstrated_.
    
    In other words, you've made a claim which can't be proven (so you
    don't have to worry about telling the truth.)

    There it is!!
    >I don't know exactly what the system does (as a whole) to men and
    women in divorce.
    
    Dam your good Suzanne!:) If you don't know, why spout off like you do.
    Why not take in a couple of meetings with us neandetal men and women
    who are cought. Take time off from work, in vacation land, and go to
    the courts. Monday mornings, coffee, a hard wooden bench, and two
    people fighting for life in a power game. Such fun.

    
    One more time guys take note (.162) especially in the making claims
    and telling he truth department.
    
    fred();

    
    Take note (.159) and now the "he's picking on a poor little woman"
    defense.
    
    fred();

    George, I've said many times here that I wouldn't support changing
    the system until I know exactly what it does.  You haven't been
    paying attention if you didn't spot this until now.

    I have also said many times that I would support a push toward 'joint
    custody' (where possible.)  Not all couples can do this, of course.

    Obviously, someone with a hair trigger temper and a horrendous attitude
    toward women would NOT be a good candidate for a joint custody father.
    (I don't think families should be pushed into 'joint custody' by law
    in such cases.)

    "incite" has a connotation of violence that I resent.  
    
    If I can "incite" men to organize into a a political force to fight
    for equal rights for chidren and fathers, the _so_ _be_ _it_.
    
    fred();

    Your saying I have a hair trigger? Naaaaa! Not me!:) I am just pointing
    out you own thoughts here, your constantly pushing the poor woman issue
    and know Nothing of the real pain, and assume that its this way. How
    can a blind man know what the color red is less they have seen it. How
    can you constaly belittle men with your acusations, and
    generalizations when you have not gone thru the system? Where is your
    logic and compashion when you have never seen first hand. TAKE A DAY
    OFF AND GO TO COURT. Just like take a day and bring in your Daughter.
    Take a day and go to court should be a day we should all observe
    sometime during the year. I double dawg dare you to go!!
    :)
    

    Meanwhile, women will fight for the rights of CHILDREN AND WOMEN
    against the attitude of domination and emotional (and physical)
    violence exhibited by some men in this country.

fred, the few good flags which you've raised with reasoned arguments so far
in this topic are totally invalided by your continued attacks on suzanne in 
particular. you appear to be pushing an agenda more than anything else which
casts some doubt on any factual input which you may have provided.

if you want to discuss, DO SO instead of announcing all the time that you're
going to ignore suzanne.

as for suzanne, i'd advice that she ignore you for a while since your input 
leaves much to be desired lately.



andreas.

    Fred! time to go, 'Unh' again.:)

you can stay, silly old fool! :-)

    take note guys (.169)
    
    As has been admirably demonstrated here:
    If it's for the righs for women, then call out the National Guard if
    you must, but if the inequity benefits women, then s###w-you.
    
    fred();

    RE: .168  George Rauh
    
    / Your saying I have a hair trigger? Naaaaa! Not me!:)
    
    I wasn't referring to you in that remark, actually.
    
    / I am just pointing out you own thoughts here, your constantly pushing 
    / the poor woman issue and know Nothing of the real pain, and assume that 
    / its this way.
    
    George, I know about the 'REAL pain' of a marriage gone horribly wrong.
    
    I also know the reality of living in a society where some men believe
    they are EXPECTED to push women around.
    
    / ...your Daughter. 
    
    I have one son, no daughters.
    
    My son knows how to treat women as equals - he is sometimes amazed
    at how many young women tell him that he really knows how to talk
    to women.  

    In one of my son's high school classes once, they had an assignment
    "What does your father do for a living?"
    
    The teacher called me at home to tell me the pride in my son's voice
    when he stood up to give his speech "What my MOTHER does for a living"
    (and told about my life in the computer business and how he hoped to
    follow in my footsteps.)

    
    Oh No!  I've been picking on poor little women again.  BAD FRED, BAD!
    (slap, slap).  So sorry.  I'll be good, I'll be nice, I won't do it
    any more (sniffle). Yeah Right!
    
    Maybe I'll go pick on something a little safer.  Like a Cape Buffalo ;^).
    
    fred();

.149                                               but there is also this idea,
.149    fully demonstrated in this file, that the only "parenting" that counts
.149    is giving birth and changing diapers.  And that's why we have 13 year 
.149    old kids running the streets killing 7 year old kids for their Niki's.

Could someone PLEASE help me out here.  Was this demonstrated when Suzanne
wrote how her father had been the primary care giver in .49 ??   If
this wasn't your reference, could you please tell me where it was
demonstrated ?

BTW, I didn't understand the reference to 13 year old kids killing 7 year
old kids for their shoes either.    Maybe some other people don't understand
it either.  Could you please explain this a little or point us to another
note ?  thanks

    Even though Fred's shooting blanks in this topic (because he holds no
    REAL power over any woman here), it still shows the attitude I described
    earlier.  Some guys simply don't think they're 'real men' unless they 
    push around the nearest woman.  If the woman doesn't push around easily, 
    they try all the harder.

    The legal system is set up to deal with guys like Fred, in particular.

    Any changes in the system should leave the door open to still deal
    with guys like Fred the way things are happening now (while other
    men and women are given the opportunities to try for things like
    'joint custody' arrangements.)

    Gee Suzanne. I have to read the stuff about what does your mommy do for
    a living. Or fill out the stuff that is gender biased in respect that
    mommy always looks after children. And in reguards to hair triggers. I
    have deleted Many notes because of your hair triggered attitude, ready
    to rip me a new rectum every time I try to make some yuck out a tragic
    situation. I am sorry your having a difficult time with your son in
    school. I had one with gaining custody of my daughter.... I wish like
    hell I could scan in the GAL report. You could see what a hoot its
    been. I wish like hell I could scan in some of my court fun. Papers,
    notes, etc. Welp.. back to dragging my knuckles.:)

    
    re .177
    
>BTW, I didn't understand the reference to 13 year old kids killing 7 year
>old kids for their shoes either.    Maybe some other people don't understand
>it either.  Could you please explain this a little or point us to another
>note ?  thanks
    
    A couple times in this file (I don't have the time to go dig them out)
    there have been discussions about a study done by a woman who set out
    to prove the opposite, but had to admit in the overwelming weight of
    evidence that cut across all races, all ethnic groups, a financial
    status , that showed that by far the most telling staistic as to whether
    a child would have problems with school, drop out of school, use
    drugs, get in trouble with the law, go to jail was---the lack of a 
    father in the home.  Even if it was a single parent household headed
    by a father.
    
    fred();

    RE: .179  George Rauh
    
    / I am sorry your having a difficult time with your son in school.
    
    Excuse me??  Where did I say he had a difficult time in school?
    (ONCE, he was supposed to write about what his father did for a 
    living, so he wrote with great pride about what his mother did for 
    a living instead.)  The teacher thought his speech was REALLY COOL.
    It wasn't a problem at all.
    
    My son has a better relationship with me than ANY of his two-parent
    friends have with their parents (by far!)  His friends used to think
    my son was strange to spend so much time with his Mom, but now he says
    they are jealous.  They wish they could get along with their parents.

    Gee. There we go agian. Hair triggers. Filling out the paper work,
    saying father this and that. Golly gee. Must be.....

    What does this mean:
    
    	"...the lack of a father in the home.  Even if it was a single parent 
    	household headed by a father."                                         
    
    If the 'single parent household' is headed by the father, how can the
    father not be in the home?

    
    >The legal system is set up to deal with guys like Fred, in particular.
    
    Am I to take that as a threat?  Like I've heard first hand form other
    men from this and other notes files?
    
    Take note guys.  Just who is trying to use their gender to push
    whom?
    
    fred();

    Fred, only your wife can use the current Family Law system to divorce
    you.
    
    No one else here can do that.

    re .183
    
    >     <<< Note 204.183 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
>
>    What does this mean:
>    
>    	"...the lack of a father in the home.  Even if it was a single parent 
>    	household headed by a father."                                         
>    
>    If the 'single parent household' is headed by the father, how can the
>    father not be in the home?
    
    means that even single parent households headed by fathers do better
    than households with no father.
    
    fred();

    >     <<< Note 204.185 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
>           -< We're talking about the Family Law legal system here. >-
>
>    Fred, only your wife can use the current Family Law system to divorce
>    you.
>    
>    No one else here can do that.
    
    She can only use that system if that continues to get the widespread 
    suppot it is getting.
    
    fred();

    Thats right. The wife or stbx can use all the free legal services she
    can get. And you, the neaderthal must scrath your neck and cut a
    check.:) 
    
    Oh the weather outside is fright full
    but sleeping in my car is so delightful.
    Oh let it snow
    let it snow
    let it snow.:)
    

    The way our society regards men as being in authority over women,
    it's all the more tough for some boys to get their acts together
    without a father figure to push them towards doing it.  Some boys
    find it tough to be parented by a lone woman because of these 
    societal attitudes.

    Luckily, my son has done very well being raised by a woman.

    Or 
    Oh the weather out side is frightful
    but sleeping under this bridge is so delightful
    ....
    let it snow 
    let it snow 
    let it snow.:)

re .3

> so i'd prefer the concept of marriage as a life-long contract (as it was 
> originally devised some 150 years ago), to be updated to today's reality.
> a new contractual form which binds both partners to their parental responsibly 
> in a fair an equitable manner and in a form which would endure change of 
> partners in adult relationships would be more appropriate (-imo-).


talking of changes in the system. 

i am beginning to think my flash above is not so bad after all.

imagine the custody being settled _before_ the kids are born. this way
it's clear from the word go that mum pays 50% support and gets 50% custody 
and that dad pays 50% and gets 50% custody, no matter what their situation
may mutate too in life (divorced, remarried, shacked-up, single or whatever).


i like the idea, 
sheer brilliance, 
pure genius! 
;-) :-)


andreas.

    Even Burt Reynolds claimed he had to 'sleep in his car' when he was
    getting divorced from Loni Anderson.  (I saw him say this in a TV
    interview.)
    
    He had already kicked her and the kid out of his Florida house, of 
    course.
    
    He just thought it sounded cool to say it.
    
    
    I've known a few women who stayed in their cubicles at Digital at
    night for weeks at a time when they were going through difficult
    times.  They were just very quiet about it.

    RE: .192  Andreas
    
    That's a great idea!!!
    
    Suzanne

suzanne, thanks!

great minds think alike! :-)



andreas.

    I am currently in the middle of a divorce in MA. I goot to court with some
    idea that all people are treated equally under the law. Not withstanding 
    those in this note that hold the view divorce is pay back time for 
    societies ill's - most of us believe in the justice system.
    
    Well in MA what happens is:
    
    My soon to be ex was immediately granted temporary custody. Read until
    the age of 21 since I now have to prove he is in danger to justify any 
    change. NO discussion. After a lot of effort and a lot of problems with
    visits etc. I have now 'won' joint legal custody. In practice that means 
    I can get copies of my son's school and medical records - period.
    
    Visitation is alternate week-ends and one overnight every week. NO
    discussion - it's according to MA guidlines.
    
    I was immediately ordered to pay my soon to be ex 50 percent of my net
    income. NO discussion - it's according to MA guidlines. I now pay more
    since my soon to be ex discovered that by quiting her job she would
    get an increase from me and a nice bonus from the tax payer. My son still 
    goes to day care every day.
    
    That's the way it is. Any doubters ? don't hesitate to check for
    yourself.
    
    In my efforts to see my son, I have had overwhelming support from women I 
    know. Men struggle to talk about it with me - like some people treat
    those with AIDS.
                                                   
    
    
    
    
    
    
     
    
      

> means that even single parent households headed by fathers do better
> than households with no father.

Actually I was reading of a report that contradicted this. It said that
children with a single parent Mother did better than those living with a single
parent Father. Since fred(): does not seem to quote sources accurately I'm not
sure I need to but I saw it in VNS a few weeks ago - reprinted from The
Electronic Telegraph.


VNS can be viewed via VTX VNS.
VNS home page is : http://expat.zko.dec.com/vns/

The ET (Electronic Telegraph) Home page : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

    RE: .197
    
    Thanks for the information!!
    
    Suzanne

.196  My soon to be ex was immediately granted temporary custody. Read until
.196  the age of 21 since I now have to prove he is in danger to justify any 
.196  change.

The good news is that once your son is 12 or so, if he wants to come and
live with you the courts will probably so order it.


.196  Visitation is alternate week-ends and one overnight every week. NO
.196  discussion - it's according to MA guidlines.

What did you want ?   Did your lawyer ask the judge for 50/50 joint custody ?


.196  I was immediately ordered to pay my soon to be ex 50 percent of my net
.196  income.

The Noncustodial notes file (280.1) lists the guidelines for Mass.
According to these, if you have one child and earn $25k/yr you should
be paying 27% of your gross.   If your ex earns about the same as you,
this would decrease by up to half.   Was this your experience ?
If there was a significant deviation, something was wrong !


.196                                                         I now pay more
.196  since my soon to be ex discovered that by quiting her job she would
.196  get an increase from me and a nice bonus from the tax payer.

Are you saying she is now getting alimony or increased child support ?
If she voluntarily quit her job (and you can show this) I would think
your lawyer could have the judge compute assuming she still worked.
If you voluntarily reduce your income, the judge won't cut you
slack.   The judge shouldn't cut her slack either, unless there
are extenuating circumstances.


.196  In my efforts to see my son, I have had overwhelming support from women I 
.196  know. Men struggle to talk about it with me - like some people treat
.196  those with AIDS.

Some men can talk about things like this ... keep trying.

    .197
    
    I thought about how much my SO sees his son...then I thought about how
    much I saw my Dad when I was young. I asked him...did you see your Dad
    all that much when you were a kid....both of us couldn't come up with a
    period for longer than two days that we actually got any quality time
    with our Dads. He spends more time with his son and talking on the
    phone to his son, than both our Dads ever did..His father agreed. 
    And although his Dad and my Dad were off working, didn't matter, our 
    Moms were the only ones we saw and spent time with....our Dad's were 
    expected to work while our Moms were expected to stay home with the 
    children..
    So his Dad traveled and my dad was a policeman...Weekends were not even
    on the adjenda...I see the fathers of today spending more quality time
    with their children than I remember have spent with my dad as a kid. 
    Maybe divorce is forcing quality time with the parent. 
    
    

re .196


hi ::spicer, 


from experience, things always look very grim at first (my ex wanted me 
not to even see my children for two years) and i had to fight through a
trial first before i could get my visitation rights.

whilst _on_paper_ i now have the right to see my children ONCE a month, 
first full weekend of the month from friday evening 8:00 PM until sunday 
evening 8:00 PM, i can actually see them as often as i want to. that's what 
my ex-wife and i arranged out of court. i am just back from spending two 
weeks with them over christams and new year. it took alot of effort and 
patience getting this far, but i did.

once the shock waves of the divorce are over things will look better. you
can get to where you want to, regardless of what the paper says. once the
waves settle and a level of trust can be reestablished it's up to you and
the other parent to work things out.



regards,

andreas.

    
    reply.201
    
>whilst _on_paper_ i now have the right to see my children ONCE a month, 
>first full weekend of the month from friday evening 8:00 PM until sunday 
>evening 8:00 PM, i can actually see them as often as i want to. that's what 
>my ex-wife and i arranged out of court. i am just back from spending two 
>weeks with them over christams and new year. it took alot of effort and 
>patience getting this far, but i did.
    
    You should consider yourself extremely fortunate.  Maybe not on the
    "winning the lottery' level, but very fortunate none the less.
    
    Some men _do_ acquire custody back too.  I did.  But it took me
    nine and a half years in a situation that she was _clearly_ _unfit_.
    The damage done to the kids by living with her I am _still_ trying
    to correct.  Some I will never be able to correct.  If I am "bitter"
    then it's for what this system has allwed her to do to my children.
    
    fred();

    As I described earlier, my dad was my primary parent when I was a kid,
    although he worked.

    My mom was at home full-time when I was a baby (so she 'babysat' me
    during the day), but my dad took over whenever he was at home.  I was
    his responsibility, primarily, and I knew it!!

    My mom worked outside the home starting when I was around 4 years old,
    and I had older siblings who babysat me after pre-school and then
    kindergarten.  But my dad was always the one who was responsible for
    my day-to-day care (except for when other family members, such as my
    mom and older siblings, were babysitting me for him.)

    On the weekends, he took me everywhere with him when he did his errands
    and went to practice hitting golf balls.  I followed him around when
    he did yard work much of the time, too.  He was the one I was supposed
    to be with, so we both expected to spend time together on the weekends.

    Being primarily responsible for a baby/toddler/kid was his choice and
    a whole different experience than just playing with the kid.

    Some fathers are very, very involved in their kids' lives without being
    the 'primary parent', too, of course.  There are kids' activities (like
    little league, etc.) that some dads and moms get REALLY involved with
    when their kids are young.  That's really good, too.

    Now that my dad is a senior citizen (and my mom has passed away), I'm
    the kid who calls him all the time and sends him books, CDs, videotapes
    (and other stuff he might find interesting to do in his retirement.)
    He plays golf 4 days per week, but I also sent him a 486 computer so
    he could surf the 'net - and HE DOES!!!

    I visited him a few months ago, and I'd really like to move my little
    family to be near him (so we could spend a lot of time in person together 
    again.)  My older siblings keep in touch occasionally, but I'm always the 
    one who keeps in touch with dad A LOT.

    My dad and I have the exact same political views - my older siblings
    got my mother's political views.  (I think that's pretty funny.)  :)
    We love to talk about politics!!!

    My dad also remembers almost everything that's happened in the world
    during his lifetime.  He's the most interesting person in the world
    to talk to about 20th Century history.

    I hope more dads try to spend time like this with their kids these
    days.  It's important and unbelievably valuable (to the kids and to
    the dads.)

re .203

    
>>whilst _on_paper_ i now have the right to see my children ONCE a month, 
>>first full weekend of the month from friday evening 8:00 PM until sunday 
>>evening 8:00 PM, i can actually see them as often as i want to. that's what 
>>my ex-wife and i arranged out of court. i am just back from spending two 
>>weeks with them over christams and new year. it took alot of effort and 
>>patience getting this far, but i did.
>    
>    You should consider yourself extremely fortunate.  Maybe not on the
>    "winning the lottery' level, but very fortunate none the less.
    


i truly resent this comment coming from you, fred haddock.

i wrote my story in numerous places, 194.48, 194.63 or 117.53 to point to
just a few, but i have always refused to look at my ex as a sc*m-bag, even
though she behaved like one in the beginning.



andreas.

    I dont think fred was trying to say you ex is a scumbag andreas. He is
    trying to point out that there are men, Like I have written about, who
    do not see thier kids. NEVER. And I know I have written such horras
    many many times here. They pay their support, the do all the right
    things, and NEver see their children again. Period. Some are kidnapped,
    like mine just about became, there are some who are falsely accused as
    wife beaters, child beaters, etc, and the system vilian-ised them, and
    there is absolutely no hope to ever gain visitaion again.

    Well if we are going to use personal stories as _proof_ try this one
    on for size.
    
    My eldest son had some problems as a child.  I think now it's called
    "attention deficiet disorder",  then it was called hyper-activity.
    
    Whem my ex disappeared with him, I repeatedly stated that my ex could
    not deal with my son.  I was ignored.  The judge gave her custody.
    This was when he was 7.
    
    When he was 11 she sent him to live with me because she could not
    deal with him any more.  He was a mess.  He was close to funking the
    grade level.  I enrolled him in a private school, and this teacher
    and my wife and I broke our backs over him.  By the end of the year
    he was caught up with his work enought to pass the fifth grade.
    He was showing some real progress.
    
    That summer, I filed for official custody.  Theex came wiht _six_
    sherrif deputies and the custody papers and snached him back.
    
    Two years later she did not contest my request for change of custody.
    He was a basket case.  He spent the next three years in one institution
    or another.  The insureance and I together paid out enough to have
    sent him through Harvard.  He tried everything in the book, including
    accusing me of sexually mollesting him.  The institutes gave up on
    him.  Said there was nothing wrong mentaly, he had a "character
    defficency".  
    
    At age 17 he ran away after being accused of "harassing" two young
    girls in the park.  I have seen him from time to time.  My wife
    had to go pick him up from a crack house about a year ago.  Tried
    to get him into rehab, but he blew that.  
    
    He is a very hansom, very intelligent young man (not because he's
    my son, he is), but now he's out "there"....on drugs...somewhere....
    I think.
    
    fred();

Here's my experience - I asked for and got, without argument, shared physical
and joint legal custody, even split of assets, no maintenance or child support.
Our son lives with each of us 50% of the time - the interval has been 
alternating three-week periods for the past five or six years.  He is now
12 - we separated when he was 2.

Some of the things that have made this work as well as it has (and I am not
going to pretend it is a piece of cake):

	1.  My ex and I had approximately equal incomes and assets.
	2.  We had been sharing child-care as close to 50-50 as we possibly
	    could since our son had been born.
	3.  Neither of us were greedy.  We realized that an attempt to
	    fight for a less-balanced settlement would be damaging to our
	    son (as if the damage the divorce would cause wasn't enough.)
	4.  Post-divorce, we tried to not use our son as a weapon against
	    the other and attempted to work together on major decisions.

This is in New Hampshire - we never even saw a judge.  I went before a
magistrate (or clerk or something), answered a few questions, and that was it.
Each of us had our own lawyer, but neither one attempted to "go for the
jugular".

I was in incredible pain at the time - I suppose I could have gotten ugly
if I had wanted to, but I didn't.  She told me her lawyer said she could
have gotten full custody if she had wanted to - but she didn't.

I do recognize that if our divorce were to happen today, some things would
be different, as there are those draconian "guidelines" that the courts
apply.  Yet I have been advised that with equal assets/incomes and shared
physical custody, that there very likely would still be no child support
payments.

"No-fault" divorce enabled us to end our 9-year marriage (something I did not 
want, but in hindsight was probably for the best) in a way that did the least
damage to our future lives, and to our son's life.  I wouldn't want it any
other way.

				Steve

re .200


another good note from you.

even though my children live 600 miles away in another country i am also
very present. i travel there to see them as often as i can afford to 
(that's usually once a month) and my monthly phone bill exceeds $300 from 
the many calls i make (little wonder when you're helping with the homework 
over the phone!)

my dad was a very busy man and often away on duty. we were five kids and 
my mum had staff helping her in the household. still we spend little quality
time with our dad (the most we knew from him was through our mum).

i never wanted my kids to have a dad they didn't know, which is why 
i eased down on the job the minute my first was born. i practically
raised our first born in the first three years when we still lived together.
when we separated, my daughter was so attached to me that my wife feared 
that i would kidnapp her to my country and she got an injunction order. eight
months later i found out (the hard way) that the injunction was toothless.

the rest is history. 




andreas.

    Steve, you and your ex deserve a lot of credit for making the best
    divorce arrangements possible for Tommy's sake (and your own sakes.)

    You (and Ted Nugent, who explained a similar 'joint custody' 
    arrangement in an interview some years ago) are my ideals when
    it comes to 'joint custody' parents.

    [In Ted Nugent's case - yes, THE rock-n-roll star Ted Nugent - he 
    and his ex-wife shared custody of their children, three kids I think,
    by having the kids live ALL the time in the family farm house.  He and
    his ex each had their own rooms in this house and THEY were the ones
    who spent weeks at a time at the family house by taking turns.  They
    were rich enough - and Ted's career was flexible enough - to make this
    work best for them, the last I heard.  It would be more difficult if
    they had both remarried, of course.  Perhaps they eventually changed
    the scenario.  In the interview, Ted described how he would move back
    into the farm house with the kids for a set period of weeks, then his
    ex would move back in to replace him.  They both got excellent time
    with the kids.  Actually, his kids may be grown up by now, come to
    think of it.]

    
    Pardon me while I "whine" a bit:
    
    So now you know what drives me.  My oldest son is a write-off,  my
    oldest daughter is doing ok...I think.  She got married last October,
    but I fear that she has a lot of her mothers attitudes, and she
    and her husband will both suffer for it.  The other two are still
    at home.  One will graduate this year.  Is talking about going into
    the minestry, though I wonder if he really understands what it's 
    about.  The other is a Freshman and hasn't a clue what it's about,
    but has aways been a whirlwind of life.
    
    Actually for me personally, life is pretty good.  I have a good job,
    a home, a wife who appreciates what I have to offer as a man, and
    whom I appreciate as a woman and person.
    
    So why do I do it.  Why do I put up with all the (*&^% from Suzanne
    et al and not just "sit down and shut up".  Any changes I can make
    will not benefit _me_ or my children personally at this point.
    
    Because I do understand that it is not just for the men, but for
    the _children_.  I understand the anger, the pain, the anguish,
    the hopelessness of dealing with the system because I HAVE BEEN
    THERE.  I have done my time in hell and *kicked* my way out.
    And maybe, just maybe, I can make _some_ good come from all this
    crap.
    
    fred():

re .210

>   And maybe, just maybe, I can make _some_ good come from all this
>   crap.
    

the good you can make fred, is to realise that when the parents can't
agree, that it is the children who will suffer most in a hostile battle
for custody.

as i wrote in 194.147, 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.

my main concern has always been that my children remain intact. this has
meant taking the back seat and doing the long march. they are now very 
confident children and much of the damage that was done initially 
(unknowingly perhaps) by their their mother has been mended. a child has
a need to be close to both its parents if it is to succeed. so for the 
child's benefit the parents had better work something out in the long run.



andreas.

    Once people put their lives into the hands of lawyers, the ones who
    benefit the most are the lawyers themselves.

    It's a lot smarter for people to work out 'fair' arrangements themselves
    (and it CAN be possible, no matter how badly things went in the marriage.)

    My first marriage ended very, very, VERY badly - but we did the right
    thing (and even AGREED on what was 'fair') when we split up.  We found
    a moment in our lives when we could say "What would be a fair way to
    split up our property?", and we did it.

    It would help if we had divorce mediators so that negotiations could 
    be made.  If they agree that the children will live with the mother 
    and the father will pay child support, then it would help if the father
    knew for sure how the money was being spent (without having actual
    control over the mother's life.)  Putting the kids' expenses on one
    particular credit card (with a credit limit no larger than the amount
    of the support) could be arranged for the father to pay directly so 
    that it wouldn't feel like the money was going to the mother.

    There are a lot of creative ways to make things work out if the two
    people can manage to get along AT ALL during this process.  Once it
    becomes a matter of 'winning', everyone loses to some degree.

re .211 (.210)


what i wanted to say with the note fred, is that you may be giving out 
the wrong message when you get men to fight for custody come what may.
that's how you come across to me.

the decision to fight for custody is one which cannot be considered
carefully enough and must be taken by the parent concerned. all outsiders
can ever do is to point to the risks and perils involved with such a 
decision from their children's point of view.



andreas.

    
    reply .211
    
>the good you can make fred, is to realise that when the parents can't
>agree, that it is the children who will suffer most in a hostile battle
>for custody.
    
    Not always.  We have seen cases in this file, many by women, where
    the mother is _clearly_ unfit.  And where the father is _clearly_
    the best parrent.  The mother has no qualms whatever about twisting
    their child for whatever purpose.  Yet it is _nearly_ _impossible_
    to rescue those children.
    
    It happens a _lot_.  There are major campaignes to save children
    who are abused or neglected.  I _know_ that the cases of which I
    speak outnumber these.  
    
    Yes, as I have told you, there are cases here where it is not
    beneficial to the child to fight over custody.  I told you in anohter
    note that if my case had been one of those _I_ would not have fought.
    I won.  Yet in a case where _clearly_ I _should_ have fought it took
    9 1/2 years and *&^%^ED-UP son.  Yet I feel very fortunate.  Even
    more than winning the lottery.  Becuase fewer men pull it off at all
    than win the lottery (change of custond after custody is granted).
    
    
    There is another way to reduce the trauma on the children.  Make it
    easier to get the children to the most competent _parent_.  You
    don't enven have to change anything.  JUST ENFORCE THE (*&^% LAW
    AS IT STANDS.  If you don't do it for the men then FOR THE CHILDREN.
    Yet every one who dares try gets the treatment that I've gotten in
    this file.
    
    fred();

    
    I guess  one thing that really fries my grits (and maybe it isn't just
    this notes file) is how if it were a woman who pulled off what George,
    and others in Non_custodial_parents notes and other men I've known
    have pulled off they'd make one of them movie-of-the-week Woman
    Defends Herself And Child From Neanderthal Husband shows about her.

    Men who do it are "full of hate", "bitter", "angry", "misogynists",
    "whiners", etc., etc, etc.

    Ah, gotta love "equality" and "valuing differences".

    fred();

    The best thing a person can do in the event of divorcing (especially
    where kids are involved) is to keep a calm head and be ready to
    negotiate.

    I remember a movie (called "A Table for Five", I think) where 
    Jon Voight played a flighty ex-husband who was taking his three
    kids on a cruise ship to Greece, or somewhere.  His ex-wife was
    remarried to a very responsible man (who was a great stepfather
    to the kids.)  The ex-wife and stepfather had custody.

    The mother (ex-wife) died in a car accident while they were on
    the cruise ship.  The father had to tell the kids about it himself.

    When the stepfather flew out to pick up the kids in Greece, it
    seemed as though the two men were braced for a nasty court battle.
    (They didn't like each other at all.  At one point, the stepfather
    had challenged the father 'Do you know their teachers' names?  Do
    you know who their best friends are?  When they have nightmares,
    do you know what they're about?')

    At the end of the film, the father told the stepfather the names of
    their teachers and their best friends.  He also told what the youngest
    child was dreaming about during his frequent nightmares (which BEGAN
    when the parents first split up.)

    Then he said, "Let's do these kids some good" (as they prepared to work
    together to do the best things for the kids, despite whatever feelings
    they had about each other.)

    Two adults can put their feelings aside for the sake of the kids, if
    they try hard enough.  If the other person seems furious, find a
    negotiator to try to help make things work.

re .216


"table for five" is one of my favourite movies, so is "cramer vs. cramer".


>                          If the other person seems furious, find a
>   negotiator to try to help make things work.

mediation is one field where i spend alot of my spare time; i know how
much i've missed it when my ex and i really needed it.

i succeeded in smoothing out several divorces since and i have even saved
two marriages so far (touch wood).


'twas a busy day in notes today, its nice to see this file be so lively!

c u tommorow folks and take care,

andreas.

    

    re .216

    If you  can pull it of GREAT!  But just as you seem to accuse me
    of judging the whole world by my experience, you seem to be doing
    exactly what you are accusing me of doing.  Just because _you_
    were reasonable (and I applaud that) doesn't mean _all_ are.

    IT TAKES _TWO_ REASONABLE AND LOGICAL PEOPLE TO HAVE A REASONABLE
    AND LOGICAL NEGOTIATION.  Like I've said before, it probably takes
    more maturity to have a good divorce than to have a good marriage.
    Unfortunately if people had that much maturity they probably wouldn't
    be getting divorced.

    .0 provides incentive for the two to work out their problems.  The 
    current system provides no incentive.  I've seen uncounted men go into
    court with this "if I am just nice enough she will be reasonable"
    attitude and come out using rolls of toilet-paper for tampons to
    stop the bleeding.  A woman who _wants_ everything will get it,
    an there isn't much "negation" can be done.
 
    If a woman is willing to negotiate, then a man is advised to negotiate.
    He will probably get more than he will in court.  If she is totally
    unreasonable, then he has to take his chances.  Strangely a man's
    chances seem to be better with a female judge, so maybe ERA was good
    for something after all ;^).

    fred();

    RE: .218  Fred

    / ...so maybe ERA was good for something after all ;^).                   

    The Equal Rights Amendment was never passed, actually.

    / IT TAKES _TWO_ REASONABLE AND LOGICAL PEOPLE TO HAVE A REASONABLE
    / AND LOGICAL NEGOTIATION. 

    If YOU can't stay calm, though, it's impossible.

    / .0 provides incentive for the two to work out their problems.

    The suggestion in .0 provides a way for the battles to get a lot worse
    than they are now (by focusing on 'blame', instead of working out a
    fair solution.)

    / I've seen uncounted men go into court with this "if I am just nice 
    / enough she will be reasonable" attitude and

    Once the lawyers are involved (and you're in court), it's past the point
    of peaceful negotiation.  

    / If a woman is willing to negotiate, then a man is advised to negotiate.

    If you have a hair trigger temper (and she believes you will go Medieval
    on her at the slightest provocation), negotiations are impractical.

    If it's clear that you'll both benefit (because you can SHARE the 
    thousands of dollars that would go to lawyers for the battle), a calm
    demeanor is a tremendous help in getting a negotiation.

    P.S. When I say that the woman might worry about the man "going Medieval 
    on her [during the negotiations]", I meant "verbally".

    
>    The suggestion in .0 provides a way for the battles to get a lot worse
>    than they are now (by focusing on 'blame', instead of working out a
>    fair solution.)
    
    Actually .0 provides more incentive for the woman to negotiate.  It
    also increases the steaks for both if they go into court.  Thus
    increasing the incentive to negotiate for both parties.  Right now 
    a lot of men have to go into court becuause there is no possiblity
    of negotiation.  If he's going to lose everything anyway, why not
    take his chances in court.  Even a 1/1M chance is better than 0.
    
    Likewise, if she is going to get everything by going to court, then why 
    bother with negotiation.
    
    Another thing I resent is that she is not nice because "she is _fraid_
    he will go "Medieval" on her".  Putting the blame on the male for
    her actions.  Like I've said, I've seen many men go in being absolute
    saints, and get reamed.  So, once again, if you are going to be as
    saint and get reamed and if you are going to be "Medieval" you 
    are going to get reamed, may as well bolt on the armor and give it
    a go.
    
    fred();

    Keeping calm when you really, really NEED to be calm is one of those
    things you can make yourself do (because it will make things worse
    if you don't.)

    When I was in labor with my son, my Lamaze teacher told me that it
    would hurt a LOT worse if I yelled in pain during labor (because
    my muscles would tense up as I made the effort to yell.)

    So, although I really felt like yelling, I didn't make a peep for
    16 hours.  They thought I had fallen asleep during most of the
    time before we went into the delivery room (I was so quiet.)

    The doctor told me that he couldn't believe I was so calm (considering
    how nervous I was during much of the pregnancy.)  I looked like I was
    getting a shoe shine instead of having a baby.

    I convinced myself that it would hurt less if I stayed calm, and I was
    right.  I did whatever I had to do (mentally) to make it happen.

    Going through a divorce is the same thing.  It will hurt more if you
    lose control of your temper (during the negotiations phase.)  If you
    make it to court, let the lawyers go Medieval on EACH OTHER, because
    it's too late for you to stop it by then.

    It's an important time to use some real control of your emotions.

    reply .222
    
>    Keeping calm when you really, really NEED to be calm is one of those
>    things you can make yourself do (because it will make things worse
>    if you don't.)
    
    Try going into court as your own lawyer.  Talk about landmines--yow!.
    Not only to keep your calm in the face of the blatant b.s. that they
    are throwing at you, but to keep your mind clear.  Paying attention to 
    what is going on and planning ahead at the same time.
    
    I kept my cool.  She blew hers and was carted off the pokey in
    handcufs.
    
    fred();

    RE: .221  Fred

    / Actually .0 provides more incentive for the woman to negotiate.  

    The biggest incentive to negotiate is "Let's save ourselves thousands
    of dollars in lawyers' fees and keep the money for ourselves and the
    kids."

    / It also increases the steaks for both if they go into court.  
                            ******

    Do they serve dinner in court these days?  :)  (Sorry.)

    The suggestion in .0 just provides a weapon (assigning 'blame') so
    that the battle depends on which lawyer can cast the most mud on
    the opposite spouse.  It's not constructive.
        
    / Thus increasing the incentive to negotiate for both parties. 

    The court battle will COST big bucks, so if they go to court at all,
    they've both lost something already.

    / Likewise, if she is going to get everything by going to court, then why 
    / bother with negotiation.

    There's a lot less to get after they've paid the lawyers and court costs.
    The incentive to negotiate is to NOT spend the money on the lawyers.

    / Another thing I resent is that she is not nice because "she is _fraid_
    / he will go "Medieval" on her".  Putting the blame on the male for
    / her actions. 

    Well, this isn't what I said.

    The negotiation won't work if the guy is sitting on a vein-busting
    temper that is set to go Medieval at any minute.  It won't work if
    the woman sits this way, either, but I made mention of it to you
    because you seem to have some difficulty with your temper.

    / Like I've said, I've seen many men go in being absolute saints, 
    / and get reamed. 

    Again, you're talking about court.  Once you're in court, it's too
    late to try to negotiate.  The lawyers are being paid big bucks to
    go for blood, and that's what they do.  (It's all they do.)

    
    re .244
    
>    The court battle will COST big bucks, so if they go to court at all,
>    they've both lost something already.

    Tell you a secret.  Lawyers are cheaper than alimony/"child support".
    And if your chances of loosing it all anyway are about 999/1000,
    what the hey!
    
    fred();

    Fred, most LAWYERS don't even act as their own lawyers in court.
    (What's that thing about the lawyer who represents himself having
    a fool for a client?)

    When Ted Bundy acted as his own lawyer in one of his murder trials,
    his other lawyers cringed as he calmly went through endless cross-
    examination of testimony about the blood and gore of the victims' 
    bodies at the murder scene.

    Defense attorneys are supposed to get through this part as quick as
    they can (so that the jury doesn't dwell on it.)  Ted was being so
    calm through all the gore, it was almost as if he was enjoying hearing
    about it.  It was a disaster.
    
    Even if you don't pay attorneys' fees, aren't there court costs?

    
    >    Fred, most LAWYERS don't even act as their own lawyers in court.
    >    (What's that thing about the lawyer who represents himself having
    >    a fool for a client?)

    When she is being provided her attorney free, and you have begged and
    borrowed all you can from friends and relatives for your lawyer, then
    you have nothing to lose.  Best thing that happened to me, though,
    I won a case that my previous lawyer, who has been nominated to the
    Federal Bench, could not win on the previous try.  Had her thrown
    in the pokey twice for contempt along the way.

    fred();

    Considering the overall 'price' you paid for the nine and a half
    year war, though, it sounds like sending her to the 'pokey'
    (momentarily) for contempt wasn't much of a win for you.

    It's still better to negotiate before it gets to a lengthy series
    of court battles.

    
    >    Considering the overall 'price' you paid for the nine and a half
    >    year war, though, it sounds like sending her to the 'pokey'
    >    (momentarily) for contempt wasn't much of a win for you.
    
    I have to admit, though, that it was quite satisfying to see her carted
    away ;^). 
    
    >
    >    It's still better to negotiate before it gets to a lengthy series
    >    of court battles.
    >
    
    If I could have, I probably would have, but as I said 1) she really
    _was_ unfit, and 2) It takes two reasonable and logical people to
    negotiate.  She knew, or thought, she would get everything if she
    took it to court.  The first two times she was right.  The third,
    she ended up in jail, I got custody (that's the simple version).
    
    fred();

    
    
    
    
    As far as I can gather in MA, my soon to be ex has absolutely no reason to
    negotiate with with me. It gains her nothing - at least not in this
    life. 
    
    I keep reading notes about keeping calm, negotiate, be reasonable ...
    but after a blood bath (mostly mine) and who knows how much lost hair just 
    to see my own child it's hard to stay cool about it.
    
    When someone declares all out, no holds barred war on you - then watch
    out.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    I cannot watch "Kramer vs. Kramer", even though I know it is a superb
    film.  I just can't cope with the emotions it instills in me.
    
    				Steve

    
    Why not negotiate?

    Sometimes it's kind of like asking Poland or France why they didn't
    just negotiate with Hitler.  Or asking Rosevelt why he didn't just
    negotiate with Japan before Pearl Harbor.  Would have saved everyone
    a lot of trouble. ;^)

    Actually the U.S.S.R. did negotiate with Hitler, but it was over how 
    to divide up Poland.  Signed and "non aggression" agreement and everything.
    What a deal they got. ;^}  And thirty million dead people later they
    got Adolf to live up to his agreement (actually they killed him, but
    that's beside the point).

    Ask a woman who has been raped why she didn't just negotiate instead.
    Hey, it has been known to work. (Don't know whether to put a smilery
    here or not.  Rape really isn't a joking matter, but then, neither is
    divorce.  One holds a knife to your throat, and the other holds a lawyer 
    to your throat).

    fred();

    RE: .229  Fred

    //    Considering the overall 'price' you paid for the nine and a half
    //    year war, though, it sounds like sending her to the 'pokey'
    //    (momentarily) for contempt wasn't much of a win for you.
    
    / I have to admit, though, that it was quite satisfying to see her carted
    / away ;^). 

    Meanwhile, after 9.5 years of mortal combat with your ex, your family 
    was ravaged (and one son is now 'lost' somewhere.)  As I said, it wasn't 
    much of a win.

    I'm very sorry for what happened to your kids, you and your two
    wives, but I don't think that arming future divorcing couples
    with virtual nuclear weapons for their wars is the answer.

    You mentioned somewhere else in here (recently) that you had serious
    misgivings about your marriage during the first pregnancy.  By the
    time of the divorce, there were *4* very young children involved.
    As rough as it is to divorce with ONE child, when people in their
    20s or early 30s (without a lot of money) get a divorce with 4 young
    children in the family, it's bound to be a pretty tragic situation
    no matter what the court decides to do.

    I certainly wouldn't recommend to anyone else to go through a decade
    of war with an ex-spouse.  

    The people who have made it through divorce without having so many
    in the family damaged by it are the ones to listen to (about how 
    to get through it.)

    By the way, if you regard your soon_to_be ex (the mother or father 
    of your children) as Hitler, Satan or the worst enemy you will ever
    have in your entire life (i.e., the ultimate scumbag) - you can
    pretty much forget about negotiating.

    By that time, it's like trying to save Bosnia from getting involved
    in a war.  (The war is already on and your children are in danger.)

    Steve, "Kramer vs. Kramer" brings up strong emotions for me, too
    (seeing a single parent with a little blond boy who looks almost
    exactly like my own son looked at that age), but I do like the way
    Dustin Hoffman 'grows' into the role of being the primary parent.

    It shows what it means to 'parent' (on a day to day to day basis.)

    
    Suzanne,
    
    See the "my ex mutated"  note.  There really _are_ (some) women out 
    there who are just plain _bad_ people, and in a situation where they 
    have _all_ the power and they know it, negotiating with them is like
    a Jew negotiating whether he wants to be 1) gassed or 2) used for
    medical experiments.
    
    fred();

    
>    Meanwhile, after 9.5 years of mortal combat with your ex, your family 
>    was ravaged (and one son is now 'lost' somewhere.)  As I said, it wasn't 
>    much of a win.
    
    Oh yes it was, too.  Because not winning meant leaving them where they
    were.  Which was in a place that was bad enough to make the trauma
    of the fight less than the trauma of not fighting.
    
    Not to go into the whole mess, but there was one incident that
    epitimizes the situation.  The scene: court room.  
    
    Judge to my daughter:  You say that your mother didn't have your braces
    adjusted for over a year.  Wasn't your mother getting child support
    to take care of such matters?
    
    Daughter: Yes, but she said she needed that to pay for the rent and
    stuff. Pause. But she never paid the rent.  That's why we had to move
    all the time.
    
    fred();

    RE: .236  Fred Haddock

    / See the "my ex mutated"  note.  There really _are_ (some) women out 
    / there who are just plain _bad_ people,

    Somen men are 'just plain _bad_ people', too.
    
    It's also clear that some people end a marriage by despising their ex
    with every emotion they possess.

    They see the person they once loved (the other parent of their
    children) as the worst scumbag on the planet.

    Once this happens, negotiation isn't possible anymore.  It's a
    self-defeating proposition to take such an attitude.

    RE: .237  Fred
    
    The 'War of the Haddocks' took its toll on everyone, it sounds like
    (including your first wife, but especially the kids.)
    
    I wouldn't recommend that ANYONE subject their kids to something
    like that.

    
    >    Somen men are 'just plain _bad_ people', too.

    Never said there weren't, and I personally have no sympathy for them.
    And there are some good ones out there too. Some who do make better 
    parents than the mother.

    My ex really _was_ (is) a scumbag.  The fact that it took me two years 
    after we separated to figure it out might say something about my 
    intelligence, but I _did_ finally figure it out. If there was ever a
    case where the father _should_ have had custody it was mine.  And even
    in such a drastic case it took, as you said, nearly as long as the
    Vietnam War to get my kids out of that hell-hole. It isn't just me
    making it up.  

    fred();

    
    191.141 was just the tip of the iceberg.  Knowing you, I seriously
    doubt that you would have left your child in a situation like that
    without doing _everything_ possible to get him out.  

    I did not plan for it to take 9 1/2 years.  It just did.  And I really
    did _agonize_ over whether it would be better to just not fight.

    The fact that I won is in itself the proof that I should have fought.
    In Colorado you cannot get change-of-custody unless 1) the child has
    been living with you for more than six months _with_ the custodial
    parents permission, 2) the child is in physical danger, 3) the mental
    and emotional development of the child is being impaired.  At the end
    of the second attempt for custody the judge said, "you have shown me
    all this is happening, but you have  shown nothing that it is impacting
    the children".  That's how hard  it is.  Yet I won. I won as my own
    lawyer.  More quarterbacks wear  superbowl rings than men acting as
    their own lawyer have won change of  custody as their own lawyer. 
    Which means:
    	a	I had a case so compelling it couldn't be screwed up.
    	b	Somebody up there likes me.
    	c	I'm a lot better lawyer than I think I am ;^).
    	d	All of the above.

    fred();

    RE: .240  Fred

    / My ex really _was_ (is) a scumbag.  The fact that it took me two years 
    / after we separated to figure it out might say something about my 
    / intelligence, but I _did_ finally figure it out. 

    As I said, it sounds like the separation/divorce took its toll on
    her, too (especially if she didn't seem like a real scumbag to you
    until TWO YEARS after the separation.)

    You both married young, didn't you?  Wasn't at least one of your
    kids a baby when you two split up?  It sounds like a very tragic
    situation (even with the kind of child support you could afford
    to pay for 4 kids.)

    Once the two of you decided that you were each scumbags, your
    kids were living in an emotional Bosnia.

    I'm glad it's over now, but again, I wouldn't recommend anyone 
    else put kids through something like that.

    RE: .241  Fred

    / 191.141 was just the tip of the iceberg. 

    There's no note with this number.  (Did you mean the note about
    the braces adjustment?)

    / Knowing you, I seriously doubt that you would have left your child 
    / in a situation like that without doing _everything_ possible to get 
    / him out.  

    The bottom line for me is that the time when it was really necessary 
    to end a relationship relatively calmly for the sake of my son, we did 
    precisely that.  This was the main goal, in fact, and I am still glad 
    we managed it.
    
    I'm very sorry that things didn't work out so well for you, your
    kids and your two wives.

    Try 194.141.
    
    No I would not recommend it to anyone else either.  _Unless_ it really
    was necessary.
    
    fred();

    
    It's all relative.  At then end of the Battle of Antitem/Sharpsburg(sp)
    General Stonewall Jackson surveyed the battleground with literally 
    piles of dead Confederate Soldiers.  He turned to his aid and said,
    "God has been very good to us today".  You see, he knew the South
    should have lost the war that day had not Gen. McClellen screwed
    up big time in spite of Abraham Lincoln literally screaming at him
    to do what he needed to do.  (And, maybe, all things considered, maybe
    God hadn't been so kind, but that's a different argument).

    fred();

how do you as the NCP assess that the children are in danger when the 
ex lives out a hate phantasy against you?

for the warrios amongst us, i recommend reading 198.13

my advice:

focus entirely on the children, your first and only priority must be to 
get close to them as quick as it can be done. for only by being with your
children will you be able to sense any real dangers which they might be 
exposed to.

now you will only be able to see your children if the situation is calm.

and the way to the children goes through the ex.

if your ex is dead set against you and closed to reason, in order to achieve 
your goal of seeing your children you must first make her feel unthreatened
by you. this is the impossible which you need to make possible.

to this end you must

work on the ex, which means:
- initially dance to the ex'es tune
- never retaliate
- undermine her hate phantasy about you by exceeding requirements (at the
  simplest this means giving extra $$$'s)
- every person has their weak moments, so wait for your ex'es weak moments
  and then be supportive when she confides in you; she will learn to trust 
  you.
- be yourself, honest and sincere and stay completely focused on your 
  children during all this. you must at all cost keep your temper and 
  emotions under control.

make allies:
- the same as the above goes to a lesser extent for the ex'es friends and
  family which she might have charged against you; be cordial, correct,
  forgiving and forthcoming.
- maintain links to the ex'es neighbours and talk about nice things (neighbours
  don't want to hear about divorces but they will be the first to tell you
  if something is 'wrong').

inform yourself on your legal situation:
- you have little or no weapons to use here 
- document, note down and collect all evidence which might be useful.
  the closer you get, the easier this will become as the ex and her 
  environment will supply you with a clear picture of your children's
  situation.


i used what i adviced above and i had to outgrow myself initially, since
it meant getting my explosive temper under control (a huge effort).

also, i have over the first years gathered sufficient information and i 
am fairly certain that i can make and win a case for custody -- in a long 
drawn court battle that is, and by turning nasty.

but that won't be necessary any longer.

you can't play nice guy without meaning it; hence my ex and i have actually
become friends over the years (something which we never were before) and 
where she failed (schools, discipline, her unhealthy relationship with her 
new SO) we have been able to improve the children's situation by working 
together. this has meant that both parents have put the children first and
have made sacrificies -- for my ex this has meant that the beau who lived 
with her and from my money was eventually turfed out by my kids.

i am six years into my long march (as i call it) and as the children reach 
their teens (two more years) i wouldn't be at all suprised if they end up
living with me. this is a subject which my ex and i often discuss these days.
though these days i am more the one who needs convincing that the children 
would really be better off with their hardass dad instead of their mother 
who tries her very best!




andreas.

this topic as so many in here serves once again to show the cruelties
of the present system (re .88)

it is a system which creates much hurt and hate.

a system in which the underprivileged have to make an enormous 
effort to achieve what is almost automatically given to the privileged.

i believe that the efforts which men often have to make for asserting 
their rightful place as fathers are similar to the efforts that many 
women are faced with when asserting themselves in the workplace.

this is why i believe that the paths must be evened both ways, for men
to become more equally involved in the rearing of their children and 
for women to become more equally involved in the workplace. the more
women are drawn into careers, the more opportunity is created for the
men who see childrearing as equally important as a job, to take on 
the 'job of primary parent'. only a system which is committed to this 
kind of equality will cause the pain created by today's injustices to 
go away. what's more, it will finally upgrade the job of parenting, as 
either man or woman will eventually be able to choose according to their 
preferences (or choose to share the loads) as either type of job, at 
the workplace or in the home, will become an entitlement to a decent 
remuneration.




andreas.

if my children were in very real danger and the situation was perfectly
clear cut and serious and, then if the authorities weren't absolutely swift 
to react, i'd very likely waste no time and have no doubt that i'd take to 
unconventional methods to get the children out of danger. 

such cases are the great exception.

it is crucial for the NCP as the other parent to be close to the children,
precisely to avert any such dangers.



andreas.

    
    At this point, my situation serves only to demonstrate just how 
    difficult that it is for children to be given to the best parent
    even under extreme circumstance.

    I know two women who work for the Child Protection section of Social
    Services.  They take children into "protective custody" almost daily.
    Nearly all of these children will eventually be sent back to the
    mother.  Where are their fathers?  Granted, a good number of them 
    are not around.  Most of them who are around do not have the resources 
    to mount a change-of-custody campaign that is almost guaranteed to 
    fail.  Especially after having "child support" confiscated from their
    paychecks.  I worked with one father who was given temporary custody of 
    his children while the mother was in drug-rehab.  After she got back 
    out, he fought like a tiger to keep the kids, but they were given back 
    to the mother.

    There _are_ worse things out there that can happen to a child that
    the custody fight.  Even in my situation, far worse damage was done
    by their 9 1/2 year stay with their mother than was done by the
    custody fight.  One of the things that swung my decision was that
    at the very least, when they grew older, they'd know I cared enough
    to at least try.

    fred();

    re .207 Steve Lionel    My Experience
    
    I'm glad that you did well in your divorce.  It sounds like your X was
    a very caring and sensible person.  But let me ask you this, what if
    she wanted to have full custody, would she have gotton it?  What if she
    wanted child support would she have gotten it?  What if she had wanted
    limited visitation for you and your child, would she have gotten it?
    Steve, do you think the system is biased at all towards women?  Even
    though you wanted the same things as your X, would you have gotten any
    of the above in your favor?  The key to a equitable divorce is that the
    womans attitude is not bad and she is willing to talk to you about what
    she wants insted of a lawyer.  The lawyers IMHO should only be used to
    process the papers and nothing else.  If your X wants your butt, all
    she needs to do is get a good lawyer and it hers, is that fair?
    
    
    Dom
    

    
    RE:248
    
    That was a good analogy Andreas!  
    
    I think there is a lot more support for equality for women in the
    workplace than for fathers seeing their children *equally* in post
    divorce or separation.  As I read I see the word -visitation- used
    for fathers time whith his children. 
    Lets change it to -Dads equall time with his children-.  
    Even though it's not true most of the time.
                                               Bill
                                         

    Dom, the woman's attitude is affected A LOT by the man's attitude.

    Andreas is RIGHT ON THE MONEY in his note about making friends with
    the mother of your child(ren) and staying as close as possible.

    Perhaps I'm too detail-oriented or something, but I found it pretty
    challenging to keep up with a very energetic little boy when I raised
    my son mostly alone.  Keeping up with 2 - 4 kids (while going through
    my Bachelors degrees, etc.) boggles the mind.  I'm not sure I could
    have done it.

    If the mother of your kids has never lived on her own with children
    before, the father would do well to attempt everything possible to
    get the mom and the kids settled (and stable) early on, if you agree
    that she gets custody.  If you want custody, work at it slowly.

    Here's a sample approach (I'm assuming here that the wife is NOT a
    professional with a breadwinner's salary, like Steve's ex-wife and
    I fortunately happen to be):

    	"Ok, so we're set on a divorce and our marriage is over.  Fine.
    	I guess we're both pretty hurt and it will take awhile to get
    	over it, but I'm not mad at you.  I don't hate you and I'm not
    	sorry we got married.  We have 3 incredible children and that's
    	something we can be both be proud of (for the rest of our lives.)

    	The past is the past - let's just put it behind us.  It's all
    	water under the bridge.  Maybe we could both have done things
    	differently, but it really doesn't matter.

    	Our kids matter!

    	If we go to court, we know the general guidelines for child support
    	- but let's work this out ourselves.  I want to do everything I can
    	to make sure they're ok and we can be friends enough to do what's
    	best for them.

    	We both want custody.  Well, let's look at our situations.  We can
    	agree on 'joint custody' and start out with the kids at your place
    	if we can agree to live near each other.

    	If you can't afford the deposit on a place NEAR ME that is suitable
    	for the kids, I'll help.  I'll take out loans that we can both pay
    	back, if necessary.

    	If you want to stay in the house with the kids, I'll help with
    	the mortgage and we'll keep my name (and yours) on the house
    	so that we can split the equity someday (years later.)  If we
    	change our situation later, perhaps I'll live in the house again
    	instead of you.  We'll see.

    	If you have problems getting financially organized on less money,
    	I'll help you work out a budget.  I'll give you a specific credit
    	card that you can use for all the kids needs (and any emergencies
    	they - or you - face.)  I'll pay the amount we agree is my share
    	of their support, but I can be flexible if there is a special
    	problem.

    	I don't want to cramp your style (since you will be free to date,
    	etc.), but I'd be happy to work out a schedule where I take the
    	kids to school in the morning or pick them up from special events
    	after school.  Let's talk about it as these things come up.  The
    	more I see the kids, the better.  I'd be happy to make them dinner
    	on the spur of the moment if something comes up and you're busy.

    	As time goes on, if we feel they'd be more comfortable with me,
    	you can see them as often as you like (and we'll still manage
    	it so that they are comfortable visiting you, if that time comes.)

    	I don't have all the money (or patience) in the world, so I can't
    	do everything you might ever want me to do - but I want to do
    	everything I can to help the kids.

    	I'm the best friend you'll ever have when it comes to the kids.
    	We're going to have to make sacrifices to stay close for the
    	kids' sakes, but we can do it.

    	They're our kids for the rest of our lives.  We'll probably be
    	grandparents of the same grandchildren someday, too, and I know
    	we both want to share in their lives.

    	So let's sit down and work out the details of how we will finish
    	raising our kids."


    It may sound like it's too much, but once you become true friends,
    it's easier for both sides to be more flexible.

    Plus, it takes the strain off whichever parent has the kids (most of
    the time) on his/her own.  There's a handy backup parent nearby who
    wants to see the kids more than anything.  That's a big, big help.
    
    If the ex-wife doesn't have a good career, perhaps you could co-sign
    a student loan (and work out something where she could get some kind
    of degree or training for a better job.)  It would mean a lot more
    time with the kids while she's studying, and that would be good!
    Or maybe she would have the kids live with you while she goes to
    school, and get a back-and-forth arrangement later that is very much
    along the lines of true 'joint custody'.
    
    Negotiation and cooperation is the key (even if it has to start with
    you, as the soon-to-be ex-husband.)

Fred,

I realize I am three days and more than 200 notes behind .37

>    Fred, I realize that you see yourself as the consummate victim (on a par
>    with someone who has been raped or given a fatal disease), but most
>    true victims carry their burdens with a lot more dignity than you do.

but I think you should continue to speak your mind.

I don't happen to share your feelings or your life experiences, but I realize
that many men share both.  And I am glad there is a place where you can express
them.

Wally

re .249


>   Nearly all of these children will eventually be sent back to the
>   mother.  Where are their fathers?  Granted, a good number of them 
>   are not around.  

in cases where divorces were hostile and where the fathers are completely
cut off their children (the minority of cases in my experience), i can 
understand why so many men give up the fight when facing the considerable
odds (the same can probably be said for the women giving up climbing the 
career ladder due to discouragement).

however you choose to take the struggle (in or outside the court), its a 
long long struggle and i have often enough in the past found myself close 
to the point of giving up.

my children tell me that in their old school, where about half of the kids 
lived with a divorced parent, that none of the kids there have as much 
contact with their biological dads as my kids do - many haven't seen their
dads in years. i find this hard to believe and i doubt if all these kids dads 
who are absent were denied visitation.

unfortunately, and this is another reality which does not reflect favourably 
on us men, there are also many fathers who've had friendly divorces and 
elaborate rights (up to joint custody) and who all the same do not see their 
children as often as they're entitled to. i keep hearing this complaint from 
women i meet (re .87). hearing this again and again, i am inclined to believe 
that if joint custody became the norm, many (most?) men would probably not 
make use of it.

are we few concerned guys in here fighting for a lost cause?! ;-(




andreas.

    Wally, thanks very much.

    Please the most recent notes before you get too involved with the
    earlier (angrier) exchanges, though.

    This topic has mellowed considerably in the past 24 hours.

    Thanks again,
    Suzanne

re .251


yeah, bill!

since there are government programs to actively encourage equality in the
workplace (affirmative action, quotas and so) a similar scheme might just
possibly work for men with kids. what dads could really do with is active
encouragement to play their roles, not official discouragement.




andreas.

    reply .252

    >    Dom, the woman's attitude is affected A LOT by the man's attitude.

    Boy, if I had a dollar for every guy I know that believed "if I am just
    nice enough to her she'll be reasonable" right up until he walked into
    court.  Just like the steer walking down the alley thinking there will
    be food and water at the end--and finds a guy with a sledgehammer
    instead.

    fred();

    re .256
    
    So Andreas, what did you do to your X to make keep the kids away from
    you for two years?  According to some people, "the woman's attitude is
    affected a LOT by the man's attiude."  With that said, it sounds like
    if a woman gets made or is spiteful, the man must have made her that
    way so its his fault.
    
    Dom

    
    RE Visitation

    The bad news is that states are setting up "guidelines" for "child
    support".  Many of these guidelines are, to put it mildly, draconian.

    The good news is that a request for increase in child support if the
    father asks for contempt for violation of visitation is no longer a
    valid threat.

    The problem is that it costs big bucks that the father does not have
    since he is being vacuumed for "child support" to hire a lawyer.
    This is one area that I urge men to learn how to gather the evidence,
    file the papers, and act as their own lawyer.  If you lose, then
    you are not any worse off than you are already.  If you succeed,
    the first time or two the judge will probably not do too much to her.
    However, if you build your case on _evidence_, not just emotion, 
    and can keep your cool in court, sooner or later she is going to 
    either get tired of paying a lawyer herself, or will lose her
    credibility with the court and the court will take action.

    fred();

	Suzanne,

	Regarding your pseudo-conversation;  I'm sorry but I have to laugh
	at it.  The first three paragraphs you wrote was almost to the word
	what I said to my X .... she nodded and agreed and yes'd me to death
	right up to the hearing for temporary orders at which point I was 
	handed a paper from her lawyer which just about asked for the world
	and any future world that I happen to come across !  What did *MY*
	attitude have to do with it ?  I never wanted the damned 'D' in the 
	first place !  When I finally recognized it had to happen I tried the
	negotiation method... it failed because she HAD NO INCENTIVE TO 
	NEGOTIATE as far as the law goes .... the *ONLY* thing that saved me
	was that I had the goods on her and would have unloaded it on her
	company and her parents (it was the only bargaining chip I had and 
	I DID NOT WANT TO USE IT.)  

	If the idea of placing fault and getting compensation from the source
	of the pain doesn't cut it then I'ld have to agree with Andreas' 
	idea of signing something up front that says 50/50 custody and 50/50
	support regardless of individual incomes.  That way you eliminate
	fault and you eliminate money as a factor to wrangle over.

	You seem to think all mothers are only concerned about the welfare
	of their children and that the almighty buck has no influence on 
	their decisions.  The scenario you described in your 'negotiations'
	is allowing for one spouse to 'take care' of the other.  Can you see
	that same conversation if the roles were reversed ?
	
	Chuck

    As mentioned earlier, once you make it all the way to court, it's
    time to let the lawyers get Medieval on each other!

    It's not the man's fault (entirely) if all efforts to be friends and
    negotiate fail (thus making it necessary to go to court.)  That's not
    what I meant by saying that the man's attitude could have a big affect
    on the woman's attitude.

    How much better for the kids if the man and woman can TRY to become
    friends during the negotiation stage (so that the court battle is
    avoided altogether.)  Fred himself said that men are encouraged to
    negotiate (because they'll often get a better deal than they would
    get in court.)

    If the soon-to-be ex-wife is willing to negotiate, it's in your best
    interests to put your anger/hatred aside and try to be friends.

    It's too late to do this if you do make it to a court battle.

    reply.261
    
>    If the soon-to-be ex-wife is willing to negotiate, it's in your best
>    interests to put your anger/hatred aside and try to be friends.
    
    The big word here is _if_.
    
    fred();

	Then what did you mean by the Man's attitude affecting the woman's
	attitude ?.

	Chuck

    RE: .260  Chuck

    / The scenario you described in your 'negotiations' is allowing for one 
    / spouse to 'take care' of the other.  Can you see that same conversation 
    / if the roles were reversed ?
	                  
    Chuck, I stated that the scenario was in the specific case where the
    woman was not a professional with a breadwinner's salary.

    Obviously, a conversation in that situation could end up more like
    Steve Lionel's arrangement (where they make the same money and NEITHER
    side pays child support and they each have their son 50% of the time.)

    As a professional myself, I've never sought child support (even though
    I was a college-student-on-the-way-to-a-profssional-career when my son
    was a baby.) I always knew I was going to make a lot of money eventually.
    I figured that I would have more incentive to work toward the big career
    if I didn't become dependent on child support payments.  (This was true
    in my case.)

    / You seem to think all mothers are only concerned about the welfare
    / of their children and that the almighty buck has no influence on 
    / their decisions.  

    Just because someone wants a lot of support money, I don't presume
    that they are bad people with ulterior motives.

    It takes A LOT OF MONEY to raise kids.

    RE: .263  Chuck

    / Then what did you mean by the Man's attitude affecting the woman's
    / attitude ?.

    If the guy is totally p*ssed off and despises the woman, don't expect
    her to negotiate much.
    
    If she is p*ssed off and despises you, perhaps a friendly overture
    (with attempts to negotiate in friendship) could have a big impact
    on her attitude.  Perhaps not.

    If you negotiate, but still end up in court (where THEY make the
    decisions), you've probably been fooled into thinking you had an
    agreement.

    The key is to get an agreement through negotiations.  Otherwise,
    be prepared for the battle.

    By the way, if you and your soon-to-be ex have been living with her
    as a full-time homemaker, it's NUTS to expect her to pop out into
    society at a moment's notice with a nice career.

    You WILL have to help take care of her for awhile.  If you agreed
    to have her stay at home with the kids during your marriage, this
    is one of the prices of such a choice.

    Help her move toward being more self-sufficient (with some guidance
    about organizing any possible education or training, and living on
    her own without you.)  It will help the kids, and she'll be able to
    contribute more to their support as time goes along.

Re: .250

Dom,

I don't know - I have a problem with speculation of that nature - especially
when such speculation is then turned around and used to support an argument.

I think that at the time she would have found it difficult to obtain full
custody - I would have fought hard for shared custody.  If somehow full
custody had been granted, then I would expect child support to be ordered, 
though the amount would probably be less than today's "guidelines".  The
problem I have with the "guidelines" is that they do not reflect the actual
incremental cost of supporting a child - in many cases, the CP earns enough
to not need any additional income at all.  There is also no accountability
for the money spent.

I do not agree with your latter statements - there are many variables, the
most important of which is how "involved" the father was with the child before
the divorce.  I also do not agree that "If your X wants your butt, all she 
needs to do is get a good lawyer and it [is] hers" - I can also get a good
lawyer, and I have spoken to several different Family Law practicioners over
the years to make sure I understand just what the situation is.

I do agree that if there is a lack of cooperation, then things can be very
messy, but the solution is not to go into it assuming that your spouse is
now Atilla the Hun.  Know your rights, keep your eyes open, hire a GOOD lawyer
and stand up for what you believe is right.

Unfortunately, I also know that there are many cases where a fair settlement
is not obtained, and that the CP uses the children as a weapon against the
NCP.

Is "the system biased towards women"?  If you mean the custody/child-support
system, yes, I think it is.  I also think this is changing, though not
quickly enough.  The big problem I see is that the government's sole interest
is to avoid having to have the mother go on welfare, which is why they sock it
to the fathers.  I also think it is incredibly unfair that there is no pressure
on NCP mothers to pay child support, yet the legal pressure on fathers is
immense.  What's worse is that the government cares only about the money - they
don't care if visitation rights are not being honored. ("Visitation" with
your children?  What an ugly term.)

The only way that I see out of this mess is for more men to be proactively
involved with their children from the start, rather than waiting for the
epiphany of divorce.  Yet the societal pressures on men to put work ahead of
family (and the opposite for women) works against that.  Very slowly, we're
making progress.  VERY slowly....

					Steve

    re .266
    
    IMHO, this should be done as soon as the kids are old enough to go to
    school and her time is freed up.  My X waited until the youngest was
    17 to start going to school and that was with my pushing her to go.
    I also paid for her nursing school for 2 years and one year of that
    was after we separated.  Even after all this, she still wanted my last
    dime.  I did'nt even have any kids with her (LUCKY FOR ME), they were 
    from her previous marriage.  

    re .267 Steve Lionel
    
    Steve, the child goes to the mother if she wants it unless you can
    prove her to be unfit, period.  I agree with most of what you have said
    and all I can tell you is that you are one of the rare and not the
    common case.
    
    Dom

    
    It boils down to the old saying, "Pray for the best but prepare for
    the worst".  As I've said, under todays system, if you _can_ negotiate
    and be civil it is in the best interests of the man to do so.  He will
    probably get more than you will get in court.  However, as I've also
    said, if I had a dollar for every man that thought, "if I'm just nice
    enough" right  up to walking into court and the ex's lawyer getting
    out the pipe-reamer, I'd be a rich guy.  So prepare for battle if the
    negotiations fail.  DO BOTH!  Negotiate if you can,  prepar for battle
    if you must.

    The thing that bothers me here is the seeming inability of some people
    to recognize that there is very often no opportunity to negotiate,
    or that the demands made are so outrageous as to make negotiation 
    impossible.  "Well, golly gee, _I_ wasn't like that so why isn't
    _everybody_ like that".

    fred();

Re: .269

Not in New Hampshire, they don't.  The default is shared custody unless there
is a compelling reason otherwise.  Once custody is granted, changing it
is difficult unless you can prove the current situation is harmful to the
child.  But there's quite a bit of flexibility before that point.

I will agree that my situation is not at all common.  But I hold it up as
an example of what CAN be if you put aside your anger.

					Steve

    re .126 WALTER .134  WALTER
    
>>But, if we were truly good parents, we should be able to make up
>>a payment schedule that benefits both of us to be able to support our
>>child in the same way.  Unfortunately, no lawyer would recommend it and
>>in the end, we would be in a battle for our child.
    
>>        So sad but true.
    
    
    cj, I did'nt put any words in you mouth, I was simply being sarcastic.
    But, I think that your statement above tells me that the woman will use
    the lawyer in the end and battle for the child.  This means that the
    man looses by default in most states both with the children and the
    money issues.
    
    Dom 

    
re .217
    
>Not in New Hampshire, they don't.  The default is shared custody unless there
>is a compelling reason otherwise.  Once custody is granted, changing it
>is difficult unless you can prove the current situation is harmful to the
>child.  But there's quite a bit of flexibility before that point.
    
    Man, how'd they sneak that through.  They tried to make shared custody
    the default in Colorado a few years back, and you'd have thought that
    they were trying to legalize rape.
    
    fred():

since the translatic DECnet link seems to be gone...


re .258


>   So Andreas, what did you do to your X to make keep the kids away from
>   you for two years?


dom, whilst this was one of my ex'es (or rather her lawyers)
requests in court, it was thrown out pretty quickly as there
wasn't any ground for it.

i was very close to the kids prior to the divorce, and since my
wife lived in  england and i lived in switzerland, she was scared
that i might kidnapp my children; hence the request that i
shouldn't see the children.


andreas.

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    When it comes to what a child really needs, I found a creative way
    for my son to have everything in the world he needed without actual
    child support while we were **stone broke** during my student days.

    My mother told me that a lot of relatives wanted to buy my baby some
    little toy or outfit for Christmas and his birthday, but they didn't
    know what to get him.  They didn't know what he'd like or what he
    already had (or what size he wore.)

    I made it clear that we weren't begging for anything.  No one ever
    just sent us money (I think they knew it would be too tempting to
    use it for the electric bill - and it would have been!!)

    So my baby and I went on toy-scouting expeditions at toy departments
    and I made a list (for my mom) of all the toys which mesmerized my
    son.  (The baby seemed to understand that we were just 'browsing',
    and he enjoyed looking even though we didn't buy anything.)

    My mom would take the list (with toy names and prices) and keep it
    handy for any relative who contacted her to buy Ryan a gift.  She
    also kept an updated summary of his current clothing sizes and his
    height.  They would send her the money and she'd buy the gifts to
    give Ryan with their names on the cards.  My mom also bought Ryan
    clothes in between times, too.  She never gave me money, but often
    had new undershirts or little overalls for the baby to bring when
    she came over.  Sometimes she brought groceries.

    In our one room apartment, I had a mattress on the floor, some clothes
    and my college books.  Everything else in the place was HIS.  We hung
    his toys on the wall (we went for a "Fisher-Price motif" in our home
    decorations.)  Our place was his play room.

    The kid had everything he could want in the way of toys, clothes and
    books (I usually got the books when I could afford to buy him something.)
    My reading to him was one of our greatest pleasures in life at the time.
    I also got him tiny little cars (that didn't cost much but were things
    he could carry everywhere with him.)

    If we had been stone broke and my son had almost nothing, I would have
    really freaked out, I think.  As long as he was doing fine, I felt like
    we owned the world (and we had my graduation and career ahead to look
    to in the future) even though we were living way, way below the poverty
    line, technically.

    I don't blame dads for wanting to know where the child support money
    goes.  It means a lot to know that kids have what they need!!  Perhaps
    a coordinated 'family gift' effort could ease the problems of child
    support for other families who don't have much money after divorce.

        Well, I guess if we are back into sob stories, you can try this one
    on for size.

    In the middle of the first battle of the "War of the Haddocks" I came
    to the realization that win, lose, or draw, I had to get back into
    college.  I didn't know if I could handle it again at the time or not
    so I took one course.  Computer course.  Aced it.  So I put in for
    financial aid to go full time.

    Financial aid paid for school plus about $250/mo for living expenses.
    My apartment was $150/mo which was cheaper than the dorm.  That left
    $100/mo for food.  Along came Social Services and took $80/mo
    "child support".  My only job at the time was a "will call" situation
    as a floor-covering installer.  Hadn't gotten a call for a couple
    months.  Never did get another call in fact.  After the hearing
    MY OWN LAWYER went to the judge and said that according to the 
    "Code of Ethics" he felt he should state that I was withholding
    income because "no one could live on that amount of money".
    Yes, I should have fired him on the spot, but I had NO MORE MONEY
    to hire a new lawyer.

    I went to Social Services and applied for food stamps.  I found out that
    IF YOU RECEIVE CHILD SUPPORT YOU MUST DECLARE IT AS INCOME, but,
    IF YOU PAY CHILD SUPPORT YOU CANNOT DEDUCT IT FROM INCOME.  The same
    goes for financial aid for college.  They gave me $10/mo for food
    stamps.  

    If you are a woman going to college, everything is paid,  If you are
    a man trying to get back and improve his life--TOUGH S!!T, fella, you 
    have to pay child support.

    Well, to cut a long story short...I know what dog food tastes like, and
    THANK YOU Salvation Army.

    fred();

    Which states simply 'pay for everything' if you're a woman going 
    back to college?
    
    ALL my college classes (and degrees) charged women money for tuition
    and books.

    
>    Which states simply 'pay for everything' if you're a woman going 
>    back to college?
    
Colorado.  Books, tuition, housing, food, child care, the whole 9 yards
    from one program or another.
    
    fred();
    

    Well, I guess they figure that a woman with kids who tries to make
    their lives better by going back to college is going to mean less of
    a possible burden on the system later on.

    
    Well guys,  I'm outa here for the day.  Going to go enjoy some of this
    70 degree weather we are having today.  Take a walk around te lake
    and reflect on how good God has been to me.  Coulda been worse.
    Coulda lost the last battle too.
    
    fred();

    
    >    Well, I guess they figure that a woman with kids who tries to make
    >    their lives better by going back to college is going to mean less of
    >    a possible burden on the system later on.
    
    Education is one thing I do not begrudge.  Government paid for mine
    too.  I pay them back every couple of years or so in taxes.  Paid all
    my loans off. Just wish that they'd realise that a guy after college
    could pay more child support too if it came to that.  Go figure.
    
    fred();

    Fred,
    
    I am glad I didn't have a mouth full of food or drink when I read your
    thingie on women with kids and finacial aid in Colorado!
    
    Try a reality check!  I was one of those women, and CS recieved counted
    against me for child care, food stamps, tuition........... and I was
    recieving the handsome sum of 25/week which didn't cover the subsidized
    child care I was receiving for Lolita.  
    
    FA works on a formula, just like anything else.  Since I am now helping
    my oldest through college and filling out the forms, I am very familiar
    with them.  Now if your ex had the 4 kids to claim that made a
    difference, no matter what the income level.  it makes the difference
    between a friend of mine's daughter and mine, as I have three other
    dependens and she has one with the same gross incomes between the two
    of us.  her daughter qualifies for next to nothing ( and nothing next
    year, most likely, thanks to Norton's ending of minority scholarships)
    and mine qualifies for 1/2 tuition, part of her books and need work-
    study.  They get the same level of (non) support from their fathers,
    and go to comparably priced colleges.  
    
    meg

    
    I don't think some provision for an "at-fault" divorce is a bad idea -
    with some modifications.
    
    The problem, as I see it, does NOT lie, for the most part, with the
    individuals getting divorced.  The "mutation of the ex" often seems to
    require the catalyst of a lawer and a biased and inflexible court
    system.
    
    I've seen both men and women get royally screwed by divorce.  My
    husband's current situation with his ex and his son is not unlike what
    you discribed, Fred, with your son.  An ADD child, kidnapping, unfair
    court tricks (getting a restraining order and claiming abuse (which DID
    NOT happen - I knew both parties at the time) so that she could quit
    her job, slip out of state, and hide out with the child), and a child
    who, at 9, has been in and out of institutions, and has currently been
    abandoned with his grandparents while she runs from the DSS
    investigation into neglect of her 2nd child (by her current husband). 
    (We hope she leaves the boy with her parents and we are encouraging
    THEM to sue for custody - grandma is a special ed teacher, we have a
    good relationship with them, THEY encourage our visitation, and it is
    the best place for the boy at this point in time.)  I won't go into the
    gory details, but it is a really ugly situation.
    
    My husband and his ex had worked out a reasonable joint custody
    arrangement, reasonable division of property, reasonable support, etc.
    with a mediator, and all was going well until SHE consulted a lawyer -
    who proceeded to talk her into an incredibly nasty divorce, with full
    support of the Mass. judicial system.  Ugh.
    
    OUR LEGAL SYSTEM DOES NOT PROVIDE MUCH INCENTIVE FOR WORKING THINGS OUT
    LIKE ADULTS!  In point of fact, it provides a number of *dis*incentives
    for reasonable behavior, and this really NEEDS to change.
    
    What I'd like to see:
    
    No Fault Divorce:
    
    	- only available with joint custody; with a child or children over
    	  a certain age (8? 10?) the children MUST be involved in the
    	  mediation of living arrangements
    	- only available when using a single mediator for both parties
        - all support arrangements and property division to be determined
    	  with mediation and by agreement of both parties
    	- divorce decree to be filed with a clerk or magistrate, with no
    	  opportunity for "meddling" in the property, support, or custody
     	  agreements by a judge using draconian and arbitrary guidelines
    
    All other circumstances would require an "at-fault" divorce, court
    costs and legal fees to be paid by the at-fault party.  Would require a
    trial by jury and DSS investigation of BOTH parents and any current
    partners of those parents.  Support, custody, visitation, property
    division, and any other requirements (for example, parent required to
    take a parenting skills class, attend drug rehab or AA, seek
    employment, etc.) to be determined by jury.  Guidelines available for
    jury use, but with some discretion for the jury to modify to meet
    individual circumstances.  If your soon-to-be ex is a scum (abusive,
    drug addicted, left you for a child molester, etc.), his/her dirty
    laundry SHOULD be aired in front of a jury and the truth SHOULD come
    out!
    
    What do you think?
    
    						/Rita
                                                     

    re /Rita.
    
    Thanks,  After the beat'n' I've been taking the last few days, I needed
    that ;^).
    
    Your proposal and .0 are probably a lot closer than the Republicans
    and Democrats are on the budget right now. ;^).
    
    fred();

lighten up fred, noone has all the answers and we can't but try... ;-)

as a good friend and i, discussing the meaning of life into the early
hours of this morning concluded after many beers: "we're all idiots!" ;-)


cheer up and cheers! :-)




andreas.

what does the optimist say when the glass is filled half way?
"the glass is half full"

what does the pessimits say when the glass is filled half way?
"the glass is half empty"

what does the management consultant from mc kenzie say when the glass 
is filled half way?
"the glass is too big!"



...okay, nothing to do with the subject, but it's a good one.


andreas.

    .278 Mass and New Hampshire foot the bill at the tax payers expence.
    And one woman, whom this is her civil rights, isn't going to stay in
    the state to help pay back to the system in the form of tax's. She will
    be moving out of state. It is her civil rights. I was watching the
    local WMUR tv station where this woman was on AFDC and was going to UNH
    at the expence of the tax payer. But, it beats having her become a
    lifer of AFDC or other entitlement programs. 
    
    Did you pay the FULL amount or did you get a cost break because of your
    economic hardship? 
    
    There are ed programs for both men and women in the state of NH. If you
    can prove hardship, you can get money to go back to college or trade
    school. You have to show that you were working for a number of years
    and that your job has died in lew of the economics or of a physical
    injury due to a past job. 
    
    It is easier for a woman to get this help in NH than it is for men due
    to the states attitude towards welfare and reducing the rank and file.
    

    Andreus, it apears that Fred used a smile when he wrote this. It apears
    that your into sturing the pot here more than Fred. Smile.:)

    
    RE:272?
     
    Shared custody is not the default in NH.  Not sure where you got
    your info.  Maybe you could explain.
    The NH womans lobby would never let a law like that get through.
    
                                      Bill 

Re: .290

That's the way it was explained to me by two different lawyers.  I think you're
making up the bogeywoman of the "NH womans lobby".

				Steve

    .291 Welp... someone decided to roust up the Fathers United group...
    Dem rasputian men are doing something to irritate the status quo. Why
    can't they just take it on the chin like all the others and roll
    over.;)

George,

I'm sure you have a point there, but I can't find it.  Please help me out.

					Steve

    
    Hey Steve,
    
    Have you worked with the NH State legislature?
    If you have you would see the the NH womens lobby in action.
    I can guarantee they have no interest in helping you see your 
    children and they will support legislation to empty your
    bank account into your formers bank account.
    That is my experience with them.
    Maybe they have changed in recent years although I doubt it
    
                                    Bill
    

Re: .294

You seem to be discussing what happens after the divorce when the father does
not have custody.  Not at all what I was talking about.  I can well imagine
that there are groups interested in seeing that court-ordered child support
be paid.

					Steve

        re .295

    Can't speak for NH, but you have to be careful about "joint custody"

    There's "Shared Custody" in which both parents share custody, splitting
    time with the child between them.

    Then there's "Joint Legal Custody" which has been made the "default"
    in many states.  Joint legal custody is a farce since it still provides
    a "primary care provided" which is also known as Custodial Parent.
    The Joint Legal Custody gives you certain legal rights like being
    able to get the child medical treatment and access to school records,
    but otherwise is still the same-ol'-same-ol' as far as "custody"
    goes.

>You seem to be discussing what happens after the divorce when the father does
>not have custody.  Not at all what I was talking about.  I can well imagine
>that there are groups interested in seeing that court-ordered child support
>be paid.

    I assure you there _are_ groups out there dedicated to making sure that
    men never touch custody.  Like I said previously Colorado tried to
    institute Shared Custody a couple years back and you'd have thought
    that they tried to legalize rape for all the screaming the women's
    lobby did.  The legislature backed off and made Joint Legal Custody
    the default, which, like I said, is a farce.

    fred();

    Gee Steve. This is the sorta crappie we have been trying to convay to
    you and other readers for years. And as your womens group will quote,
    "You just don't get it...."
    

Re: .296

I know the difference between joint legal and shared physical custody.  What
I was told was that the courts prefer to see joint legal/shared physical
custody arrangements, but in the majority of the cases, the couple either
doesn't want this or can't agree on it.

Re: .297

I don't know what you mean by "your womens group" - I don't have such a group.

				Steve

        re .298

    As I understand, when a given position is the "default" then that's the
    way it should be unless one or both parties agree to do it differently
    or show that it should be different.  Somehow I don't buy "preferred"
    as "default".  It still appears to be a fancy-dance with words.  As in,
    "Well this is the way we prefer the situation, but unless both parties
    agree, then we must fall back on the old system".

    Guess the only way to settle the issue would be go look it up in 
    the law books, but I don't have a NH set handy. Sorry.

    
    re: your women's group

    I thought you were a card-carrying member of NOW.

    fred();

    Joint Legal Custody is certainly the default or prefered in MA and, as 
    Fred said .296, it gives you access to medical and legal records -
    period.
    
    If you want more involvement in your child's life then either hope your 
    ex will agree to it or prove to the court that the norm should not
    apply to you. 
    
    

    
    Also, if the "default" is Shared Custody, what is the likelihood that
    she will be given a "variance" should she ask for it?  Especially
    if she comes in with accusations of molesting the kids and beating
    everybody from you mother-in-law to the dog.

    fred();

    >Then there's "Joint Legal Custody" which has been made the "default"
    >in many states.  Joint legal custody is a farce since it still provides
    >a "primary care provided" which is also known as Custodial Parent.
    >The Joint Legal Custody gives you certain legal rights like being
    >able to get the child medical treatment and access to school records,
    >but otherwise is still the same-ol'-same-ol' as far as "custody"
    >goes.
    
    I hold a different opinion: Joint legal custody is NOT a farce.  It is
    *essential* if you wish to have ANY say in your child(ren)'s lives.
    
    My spouse does NOT have joint legal custody of his sone - his ex-wife has
    sole custody.  (How that happened is a separate, equally sordid story).
    
    Last fall, we planned a trip from Texas to New England.  Part of the
    agenda was to visit my family, part was to visit my stepson. 
    
    The day we flew out of Texas, the boy's mother had him committed to a
    mental institution for - you guessed it - a two week stay that mapped
    exactly to the time of our visit.  Since she had sole custody, neither
    of us was able to visit the boy without her consent, nor did his dad
    have any input into his medical care or treatment, or any ability to
    speak with the child's counselors and doctors.  The ex-wife denied 
    my spouse the permission to see his son for most of a week (until
    pressure applied from her parents changed her mind), and then relented,
    let him see the child ONLY in the child's hospital room, couldn't even
    take him onto the playground or to the cafeteria.  I was not permitted
    to visit my stepson AT ALL.  I have not been permitted to see him since
    he was four years old (he's nine now) - because she has the legal
    authority to deny me any access to the child (never mind that he asks
    why Rita never comes to see him).
    
    If my spouse had joint legal custody, this situation would not exist.
    
    If you think that joint legal custody is a farce - think AGAIN - and
    FIGHT for it!.  Otherwise, you could be placed in the same ugly
    circumstances.
    
    				/Rita (been there, done that)
    
    
     
    

    Hi Rita,

    Not that I don't understand you situation, and I do appreciate your
    input, but Joint Legal Custody would probably not have helped your
    situation.  Your husband would have had access to the medical records,
    but the ex's ability to manipulate visitation would not have changed. 

    In short, it's the visitation orders that give you access to your
    son, not Joint Legal Custody.

    If the doctor was the one who denied you access to the facility, then
    there isn't much you can do, but if it was the ex arbitrarily denying
    you access, then she is in contempt of the visitation orders, and 
    should be held accountable.  The _court_ makes the rules on visitation,
    not the ex.

    fred();

    [I found the following on The Microsoft Network - my apologies for the
    strange formatting - it didn't translate well to straight text - Steve]
    
Getting divorced gets tougher
Many states rethinking no fault statutes
By Laurel Shaper Walters - CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, ST. LOUIS 

Twenty-five years after �no-fault� divorce laws swept the country,  Americans
are starting to turn back the clock. Next month, Michigan may become the first
state in  the nation to revert to a system that forces couples to go through a
more rigorous legal process  before receiving a divorce. Iowa is considering a
similar move. �We shifted from a fault to a no- fault system in a rush a
generation ago, and we really haven�t looked back,� says William Galston,  a
professor of public affairs at the University of Maryland. �The evidence is now
beginning to accumulate that the changes have not been good for minor
children. And people are  beginning to pay attention.�The attempt to return to
tougher divorce laws reflects growing  conservative attitudes about issues from
welfare to education.Some social scientists now say that  no-fault laws, which
removed the need for blame in a divorce, contributed to a more than 30  percent
increase in the national divorce rate between 1970 and 1994.Recent research has
also  shown that children of divorced parents face greater difficulty than was
previously thought. �Even  when you take into account the level of pre-divorce
conflict in the family, research shows the  negative effect of divorce on minor
children in virtually every dimension � economic,  educational, psychological,�
Galston says. Statistics drawn from Census data portray the negative  effects of
divorce. For mothers, divorce can mean a significant drop in income. For
children of  divorced parents, it can mean a greater likelihood of dropping out
of school, getting into trouble  with the law, and having children out of
wedlock. 

Armed with new research and favorable political trends, Michigan State Rep. 
Jessie Dalman, a Republican, crafted a bill to repeal the state�s no-fault
divorce law. She says the  1972 law �has weakened the fabric of the family and
devalued marriage.�Her bill, to be  introduced next month, already has won the
support of Republican Gov. John Engler and the  state�s GOP House Speaker.Gov.
Terry Branstad of Iowa agrees that no-fault laws hurt children.  �I think
sometimes people just decide to get divorced and don�t even think about the
impact on  children,� he says.With the governor�s support, Iowa State Rep.
Charles Hurley is drafting a bill  that would require grounds for a divorce �
such as adultery, cruelty, or desertion � unless both  spouses consent to end
the marriage.Under current no-fault law, such criteria are not necessary to 
secure a divorce. All 50 states now have no-fault laws or variations of them.The
latest reforms are  being pursued in the interests of children. But critics of
the rollback argue that children would be  even worse off if parents revert to
playing the  blame-game in court.�If you go back to having fault divorces, more
conflict will  be created in cases. And it�s the conflict that harms the
children,� says Douglas McNish, a family  court judge in Wailuku, Hawaii.�In
order to make a claim for divorce, people would have to say  really awful things
about the other party.�Providing parent-education programs through the courts 
is a better way to prevent the negative impact of divorce on children, many
argue.

�If you try to  restrict the right to divorce, we will revert back to the
fault-divorce era when people evaded the  law and lied in court,� says Andrew
Schepard, a law professor at Hofstra University. �I would  rather have education
programs to force people to slow down, think, and plan for future  parenting.�In
the past decade, education seminars have spread across the country. The goal is
to  inform parents about the challenges divorce creates for children and make
them aware of their  children�s needs during and after the split. Utah and
Connecticut mandate that all divorcing  parents of minor children take a
parent-education course, and 41 states offer some kind of  program.Though the
courses range in length and focus, the most-covered topics include the  benefits
of parental cooperation versus conflict, typical post-divorce reactions of
children, and the  responsibilities of custodial parents.�We send some real
basic messages like, don�t fight in front  of the children and don�t use them as
messengers,� McNish says.In his court, McNish shows up at  the beginning of each
session to show parents the importance he places on the process. �This is  one
of the only preventative things the courts do,� he says.Not all divorce lawyers
favor the idea. 

In Cook County, Ill., last year, a Chicago law firm challenged the county�s
requirement that all  divorcing parents attend an education session.�Parents are
not stupid,� says Stuart Litwin of the  Chicago firm, Kaufman, Litwin,
Feinstein. �They know to keep their kids out of their  divorce.�His firm argued
that the legislature should pass a mandate for education of divorcing  parents.
It won and the mandate was thrown out. But judges may still order couples to
attend  classes.Galston agrees that parent education is a good idea when divorce
cannot be avoided. But  he doesn�t think it is enough to eliminate the damage o
children. Instead, he proposes banning no- fault divorces for couples with
dependent children or imposing a five-year waiting period.

    
    
    >Lie to the court?  Say some really awful things?
    
    As if that doesn't happen already.
    
    >Parents aren't stupid?
    
    You gotta be kidding.  Divorce must lower parnt's IQ by at least 50.
    
    fred();
    
    BTW.  Thanks for posting that Steve.

    
    RE:305
    
    Thanks for going thru all the trouble to send the article Steve.
    That was good input.  When I represented myself (Pro-se) I had
    to spend many hours in the courtroom to learn court protocol.
    Believe me some divorces are pretty slimy with no-fault.
    My feeling is that fault divorce will be even more slimy.
    
    A positive side to this messy issue is a program I heard about that
    teaches young children non violent conflict resolution and how to
    negotiate and compromise.  Seems like a step in the right direction.
      
                                             Bill