Conference quark::mennotes

The Boston Globe
July 30, 1996

Letters to the Editor

The Father's Presence is Important to a Child

    If all Gov. William Weld got out of his summit on
fatherlessness was that he should throw more fathers
in jail, he either wasn't listening, or is too interested
in pandering to what he thinks women want to hear in his
senatorial campaign.  Mandatory on-year sentences for
fathers who fall behind on their child support will do
nothing to help their children.  If Gov. Weld really wants
to help the children of the commonwealth, let him call for
mandatory minimum sentneces for visitation interference
and parental alienation.

    Studies have shown that a father's presence -- not
money -- is most important to a child's well-being.  Others
clearly link the level of men's access to their children
with the likelihood of being current on on their financial
obligations.

    We at the Coalition fo the Preservation of Fatherhood are
concerned by the governor's lack of interest in anything
other than finding new ways of extracting money from fathers.
Perhaps he believes his tough-guy attacks on other men will
impress women voters.  I doubt it.

ALAN FINGER
Director, Coalition for the Preservation of Fatherhood
Bradford

    Denial of visitation 
    
    
    
    IS CHILD ABUSE
    
    
    Plain and simple!

    With few exceptions I agree completely with you.  
    
    Demonstrated child battering, spousal battering or sexual battery are
    exceptions, and by demonstrated I mean investigated and a
    conviction.  a
    
    meg

    On 20/20 a couple of weeks ago, they showed kids being sent to JAIL
    for refusing to visit their fathers.

    A 12 year old girl was strip-searched and placed in juvenile detention
    for refusing to fly to Florida to see her Dad.  Her 8 year old sister
    was placed under 'house arrest' at home.

    Two teenagers (a boy and a girl) are threatened with jail now, too.
    The girl in this family said that even if they saw their father now,
    what would they talk about (after the father pressed for the two kids
    to be put in JAIL if they wouldn't see him)??

    Strip-searching a 12 year old girl was clearly a sexual assault on this
    child.

    If the relationships with the fathers have gone so far awry that the kids
    (not babies, but 8 - 16 year olds) refuse to see their fathers, I don't
    think they should be thrown in jail for it.  Strip-searching children
    in this situation is especially horrible.

    RE .4
    
    That is definately an exception and unusual case. Maybe it was caused
    by denial of visitation when they were young...
    
    
    Steve

    No - there was no denial of visitation.
    
    The two young girls had been flying to Florida to see their Dad,
    but they decided they didn't want to go anymore.
    
    The two teenagers felt abandoned by their Dad (he didn't go to
    see them for awhile), then when they did see him, he had a brand
    new red sports car while they were struggling to make ends meet
    with their Mom.  They decided that they just didn't want to see
    him again (ever).

    My assessment is that this whole issue is developing into a witch hunt 
    for political gain. If the energy spent on this was devoted to reducing
    muggings, rapes and murders life would be much better for everyone.   
    
    Most fathers pay child support, but divorced fathers are increasingly 
    type cast as irresponsible parents who should all be treated as potential 
    criminals. 
    
    I am firmly of the opinion that when a father is close and emotionally
    involved with the children the child support becomes just a matter of
    every day life. (it is excessive in MA but that's another matter) The 
    trouble seems to arise when the emotional ties are severed by an out of 
    date legal system or problems between the parents.   
    
    The laws to deal with payment and visitation are perfectly adequate but 
    typically not enforced. We don't need more political rhetoric, laws or 
    lawyers involved. Just a clear understanding that if you don't support 
    your child or prevent a visit you should expect to explain it to a court. 
    
    Martin
                                                                              
    
     

    
    RE:4
    
    Was this another case where the custodial mom skipped town with the 
    children or did dad move away?  
    
    Does anyone know if the show will be aired again?
    
    Sounds like maybe you got 20/20 and the Heraldo Rivera show confused.
    
    How about a documentry about all the *GOOD* Fathers who pay CS and 
    nurture and love their children.
    
    Would that be asking too much?
                                           Bill

    The network news magazine segment was about the highly questionable
    practice of putting kids in JAIL if they refuse to see their fathers.

    The kids are supposed to be the ones that the court system tries to
    protect.  Taking kids who haven't been in trouble in any way and
    strip-searching them to put them behind bars for refusing to visit
    their Dads is crazy.

    Can you imagine (as a Dad) deciding that it's better for your 12 year
    old daughter to be strip-searched and JAILED rather than be allowed to 
    get away with not seeing you?

    The kids in these isolated cases probably have good reasons to want
    to stay away from their Dads if these Dads would be willing to put
    them in JAIL for refusing visitation.

    re .9
    >    The kids in these isolated cases probably have good reasons to want
    >    to stay away from their Dads if these Dads would be willing to put
    >    them in JAIL for refusing visitation.
    
    
    Who says that the Dad was willing to put the kids in jail??? You stated
    earlier that it was the courts...  The Dad simply wants to see his
    kids...   If you ask me it was probably the Mom who has fed the kids
    with alot of bull crap and has made them not want to see them.  I have
    seen some women give the kids so much crap after they come back from a
    visit with Dad that they don't want to go back because of the abuse
    when they get back.  Let see, who comes to mind Broderick (sp) a
    Mom whom I'm sure you will say is rare in today's society, I've seen it
    alot... Oh, and what do you have to say about the Menendez brothers, I 
    suppose by you logic it was all Dad's fault, both parents were still 
    together but according to Suzzans logic it would be all of Dad's fault
    and nothing to do with the kids or the Mom. You are really something;)
    
    Dom

    Actually, the show did state that the Dads supported the courts'
    actions of putting their kids in jail for not being willing to
    see them.
    
    As I said earlier, whether the kids refuse to see Mom or Dad,
    I don't think that sending kids to jail (after being strip-searched)
    is the right way to go.
    

    I am sorry this happened. I did not see the show. But, I know that
    there are moms who do tell their children that dad is a very baaaaad
    man. Kinda like kids getting picked up or joining the Moonies or such.
    And they are poisoned to their dads, and sometimes the dad is just
    trying to do his best to know his children, hostile is it is. There are
    worse. Yet, no one says to the mom she is doing wrong to brain wash the
    kids and tell them dad is a very baaaad man, an asshole too.
    
    

    The kids were asked if their Moms had turned them against their
    Dads, and they all said NO.  They had their reasons for not wanting
    to see their Dads, and they believed they had the right to refuse
    to see the Dads.
    
    These kids said they would still rather go to jail than see their
    Dads.  Obviously, putting the kids in jail won't help at all (and
    it's a matter of sexual assault to strip-search children as part
    of the process of putting them in jail for not being willing to
    see one of their parents.)

    I don't know. I am not in the situation. Then again, what do they do
    for ex Moonies? 
    
    I guess you can make a point about how fast grass grows in certain
    parts of your yard. Again, we are not there. Strip searching a child
    isnt worth it to me either. But, is this gosspil of what happened?
    Could there be the media hype involved? Wouldn't the CP file a case
    against the city, state, and etc for such heinous things?
    
    

    
    	I belive that parents that withhold visitation from the other
    	parent should be subject to the same penalties as parents that
    	don't pay support, i.e, jail terms.
    
    	John
    

    If the parent is READY AND WILLING to send the children to visit
    the other parent, but the children refuse to go - no one should
    be sent to jail for this.

    Children are not property - no child should be forced to see a
    Dad or a Mom that the child absolutely refuses to see.

    The parent with custody shouldn't be thrown into jail because
    a child has refused to see a parent.  (It would amount to
    extortion:  "You go see your Dad/Mom or we'll thrown your
    Mom/Dad into JAIL.")

    .16 Your absolutely right! No one should be forced to do anything. And
    if a parent imposes some brainwash like the Moonies, they should be
    held liable for slander, defermation of charater, alienation of
    affection with intent, and should go to jail as any deadbeat daddy.
    
    And deadbeat dads should not be forced to forfet their drivers license,
    have their personal property taken from them. For they should not be 
    forced to do anything either.:)
    
    
    
    

    A child refusing to see a Dad or Mom is not proof of brain-washing.

    If you want to throw a custodial parent into jail for brain-washing
    a kid, you need *solid proof* that this was actually done.

    Threatening to throw a custodial parent into jail if the kid won't
    see the non-custodial parent would be extortion.

    How about denial/interference with court ordered visitation.
    
    Should the CP go to jail?
    
    
    Steve

    Like you have pointed out. 'Children are not property - no child should
    be forced to see a Dad or a Mom that the child absolutely refuses to
    see.'
    
    And I can mail you, either externally or internally, copies of Court
    orders making children see their mom even thought they have Expressed
    the interest NOT to see them. Let me know when or where you want the
    court orders sent.;)
    
    And still, children are treated like chattel in our beloved court
    system.
    
    

    
    I have seen enough broken families to have a pretty good idea what goes
    on when a child, suddenly, does not want to see the non-custodial
    parent.  In the instances I have seen, first-hand, the custodial parent
    had a very, very significant part to play in the child's decision.  I
    have not seen this in any situation where the custodial parent remained
    neutral about the other parent.
    
    As far the two girls are concerned, this received a fairly extensive
    amount of coverage at the time.  I believe the older girl was the one
    who decided she no longer wanted to see her father because she had
    other things to do and didn't feel close to him any longer.  The
    younger sister merely agreed with the older one.
    
    If the custodial parent does not do everything possible to insure that
    the non-custodial parent's rights are protected, then that parent has a
    major role to play in the decsion of the child(ren).  If the custodial
    parent does poison the child(ren), then any financial claims on the
    other parent should be re-examined.  It is intuitively obvious that it
    would be improper to expect one party to honor their obligation while
    the other person has no such obligation.
    
    As far as the strip-searching goes, it is a far cry from sexual abuse. 
    It may be questionable for the jail to take this step, but it certainly
    not sexual abuse, or is this just another term that will take on a
    political meaning and have no basis in reality.  Perhaps if the
    custodial parent took an active interest in the child(ren) and told
    them what would happen, the decision might be different.  If not, then
    if they can make a decision to eliminate one parent from their life,
    they are old enough to be treated as any other mature, decision-making
    adult.
     

    Would anyone here consent to having their 12 year old daughter stripped
    and searched against her will by some non-caring adult (who is not a
    doctor)?

    If the child killed someone or stole something, it probably couldn't
    be avoided.

    But what kind of parent would consent to such a violation of a child's
    body just to make a *point* about visitation? 

    It's sexual abuse.

    If a child will not visit with a non-custodial parent, the child can
    not be considered an adult on the basis of making this decision.

    The child still needs to have the support of the legal adults involved.

    I am in a situation where the custodial parent has been 
    particularly active in turning the children against their
    father.  It is subtle, and simply an undercurrent of the
    conversations which occur in everyday life.  "Proof" would
    be difficult.  It uses the childrens' empathy to their mother 
    (after all they see her upset and alone every day) to turn them 
    emotionally against their father.  I saw the segment as well, and 
    felt that the woman's answer when asked, "Do you turn the children 
    against their father?" sound more like, "Of course I don't do that to
    the jerk" than any "neutral" answer.
    
    Personally, I don't buy this bull pucky about, "I can't make
    the children see their father."  Of course you can - it's called
    discipline.  Try "want to go out Friday night?  See you father first.
    Want to be grounded?  Stay home."  The idea is to be your child's
    parent, not their best friend.  
    
    If the children don't want to see their father and the custodial
    parent doesn't want to make them, I don't see why we have to
    undercut anyone's ethics by forcing them to receive child support.
    I'd tend to believe that if you cut out the child support in such
    cases, rather than put the children in jail, most of these visitation
    issues would vanish rather quickly.
    
    Mary-Michael (frustrated partner of an NCP)
    

    .22
    
    When a person is put in jail there are certain mandatory procedures
    that are followed.  this happens to be one of them.  What was wrong
    with the custodial parent that she would allow her child to be
    subjected to this "abuse" instead of working out some accomodation with
    the non-custodial parent.  Seems as if this person has almost a
    criminal disregard for the safety of the child, if indeed this is
    really "abuse".  If such is the case, then she should lose custody
    immediately and face appropriate criminal charges.
    

    
    It was the NON-custodial parent who agreed to let the court put the
    child in jail (and go through a strip-search.)

    The custodial parent could only ask the child to agree to visitation.
    It was the non-custodial parent who allowed an innocent child to be
    placed in jail and strip-searched.

    I think this makes it pretty obvious that the children had good reason
    not to want to see the non-custodial parent.

    .22 Child abuse is also:
    
    -brainwashing children
    -denial of NCP visitation
    
    To which the court system doesn't seem to give a hoot over. They take
    the lowest part of the food chain vs non payment of child support and
    maintence/alimoney. 
    
    And why hasn't the custodial mother taken this to court? Strip
    searching by the state is not a NCP cause. The police did this, not the
    dad. Yet you are laying this upon the NCP dad like it is his fault,
    like he is the child molester here. Time to re-align the head on this
    track and sector.
    
    

    
    Denial of visitataion is a violation of the CHILD'S rights as well
    as the father's.  
    
    So far I have seen only a very few isolated cases where the children
    have, without brainwashing by the CP, hated their father so much that
    they were willing to go to jail rather than to visit.  I have seen
    _numerous_ cases where the CP mother has flat out denied visitation.
    I have seen numerous cases of men going to jail for not paying 
    the "child" support, but I have only seen one case of a woman going
    to jail for denying visitation.
    
    fred();

    .25
    
    The father had no choice in the matter.  The court stated that they
    would hold the children in contempt if they did not comply with the
    court order to visit the father.  The custodial parent had more than
    ample notice that the kids were going to jail if they didn't comply. 
    she had the control and the ability to affect the outcome.  the father
    had no alternative.  He was told the court was taking the only action
    available.  He expected his ex- to behave responsibly.  she didn't and
    thought she would call the court's bluff because she figured there were
    enough BHLs out there that would prevent her from complying.
    
    If you think these kids have the right ot make an adult decision about
    severing ties with a father, who apparently did no wrong, then they
    should be held to adult standards.  You can't say these poor kids are
    being abused and you have to protect these little kids, then turn
    around and say they can make one of the most adult decisions they will
    ever face.
    

    The custodial parent had no way to force the children to see their
    father.  The court had already put the 8 year old under 'house arrest',
    and it didn't help.

    It was the non-custodial father who supported the idea of the court
    putting the older child in jail (where she was strip-searched.)

    It was the non-custodial parent WHO BROUGHT IT TO COURT in the
    first place.  The police don't arrest children for not seeing
    their non-custodial parents unless the NCPs complain about it.

        re .29

>    It was the non-custodial parent WHO BROUGHT IT TO COURT in the
>    first place.  The police don't arrest children for not seeing
>    their non-custodial parents unless the NCPs complain about it.

    It was brought to court because the CP and the children could not 
    find an amicable way of solving the problem out of court.  If the
    NCP is physically or sexually abusive to the children I could see
    their attitude.  However, I never saw anything that the father was 
    in any way abusive to the children that they should hate him so much.  
    Under your reasoning it is DA and not the criminal who "brings it 
    to court".

    fred();

    You go to jail of course your going to be strip searched. Part of the
    standard operating proceedure. What if the kid decides to smuggle in
    something that is illict, or decides to take her life. This is part of
    any jailing, no matter what gender they are. And this constant din of
    making it look like the father did it doesn't cut it. You violate the
    law, you pay the price for civil diso-bead-ence.(sp). 
    

    The father pushed the thing to court and agreed that the child should
    be sent to jail (where she was strip-searched.)

    They wouldn't have done any of this without the consent of the father.

    Now, how on Earth is this going to help the relationship between the
    father and these children?  

    Children are not prostitutes who are paid child support 'for services
    rendered' to their non-custodial parents.  If the children refuse to
    see their NCPs, no amount of jail time (or strip-searching) is going
    to repair these broken relationships.

    
    >  -< The father NEVER should have pushed jail time for this child. >-

    I didn't see where the father was _pushing_ for jail time.  The judge
    orders jail for _contempt_ _of_ _court_, not for refusing to visit.
    When the children refused to visit, then they put themselves in a
    place of violating the law.  That violation of the law then becomes
    a matter between the _judge_ an the children, not the father an the
    children.

    fred();

    The father approved the order for the child to go to jail.
    
    The judge would never have placed the child in jail (where she was
    strip-searched) unless the father had approved it.
    

    re: .32
    
    The children are not paid "child support" the custodial parent is.
    And, yes, that child support should be tied to visitation, since 
    time with each parent is as important, if not more so, than financial
    support is.  The responsibility of the custodial parent is to 
    ensure that visitation is carried out and that the non custodial parent
    is treated the same way by the children as the custodial parent is.
    If the children had a good relationship with both parents before
    the divorce, and suddenly develop an adverse reaction to the ncp
    afterwards, then something happened on the way to divorce court,
    and it was most likely the custodial parents' opinion that got in
    the way.  The children have two parents, not a mother and a 
    sperm donor with a checkbook.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    If the child refuses to see the NCP, the child support should be paid
    anyway.  This money is NOT 'payment' for the child visiting an NCP.
    It's for the support of the child, whether the child loves or hates
    the NCP.

    No one can control what a child is feeling about another parent.
    If a child absolutely refuses to see the other parent, the custodial
    parent cannot force the child to feel differently.

    If a child is willing to go to jail rather than see an NCP, then the
    relationship won't be improved when the child does go to jail.

    It doesn't change the responsibility of a parent to pay child support.

    
    re .34

    >                     <<< Note 230.34 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
    >       -< It was the father's choice for the child to go to jail. >-
    >
    >    The father approved the order for the child to go to jail.
    >
    >    The judge would never have placed the child in jail (where she was
    >    strip-searched) unless the father had approved it.

    The father did not ask the court to send the children to jail if they
    would not visit.  The father asked the court to order the children
    to visit.  The court so ordered.  The children refused to follow that
    order.  The court at that point found the children in contempt of 
    an order of the court and ordered them to jail.  Just as a father
    who refused to obey an order of the court and pay the child support
    can be sent to jail.  It was the childrens contempt for the integrity
    and orders of the court that sent them to jail.  Not their father.
       
    fred();

    If NCPs could be freed from child support responsibilities by having
    their children refuse to see them, the children could be harmed.

    Deadbeat parents could decide to tell their kids that they hate them
    so that the kids wouldn't want to see them anymore and the NCPs wouldn't 
    be forced to pay child support anymore, either.
    
    Children need support whether or not they like their NCPs (or their
    custodial parents, for that matter.)
    
    A child's decision should not be enough to change child support
    agreements.

    The father agreed with the court order which sent the child to jail.
    
    If the father had dropped the suit against the children, the court
    would not have put the 12 year old child in jail and the court would
    not have put the 8 year old child under 'house arrest'.
    
    The father approved the actions of the court, so the child went to
    jail.

    
>    The father approved the actions of the court, so the child went to
>    jail.
    
    Whether the father approved or not is a moot point.  The reason the
    children went to jail was between the chidren and the _judge_ at
    that poin, not between the children and the father.  The _children_
    compounded the problem by failing to follow the order of the court.
    Just as anyone who fails to comply with an order of the court can
    be fined/jailed for contempt.
    
    fred();

    Tell the mother to quit brainwashing the child and the child won't have
    to go to jail because she is decided to be a member of the 'civil
    diso-beadent(sp) croud'.
    
    

    
      And what I would like to know is WHY didn't this child want to see
    her dad? Was it the mom's brainwashing, or was it something the
    dad did when he saw the child? Did anyone ask the child?
    
       Rosie

    
    re .42

>      And what I would like to know is WHY didn't this child want to see
>    her dad? Was it the mom's brainwashing, or was it something the
>    dad did when he saw the child? Did anyone ask the child?

    Seems that I remember the "official" reason given that the children
    didn't want to see their dad was that they felt he had "abandoned"
    them.  You'll have to sift whatever you can from that.

    fred();

    re: .36
    
    A custodial parent can force the child to see the ncp, can
    force the child to respect the ncp, can force the child to
    obey the ncp.  Period.  It's called discipline.  Life is
    full of things you may not like to do, but you have to.
    Teach them now.  If a custodial parent is reluctant to do that,
    then their feelings are getting in the way of proper visitation.
    If you wouldn't let the kid get away with it when the ncp was
    living in the house, no need for it to start now.  
    
    Visitation is as important as financial support.  If the custodial
    parent do not want to acknowledge the existance of the ncp, why 
    *should* the ncp have to pay?  Isn't the psychological damage being
    done to the child by denying them access to the second parent out
    of anger or revenge equal to damage done through a lack of finances?
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
    If a child runs away from a two-parent family and says, "I don't like
    them, I don't want to see them again", then court can do an evaluation
    and, finding that there is no reason to believe that the child was 
    mis-treated, can order the child back home.  If the child fails to 
    follow that order, the child can be sent to jail for contempt.  So
    why is the man, in this case, any different than a man that is still
    a part of the two-parent family?
    
    fred();

    Since when did children of 12 and 8 have to assume the responsibilities
    of adults (read parents). Is it fair to assume this was a well reasoned
    decision on their part ?
    
    At their age the CP is responsible for them and that includes getting 
    them on a plane. If they are already so out of control that the CP can't 
    do it then there is a bigger problem that needs investigating. What's
    going to happen when they decide they don't like school or the dentist? 
    
    If the CP refuses to do it then they ought to face the court, not kids of
    12 and 8.
    
    Martin  

    .35 and .44
    
    I don't think I very often agreed with you, but your articulation in
    this issue is very accurate.
    
    I believe that many of the problems that crop up between divorced
    parents come about because of the direct attitude of the CP.  This
    person has the day to day influence over the ideas and attitudes of the
    children.  If this person creates, fosters or permits ill-will through
    their efforts, then that person is responsible for the outcome.
    
    Thanks for your notes, they seem to be right on.
    

    RE: .44  

    > A custodial parent can force the child to see the ncp, can
    > force the child to respect the ncp, can force the child to
    > obey the ncp.  Period.  It's called discipline.  Life is
    > full of things you may not like to do, but you have to.

    No one can *force* a child to do anything.  NO ONE!

    You can threaten punishment, but if they're willing to take the
    punishment for what they've done, there's no way on Earth you 
    can force them to do what you want them to do.

    These kids were willing to go to jail to avoid seeing their father.
    So what do you do after that?

    At some point, I think the father needs to accept that the kids
    really, really don't want to see him.  It doesn't excuse him from
    child support, but it's best for the kids if he learns to accept it.

    If a child runs away from ANY KIND of family and the court puts them
    into foster care (because the child refuses to go back), the family
    PAYS for the foster care.  Period.

    The child is not sent to jail for this.  Children are placed into
    foster care, or whatever other care the courts can find.

    The parents pay something like $20,000 - $30,000 per year for the
    foster care.  No one goes to jail over it.

    .48
    
    Oh yes you can force a child to do exactly what you want.  The CP could
    have taken these kids to see the NCP herself to inssue that they did. 
    She could have created a very strict environment where the children
    would understand that they lost all privleges until they did what they
    were told.  The CP could have created a positive and supportive
    environment where the children wanted to see the NCP.
    
    There were many things that could have been done to "force" the
    children to do exactly wehat you wanted.
    

    .49
    
    If the child violates a court order they will go to jail.  Going into
    foster care and running away will not.  Violating a court order will
    
    That's what these kids, and in my opinion because they expected to get
    away with it, violated a court order.  At that point it was out of
    everyone's hands bu the court.  The judge did what he should do and
    that is establish the role of authority in dealing with what appears to
    be willful and undiciplined children.
    

    
>    If a child runs away from ANY KIND of family and the court puts them
>    into foster care (because the child refuses to go back), the family
>    PAYS for the foster care.  Period.

    Not necessarily.  Although the "jail" that the child is sent to is
    "juvenile detention" rather than the big-house.

    fred();

    RE: .50  Rocush

    > Oh yes you can force a child to do exactly what you want.  

    If the child is willing to take the punishment for refusing, then
    you can't force the child to do *ANYTHING*.  (I thought you had
    kids, Rocush.  You should know this.)

    > The CP could have taken these kids to see the NCP herself to inssue 
    > that they did.

    She's supposed to carry a 12 year old and an 8 year old onto a plane
    (against their wills)?  It's probably illegal.
     
    > She could have created a very strict environment where the children
    > would understand that they lost all privleges until they did what they
    > were told.  The CP could have created a positive and supportive
    > environment where the children wanted to see the NCP.
                     
    The kids were willing to go to jail rather than see their Dad.  What
    punishment would you suggest that the Mother try?  Dismemberment?

    > There were many things that could have been done to "force" the
    > children to do exactly wehat you wanted.

    Children are human beings.  You can't FORCE them to have a relationship
    with a parent that they refuse to see.

    Even if you could get them to see the parent, you can't make them
    speak to this parent.  (The set of teenaged kids on the show about
    kids who were threatened with jail - they spent their last few
    actual visits with their Dad with stereo headphones on while they
    did their homework.)

    You can't force kids to do things.

    RE: .51  Rocush
    
    > If the child violates a court order they will go to jail.  Going into
    > foster care and running away will not.  Violating a court order will
    
    The court only makes this order at the request of the NCP, though.
    
    > That's what these kids, and in my opinion because they expected to get
    > away with it, violated a court order.  At that point it was out of
    > everyone's hands bu the court.  The judge did what he should do and
    > that is establish the role of authority in dealing with what appears to
    > be willful and undiciplined children.
    
    The Dad could have stopped it by dropping his suit against the children.
    
    It's not illegal to refuse to see your NCP.  If the NCP sues his own
    children to force them to see him, then the court can put the children
    into jail if the NCP does not drop the lawsuit against them.
    
    The father chose to keep trying to prosecute his children, and he
    approved having one child put into jail.

    
    >    The court only makes this order at the request of the NCP, though.

    If the child chooses to take the punishment rather than obey, then it
    is the responsibility of the child to accept the punishment.  If you 
    tell a child to go to bed and he doesn't go, are you then a bad 
    parent for punishing the child for not going.  The punishment that
    the court can hand out for disobeying the orders of the court is 
    rather limited.  Should the court allow these willful children, then,
    to just thumb their noses at the court?

    If a highway-patrol officer hauls you into court, and the judge
    issues an order on the disposition of your case, is it then the
    fault of the highway-patrol that you go to jail if you refuse to 
    obey the order of the judge?  

    fred();

    The court has a responsibility to be reasonable.  (The court is
    supposed to be run by adults.)
    
    Jailing and strip-searching a child for not visiting a father
    is inappropriate (and it does nothing to help the father have
    a good relationship with his children.)
    
    It's idiotic.
    

    Perhaps the kids didn't want to see their father *because* he seemed
    to believe they could be forced to do things.

    If they chose jail rather than be forced to see him, the court should
    have decided that it was pointless to try to force these kids to get
    on a plane to see this guy.

    My parents couldn't force my brother to eat fish of any kind (even
    though my parents were great seafood fans and we lived near the ocean.)

    It was a huge hassle to fix my brother something different for dinner
    each time they had seafood for dinner, but they did it anyway (for his
    entire childhood.)

    He wasn't allergic to seafood.  He just hated it so badly that he would
    vomit if he ate it.  Nothing could be done to change his mind.

    Rather than have a big fight (or clean up vomit after forcing him to
    eat seafood), they made hamburgers for him when they had seafood for
    dinner.  It was a hassle, but not worth trying to prove they could
    get him to do what they wanted.

    He's an astro-physicist today (and he still won't eat seafood.)

    Children do not have the knowledge or ability to make major decisions
    for themselves. They are not born with some magical insight. Responsible 
    parents are frequenty called upon to teach (or force) their children to do 
    things at all ages - from learning to wash their hands to staying off 
    drugs. 
     
    It's hard to understand such resentment in young children and comments 
    like dad having a better car unless they are getting it from the CP.
    
    Dad needs to back off, get the kids out of the middle and get mom to
    explain to a court just how the kids come to have these opinions.
    
    Martin 
    
    
    
     

    re .57
    
>    Perhaps the kids didn't want to see their father *because* he seemed
>    to believe they could be forced to do things.
    
    If this were a justification for a teanager to misbehave, I doubt that
    many of them would be at home after age 2 or so.
    
    fred();

    Children can't be forced to do anything.  At most, they can be
    intimidated to the point that they'd rather kill themselves than
    tell their parents what they did wrong.

    They still can't be forced to do anything.

    Children are not puppies or robots.  They are human beings who
    sometimes have strong ideas about what they are willing to do.

    
    re .61
    
>    Children can't be forced to do anything.  At most, they can be
>    intimidated to the point that they'd rather kill themselves than
>    tell their parents what they did wrong.
    
    They can _choose_ to suffer then consequence of not doing what they
    are told.  It depends on how far they are willing to push the issue
    and how much the parent is willing to tolerate the child running
    the house.  At some point, most normal kids choose to go along with
    the authority of the parent rather than choosing to suffer the 
    consequence, and most normal children and adults choose to go along 
    with the authority of the court rather than choosing to suffer the 
    consequence.
    
    When you have one parent teaching the kids that there should be no
    consequence and no responsibility for their actions is when you 
    have kids running the streets killing other kids.
    
    fred();

    > When you have one parent teaching the kids that there should be no
    > consequence and no responsibility for their actions is when you 
    > have kids running the streets killing other kids.
    
    When you have one parent who is so mad at his kids that he'd rather
    see them jailed and strip-searched than accept that his relationship
    with them has eroded is when you have a father who had truly abandoned
    his children.
    
    No wonder they'd rather go to jail than to see the guy.
    

    .58
    
    Unfortunately my experience is quite different.  My parents refused to
    ever make anything different for anyone in the family.  If it was put
    on the table you ate it.  Period.
    
    I also disliked fish and made a big deal every time we had fish.  Being
    Catholic this made for interesting Fridays.
    
    My dad told me that I could either eat what was put in front of me for
    dinner, or I could have it cold for breakfast.  If I didn't want it for
    breakfast I would have it for lunch and then dinner, but I would eat
    what was given me.
    
    I thought my dad was stupid and I would just not have it.  Well, it was
    there waiting for me, cold, the next morning.  I can assure you I ate
    what was prepared from then on.
    
    No thoughts of suicide, etc.  I understood that there is authority and
    you will obey it.  If these spoiled little brats received similar
    discipline they would not have defied their mother who sent them, the
    father who wanted them, no the judge who ordered them.  
    
    These kids are repsonsible for what they did and all your complaining
    to the contrary, will not make it any differen than their fault.  Maybe
    the CP, but certainly their's.
    

    .63
    
    Perhaps you should you look at the actions of the mother and what she
    did to poison the relationship.  If she constantly complained and
    bad-mouthed her ex- and made the kids not want to see him, then she is
    below contempt.
    
    Your continual efforts to demean men are all too apparent.  the father
    wasa given no choice in this case and you want him to just say,"Oh
    well, my ex- turned my kids against me and they believe I am horrible,
    so I guess I shouldn't do anything."  OBTW, this was not the first
    effort he made to try and improve the situation.
    

    re: .48
    
    It's simply a matter of wills.  If you are willing to let
    a 12-year old tell you how to run your life, that's up to you -
    I'm not.
    
    Yes, a child can choose the punishment.  And I can choose to
    continue the punishment until the child does what I want.  In
    most cases, once the child has become the object of disapproval
    in both parents' eyes, the child will comply.  You just have to
    be tough and be willing to stick to your guns.  It is not easy,
    but, no one ever said raising children is.
    
    The bottom line is that the children still have two parents who
    have an obligation to love, support, discipline and raise those
    children together, regardless of where the parents live. You cannot
    rip out the emotional support, love and discipline of one parent,
    replace it with a series of visits which look like "Sunday with
    Grandma", couple it with a payment schedule that makes a balloon
    mortgage look like a walk in the park, and call it fair.  What you
    do is punish the children because their parents can't get along.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    Parenting is not about having CONTROL over kids (to prove that
    they don't 'run the house'.)
    

    

>    When you have one parent who is so mad at his kids that he'd rather
>    see them jailed and strip-searched than accept that his relationship
>    with them has eroded is when you have a father who had truly abandoned
>    his children.

    Most normal kids will choose to comply long before it comes to this
    point.  The fact that you are not alone in your attitude that the
    kids have a right to behave in such manner simply because _father_
    told them to do something speaks volumes on why the Nation is in the 
    shape it's in.

    fred();

    RE: .66  
    
    > It's simply a matter of wills.  If you are willing to let
    > a 12-year old tell you how to run your life, that's up to you -
    > I'm not.
    
    It's not YOUR LIFE when a child refuses to see an NCP.  It's the
    child's life.  
    
    > Yes, a child can choose the punishment.  And I can choose to
    > continue the punishment until the child does what I want.  In
    > most cases, once the child has become the object of disapproval
    > in both parents' eyes, the child will comply.  You just have to
    > be tough and be willing to stick to your guns.  It is not easy,
    > but, no one ever said raising children is.
    
    Would you have your daughter strip-searched by strangers as a way
    to enforce your will upon the child?
    
    > What you do is punish the children because their parents can't get 
    > along.
                                                              
    Yet, you're willing to punish the children (with jail and strip-searches)
    if the children and one of the parents doesn't get along?

    .68
    
    No, parenting is about raising children to understand that the world
    does not revolve around them.  Parenting is not about giving into a
    kids every desire.  Parenting is alot about saying No, when it would be
    easier and preferable to say Yes.
    
    It's a difficult concept, establishing limits and appropriateness, but
    parents have to do it.  Part this results in control.
    
    personally, I would rather have an adult parent in control, then an
    immature, willful child.
    

    If you don't like fish there are plenty of other things to eat - you
    only get one dad. 
    
    These children are not old enough or equiped to to make such a serious 
    long term decision. They have become pawns in a parental dispute that is 
    not in their best interests whichever way you look at it. 
    
    However, I find it hard to understand that you advocate kids can do
    what they want and parents should not interfere or force acceptable
    behavior. 
    
    Martin 
    
    
    
     

    .70
    
    No, I would rather raise my child to have a total lack of respect for
    the authority of the courts and teach them that they have the right to
    defy authority.
    
    Gee, I wonder if that attitude just might be a cause of some of the
    other problems in society.  Naw, couldn't be.
    

    
    >   Parenting is not about having CONTROL over kids (to prove that
    >    they don't 'run the house'.)
    
    Best laugh I had all day.  Who is in control may not be such a big
    issue (or need to be) in many (maybe most) households.  That is,
    the control by the parents is there and it's not a big issue. As
    in my family that's just life the way it was supposed to be.  But 
    show me a family where the kids are running the show and I'll show 
    you some kids heading for _big_ trouble in the lives.
    
    fred();

    RE: .64  Rocush

    > My dad told me that I could either eat what was put in front of me for
    > dinner, or I could have it cold for breakfast.  If I didn't want it for
    > breakfast I would have it for lunch and then dinner, but I would eat
    > what was given me.

    Your Dad played a dangerous game with you.  The food could have spoiled
    by then.

    > I thought my dad was stupid and I would just not have it.  Well, it was
    > there waiting for me, cold, the next morning.  I can assure you I ate
    > what was prepared from then on.

    So, you were a good little robot.

    My parents didn't think that my brother's distaste for seafood was worth
    a family brawl over it.  Their three children have almost 8 college
    degrees between us (with a great deal of success all the way around.)

    I think my parents knew what they were doing.

    > No thoughts of suicide, etc.  I understood that there is authority and
    > you will obey it.  If these spoiled little brats received similar
    > discipline they would not have defied their mother who sent them, the
    > father who wanted them, no the judge who ordered them.  

    Controlling children is not the point of being parents.

    Any parents who believe that they must control every stinking thing
    that their kids do (to prove that they 'run the house', not the kids)
    are setting their kids up for big trouble if they make a mistake.
    
    You don't spend every single minute of kids' lives with them, so you
    cannot control every thing that they do.
    
    You have to trust them to make their own decisions at some point.
    Every kid has a moment (at some point in the day) when parents and
    teachers aren't around.
    
    If you think you can control every move a kid makes, you're sadly
    mistaken.

        re .76

    >    Controlling children is not the point of being parents.

    Oh yes it is.  That's why we have parents.  Children are just not 
    mature enough or capable enough to make such decisions without guidance. 
    If they were we could kick them out as soon as they were weaned and
    save ourselves a lot of grief.

    fred();

    RE: .73  Rocush
    
    > No, I would rather raise my child to have a total lack of respect for
    > the authority of the courts and teach them that they have the right to
    > defy authority.
    
    How about teaching your child that s/he is NOT simply a piece of
    property that an NCP has the right to possess at certain times
    (no matter how the child feels about it) because the NCP has paid
    for 'services rendered' from this child.
    
    How about teaching your child that the courts will try to be fair
    to the child, rather than ordering jail and strip-searches for a
    12 year old girl who has not killed anyone or stolen anything.
    
    > Gee, I wonder if that attitude just might be a cause of some of the
    > other problems in society.  Naw, couldn't be.
    
    Children being treated like property *is* probably the cause of a lot
    of problems in our society.

    RE: .78  
    
    >> Controlling children is not the point of being parents.

    > Oh yes it is.  That's why we have parents.  Children are just not 
    > mature enough or capable enough to make such decisions without guidance. 
    > If they were we could kick them out as soon as they were weaned and
    > save ourselves a lot of grief.
    
    The people who want smaller beings to push around can always get pets
    for this purpose.
    
    Children are human beings.

    
>    How about teaching your child that the courts will try to be fair
>    to the child, rather than ordering jail and strip-searches for a
>    12 year old girl who has not killed anyone or stolen anything.
    
   If you teach a child that anyone who imposes consequences for their action
    is not being "fair", that everything that happens to them is someone
    elses fault, that they are not responsible for their actions is a 
    guaranteed recipe for desaster.
    
    fred();

    
>    The people who want smaller beings to push around can always get pets
>    for this purpose.
>    
>    Children are human beings.

    I'm not talking about "pushing around".  I'm talking about teaching
    and discipline.  To fail to do so is not doing the child any favors.
    It may well be called child abuse.  He child may have a "happy" home
    when growing up, but will have one miserable life later.
    
    fred();

    .79
    
    I would rather raise my kids, and I did, to understand that as children
    they do not have the understanding yet to make major decisions.  Also
    that there are limits in which they can operate.  The same also applies
    to adults to a rather large degree.
    
    I would rather raise my kids to understand that I can be unfair when it
    comes to an emotional issue like divorce and I have it in my power to
    poison their minds toward the other party.  that being the case, then
    there needs to be an objective third party to CONTROL me to do the
    right thing.
    
    Control and discipline comes from many sorces.  Children just happen to
    be most in need of both until they reach adulthood.
    

    RE: .81  

    >If you teach a child that anyone who imposes consequences for their action
    >is not being "fair", that everything that happens to them is someone
    >elses fault, that they are not responsible for their actions is a 
    >guaranteed recipe for desaster.

    It would not be 'fair' to cut off a child's legs for running into the
    street, even though an important lesson needed to be taught about
    running into the street.

    The punishment would be inappropriate for the 'crime'.

    Jailing and strip-searching a 12 year old girl for not seeing her
    father??  It is simply not a big enough 'crime' to deserve this kind 
    of punishment.

    So, Rocush, if your daughter didn't obey you, then you'd agree to
    have a total stranger strip her body bare naked so that her body
    could be searched with this stranger's own hands?
    
    The punishment does not fit the crime.
    

    Bob Dole is pushing for juvenile court records to follow people into
    adulthood.
    
    If you had your daughter or son arrested (and strip-searched) for not
    seeing you, their arrest could follow them into adulthood and ruin
    their lives (if Dole gets his way.)
    
    Would it really make you mad enough at your kids to want to ruin their
    lives because they aren't willing to see you?
    

    Telling children what is right or wrong, acceptable and unacceptable,
    good for them and bad for them isn't cruel.
    
    It's not treating them like things/robots/objects when you tell them that, 
    whatever they think or want, you are not allowing them to live on a diet 
    of french fries and donuts, they can't beat the crap out of their class 
    mate or stay out all night. 
    
    All responsible parents pass on the benefit of their experience aswell as 
    love. They teach what is safe, what is reasonable, and what our culture 
    expects. Kids don't have to agree with it but until they are old enough
    to make their own decisions they need parents to guide them, and when
    neccessary, tell them.   
    
    Martin
    
    
       
    

    What I was referring to in .15 are the instances where the child may
    have a good relationship with the NCP but is denied visitation with the
    CP because of overt or covert actions by the CP. The child wants to
    visit but is kept from doing so because of the CP.
    
    In this case the CP should face a jail sentence. Period.
    
    John

    Martin, it's cruel to keep a child's dinner overnight and expect
    him/her to eat it cold for breakfast, lunch or dinner for the next
    several days (until it's gone.)   It sounds like a scene out of
    "Mommy Dearest" ("No...more...wire...hangers!!")  It's crazy.

    My Mom (although she could certainly be described as 'strict' about
    some things) was absolutely *against* the idea of forcing my brother
    to eat fish when he hated it so badly that he'd vomit.  No one in
    my family was terribly picky about food other than my brother's
    aversion to fish.  My parents decided that if my brother didn't
    like seafood, they'd fix him something else.  They (very wisely)
    avoided turning a very small matter into a contest of wills.

    My brother had his ups and downs during his childhood, but he turned
    out to be an astro-physicist (he got a fellowship to do NASA research
    to pay for his PhD.)  He turned out OK even though he still hates fish.

    My parents were smart enough to keep from taking one issue and
    fighting my brother to the death over it (as a way to prove they
    controlled his every move.)

    No one controls a child's every move.

    My Mom had a theory about why my older brother hated fish so much.

    When he was a toddler, he put his nose up to the edge of the kitchen
    counter once when my Mom was getting ready to cook fish for dinner.

    She said that he got a big whiff of raw fish and nearly passed out
    because it smelled so bad.  There was no way in hell that she was
    going to make him eat it when she realized he'd throw up at the
    taste of it after that.

    A wise parent knows when to refrain from turning children's likes
    and dislikes into family WARS.

    As for judges' decisions to throw children in jail for refusing
    visitation, a wise judge would have handled it differently.

    Rather than do something which is guaranteed to make the children
    DESPISE the father who sued them (and got them thrown into jail),
    the judge could have arranged 'mediation' or even 'community
    service' for the children.   They could have videotaped interviews
    with the kids on a weekly or monthly basis so that the father could
    keep up with their activities, even if he couldn't see them.

    The judge could have been more creative about the situation in ways
    that might actually have improved the kids' relationships to their Dad.

    Throwing children into jail (where they are strip-searched) is just
    plain wrong, and it makes the situation with the non-custodial parent
    even worse than it was before.

    If judges were really 'wise' they might consider that the mother is not
    automatically the better custodial parent in the overwhelming majority
    of custody cases.
    They might actually care that the child support payments are fair, and
    that both parents have a responsibility to contribute as equally as
    possible to the child's financial support.
    They might realize that it is morally bankrupt for one of the parents
    to have the choice not to work because they can live off the labors of
    the other parent.
    They might realize that outrageous child support payments are actually
    disguised alimony in part.
    They might actually make the CP account for some of the monies received
    for child support, to insure that the money is spent on the child and
    not on the CP's pleasures.
    But judges are not usually wise. They are many times nothing more than
    politically connected lawyers.
    
    John

    
    They might also realize that age 23 is a bit old for 'child support'.
    

    I think you know exactly what I mean.
    

    
    Ok, so what happened to the original reply .94? Paul? Anyone?
    

I pulled it (apparently just before you replied), since it was more a 
comment on the irony of the situation than anything else. 

I do find it ironic that (generally) the same camp that says the best 
role for a mother is to stay at home with her children and let the 
father provide, finds that identical role unacceptable when the only 
difference is that the father is no longer resident (but still 
providing).  It seems as though it's only his presence on the premises 
that enables her to perform this role.

But I didn't want readers of the note to infer that I thought women 
should try to stay at home and be totally supported by their children's 
father (or society). I don't think this is a particularly good idea 
whether the woman is acting as a single mother or if she is part of an 
intact "nuclear family".  Maintaining working skills is an indispensible 
safety net. (Not having children in the first place is even better, 
and highly recommended.)

With that, I'm going to bow out of the discussion (to which I've 
contributed far more than I'd intended). 

    John Sobecky, as long as our society expects most women to live in
    'service' to others (by doing most of the physical labor involved in
    family life, and by being expected to stay home to raise the children
    unless the women have a darn good reason to be in the workforce),
    judges are going to give women custody of most children.

    Children belong with their primary care-givers if there is a divorce
    (unless the parents are mature enough to work out a joint-custody
    arrangement.)  

    In most cases (due to the way our society still operates), women are 
    most children's primary care-givers.  If joint-custody is impossible,
    it makes the most sense to keep children with the parent who is most
    involved in the day-to-day care of the children.

    If men and women were equal partners in the human race, we'd ALL be
    primary parents (sharing the day-to-day care of the children more
    equitably.)

    Until this happens, judges are bound to give custody to the primary
    care-givers.

    > They might realize that it is morally bankrupt for one of the parents
    > to have the choice not to work because they can live off the labors of
    > the other parent.

    Tell this to the married women with small children who are told that
    it's morally bankrupt to work outside the home when their children
    are small.  (Better yet, how about if some folks stop judging women
    so doggone harshly for the family choices they make about working
    or not working.)

    > But judges are not usually wise. They are many times nothing more than
    > politically connected lawyers.

    ...unless they throw children in jail because some Dad is angry that
    they won't visit him, of course.  Then the judge is a genius, right? :/

    
    Thanks for your comments, Paul!
    
    

    My Dad was my primary care-giver when I was a young child - men
    are extremely capable of doing the day-to-day child care that
    infants/babies/toddlers and young children need!  I still have
    memories of having breakfast with my Dad when I was 2 or 3 - he
    would open *his* mouth as the spoon came close to my mouth.  :)
    He also taught me to walk.

    When my Mom needed kidney stone surgery when I was 1 year old,
    my Dad took a leave of absence from work to stay at home with
    me.

    How many Dads back then took full charge of infants when they
    were all still living with the Moms?  My Dad asked for full
    charge of me (since he'd missed time with my older siblings
    when they were babies), and my Mom said "Knock yourself out."  :)
    He did, too!

    Although I wasn't a tomboy, my Dad gave me a very strong sense
    of standing up for myself.  When I told him about the teasing
    things kids would say to each other at school, he gave me some
    pretty snappy 'retorts' (most of which I never used as a kid.)  :/
    They always made me laugh, though.

    One of my fondest memories as a kid was the night my father came
    down to the basement to find me tap-tap-tapping my 5th grade book
    report on the typewriter at 2am or so.  He asked me what I was
    doing up at that hour, and I cried to him that I was trying to
    finish typing my report, but I typed so slowly that it was taking
    hours and hours to finish.

    He told me to go up to my room, and as I fell asleep, I could hear
    the distant tap-tap-tapping (one finger at a time) of typewriter
    keys in the basement as Dad finished typing my important 5th grade
    paper himself.

    Dad wasn't 'like a mother' to me - he was definitely a father.
    But he was my primary parent, and I knew it all during my
    childhood.  I still talk to Dad every week by phone.  (My Mom
    passed away 4 years ago.)

    Last week, I bought Dad a copy of Netscape Navigator so that he
    can use the instructions I sent to him about surfing the internet.
    (I also bought his 486 PC, which he named "Hal".)  He loves this
    stuff!  :)   We both type very, very fast these days, too. :)

    This is how great Dads can be, and I believe that it's good for
    men and children to have the opportunity to be this close while
    kids are growing up.  Attitudes need to change about men and
    women, though, so that they can share their children's lives
    (and the family's financial responsibilities) on a more equal basis.

    Paul
    There is no irony in the situation you describe. To say that the only
    difference in the two situations is that the father is not resident is
    a vast oversimplification of the matter.
    
    Mothers are not necessarily the best nurturers. Fathers should be given
    equal opportunity to stay at home and raise the children and the
    mothers should work to support them.
    
    But of course, we'll hear how women have been discriminated against and
    that when they have equal opportunity in the workplace then more
    fathers can stay at home and raise the children. I guess it will be up
    to men to provide these opportunities for women...now that's irony!
    
    I wonder who provided these 'opportunities' for men in the first place?
    

    
    Conlon
    
    Tell me that a woman with teenage children is not capable of working
    outside the home.
    
    Our society expects most women to live in service to others? And you're
    telling me that they don't expect the same of men?
    
    Tell me that it is right for a man to continue to pay 'child support'
    for a child while also being expected to pay for the child's college
    expenses.
    
    Stop focusing on the absurd case and concentrate on the normal case
    that happens thousands of times every day in America's courtrooms.
    

    re .99
    
    Your story is touching but not all that unusual. I was the primary
    caregiver for *both* of our children. Not that that matters to the
    courts, however. Absent any flagrant, continuing abuse on the child by
    the mother, the father has very little chanco of winning custody. All
    things being equal, the mother always wins. Even when they are unequal
    in most cases.
    John

    Suzzanne:
    
    If 50+% of the men in divorces were deemed to be adequate to be the CP
    where there was a dispute over custody would you support that in 50% of 
    the divorce cases that the children be awarded to them? That is
    equality isn't it?
    
    A simple YES or NO will do
    
    No explainations that joint custody is the best etc.
    
    Steve

    
    John,
    
    Re:92,93,94  are great responses!  right-on!
    
    Suzanne,  You are very offensive to some men, you degrade and demean
    men.   You should hear yourself!  Your story was touching. Apparently
    you had a good Father and Mother. Consider yourself lucky.
    Not trying to tell you what to do  but I would suggest you try walking
    in the shoes of some of the men in this notesfile, perhaps you would
    have a change of attitude towards men. 
                                                       Bill
    
    
    

    >Parenting is not about having CONTROL over kids ( to prove that
    
    Good grief! You mean if your child doesn't want to take out the trash,
    clean his room, do his homework, etc... your not going to do a dam
    thing about it? You not going to 'harsh his mellow'? You sending him to
    a life of no responsibilities? 
    
    re strip search: Can anyone find for us the standards reguarding this,
    in some RSA or such. This is a rat hole that needs proof that if you go
    to the court systems care, you Will be strip searched. Its common
    practice when your taken in care or custody of the state. 
    
    Re dad being a baby about it: I think dad is rather coragous. To fight
    the system beyond the odds. To make sure he will be a part of their
    life. When most men walk away from this. Kind of a 'dam if you do and
    dam if you don't'.
    

    I have been reading this note in awe and would only like to contribute
    that strip searching is not done 100% of the time, however policies
    vary by police district.  Usual protocol is for a female to strip
    search a femail prisoner in many districts however it depends on the
    community.  So to answer your question George, it would depend on the
    policy of the police district or department.  Rather than speculate, a
    call to the police district or jail where the strip search took place asking
    whether they strip search 100% of the prisoners would be the only way
    to know their protocol.  I would think that there are plenty of 12 year
    olds that carry drugs and weapons so that is probably the justification
    for the search.  It is frightening to see how some kids behave due to
    the lack of discipline in their lives from parents that are afraid to
    say no.  Kids need boundaries.    
    
     
    

    RE: .105  Rauh

    > Re dad being a baby about it: I think dad is rather coragous. To fight
    > the system beyond the odds. To make sure he will be a part of their
    > life. When most men walk away from this. Kind of a 'dam if you do and
    > dam if you don't'.

    The Dad made sure that he would **NEVER** have a relationship with
    his kids.

    Would you become close to someone who SUED YOU and had you thrown into
    JAIL (when you were already mad at the person in the first place)?

    The Dads who have their kids thrown into jail are ruining any chance
    that they will ever be close to them.  All they are getting is revenge.

    Why do you read more into the case than there is. I mean, do you know
    these people personally? Have you had coffee with them lately? A family
    member perhaps? Inquiring mindless need to know!:)
    

    
    re .107

>    The Dads who have their kids thrown into jail are ruining any chance
>    that they will ever be close to them.  All they are getting is revenge.

    Maybe the most telling part if this discussion is your continued 
    demagoguery to place the _entire_ blame for this whole sorry mess on 
    the father.

    fred();

    RE: .103  Keith

    > If 50+% of the men in divorces were deemed to be adequate to be the CP
    > where there was a dispute over custody would you support that in 50% of 
    > the divorce cases that the children be awarded to them? That is
    > equality isn't it?

    I wouldn't choose a 2-hour BABYSITTER on the basis that the person was
    'adequate', much less decide custody that way.

    In our society, women are the 'designated care-givers' who do most of
    the physical labor involved in family life.  When men share this work
    at roughly 50% (while also sharing the workplace with women at roughly
    50%), the courts will start seeing men and women as equal partners
    in child-raising and bread-winning.

    Only THEN will custody be granted on a roughly 50/50 basis.

    You can't have it both ways:  You can't have a society which keeps
    women from having full opportunities in the workplace because women
    are supposed to be more concerned with being "Mommies" while the
    society also claims that men are just as committed to the day-to-day 
    child rearing tasks as women.

    RE: .104  Bill
    
    > Suzanne,  You are very offensive to some men, you degrade and demean
    > men.  
    
    My father raised me to stand up for myself.  And he agrees with me
    on all the things I've been saying.
    
    The 'down side' of men raising children is that the kids will see for
    themselves that there is no reason on the face of this Earth why men
    and women should not be equal partners.

RE Note 230.110 
    SPECXN::CONLON    
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RE: .103  Keith

>    > If 50+% of the men in divorces were deemed to be adequate to be the CP
>    > where there was a dispute over custody would you support that in 50% of 
>    > the divorce cases that the children be awarded to them? That is
>    > equality isn't it?
>
>    I wouldn't choose a 2-hour BABYSITTER on the basis that the person was
>    'adequate', much less decide custody that way.

>    In our society, women are the 'designated care-givers' who do most of
>    the physical labor involved in family life.  When men share this work
>    at roughly 50% (while also sharing the workplace with women at roughly
>    50%), the courts will start seeing men and women as equal partners
>    in child-raising and bread-winning.

    A typical Suzzanne answer. When I get what _I_ want we can discuss your
    issues...
    
>    Only THEN will custody be granted on a roughly 50/50 basis.

    God is dead! Suzzanne replaced HIM
    
>    You can't have it both ways:  You can't have a society which keeps
>    women from having full opportunities in the workplace because women
>    are supposed to be more concerned with being "Mommies" while the
>    society also claims that men are just as committed to the day-to-day 
>    child rearing tasks as women.
    
    NO YOU cannot have it both ways. Can you say equality?
    
    Steve

    
>    The 'down side' of men raising children is that the kids will see for
>    themselves that there is no reason on the face of this Earth why men
>    and women should not be equal partners.

    Given what you keep trying to pass off for "equality" this might
    indeed be a problem if that brand of "equality" is what children
    learn.

    fred(a long time supporter of ERA, but not necessarily for the reasons
    you keep advocating);

    RE: .112  Steve

    > NO YOU cannot have it both ways. Can you say equality?

    Can you?

    How would it be 'equality' to deny women equal opportunities in the
    workplace on the basis that women are supposed to be more concerned
    about raising their children, then also deny women custody half the
    time on the basis that society was lying to women (because men are
    *really* as concerned as women about raising their children).

    If you want to be equal partners in child-raising, then you have to
    go along with women being equal partners in EVERYTHING ELSE.

    It just isn't going to happen otherwise.

    >My father raised me to stand up for myself. And he agrees with me on
    al the things I've been saying.
    
    He has been reading these notes files? Is he a Digital employee? Funny,
    your giving him credit where there are men trying to stand up to the
    system, to give their kids a break. And you crappie all over them for
    it. 

    
    Lets see,  Suzanne's father raised Suzanne,  Suzanne thinks he didn't
    do such a bad job, therefore Suzanne argues that men should not be
    given to opportunity to parent their children until _all_ inequities
    against women are corrected.  Remind me to never let my kids near
    a philosophy class.

    fred();

    My father and I talk about politics and gender issues ALL THE TIME.
    He knows how I feel, and he is my biggest supporter for it.

    > Funny, your giving him credit where there are men trying to stand up 
    > to the system, to give their kids a break. And you crappie all over 
    > them for it. 

    Funny, but I don't consider it 'giving kids a break' to SUE THEM and
    have them thrown into jail (where they are strip-searched.)

    RE: .116  Fred
    
    > Lets see,  Suzanne's father raised Suzanne,  Suzanne thinks he didn't
    > do such a bad job, therefore Suzanne argues that men should not be
    > given to opportunity to parent their children until _all_ inequities
    > against women are corrected.  Remind me to never let my kids near
    > a philosophy class.
    
    Gee, Fred, I didn't realize that men in this country aren't already
    being PARENTS.
    
    Yet you want more men to get custody?  Why?  So they can marry other
    women who will become the real parents to their children?

    OK - I've decided to reply to this thread. I'm a woman and a firm
    believer of equality for everything not just for things being
    convenient for me. What equality means to me is equal pay, equal
    consideration for certain things which also means child custody.
    
    You can't have it both ways which is what is happening in today's
    society. Having someone stay home with young kids is great but in most
    cases this doesn't happen because of financies. If the mother isn't
    working due to the kids being very young, there is no reason once they
    enter school that the mother can't get a job and contribute to the cost
    of raising the kids. 
    
    Does anyone watch Chicago Hope? There's a thread concerning a female
    doctor who is fighting her ex-husband about child custody. She's
    working very long hours where as he's made his money and has retired.
    Now it may or may not be true that he's a slime - don't know about
    that -).
    However in cases like that - barring other unknown facts, I  would see
    that the father would be better as a custodial parent since he would be
    home. In a way it would be great if a judge would look at both parents
    and pick the best parent based on facts other than the gender. 
    That would be ideal.
    	Cindy

    
    re .118

>    Yet you want more men to get custody?  Why?  So they can marry other
>    women who will become the real parents to their children?

    I would think this is getting pretty close to the personal attack
    land since I have never said anything remotely resembling this
    accusation.  I can, however, point out numerous cases where the
    opposite has happened.  Including my daughter who was two years old
    before she knew that the guy her mother was shacking up with wasn't
    her father.

    fred();

    Women do most of the physical labor involved with family life.
    
    When men are given custody of their children, how many of these
    men end up marrying new women to start doing most of the physical
    labor involved with family life?
    
    Why give more men custody if most of the child-raising tasks will
    continue to be done by women (just NEW women, that's all).
    
    If the work is being done by women, then the children should stay
    with the ones who are doing this work.

    RE .121
    
    How many fit that case? Stats and sources please?
    
    I am a single parent who has custody of my two (until #1 leaves for
    college next week) sons. I do most of the hosework that I can't get them to
    do being a working single parent.
    
    How do I fit in? Should I have been given custody?
    
    Steve

    .85
    
    Why do you insist on saying absolutely silly things.  In answer to your
    "serious" question, I would expect my kid to be responsible for
    anything they did.  If they broke the law, such as being in contempt of
    court, I would expect that they face the consequences of their actions. 
    If the CP was so very concerned about the child then I would have
    expected that person to make every effort to insure that such a
    terrible thing didn't happen.  Since that didn't happen, then perhaps
    the CP is not very fit for the resposibility.  OBTW, even if the NCP
    dropped the suit, the contempt charge would still stand.  They are not
    tied together.  In case you don't believe me, talk to any attorney. 
    You can win a case in court and be found not guilty, but in the process
    you insult the court and are held in contempt, you still face the
    charge regardless of the outcome of the original matter before the
    court.
    
    Your haranguing against the father reflects more of your bias than
    fact.
    

    
    >    Women do most of the physical labor involved with family life.

    and the 12 hour days spent working to support the family count for
    nothing?  But I'm not surprised by your attitude since before my
    divorce I was a truck driver putting in 20 hour days.  I considered
    myself fortunate to get 4 hours sleep, and there is a level of tired
    that cannot be described unless you've been there.  The judge awarded
    custody to her in spite of numerous witnesses and complaints to 
    social services about her, because, "he left the care of the children
    up to her".

    fred();

    Steve, were you doing all this housework before the divorce?

    If not, at least you're doing it now.  I'd say that you sound
    like a good Dad (who deserves custody.)

    Not everyone who raises kids engages in a lot of physical labor
    at home - some people can afford a cleaning staff at home, for
    example.

    The U.N. has compiled statistics (country by country) on how men
    and women share the unpaid labor involved with family life, and
    they have issued reports which show that women do the vast majority
    of this work.

    When one parent is doing this work and the other parent is not, it
    makes sense (more often) for the children to stay with the parent
    who is doing this work.

    
    "Please give my client custody of these children since he is gone
    from the home 20 hours every day."
    
    I can see where this argument may have hit a snag in court...
    

    
    re .125
    
>    The U.N. has compiled statistics (country by country) on how men
>    and women share the unpaid labor involved with family life, and
>    they have issued reports which show that women do the vast majority
>    of this work.

    The key word here is _unpaid_.  Since in a vast portion of the world
    there is still a "father works and mother raises the children" society,
    this is an intentionally slanted report.
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .127  Fred

    > The key word here is _unpaid_.  Since in a vast portion of the world
    > there is still a "father works and mother raises the children" society,
    > this is an intentionally slanted report.

    They were *talking about* 'unpaid labor' in this report.  It wasn't
    slanted at all - women really DO the vast majority of the unpaid labor
    involved with family life.

    As long as women do this labor, why would the courts give more men
    custody (when women are doing most of the work involved with family
    life?)

    Do you want 'quotas'?

        re .126

>    "Please give my client custody of these children since he is gone
>    from the home 20 hours every day."

    Given that 90% of the pay from that labor was going to support the
    family, while she quit her job, sat on her butt, and had several
    complaints filed against her for sending the kids to school dirty,
    hungry, and smelling, that may not be as outragous an argument ass
    to try to make it look.

    fred();

    So, Fred, who was going to take care of your children while you were
    gone 20 hours per day every day (if you'd been given custody right
    off the bat?)
    

    
    
    re 128

>    They were *talking about* 'unpaid labor' in this report.  It wasn't
>    slanted at all - women really DO the vast majority of the unpaid labor
>    involved with family life.

    Since you were unable to make the logical connection, I was referring
    to the _paid_ labor which goes primarily to support the family and
    which is deliberately disregarded by this report.

    fred();

    

>    So, Fred, who was going to take care of your children while you were
>    gone 20 hours per day every day (if you'd been given custody right
>    off the bat?)
    
    By the time of the custody hearing I was in a different line of work
    that would have allowed me to care for my children,  but it seems
    that staying with your family and working yourself nearly to death
    to support them counts for nothing unless it's for "child support".
    
    fred();

    >> They were *talking about* 'unpaid labor' in this report.  It wasn't
    >> slanted at all - women really DO the vast majority of the unpaid labor
    >> involved with family life.

    > Since you were unable to make the logical connection, I was referring
    > to the _paid_ labor which goes primarily to support the family and
    > which is deliberately disregarded by this report.

    They were doing a report about 'unpaid labor', specifically.  (Duh!)

    They demonstrated that women do the vast majority of the family labor
    in the world.

    This is a subject they found worthy of discussing on its own.

    > By the time of the custody hearing I was in a different line of work
    > that would have allowed me to care for my children,  but it seems
    > that staying with your family and working yourself nearly to death
    > to support them counts for nothing unless it's for "child support".
    
    So, you weren't 'working yourself nearly to death' for these children
    anymore by the time of the custody hearing.
    
    Now you were at home quite a bit more.
    
    Were you really prepared to do all the unpaid labor involved with
    taking care of four children?

    
    re 133

>    They demonstrated that women do the vast majority of the family labor
>    in the world.

    and just what is the labor men spend to support the family.  Since most
    of the pay for this labor goes to support he family and not to the
    direct benefit of the person doing that labor, could not that labor
    be considered "unpaid" labor?  

    The report was _yet_ _another_ attempt to smear men, since anyone with
    any brain will tell you even before the did their "study", that on a 
    world wide basis, women still raise the children and do most of the 
    "house" work.

    fred();

    
    re .134


>    Were you really prepared to do all the unpaid labor involved with
>    taking care of four children?

    No, I spent 9 1/2 years, three court battles, bankruptcy paying
    lawyers, educating myself to be my own lawyer because I had no
    more money to pay lawyers, all while going to college just so I 
    could live off the child support she would have to pay me when I 
    got custody.

    fred();

	Ok, I'm a married working mother of soon to be 3.  I work because
	we need the money but if I had my CHOICE I would stay at home
	with the children.

	Suzanne, in these reports, I really am interested in the US
	statistics and whether or not this report took into consideration
	the fact that many women CHOOSE to stay home with the children
	to do the unpaid labor.  

	Just because a woman may choose to stay at home to take care of 
	children and home doesn't make them more fit as a parent.  I 
	haven't met a stay at home mom yet that was forced to be there 
	or a stay at home dad either!  I know many couples that would 
	both like to stay home but that is financially impossible so 
	they compromise and the higher salary continues to work in the 
	paid rat race and the other becomes the unpaid homemaker (be 
	they dad or mom).  That in no way means that the lesser paid 
	parent who stays at home should be more fit to get custody in 
	the event of divorce.  I would love to see the court system 
	become the unbias body that it is supposed to be in determining 
	what is best for the child!

	I would hate to think how the court would decide custody in my
	case since we both work, my husband does the house work and 
	cooking and I change diapers and dress the children.  Am I taking
	more care of the children than their father?  I think NOT!

    There is just too much generalization in your arguement when you start
    discussing U.N. statistics. The world I live in may not sway those
    statistics very much, but it certainly isn't the one you describe.
    
    Fathers are much more involved with the family and the home than
    previous generations, just as women are much more involved with work and
    business. It may not be perfect for everyone but that is no reason not
    to strive for equality in all areas.
    
    You are equal parents when married and I see no reason why you should
    not be equal parents when you divorce.
    
    Martin
                                      

    Fred,
    
    > The report was _yet_ _another_ attempt to smear men, since anyone with
    > any brain will tell you even before the did their "study", that on a 
    > world wide basis, women still raise the children and do most of the 
    > "house" work.

    How does the U.N. report "smear" men by proving (pretty much exactly)
    what you wrote above?

    Is it 'smearing' men to acknowledge that women do most of the housework?
    If so, how can you say this without smearing men yourself?

    If women do "most" of the housework and child-raising, why would men
    expect to get custody roughly half of the time?

    Studies in the U.S. show that women do most of the unpaid labor
    involved in family life EVEN WHEN THE WOMEN WORK FULL-TIME OUTSIDE
    THE HOME.  (It's called 'The Second Shift' by some.)

    RE: .138  Martin
    
    > You are equal parents when married and I see no reason why you should
    > not be equal parents when you divorce.
    
    Are you really being 'equal parents', though, if the woman does most
    of the unpaid labor in the home?
    
    ABC did a segment on parents, and they asked husbands and wives to
    list all the things they did for/with their kids during a typical week.
    
    The fathers had long, impressive lists which could be held in two
    hands.  The mothers had lists which extended down to the floor.
    (All of them!)
    
    It's possible that some men don't realize that women do so much more
    of the physical labor involved with family life (even when the women
    also work outside the home.)

    
>    How does the U.N. report "smear" men by proving (pretty much exactly)
>    what you wrote above?

    One more time since you seem to be having so much trouble with the
    philosophy of the situation.... The report is slanted because they
    _deliberately_ left out the labor men do to support the family.

>    ABC did a segment on parents, and they asked husbands and wives to
>    list all the things they did for/with their kids during a typical week.
    
   At this point, I hardly consider anything coming form the major networks
    as _unbiased_ reporting.  For instance, there is the old "man on the
    street interview" trick where you pick and choose the people who 
    present the view you want presented.  
    
    fred();

    RE: .143  Fred
    
    >> How does the U.N. report "smear" men by proving (pretty much exactly)
    >> what you wrote above?

    > One more time since you seem to be having so much trouble with the
    > philosophy of the situation.... The report is slanted because they
    > _deliberately_ left out the labor men do to support the family.
    
    Do you understand the concept of conducting a study about a specific
    subject (and then reporting on it)?
    
    When a study gets quite specific about a topic, the rest of the universe 
    is left out of the report.
    
    Let me know if you need this explained to you with smaller words.

    
    
    
>    Do you understand the concept of conducting a study about a specific
>    subject (and then reporting on it)?
>    
>    When you get quite specific about a topic, the rest of the universe 
>    is left out of the report.
    
    That is exactly my point.  The topic was _chosen_ because they _knew_
    the outcome would support thier bigotry.
    
    fred();

    RE: .145  Fred

    > That is exactly my point.  The topic was _chosen_ because they _knew_
    > the outcome would support thier bigotry.

    The U.N. is bigoted against men because they acknowledged that the
    vast majority of the unpaid labor in the world is done by women??
    
    Do you think they'll start carpet bombing men around the world
    (or just impose 'sanctions'?)  :/
    

    
    re 
    
>    The U.N. is bigoted against men because they acknowledged that the
>    vast majority of the unpaid labor in the world is done by women??
    
    The U.N. (or at least those in the U.N. who did the study, and I have
    my problem with the U.N. as a whole, but that is a differen argument)
    is bigoted because the study was _deliberately_ _designed_ to make
    men look bad and women look downtrodden.  How about a study on the
    number of women and children who would be starving to death if it
    were not for the labor of men going to feed and support them.
    
    fred(); 

    There are all types of family situations and I am not going to sit here
    and judge people and tell them they are right or wrong. 
    
    I often hear and read stuff in the media about bad fathers. The media is a 
    business that has very limited interest in good news. 
    
    You indicated earlier that you had a good father. There are others, or
    at least others that do their best to be.
    
    Martin 

    So, Fred, you think it looks 'BAD' that men don't share equally in 
    the unpaid labor of family life in the world?  

    Then, why on Earth would you expect more men to get custody of their
    children?

    Why don't you encourage men to DO more of the unpaid labor involved
    with family life rather than complaining that the U.N. proved that
    women are doing most of it?  (Their studies showed that *American*
    women do most of the unpaid labor involved with family life, too.)

    
>    So, Fred, you think it looks 'BAD' that men don't share equally in 
>    the unpaid labor of family life in the world?  
    
    It only looks bad if you _deliberately_ leave out the things that
    men _do_ do to support and care for their families.
    
    fred();

    We will never reach equality as long as one side or the other
    is trying to "keep score" to make sure all the injuries are
    accounted for first.  At some  point we have to say, "ok, it
    happened, it's by us, we start from here." 
    
    Why don't men do housework?  Because a lot of the time we
    don't let them.  I've done this, and I bet a lot of other women
    do too.  "If you do it, I'll have to do it over again the right
    way."  "You can't do it like that."  "You have to do this first."
    "This isn't the way I like it."  We've set ourselves up to
    be the housekeeping experts.  It's partially our own fault.
    You want the male equivalent?  Walk out to the garage sometime
    and open the hood of the car....watch what happens.  :-) :-)
    
    Men and women want to give up their respective roles, but we've
    learned how to do these things so well we are reluctant to. We
    have watched our own parents and the roles they placed in the house.
    We are comfortable with the familiar and unsure of the unknown.
    
    Every woman isn't a CEO and every man isn't Mr. Mom.  What we 
    don't seem to realize is that they don't have to be.  There's a 
    place for every type of person and what a person does for a living
    shouldn't reflect back on their gender or their open-mindedness.
    
    Maybe we're trying for the wrong level.  Maybe instead of equality
    we should be teaching respect. If you respect a person, their talents,
    their strengths and weaknesses, there isn't much room left for
    discrimination.  Things can never be truely equal.  50/50 doesn't
    happen in the real world.  
    
    Finally I think the psychological well-being of a child is far
    more important than his financial well-being.  To believe that
    the living standard of a custodial parent should not change following
    a divorce is absurd.  The number of homes being supported is now
    doubled.  If you don't reduce the standard of living, you don't
    make a very convincing argument for avoiding divorce to begin with.
    And perhaps that's where we really need to start.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    In what we now call the developing countries, the bulk of the worlds
    population, they have bigger problems than who does the dishes. On a global
    basis most struggle to find enough water and food, most do not have access 
    to health care, education, etc etc.
    
    I once landed in a middle eastern country and was amazed by all the
    people outside the airport. My driver told me they live at the airport
    because it is their only source of clean water.
    
    I really don't see how this is relevant to those of us, who by virtue of
    our birth, live very different lives.
    
    Martin

    re: .118
    
    I can't resist a comment here, because this hit a nerve.
    
    I'm not a wife, I'm an SO.  If I wanted children of my own,
    I couldn't have them.  I'm too strapped supporting his.  I pick
    up the monthly bills and day-to-day expenses so he can afford
    child support and put daughter #1 through college.  I'm picking up 
    a chunk of his sons college tuition next year because his *(*&&^%% 
    mother didn't get the financial aid form in early enough (not that 
    we didn't try and tell her to). We spent $19,000 on his daughter's
    college, paid his sons's child support, bought both daughter and
    son their own cars and computers.  We pay medical and dental for
    both kids.  We see his son for about 3 hours on Sundays.  His daughter
    decided we should not attend her college graduation since her
    father didn't "suppport her choices". She does not call her father,
    or send him cards on father's day or even his birthday.  Their mother 
    has bad-mouthed their father from day one and has allowed the children 
    to "make their own decisions" about visitation.  He rarely sees them.
    
    I'm not real sure what kind of gravy train you think I'd be latching
    onto here, but I can assure you my advice to any single woman thinking
    of dating a man with children and a living ex is RUN, don't walk, RUN
    AWAY.  The children do not consider you a mother.  The ex wife considers
    you an extra income to which she is somehow automatically entitled.
    I have become a personal welfare system to a bunch of people I'm
    not even related to.  I have had an opportunity to see some of the
    worst examples of greed, vengence, verbal abuse, and out and out
    rudeness that I think I could ever encounter, and to top it off I 
    have met some women whose conduct I consider an embarrassment to 
    my gender.
    
    The divorce system is not fair.  It isn't even close.  I'll be glad
    to send you a pair of my shoes if you want to walk around for awhile.
    
    Mary-Michael  

    Just when I'm about to decide that we should never have given women
    shoes, let alone the vote, someone like Mary-Michael comes along and
    upsets the whole apple cart. :^,  Thanks.
    fred();

    .153 Thanks!

    RE: .153 

    >> Yet you want more men to get custody?  Why?  So they can marry other
    >> women who will become the real parents to their children?

    > I'm not real sure what kind of gravy train you think I'd be latching
    > onto here, but I can assure you my advice to any single woman thinking
    > of dating a man with children and a living ex is RUN, don't walk, RUN
    > AWAY.

    What 'gravy train' did my words imply to you?

    Parenting is a lot of work!!  Getting custody of children so that
    a 'new wife' can do most of this work still means that *women* are
    doing the work, not men.  (Only now, 'new' women are doing it.)

    I agree with you that it is *anything but* a good deal for the new wife.

    
    And then there's Suzanne.....
    
    fred();

    RE: .154  Fred
    
    > Just when I'm about to decide that we should never have given women
    > shoes, let alone the vote...
    
    The 'down side' of being in the same species as women is that the women
    won't always agree with you.
    
    Luckily, far too many men and women are willing to fight to the death
    for women having the right to disagree *and* to vote in our society.
    
    Adapt, Fred!  :)
    

    
    >    Adapt, Fred!  :)
    
    Actually, I think, it was more like...waking up.
    
    fred();

    
    Then, WAKE UP, Fred.
    
    It's long past time for you.
    

    
    I already did.  That's the problem...for you.
    
    fred();

    re; .156
    
    In the first place, men  who go to the trouble and expen$e 
    involved in a custody battle, don't get the children home and
    say, "OK, kids, now I've got to find you a new mother!"  They
    want their chidlren with them. They want to take care of them.
    My SO would love to have his kids living there.  To talk with
    them, to see them grow and change every day.  To help shape their
    lives and listen to their thoughts and dreams.  Just because men
    don't carry the children to term doesn't mean they don't want
    to love and nurture them.  We haven't given them a chance.  
    The default custody arrangement in a divorce should be joint
    physical.  Visitation doesn't give you a chance to participate
    in raising your children.  You get them for maybe every other
    week-end, and you go all out trying to entertain them the entire
    time they are there.  If you don't, they tend to get upset that
    they aren't with their friends, or have their stuff at their
    own house.  Everything that gets said in your house while they
    are there travels home at light speed and is recited to the custodial
    parent as if spoken through a microphone.  The reverse rarely,
    if ever, occurs.  You get slighted on parents nights, graduation
    parties, school events, etc.  You have to practically obtain a
    papal indulgence to see a report card.  You're always out of the
    loop and one step behind.  But if that support check is even a day late,
    God help you!  That's no way to treat a parent.  That doesn't teach
    a child respect.  That doesn't teach a child to value fatherhood.
    That doesn't teach a child equality.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
>That's no way to treat a parent.  That doesn't teach
>    a child respect.  That doesn't teach a child to value fatherhood.
>    That doesn't teach a child equality.
    
    Dang, wish I'd have thought of that line.  Mind if I borrow it
    sometime ;^).
    
    fred();

    re: .163
    
    Be my guest.  After five years of living with this, I could probably
    put out a page-a-day calendar..... :-) :-)
    
    
    

    Mary-Michael, the divorced women I know best are in totally different
    situations.

    My friend in Seattle was married to an airline pilot who was screwing
    a stewardess.  When he decided to leave to be with the stewardess,
    my friend found out she was two months pregnant (they had been trying
    for three years to have a child, so it wasn't an accident.)

    He left anyway, of course, and he disappeared with his new wife for
    years after their airline went broke (Braniff).

    My friend struggled to earn a Masters Degree so that she could get
    a good career.  When the pilot finally resurfaced, he started paying
    my friend 1/10th the amount of child support he was supposed to pay
    (even though he was already 4 or 5 years BEHIND in his payments.)

    My friend was laid off her job and had to show this pilot (who had
    a huge house and his own plane by then) that she was going to have
    to apply for Food Stamps or possibly Welfare if she didn't get the
    FULL amount of the child support he was supposed to pay.  (The way
    she put it to him was, "Gee, they ask a lot of questions about YOU
    on this Welfare application.")

    He had told the new airline that he was still in his first marriage
    (so that they wouldn't think he was some divorced guy.)  He finally
    started paying FULL child support payments.

    He owes my friend over $15,000 in back payments.  He has two new
    children, a big house, nice cars, an airplane, etc.  My friend was
    lucky he didn't skip out on their son for good.

    He does see the son once or twice a year, but he's very critical 
    of this boy.  My friend had hoped that her ex would use the $15,000
    he owes to pay for college, but the ex is now yelling at the kid to
    say that it would do the kid GOOD if he worked at minimum wage jobs
    for a few years so that he could pay for college himself.

    My friend will never see a dime of that $15,000 he owes her.  This guy
    probably needs a bigger plane.  (Or maybe he needs gas for the plane.)

    Even so, my friend never 'bad-mouthed' her ex to the boy.  The kid
    just couldn't help noticing that his dad lived in the lap of luxury
    while they had struggled for years without WORD ONE from this guy at
    all.

    Another friend of mine (from Digital) had a two year old daughter when
    her husband (a police officer in San Diego) decided to marry the woman
    he was seeing on the side.

    They had a nice house, but the husband sold it to his brother for
    $1 (so that they would have no assets when they got the divorce.)

    My friend got absolutely NOTHING in the divorce except a $70 per month
    payment (which the cop was sporadic about paying.)

    After the divorce, the cop bought their house back (for $1) and sold
    it.  He and his new wife got a beautiful house with a swimming pool
    for the two kids they had together.

    My friend struggled through tech school to get a job with Field Service
    at Digital.  Otherwise, she and her daughter would have lived under
    a bridge somewhere.

    re: .165
    
    While I sympathize with your friend and her situation, you story raised
    a couple of points you that I wanted to comment on:
    
    1.) Sometimes the "lap of luxury" is furnished by the ex-husband.
    Other times it is not.  We get along ok despite the
    payments because I happen to earn a decent living.  While I 
    choose to help my SO, I should not be forced to.  My earnings
    are mine to do with as I please.  If my wages elevate us to a better
    standing than his ex, that's not his fault and she should not
    use that as a weapon with his children.  If he is satisfying his
    obligations, the rest is none of her business.
    
    2.) If mom and dad were living at home in the "lap of luxury" and
    insisted their children pay their own way through college, nary
    a peep would be heard.  Somehow, however, once a family is divorced
    an ncp is expected to finance a college education regardless of 
    whether or not they would have chosen to otherwise.  Why?  I 
    think children should pay part of their tuition, it teaches them
    responsibility. Why should the court step in and mandate what
    should be a family decision?
    
      

    Welcome to the club of the war wounded. I have had friends who were
    forced into bankruptcy, cannot see their children, bla-bla-bla. The
    whole ball of nightmare wax. Many people think its as easy as getting
    married to get divorced. The horra of it last longer than if there was
    closure to an accidental death. Least they won't be coming back to give
    you grief like a divorced spouce.
    
    

    Another woman I knew (a Digital customer) told me that she and her
    husband had built a business together over a period of years.  They
    had two kids and a nice house, etc.

    She started feeling that something was going terribly wrong, so she
    put $2000 in a private bank account for emergencies.

    Her husband had been seeing someone else, and in the flurry of papers
    that they'd been signing, etc., he had placed THEIR BUSINESS and THEIR
    HOUSE in his girlfriend's name (before the woman I knew had realized
    what was going so 'terribly wrong'.)

    She got out with the $2000 that she'd set aside for emergencies.
    She received nothing at all from the business or the house, and 
    almost nothing in child support (since the husband suddenly had
    no visible income.)

    Luckily, she had started a good career in a company (a customer of
    Digital's.)  If not for the $2000 in emergency money, she and her
    children would have been on the streets.
    
    This guy never even TRIED to see the kids.

    So now the rules now change from U.N. reports back to personal anecdotes to
    "prove" what slime men are?
    fred();

    RE: .167  Mary-Michael

    > 1.) Sometimes the "lap of luxury" is furnished by the ex-husband.
    > Other times it is not. 

    In my friend's case, her ex-husband's new wife never went back to
    work at all after the airline folded.  Their entire lifestyle is
    the result of his income as a commercial pilot.

    > 2.) If mom and dad were living at home in the "lap of luxury" and
    > insisted their children pay their own way through college, nary
    > a peep would be heard.  Somehow, however, once a family is divorced
    > an ncp is expected to finance a college education regardless of 
    > whether or not they would have chosen to otherwise.  Why?  

    He owes $15,000 in back payments, that's why.  As I said, my friend
    was hoping (and the father had HINTED) that he would use this back
    money to help the son get through college.  Now, he doesn't seem to
    want to pay the back child support at all.  (Big surprise.)

    > I think children should pay part of their tuition, it teaches them
    > responsibility. Why should the court step in and mandate what
    > should be a family decision?

    WHAT COURT???  My friend can't afford to take this guy to court to
    get the $15,000 in back payments that he still owes (even though
    she only wants it to pay for their son's college.)

    If this guy decides to keep the $15,000 he owes, there isn't a damn
    thing she can do about it.

    RE: .170  Fred

    > So now the rules now change from U.N. reports back to personal 
    > anecdotes to "prove" what slime men are?

    You almost had the noting equivalent of an 'orgasm' when Mary-Michael
    relayed her personal anecdote, Fred.

    Do you have a double-standard about the validity of anecdotes?  :/
    

    re: .169
    
    And there's my ex's 2nd wife, who left him after they'd
    been married for six months and she'd become pregnant since
    "all she ever really wanted was a baby." Now, instead of
    being the proud husband and father he always wanted to be, he gets
    to drive to a parking lot every other week-end to pick up
    his daughter.  Oh, and his condo went to foreclosure last
    April too.  Those child support payments were just a little
    too steep.
    
    And there's the woman I used to work with, who when she was going 
    through her divorce told me, "If I don't get everything I want, I'll 
    just get a restraining order."
    
    Moral of the story:  there are no saints in either gender.
    
    

    RE: .173  Mary-Michael
    
    > Moral of the story:  there are no saints in either gender.
    
    No, some people in each gender are saints.  
    
    Not everyone in either gender is Satan, though.
    

    >My Dad is a saint, for one.  So is my husband.
    
    And the rest of us are neanderthals....:)
    

    
    >He owes $15,000 in back payments, that's why.  As I said, my friend
    
    Hven't added it up lately, but that's about what my ex owes me in
    child support also.
    
    fred();

    
    Not all men think the way you do, Rauh.  :)
    

    
    >> He owes $15,000 in back payments, that's why.  As I said, my friend
    
    > Hven't added it up lately, but that's about what my ex owes me in
    > child support also.
    
    Is your wife a commercial pilot who owns a private plane?
    
    $15,000 is chicken feed to this guy (except when he thinks about the
    cost of a new plane and gas for whatever plane he owns.)
    

    re .153                              
    
    If I were you, I would immediately STOP shelling out money and being
    such a martyr. You are inadvertently enabling the irresponsible
    behavior of the ex and children. As long as they know you and your SO
    will pick up the loose ends, they'll continue to let things slide. If
    you and your SO are continuing to pay for college, cars, etc. in spite
    of the lousy treatment and lack of thanks, it's no one's fault but your
    own. Why are you compromising your own lives in this way? Child support
    is one thing. You can't arbitrarily stop paying without going to court.
    But to pay 'extras', like footing the bill because the mother got the
    application in late????? Scr@w that! The bitterness which is bound to
    result could destroy your relationship with your SO. I would
    immediately rethink your decisions to put the _wants_, not even
    _needs_, of some individuals who sound thankless, irresponsible, and
    spoiled, before your own. I'm sure you mean well, but I doubt it's
    doing any real good. Do you really want to help teach these kids that
    if they screw up, someone will always bail them out? That everything in
    life just gets handed to them on a silver platter, (while you have to
    knock yourself out and do without, to provide for people you're not
    related to?) NO WAY would I do that.  
    
      

    .177 > Not all men think the way you do, Rauh.  :)
    
    Good thing too!:) Imagine what life would be if I were king of the
    planet.:)
    
    

    
    Also, my friend's child support payments are $500 per month (which
    is less than 1/20th of this guy's monthly income.)
    
    Yet this guy is $15,000 behind.
    

    
    > Imagine what life would be if I were king of the planet.:)         
    
    It's enough to make one shudder...  :)
    

    re: .172
    
    He knows whereof I speak.  Women win a lot.  A woman can
    get a restraining order with little or no evidence. If it
    turns out to be bogus, it generally goes unpunished.  I'm 
    amazed that the asset transfers you spoke about held up in
    court.  They sure don't around here, and would most likely
    be thrown out in discovery.  Women usually get the kids,
    the house, the child support, the tax deductions, the Earned
    Income Credit, most of the furniture and the better of the
    cars (if there's more than one).  They can vent their anger
    and hostility in front of the children with no penalty.  They
    can interfere with visitation, vacations and holidays with
    no penalty.  I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my hat,
    it happens.  And I'm not just pandering to the audience, I've said
    much the same in Soapbox and Womannotes.  I'm appalled at the
    way some women use their gender to enhance their standing in
    divorce court.  Equal means equal.  It doesn't mean "you got
    to dominate for a a while, now it's our turn."
    
    

    I guess the issues where this guy had his who-haaa's trimmed, cannot
    have kids cause they have had two. And she goes out and has a child by
    casual contact doesn't do anything execpt add another to the body
    count.
    
    Then there is a digital employee who has come up though the ranks,
    never had any gifts. Worked his butt off for it all. Finally the dream
    house is built, the ex throws him in the street with a tooth brush. The
    kids are chattle and of course are hers, the new cars are too. His late
    model truck is all he has. And pays very large sums of money to pray
    that he will have visatition. The American dream... the house, the car,
    child support, and alimoney. What a great country! Just doesn't get any
    better than this!:_)
    
    Hey! I am bankrupt from my divorce. Lots of fun driving by my old
    income prop and seeing the new owners with it. 

    RE: .183  Mary-Michael
    
    Even though my friend's ex-husband only pays 1/20th of his income
    for child support, *HE* gets to claim their child on his income taxes.
    
    She has never been able to afford to go to court to get any of this
    changed.
    

    
    Nah - you'd need too big an army to keep your power (with all the
    weird ideas you have.)
    
    I'd just have to wait to see you overthrown, Rauh.  :)
    

    Little did you know I lift weights with my friends, Haaans and
    Fraaans!:)
    

    
    With men, it doens't matter what the income is.  If you are behind,
    you pay.  If you _can't_ pay you go to jail until your family comes
    up with the money.  It is now a _Federal_ _felony_ to avoid paying 
    child support.
    
    fred();

    
    My friend doesn't have a single PRAYER of getting the $15,000 in
    back payments from her ex-husband (even if he does decide that
    he's not using the money to pay for their son's college.)
    
    It sounds so threatening to say that men can go to jail for not
    paying, but how many women can actually do anything with this law?
    
    My friend can't do a thing about any of this stuff.
    

    re: .179
    
    Have no fear, the lights were on in the room when I walked in. 
    I knew what I was in for.  That's what I get for falling in love 
    At least I now know why God gave me a sense of humor. :-) :-)
    
    We tried dropping back, but instead of picking up a little extra,
    she puts the kids right in the middle of the argument.  After
    a while, I just got tired of her making his son feel like a line
    item on the national budget. He's a nice kid, and it's not his
    fault his parents got divorced.  I get nervous about what it
    will do to him later on down the line.  It's only money, right? :-)
    While it would be nice if he spent a little more time with his
    Dad, he does at least try, and like I said, he's a good kid.
    "She Who Would Dance On My Grave", however, is another story.
    His daughter and I do not get along, and I am appalled at the
    way she treats her father, mostly because my own mother would
    have skinned me alive had I treated my dad in a similar manner.
    
    

    
    re .185

>    She has never been able to afford to go to court to get any of this
>    changed.

    Well if the rules are now "lets trade personal sob stories" then my
    ex's lawyer was provided for her while I had to go beg and borrow 
    from my family to try to save my kids from the hell she had them
    living in.  When I had custody I paid every dime, even though I had
    to eat dog food sometimes to do it.  Now that I have custody, she
    has made two _partial_ payments in 6 years.  She never tries to 
    see the kids.  When she was here for my son's high school graduation,
    I had to _tell_ my daughter to go visit her.  Then my ex claims that
    the reason she won't pay support is  because she can't see the kids
    when she never even _tries_ to see them.  Dealing with such logic has 
    equipped me will for the notes files.

    fred();

    Mary-Michael, it sounds like these kids are almost grown, at least.
    That sounds encouraging for your situation, no?
    
    My friend's payments stop when her son turns 18 next year, although
    he will still be in high school.
    
    Her ex will go on with his happy life as an almost-millionaire while
    their son has no hope of getting the back child support for college
    (if the ex decides he doesn't want to pay up after all.)
    
    She will keep struggling to give this kid a chance in life while the
    boy's father washes his hands of him.

    
    > Dealing with such logic has equipped me will for the notes files.     

    Yes, you have gained quite the mastery of 'illogic' yourself now.  :/

    One of the things that you very quickly learn when you are in the
    probate court is that there are 2 sides to every divorce story.
    
    If your friend does not have funds to go to court and can prove it, she 
    can get her ex to pay her legal bills. Discovery will take care of any 
    asset distribution and it can be reopened later if one of the parties was 
    dishonest
    
    If her ex owes her back child support, she does not have to go to court 
    to get it. Call the DOR Child Support Enforcement Dept..  
    
    
    Martin
     
    

    
    re .193
    
    >Yes, you have gained quite the mastery of 'illogic' yourself now. :/
    
    Comming from some people that would be considered a personal attack.
    But I think I'll take it as a compliment.  Maybe not a master, but
    I've had a lot of practice in recognizing it, seeing throught it, and 
    dealing with it.
    
    fred();

    My friend can't afford for this guy to be two weeks' late in his
    payment (and he knows it.)
    
    The state of Colorado has a record of what child support payments
    he's missed, but my friend simply isn't in a position to make this
    guy mad at all.
    
    She and her son are living too close to the edge as it is.  She can't
    afford to rock the boat.
    

    RE: .195  Fred

    > Maybe not a master, but I've had a lot of practice in recognizing it, 
    > seeing throught it, and dealing with it.                           

    So have I.

    But then, I do have an advantage over you (considering that one of my
    two Bachelors degrees is in Philosophy, with a specialty in Symbolic
    Logic.)

    Some of your notes would make great entries into the 'brain teaser'
    sections of 'Introduction to Logic' books.  ("What is wrong with this
    note?")  :/

    
>    The state of Colorado has a record of what child support payments
>    he's missed, but my friend simply isn't in a position to make this
>    guy mad at all.
      
     In the state of Colorado if you miss even _one_ payment, the court
     will _automatically_ grant a request to garnish his wages.  She
     could probably file the request even without a lawyer.
    
    fred();   

    re .183
    
    I'm not trying to pick on you because you're more friendly to the male
    party line or anything...But please remember that, while women such as
    you speak of exist, there are plenty of others like me: Raised kid with
    NO child support, NO assets from divorce. I mean NONE. I worked my a$$
    off to support my daughter and raise her in a town with a good school
    system, while putting myself through school as well. I'm now helping to
    pay for college. Her father contributed absolutely nothing. He
    disappeared out of the state; end of story. The enforcement agencies
    could not track him down because he worked under the table. The last
    time I tried unsuccessfully to collect support was about 5 years ago. I
    can't believe things have changed that dramatically in 5 years. 
    
    I get angry when I feel that I'm being told that my years of EXTREMELY
    HARD WORK never happened, and that people like me don't exist--we're
    just a figment of the feminist mentality's imagination.
    
    In this file, I hear quite often that cases such as mine are quite
    rare. This is absolutely not true. Remember that this area is
    Yuppie-land (guess I'm a yuppie myself now; I'm not using the term
    derogatorily) But please remember that the affluence we see in this
    part of the country is not the norm. Maybe stories like mine are more
    common in the lower middle classes. I certainly grew up in a lower
    income bracket than I live in now. As it turns out, my mother also
    raised me alone and struggled quite a bit. I've seen the same happen
    with a number of my friends. And we really do exist. I'm lucky (and
    motivated) enough to have traversed the income/class spectrum from
    near-poverty to relative affluence. Most of the people I know who have
    been in similar situations certainly did not wind up working in high
    tech. You'll never hear from them in this notes file. They're still
    stuck in low-income towns, kncking themselves out just to make ends
    meet. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that things everywhere 
    are the same as what you see here, in this (one of the top ten average
    income in the country) areas.

    
    Her ex-husband LIED to his airline about being married before.

    They don't even know he has another child (older than the children
    he has with his current wife.)

    If she garnished his wages, he'd be fired.  Then, he'd disappear 
    again (after selling off his assets).  He successfully hid from
    my friend for almost 5 years before, and he can do it again.

    She can't go after him without hurting her son (and herself.)

    
    re .197
    
>    But then, I do have an advantage over you (considering that one of my
>    two Bachelors degrees is in Philosophy, with a specialty in Symbolic
>    Logic.)
    
    And the Wizzard of OZ gave the Scarcrow a diploma, too, and immediatly
    the Scarcrow became a genius.
    
    fred();

    RE: .199

    Thanks for your note!!!

    I'm another Mom who never got a DIME of child support (not in my son's
    entire life.)

    I earned two college degrees AFTER he was born (and I'm working on my
    Masters degree now.)

    There are a lot of Moms like us in this country (who made it on our
    own with our kids.)

    
    > And the Wizzard of OZ gave the Scarcrow a diploma, too, and immediatly
    > the Scarcrow became a genius.

    You'd be amazed at what an education could do for you, Fred.

    Perhaps it would help your spelling.  :/

Here is a letter I sent to Time magazine concerning a short article they had
on "dead beat" fathers. I am really annoyed by the one sideness when it comes
to the news (as I'm sure most of you in this notes file are). It's a shame that
some women do use their gender to get the most out of their ex.
On the other hand there are fathers who don't do their share. There are
just as many lousy folks out there - doesn't matter what the gender is.
	Cindy


>To: 	'[email protected]'
>Subject: 	Concerning an article in your July 1, 1996 edition

>In "The Second Wives Club" you mention deadbeat dads - what about 
>dead beat moms? This topic seems to be forgotten in most magazines and
>newspapers. 

>You took a derogatory stance concerning 2nd wives and the financial burden
>on the non-custodial father. While it is true that there are dead-beat 
"parents",
>there are many parents who really care about their children. In some states,
>child support payments that the non-custodial parent (typically the father)
>pays are so high to be unrealistic. What happened to the mother helping to
>pay for the child? Why should non-custodial parents be forced to pay for
>grad school when other married parents are not forced to do so - even for
>undergraduate studies? 
>
>We need to stop putting non-custodial parents into the same category as
>dead-beat parents. Yes - dead beat parents should be punished but a good
>non-custodial parent should be encouraged. There needs to be more fairness
>in the child support/visitation arena.
>
>		Sincerely
>		Cindy Schlener

>P.S. Would you please consider doing a fair article on the state of
>child support/visitation problems with the non-custodial parent. 
>
>
>

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from ntsg.ako.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA03767; Tue, 9 Jul 96 15:59:14 -040
% Received: by ntsg.ako.dec.com with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.0.838.14) id <[email protected]>; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 15:56:06 -040
% Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Digital%[email protected]>
% From: Cindy Schlener <[email protected]>
% To: "'[email protected]'" <ljsrv1::schlener>
% Subject: FW: Concerning an article in your July 1, 1996 edition
% Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 15:56:04 -0400
% X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.838.14
% Encoding: 64 TEXT

    re: .199
    
    I don't tend to think of myself as "friendly to the male party
    line".  This has simply been my experience.  Since experiences
    do shape opinions, they've helped shape mine.  I don't doubt
    each of us can come up with any number of stories to support
    our opinions.  Unfortunately, the only common denominator 
    among them is that the children suffer, and that's the part 
    that really isn't fair.  
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
    re .200
    
>    If she garnished his wages, he'd be fired.  Then, he'd disappear 
>    again (after selling off his assets).  He successfully hid from
>    my friend for almost 5 years before, and he can do it again.

    My ex just moves from boyfriend to boyfriend and "can't" pay
    child support because she's "unemployed", and the court lets her
    get away with it because I've _tried_ to collect.  She's still
    married to this one guy, but came to my son's graduation and she
    and her current shackup sat with the parents of her current husband.
    Was rather bizzare.
    
    fred();

    
    >    You'd be amazed at what an education could do for you, Fred.
    
    And very often---not.
    
    fred();

    It seems kind of humorous that other women think of
    me as a "traitor in the camp" because I don't share
    their opinions on child support and custody issues.
    I don't think any viewpoint has less validity because it is not
    universally shared.
    
    I really believe as strongly as you all do, that if
    you saw things from my side of the fence, you would
    see the unfairness in the system.  There is no accountability
    for visitation and there is no accountability for child support
    monies paid.  If you have real concerns that the money 
    is not being spent for the welfare of the child, you have
    no way to address that.  That is very frustrating.  The
    only thing you can do is pay spend extra to ensure that the
    child has the things you think he/she needs.  
    

    .re 206
    
    It sounds like what happened to you is similar to what happened to me:
    if the NCP EX is 'unemployed' and 'can't' pay, tough luck, buddy. 
    I was told the same thing
    So it still happens. It's no more right if it happens to a man or a woman.
    
    It just turns out that it's generally (not always) an even tougher
    struggle for the woman, due to the disparity in income which still
    exists. Please don't try to tell me that THAT's my imagination.
     
    That doesn't mean it's OK for some women to take advantage of
    men to get back at the male sex for past injustices. 
    It's only an observation, based on personal experience. 
                                                            

    Regarding Mary-Michael's feeling like a traitor...
    I can see both sides of the fence and there does need to be some way of
    preventing abuses by both the father and the mother. Will we ever see
    that? Well we're seeing what can happen with a strong women lobby. It
    needed to get done but it's gone a bit too far in some regard. 
    The only way we'll start seeing a more fair split is for the men to 
    create a strong lobby to counterbalance.
    
    It's interesting that when I tried to talk with a woman friend about
    some of the injustices regarding custody support and men that she
    became so upset with me. To her, only women were victims - she wouldn't
    consider that men could be victims as well. 
    		Cindy

            re .209


>    It just turns out that it's generally (not always) an even tougher
>    struggle for the woman, due to the disparity in income which still
>    exists. Please don't try to tell me that THAT's my imagination.

    It is, however, easier for the woman to remain "unemployed" by
    finding some sugar-daddy to take care of her.  Just look at the
    grief Mary-Michael has caught for her support of her SO.

    re Mary-Michael (and others),

    Fret not.  In my journeys through the children's/father's rights
    wastelands, some of the most ardent supporters of children's/
    father's rights have been second wives, girlfriends, mothers,
    sisters, etc. who _have_ seen the other side of what happens to
    men and children and are sickened by it.  You are not alone.  
    The support of you and women like you mean more than you can 
    possibly imagine.

    fred();

    Well, I certainly don't see Mary-Michael as a traitor.

    I just wish that my friend had been married to her SO.  :)

    My friend would have been THRILLED to have an ex who didn't
    disappear.  My friend worked her butt off getting her Masters
    degree, and she has always done everything she can to support
    her son.  Unfortunately, her Masters 'field' is a difficult
    one (with lots of layoffs), so she has been trying to get into
    Elementary School teaching (where it's tough to get a steady
    full-time job, even with a Masters degree.)

    My friend has been plugging away all these years to do everything
    she can possibly do to make a life for her son, though.

    If her ex was willing to pay for college for the kid, she'd probably
    kiss his feet.  :)  The boy would probably kiss the dad's feet, too.

    It's not ALL about fathers getting screwed.  Plenty of mothers get
    screwed (and it's even tougher for them to survive because of the
    disparity in women's incomes.)

    Even the Republicans are going after Dads these days - that makes it
    obvious that this effort isn't just some sort of prejudice against men.

    Women and kids are too often harmed by the father disappearing or
    simply walking away without looking back.  Even the Republicans know
    that something has to be done about this problem.

So this note has largely degenerated into a trade of personal anecdotes...
I'll unlock this next Monday as well.

				Steve

    
    	Wow. Now we can reply again!
    
    	I've been away from this string for awhile, but I have some advice
    	for those who have, or know of, fathers that are living well while
    	failing to pay child support: They can't get away with it unless
    	you let them.
    
    	Let them change jobs. Let them sell off their assets. Who will this
    	hurt in the long run? Themselves. Obviously not you or your kids,
    	since you're already getting the shaft.
    
    	They can't even take a lower-paying job to avoid paying support,
    	since the courts generally look at income POTENTIAL and not current
    	level. They'll have their wages attached, their assets attached,
    	and if that isn't enough, face jail terms.
    
    	But only if you care enough to make it happen. Your kids can't do
    	it, so you must do it for them.
    
    	I personally would be terrified of trying to dodge paying child
    	support..maybe I'm just basically a chicken, but I'd never do it.
    	I also care about my kids, even though I don't get to say where
    	the money goes, and mommy has lots of money to buy herself and her
    	current schmuck stuff while my daughter asks me to buy sneakers,
    	etc.
    
    	Deadbeats make it harder and harder and tougher for good guys like
    	me.
    
    	As for the reply that 'even the Republicans are seeing that it's
    	a problem', well, my opinion is that their current concern is a
    	direct result of their ratings in the polls: they are about to get
    	their butts kicked in this fall's elections and need to jump on the
    	currently politically correct bandwagon to try and salvage a vote
    	or two. An act of desperation.
    
    	John
    

    John, I know that there are GREAT Dads in the world.  (Hey, I had an
    incredible Dad myself, and I'm married to a wonderful step-Dad for
    my son.)

    Please understand that many of us have gone through the experience
    of honestly supporting and raising kids without any (or MUCH) support
    from their fathers and without trying to screw anybody in the process.

    Let's ALL recognize the Dads *and* Moms who try to do the right thing.
    The 'bad apples' of both sexes can make most everyone else look bad.

     Re: .215

       >  Please understand that many of us have gone through the
       >  experience of honestly supporting and raising kids without any
       >  (or MUCH) support from their fathers and without trying to screw
       >  anybody in the process.

	  You know, some of us (not a lot, to be sure, but an increasing
     number) are going through the experience of honestly supporting and
     rearing children without any support from their mothers, and without
     trying to screw anybody in the process.

				     Brian

	       (whose children's visit with their mother this
	       summer is being held up because we can't _find_
	       their mother this summer....)

    
    re .212
    
>    Even the Republicans are going after Dads these days - that makes it
>    obvious that this effort isn't just some sort of prejudice against men.
    
    Unless, until, men get organized into a group with some political 
    clout, this will continue.  Pols go after the money and the votes.  Men
    keep letting the courts take us on one at a time.  The rights that are
    being trampled on are the _children's_ rights as much or more than the
    men's.  Yet we keep letting the PC's shout us down and hang our heads like
    some whipped puppy.  That's changing, though.  Slowly, but it's
    changing.
    
    fred();

    Know a neighbor. Not what you might call a very bright person. But, a
    good heart just the same. Has a divorced ex, kids and all live in WV.
    He pays his support to the system. Holds a job, works two jobs. One
    night, got his license taken away for DWI. Wasn't trashed, but, was
    over. So, mistake #2. Now comes the fun part. In New Hampshire, there
    is no such thingie as mass traspertation. And there is no one headed in
    the same direction as he works from where he lives. He tried hitching,
    tried peddling, and in the dead of the winter decides to gamble and is
    cought driving on a suspended licences. Baaad maaan. Baaad! Still
    support is support, and either way it looks like jail time. So, he is
    now instructed that if he wants his license back, he will have to pay
    all court fines, and get the special dho-dha to insure his license.
    Plus take courses in how not to get cought whist under the influence
    again. O.K. the system takes a large chunck of his pay, including
    overtime. No change of going back to night school now to make a better
    wadge, as so he can pay more money, and so he can buy a couple of more
    Christmas presents for the kids when he goes to see them over the
    holidays. 
    
    The final... This past week. Still trying to pay his child support,
    trying to stay outta jail. Keeping his face off the posters of the US
    Postal offices.... hits a police car that cut him off.... No license.
    No way of getting to his job. Either way looks like he will go to jail
    for his evil deeds. Yet, no breaks for trying. 

    re .216
    
    Another one here...  My X owes me over 2 years.
    
    Dom

    As some other women here have also experienced, I never received a
    dime of child support.  Not a thin dime.

    I allowed unlimited visitation even though no money changed hands
    at all.  He did some visiting, but stopped by the time my son was
    4 years old.

    My son never once got a present or a card from this guy.
    

    Thats to bad, this guy sounds like a real scum.  When my X had custody,
    I was paying the system, not her directly.  They would'nt hesitate to 
    trow me in jail, even if I did'nt have a job and could'nt find one.
    I was out of work for a couple of months and could'nt find a job and
    they threatend to put me in jail.  I almost told them to find me a job
    and I would be happy to pay but I don't think they wanted to hear it.
    
    Dom

    
    There are bad apples on both sides of the fence, that is true. There
    are more bad fathers than bad mothers simply because there are so many
    more fathers paying child support than mothers. Percentage-wise,
    however, I'd guess that more women abuse the system than men do, by a
    significant margin, in terms of visitation abuse.
    
    But the bad apples are not the only issue, nor the main issue. What is,
    is the way that the legal system 'works' these days against fathers.
    
    During previous replies, I had asked questions that were never
    answered. Instead, the discussion was ratholed into these cases where
    children are strip-searched, child support is not paid at all, etc. The
    people I asked didn't want to answer:
    
    Is it right for a mother with teenage children to sit at home and not
    work while living off child support payments?
    
    Don't you think 23 is a bit old for 'child' support?
    
    Also, I want to make a comment on previous replies that stated that as
    long as women do the majority of manual labor in the house, they will
    continue to be favored in custody battles.
    
    Question: How does it follow that doing more housework makes one a
    better parent?
    
    John
    
    
    

    
    re .222

>    Percentage-wise,
>    however, I'd guess that more women abuse the system than men do, by a
>    significant margin, in terms of visitation abuse.

    Percentage-wise, more women who are supposed to pay "child support"
    are deadbeats.  As mentioned before it is easier for the woman
    to find some sugar-daddy so she can remain "unemployed", or,
    as in my brother's case, the courts are much more sympathetic to
    a poor little female sobbing about how poor she is.  

    fred();

    
    
    	Fred
    
    	I think your characterization is a bit harsh...'poor little female
    	sobbing'. It doesn't tend to foster discussion from the opposite
    	sex.
    
    	But I do agree with you that judges can and are very easily swayed
    	by the sight of a woman crying. My ex did it several times through-
    	out our divorce when things weren't going her way, and it worked
    	every time! The judge generally got flustered and caved in to her.
    
    	Only two people, she and I, knew the game she was playing.
    
    	John
    

    re .224
    
    First you bash me, then you prove me right.  Which way you gonna have
    it?
    
    fred();

    
    Not bashing you Fred..you have made many good points in this and other
    notes conferences. 
    
    There are some women who have made very good points in these
    conferences. I just don't want to stop their participation with unfair
    and demeaning characterizations.
    
    John

    re .226

    Well, maybe I should have put ""'s around "poor little sobbing
    female", but I give more credit to the kind of women you are
    talking about to be able to understand the sarcasm I intended.
    If they are, then I doubt that they need a "defender", which,
    I would think, would be as much or more offensive as anything
    I said.

    fred();

    
    Ack ack..

    
    	Suzanne:
    
    	I asked these questions earlier and didn't get a reply, so I'll
    	try one more time:
    
    	Is it right for a mother with teenage children to stay at home and
    	not work, or should she help to lighten the financial load on the
    	NCP by getting a job?
    
    	Is it right to be paying child support for a 22 year-old, even
    	though you're expected to pay for the college education?
    
    	I can understand why you might not want to answer these questions..
    	I only wanted to know where you stand on issues such as these.
    
    	John

    RE: .230  John Sobecky

    > I can understand why you might not want to answer these questions..
    > I only wanted to know where you stand on issues such as these.

    In other words, you're challenging me to another fight.  :)

    > Is it right for a mother with teenage children to stay at home and
    > not work, or should she help to lighten the financial load on the
    > NCP by getting a job?

    I've never known a woman in this situation, so I'd need to hear the
    mother's reasons for this.  Unless the ex-husband is a millionaire,
    living on child support alone sounds pretty difficult.  What would
    the mother say (for herself) about why she chooses to try?

    Obviously, as a Mom who worked two part-time while going to daytime
    college (for a four year degree) while I was still nursing my baby,
    I tend to be someone who'd rather work and go to school than live in
    poverty.  (Although I did PRECISELY what you'd most like single mothers
    to do, I'm still your most dire enemy because I don't agree with you
    in notes.  So you'd like to dump on me for the women who DO NOT do
    what I did.  Whatever floats yer boat, I guess.)

    All I can tell you is that I'd like to hear what these women have to
    say for themselves about it (before judging whether their actions are
    right or wrong on YOUR WORD ALONE.)

    > Is it right to be paying child support for a 22 year-old, even
    > though you're expected to pay for the college education?

    If the 22 year old needs the support to survive during college,
    I can see how it might be necessary.  Where does the student eat
    and sleep?  Is a room maintained for the college student at the
    CP's home (and does the student return home every week to use it)
    - or does the student LIVE at the CP's home?

    These are questions that would need to be answered.

    
    Re:204
    
    Thanks for writing the letter to Time magazine Cindy!
    
    Too bad more Dads don't write those kind of letters.
    
                                         Bill

    .232
    
    They do, execpt the editors say they are whining, sniviling, rasputian,
    gits. 
    
    A follow up to .218 will come Monday. Ol Mike the next door neighbor is
    in court today. Wondering if his next abode is the Graybar Motel. At
    least he won't have to worry about if he has been eating too much
    maccroni and cheese out of the can/box stuff. 
    
    

    Rauh, good luck to your friend.

    A DUI and a collision with a police car (without a valid driver's
    license) can be tough to beat, even if his heart was in the right
    place while he was trying to keep working to pay support.

    Thanks!! He called the answering machine at the house. His voice
    doesn't sound like he is in a good mode.

    Suzanne
    
    No, I'm not challenging you to another fight, nor do I consider you my
    dire enemy for -any- reason, especially one as petty as disagreeing in
    notes.
    
    If we all held the same point of view, noting would be rather dull. I
    enjoy a spirited discussion; I don't like when noting degenerates into
    personal attacks, even though I've been guilty of them myself.
    
    There is no other reason for asking these questions other than finding
    out -why- a person thinks a certain way. Many people hold opinions that
    are severely colored by personal experiences.  Your opinions don't seem
    to fall into that category; that's why I'm interested in why you think
    the way you do.
    
    Understanding where a person comes from is the first step in
    establishing useful dialogue, no?
    
    John

    John, thanks for the olive branch.  :)

    My position is very clear:  I encourage women (married, divorced and
    single) to be prepared to support themselves and any possible children
    they might have.

    I support the choices people make (such as trying to stay at home to
    be a full-time homemaker when children are very young), but I personally
    consider this choice to be extremely risky for everyone.

    Many in our society put huge pressures on women to stay at home with
    young children, but these pressures turn *180 degrees* if anything goes
    wrong (such as spousal death or divorce.)  The huge risk is that these
    can happen to almost any family.  (Divorce is something like 50% these
    days, and anyone can die when their children are young.)

    So, as long as we live in a society which makes very, VERY harsh
    statements to get women to stay at home to raise their children,
    then I have a hard time faulting women who DO this and then get in
    trouble for it (because one of the 'risks' that I warn about came
    true.)

    I'd be a lot happier if we had a society that told parents to do
    *whatever financial/career family choices felt right to them* 
    (whether that meant having one parent at home or having both parents 
    working).

    I'd also like a society which told men, "Hey, if you are so gungho
    about having your wife stay at home to raise the children, don't be
    surprised when she has trouble making a good living later when the
    two of you decide to get divorced."

    My husband and I both earn bread-winner salaries.  Before we were
    married, I paid the entire mortgage of our current house by myself.
    Even if we had small children [we don't], he knows doggone well that
    I'm a person who is determined to maintain a bread-winner income.
    We're equal partners in this.

    When some men seem to brag about how great it is to have a wife who
    stays at home with the kids, it's obvious to me that these guys are
    going to be in HUGE trouble if they get divorced.  The kids are going
    to be in huge trouble, too, probably.

    If we could all be equal partners, then the whole thing wouldn't be so 
    risky (and *everyone* would be better off.)

    This is where I'm coming from, John.

>    Many in our society put huge pressures on women to stay at home with
>    young children, but these pressures turn *180 degrees* if anything goes
>    wrong (such as spousal death or divorce.)  The huge risk is that these
>    can happen to almost any family.  (Divorce is something like 50% these
>    days, and anyone can die when their children are young.)
>    .
>    .
>    When some men seem to brag about how great it is to have a wife who
>    stays at home with the kids, it's obvious to me that these guys are
>    going to be in HUGE trouble if they get divorced.  The kids are going
>    to be in huge trouble, too, probably.
>    .
>    .
>    If we could all be equal partners, then the whole thing wouldn't be so 
>    risky (and *everyone* would be better off.)

    What I might take exception to as long as we're talking about 
    societial choices and pressures, is comparing the "risk" of divorce 
    with that of death, as a statistical or random (accidental) occurence.  
    Rather, divorce, like one's career path, is usually a matter of 
    choice, sometimes a personal lifestyle preference, even where there 
    are children involved.  This "huge trouble" that the man and kids are 
    in when guys "get divorced" is not the result of some passive, natural
    event.  I think the valid concern that many men have as regards 
    support issues etc. is that a fair, commensurate responsibility to 
    such a choice is not always (often?) applied and upheld.  Again, 
    there is not always an "equal partnership" in these divorce decisions 
    where the welfare and upbringing of the children is entirely the issue 
    (what of the "partnership" in the decision to raise a family in the 
    first place?).  If that's the case let the parties accept 
    responsibility according to their actions.  The spectrum of 
    acceptable post-divorce custodial and financial settlements is 
    wide enough to accomodate common arrangements that need not 
    punish one of the "partners".
    
    We could just as easily have an unjust system where the wife who chose 
    to stay at home and later elects divorce because she is unhappy would 
    be the one at risk, in huge trouble.  Not saying that'd be any better, 
    but the point is to balance the scales.  So while your advice on a
    financial partnership might indeed be wise, that's not the same thing 
    as saying that there is fairness or justice in the wake...
    
    As background, I will say that in spite of what I might think of
    my ex-wife, her lifestyle decisions and choices with regard to 
    her family, I can't complain about the custodial or financial 
    arrangements that eventually resulted.  While I can't respect 
    her value system on the sanctity and fidelity of marriage and
    family, by the rule of law (on the books, at least, the rule 
    of law is gender-independent) the settlement was largely "fair".  
    So I'm generally not one of those who believe justice is 
    impossible, or not worth fighting for, at least (under current
    conditions).
    
    I encourage mutual financial preparation too; I discourage divorce
    where children are involved in the general case.  It's not a great
    way to grow up even if each parent is gainfully employed (and how
    often does even gainful employment provide real financial security?).
    
    
    Glenn
    

    RE: .238
    
    >> I support the choices people make (such as trying to stay at home to
    >> be a full-time homemaker when children are very young), but I personally
    >> consider this choice to be extremely risky for everyone.
                                  ****************************
    
    > We could just as easily have an unjust system where the wife who chose 
    > to stay at home and later elects divorce because she is unhappy would 
    > be the one at risk, in huge trouble. 
    
    As I said, it's a huge risk for **EVERYONE** (which includes women!!)
    
    > I encourage mutual financial preparation too; I discourage divorce
    > where children are involved in the general case.  It's not a great
    > way to grow up even if each parent is gainfully employed (and how
    > often does even gainful employment provide real financial security?).
    
    Good point - even if both parents have good careers and financial
    stability, how much security does 'gainful employment' provide anyone 
    these days?
    
    If it's 'risky' even when you're employed, imagine the risks if you're
    not.  
    
    And the risk applies to EVERYONE in the family, as I said.

    
    From .153:
    
>    I'm not real sure what kind of gravy train you think I'd be latching
>    onto here, but I can assure you my advice to any single woman thinking
>    of dating a man with children and a living ex is RUN, don't walk, RUN
>    AWAY. 
    
    Well, now you've gone and really depressed me, Mary-Michael... ;-)
    
    
    glenn
    

    Suzanne
    
    I can find no fault with your reasoning. I, too, think that women
    should be prepared to change roles due to unforseen circumstances, and
    the biggest role they may have to assume is that of supporting their
    children financially.
    
    Personally, I think the ideal situation is where the mother can stay
    home and nurture the children throughout their formative years, and the
    father earns the living for the family. The -children- are the biggest
    wiiners in these situations; they have stability and know that one of
    their parents will be there when they come home from school or
    wherever.
    
    This is the environment that I grew up in, and the lifestyle that I
    found very secure. This was the environment that I replicated for my
    wife and children. I worked two, and many times three, jobs to make it
    possible for my wife and children to have a comfortable life.  And this
    worked ok for about 20 years.
    
    But when I look back, it was not as rosy a picture as I painted. When I
    would get back from my regular 2nd job (delivering newspapers) at 6AM, 
    I had time to do one of two things: iron my clothes for work, or take a
    shower. I asked my wife to iron my clothes, she refused. She told me
    that if I wanted my clothes ironed, I should have 'married one of those
    little Pennsylavania girls' (my home state). 
    
    After 20nyears, my wife decided that she wanted to 'date again', and
    from there, we're divorced. 
    
    I bought into and worked toward a lifestyle that I grew up in and
    believed in. In 20 years, I never missed a paycheck, and she had the
    checkbook. I didn't care; that's what I was -supposed- to do. I
    believed it.
    
    I always took care of my two children, as I have stated before. I
    always supported my family, financially and emotionally.
    
     My youngest brother was murderd in December, 1994. While I was back
    home burying him, my wife was perusing personals ads looking for a new
    man. She filed for divorce two weeks later. When asked about her
    timing, she said 'Hey, it's not my fault - I didn't kill Kenny'.
    
    I know that I married the woman from hell; I know that most women are
    not like that.
    
    But she got the home I designed and built, a large chunk of my pension,
    and $300/week child support for the next 11 years. She's moved her
    current boyfriend in; he's using my power tools, etc. He could never
    have got this on his own, BTW - he's a real loser.
    
    My ex regularly blows off my visitation rights. Fathers Day, for
    example. She made my daughter stay with her new boyfriend.
    
    In spite of this, I hope someday to have a real relationship with a
    woman. I know that most women are not like my ex. I was just very
    unlucky.
    
    This is where I am coming from, Suzanne. I know that my personal
    experiences sometimes color my responses, but I try to keep an open
    mind when someone replies.
    
    I do agree with you that women should try to prepare themselves for the
    worst. When I think of this, I try to imagine how I would want my own
    daughter to survive. I would want her to be ready to support herself,
    even though Grandpa would be there for her and her kids (she's only
    12).
    
    I just wish divorce wasn't so easy and convenient. Both men and women
    take advantage of this fact. And the biggest losers are the children.
    
    This is where I'm coming from so you'll understand me better.
    
    John
    

    I too offer olive branchs. For constant bickering is never productive.
    
    Yet, with the society and its pressures. There are unearthy pressures
    places upon men to preform and sometimes to take/make the seperation of
    man and child. Such things we have pointed out and see every day are:
    
    -wars
    -jobs
    -divorce
    -society saying it is Always in the best interest that child remains
    with mom despite mother having troubles with:
    
    	-drugs
    	-emotions
    	-finances
    	-etc
    and men are always yielding to them and to their needs in the society
    as a whole. And of course this is where we differ. No, I don't want to
    take a child nursing from the boob of mom. Less of course, in my case,
    mother was drinking and smoking weed. Thank God Almighty our daughter
    is alright.
    
    Yet, proving mom was unfit took a monumental amount of data, work,
    documenting, and more work. My cinyism(sp) is greatly due to the court
    system, and watching other men get their clocked cleaned with out 'fair
    or just' listed anywhere in the court orders. 
    
    I do dance on the carpets when someone comes to me looking for help and
    are not looking out for the interst of their child(ren). And there are
    many who know of my hooting and hollering.:) For children will grow up
    to be adults and will someday call the shots whist we are all in our
    rocking chairs woundering when we'll be lined up at St. Pete's gate.
    
    Men should be responsible for their children as women should be. And
    when one isn't being responsible there comes the indiffernces. The
    measuring stick for men is longer for accountability than women. Again
    a differnce seen thru self and others who have walked the walk and not
    talk the walk. 
    

    Well, it's clear that many of us have different experiences (and
    see things from different perspectives.)
    
    Personally, one of the smartest things I ever did was to refuse to
    go after child support for my son.  I was better off on my own support.
    
    My ex and I both went to college after my son was born - guess who
    graduated (and guess who didn't???)  He gave up.  I graduated (with
    my little son sitting in the audience watching me.)
    
    My ex said that a baby would tie him down too much.  Guess who sent
    him postcards from Europe when the baby was 6.5 months to 11 months 
    old??  (I signed the baby's name on every card, too.)  My son was
    my inspiration to do well in life.  No way did he 'tie me down'!

    I paid for the trip to Europe by selling my own car and some other
    belongings (and travelling on the half-priced 'youth fares' everywhere 
    we went.)  I also studied how to go to each country's local tourist 
    bureau to get good rates on decent rooms.  We visited 8 countries!!
    
    I did it to prove to myself that I could do something difficult (like
    make it through 4 years of college while supporting a young child on my
    own.)  It gave me the confidence I needed to make a life for us.

    
    George, you are right - the yardstick is longer for men than for women.
    
    I am a conscientious father and provider. I should not have to balance
    the inequities of the system on my own back. I should not have to pay
    for the sins of those fathers that are unloving and uncaring.
    
    Unfortunately, this is the way that our society has decided to address
    the problem of deadbeat parents - make life unbearable for those that
    follow the rules.
    
    Time for another 'Boston Tea Party', eh?
    
    John

    
>    But she got the home I designed and built, a large chunk of my pension,
>    and $300/week child support for the next 11 years. She's moved her
>    current boyfriend in; he's using my power tools, etc. He could never
>    have got this on his own, BTW - he's a real loser.
    
    Damned if the very thought of this picture (which I could see coming 
    from a mile away) wasn't a huge motivator for me to avoid it.  My 
    condolences, John...
    
>    Personally, I think the ideal situation is where the mother can stay
>    home and nurture the children throughout their formative years, and the
>    father earns the living for the family.
    
    Or, vice-versa.  If it had been that way, if it were the difference
    in the overall well-being of the family, I'd make that trade...
    
    glenn
    

    
    Suzanne
    
    You and your son are both stronger because of the choices you made. But
    you still let your ex evade his responsibilities.
    
    But, you made your choices and you're the better off for it. My own
    experience says that most women would not have been able to do what you
    did. I don't know everything, but I'll bet that your inner strength
    came in large part from your relationship with your father. Not to say
    that you couldn't have gained the same strength from your mother - I'm
    just reflecting on the fact that you've stated that your father was the
    more influential parent in your upbringing. And he sounds like he cared
    about you a lot. 
    
    I hope my own daughter has similar memories of me.
    
    John
    

    Keep in mind, though, that if the mother stays at home to raise the
    children, the father will always be regarded as the 'bread-winner',
    even after he no longer eats bread with the mother or the children.

    Look around at the precarious lives that working people live today.
    Someone with all the education and experience in the world can be
    tossed out onto the street.  Some people bounce back from this without
    a care, but others are devastated.

    Try competing when you've spent much of your adult life OUT of the
    workforce.  It's hard enough when you've BEEN there the whole time.

    If two parents agree for one of them to stay home, then the one who
    works outside the home is 'sharing' his/her entire FUTURE (including
    income, pension, etc.) with the 'at-home' spouse.  Otherwise, the
    'at home' parent would be working for 'room and board' (which is 
    NO WAY AT ALL to be partners.)

    If you believe that women should 'stay home' with children, then be
    prepared to pay for it (for a very long time) if something goes wrong
    with the marriage.  She'll pay for it, too, of course.  Everyone pays
    one way or another.

>    I am a conscientious father and provider. I should not have to balance
>    the inequities of the system on my own back. I should not have to pay
>    for the sins of those fathers that are unloving and uncaring.
    
    Well, that about sums it up perfectly.  Because if you do look at
    men and fathers in America on the whole, it's not a pretty picture,
    and I think that's where much of Ms. Conlon's question of "why 
    should more men get custody?" comes from (although reading back I
    cannot agree with some of the specific arguments directed at Fred, 
    etc.).  But that's the fallacious general-case argument that you 
    can make with almost anything-- and applying the general case to 
    all is the easy way out.  As far as the courts go, sure, 
    intransigence and expedience are more the problem than some
    inherent evil.
    
    Glenn
     

    re .245, Glenn
    
    So how did you avoid it? Maybe I was too blind and unassuming; I'm not
    too bright when it comes to personal relationships. I'm too naive - I
    think everyone is good-hearted.
    
    So how did you see it coming? I really want to know.
    
    John

    Suzanne,
    
    Re sons father: His major loss. For you cannot hug a car, nor a trip to
    Europe or other such things. I am sorry that it was a tuff sled for
    you. I disagree with child support issue. But, it is your call and your
    life and your divorce. 
    
    For every child is a link between past and future, between sucess and
    failue of a nation state. And ensuring that they grow up to be
    responsible, caring adults is our task as it was our parents and their
    parents. As it will be for your son to teach his child(ren).
    
    

    Re bread winner: An enviorment that I came from. There was at one time
    no differnces between womens and mens work. Both parties came to the
    table with equal responsibilities. I am from the Midwest. And my mom
    sat me down and explained this all to me over many cups of coffee
    during the my hunting days of looking for my parentally kid napped
    daughter. 
    
    It should not be this way, we should both take an active roll in
    rearing children, working for the homestead, and ensuring that the flag
    waves on in the republic.
    
    

                          
>    So how did you avoid it? Maybe I was too blind and unassuming; I'm not
>    too bright when it comes to personal relationships. I'm too naive - I
>    think everyone is good-hearted.
>    
>    So how did you see it coming? I really want to know.
    
    No, while I too was naive and disbelieving, I did nonetheless find 
    out-- what I saw coming was the guy using my power tools ;-) (sorry,
    'cause I know it ain't funny) if I were just to allow it to happen.
    
    Glenn
      

    .244 Johnnybegood!
         
    Its already happening, we gotta keep going to those Fathers Ralleys in
    Boston on Fathers Day.:)
    
    

    George, good point. It will take a minimum of two generation to make
    things right. Unfortunately, the next generation, our kids, will have
    to live through hell in the interim.
    
    So much for 'equality'. What are we teaching our kids? I cringe at the
    thought.
    
    John

    RE: .246  John

    > But, you made your choices and you're the better off for it. My own
    > experience says that most women would not have been able to do what you
    > did.

    You'd be amazed at how many women I've met who have gone through 
    very similar experiences to mine (where they supported themselves
    through college to make lives for their kids.)

    Some years before my son was born, I remember a guy telling me about
    a young woman he knew (who was raising a baby daughter on her own.)
    This guy told me that this young woman was at the bus stop every 
    morning on her way to nursing classes.  She was making a life for
    her baby by getting an education.  It helped me a lot to know that
    some other young women were doing this, too!

    > I don't know everything, but I'll bet that your inner strength
    > came in large part from your relationship with your father. Not to say
    > that you couldn't have gained the same strength from your mother - I'm
    > just reflecting on the fact that you've stated that your father was the
    > more influential parent in your upbringing. 
 
    My Mother's father (my Grandfather who died before I was born) was a
    feminist.  He was preaching in the 1920s and 1930s that women needed
    educations every bit as much as men needed educations.

    Both my parents taught us all (when we were kids) that we ALL needed
    to be able to support ourselves.  They never said that my sister and
    I would probably get married and not need to worry about it.  They
    wanted us ALL to get educations (and we all did.)

    My father taught me that we can ALL be strong in non-traditional ways
    (since he was so excellent and wonderful as my primary care-giver.)

    > And he sounds like he cared about you a lot.                            

    He still does!  :)   We're still close - I'm his primary adult offspring
    now.  :)

    I send him PBS tape series that I know he'll enjoy (and that we can
    talk about) - I bought him a computer and sent him the information
    and the software so he can 'surf the net' and share email with me
    (so we can enjoy sharing this pastime.)

    > I hope my own daughter has similar memories of me.

    I'm sure she will!  You sound like a great Dad.

    
    re .252, Glenn
    
    You ain't funny at all. Maybe you saw 'incoming'. I didn't. Maybe it
    was the three job routine, maybe I'm too stupid and trusting.
    
    Whatever. It happened. Live and learn, eh?
    
    John

>    You ain't funny at all. Maybe you saw 'incoming'. I didn't. Maybe it
>    was the three job routine, maybe I'm too stupid and trusting.
    
    You're trusting; I was trusting; I wouldn't call either one of us
    stupid, never.
    
>    Whatever. It happened. Live and learn, eh?
    
    Yup.
    

%FATHERS AND CHILD SUPPORT
%by George F. Doppler
%
%       TEXAS:  Mike Diehl, research & information coordinator, Austin Chapter,
%Texas Fathers for Equal Rights, has made an amazing study of 783 divorces which
%was published in approximately thirty Texas newspapers, and the _Texas Bar
%Association Journal_.  Results of his study are:
%
%       1.  Of the 783 divorces surveyed, only 18.8% of fathers obtaining
%            custody received an award of child support.  No noncustodial mother
%            was required to provide any other continuing service to her
%            children analogous to her role function in an intact marriage.
%
%       2.  Ninety-six point eight percent (96.8%) of mothers obtaining sole
%           custody received child support.  Only one father in five received
%           assistance and help from a former spouse, and over five times as
%           many mothers as fathers received postdivorce help.
%
%       3.  The average monetary award to custodial mothers was $170 per child
%           per month, with an average award of $253.  This did not include
%           direct cash payments; i.e., medical expenses, insurance, schooling,
%           etc.
%
%       4.  The average monetary award to custodial fathers was eleven dollars
%           per child per month, with an overall average of eighteen dollars
%           per month.
%
%       5.  Compliance figures:  After three years of separation, over 80% of
%           non-custodial fathers were in full compliance with the divorce
%           decree orders.  After one year, only 11.7% of noncustodial mothers
%           were paying anything at all.
%
%{ Other interesting statistics from other articles:
%       80% of the men who are awarded custody will lose it within two years.
%       98% of the kids in divorced families are in the custody of the mother.
%       33% of the divorced fathers in America have had all contact with their
%               children terminated by their former wives, contrary to orders
%               of the divorce courts.
%       80% of the divorced dads experience some degree of harassment in
%               attempts to continue a meaningful relationship with their
%               children. }

I am not taking any sides, merely presenting interesting reading from
http://www.usaweekend.com/97_issues/970601/970601resp_dads_rights.html.

Grahame

                                  [Image]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   [Image]
   [Title Banner]

   Issues

   Issue date:
   May 30-June 1,
   1997

   [Image]

        [Image]
                      Fathers wrestle for their rights

                      We're not cash machines,
                      claim growing numbers of men who
                      feel wronged by society.

                      By Tom McNichol

                          an Kottke feels like a
                          scapegoat for all the fathers
                      who've ever stinted on child
                      support. Victor Smith feels like
                      "a bank book," expected to
                      subsidize his kids more than see
                      them. Rachmiel Tobesman feels
                      only loss, through the long 18
                      months since his ex-wife
                      vanished with son Benjamin, now
                      15.

                      They join a growing chorus of
                      discontented dads -- typically
                      divorced -- who feel that
                      courts, agencies and society in
                      general are biased against them
                      when it comes to child custody,
                      visitation rights and child
                      support.

                                        Interest in
                                        "fathers'
                                        rights" has
                                        been rising,
                                        along with the
                                        U.S. divorce
                                        rate, for a
                                        couple of
                                        decades.
                                        Today's
                      fathers' rights movement boasts
                      more visibility and recruits
                      than ever, boosted by rising
                      concern that so many Americans
                      grow up fatherless.

                      "Just as the 20th century was
                      about women becoming involved in
                      the workplace, the 21st century
                      is going to be about fathers
                      becoming more involved in
                      parenting," predicts Warren
                      Farrell, author of The Myth of
                      Male Power.

                      Internet chat groups like
                      alt.dad-rights are crowded with
                      fathers who feel wronged. The
                      Web hums with outrage at
                      high-profile custody fights,
                      such as last month's California
                      case in which a court refused to
                      give 21-year-old Tommaso
                      Maggiore custody of his
                      10-month-old daughter or keep
                      the child's mother, Gina Ocon,
                      21, from taking the child when
                      she returns to Harvard
                      University this fall.

                      MAKE ROOM FOR DADDY
                      As the women's movement already
                      has done, the fathers' rights
                      movement seeks to challenge
                      assumptions about sex roles --
                      in this case, the presumption
                      that mothers should be
                      "nurturers" and fathers should
                      be "providers." It is this
                      assumption, many divorced dads
                      say, that leaves them paying
                      child support while Mom gets
                      custody.

                      Women's groups see it
                      differently. Mothers generally
                      are granted custody, they say,
                      not because of bias, but because
                      they are more often the primary
                      caretaker in a child's life
                      before the divorce. "The parent
                      who knows the most about a
                      child's needs, knows his
                      friends, takes care of him when
                      he's sick, is still more likely
                      to be the mother," says Joan
                      Entmacher of the Women's Legal
                      Defense Fund. "My criticism of
                      the fathers' rights movement is
                      that they're starting at the
                      wrong end. If you have a family
                      where the mother is the primary
                      caretaker, the time to change
                      that isn't when you get
                      divorced."

                      Even language is under scrutiny,
                      as it was at the height of the
                      feminist movement. Fathers'
                      rights advocates bristle at the
                      term "deadbeat dad," preferring
                      the sex-neutral "delinquent
                      parent." In fact, non-custodial
                      moms go "deadbeat" more often
                      than non-custodial dads: About
                      27 percent of non-custodial
                      fathers, about 3 million
                      fathers, totally default on
                      support, compared with about 47
                      percent of non-custodial
                      mothers, according to the
                      Department of Health and Human
                      Services.

                      The push for fathers' rights is
                      made more urgent by alarming new
                      statistics on how "father
                      absence" exacerbates societal
                      ills. The number of children
                      living only with their mother
                      has skyrocketed from 5.1 million
                      in 1960 to more than 15 million
                      today. Kids from fatherless
                      households are five times more
                      likely to be poor and twice as
                      likely to drop out of school;
                      nearly three-quarters of
                      adolescent murderers grew up
                      without fathers.

                      THE VALUE OF FATHERHOOD
                      Unlike those men who have
                      abandoned their kids, many
                      fathers' rights activists fight
                      bitter court battles to become
                      more involved with their kids.

                      Victor Smith, head of Dads
                      Against Discrimination, a
                      Portland, Ore., legal advice and
                      support group, argues that "the
                      system looks at fathers as a
                      bank book. What the fathers'
                      rights movement is about is
                      balancing the scorecard that
                      says mothers get custody 90
                      percent of the time," says
                      Smith, who divorced 20 years ago
                      and has two grown kids. In cases
                      where both parents want custody,
                      sole father custody is awarded
                      about 10 percent of the time,
                      says Fathers Rights and Equality
                      Exchange.

                      Palo Alto, Calif., law student
                      Dan Kottke spent $20,000 in a
                      failed bid to increase his
                      court-ordered visitation (he is
                      guaranteed two weeks a year with
                      son Bucky, 7). Says Kottke's
                      ex-wife, Karen Karay: "It would
                      have been better if he had tried
                      to work things out with me.
                      Instead he chose to go legal
                      right out of the chute."

                      Kottke says the whole process
                      makes him feel "like I'm being
                      punished for decades of men who
                      didn't pay child support."

                      Though many fathers' rights
                      groups sound angry, a growing
                      faction contends such hostility
                      only sets the movement back. "A
                      lot of fathers' rights groups
                      are tremendous pity parties,"
                      says Rachmiel Tobesman. He says
                      he had sole custody of Benjamin
                      in December 1995 when his wife
                      picked the boy up at school and
                      disappeared.

                      Now, Tobesman is Maryland state
                      president of Fathers United For
                      Equal Rights, a group that takes
                      a less confrontational tack,
                      offering fathers legal advice
                      and working with social service
                      agencies to reflect fathers'
                      perspectives.

                      Dad advocates have made
                      progress. Several
                      "father-friendly" provisions
                      were written into recent federal
                      welfare reforms. The
                      computerized federal parent
                      locator system is being used to
                      enforce visitation orders and
                      find kids hidden by disgruntled
                      parents. There's now a
                      presumption of joint custody in
                      14 states and the District of
                      Columbia.

                      But fathers' rights advocates
                      still have a long way to go,
                      says Wade Horn, director of the
                      National Fatherhood Initiative.
                      "The fact that so many divorced
                      dads feel the courts treat them
                      like cash machines is a
                      reflection of the weak
                      understanding society has about
                      the value of fathers," he says.
                      "Once we have a deeper
                      appreciation of fatherhood as an
                      institution, fathers will start
                      to be treated better."

                      Contributing Editor Tom McNichol
                      last wrote about the issue of
                      privacy in the Information Age.
                                                          ---------------
                       [D]                                THE CRUX:
                                                          Fathers' rights
                                                          advocates say
                                                          courts yield to
                                                          an old notion
                                                          that women are
                                                          the "nurturers"
                                                          and men mere
                                                          "providers."
                                                          ---------------
                                                          THE OTHER SIDE:
                                                          Opponents say
                                                          custody rulings
                                                          aren't about
                                                          bias, but about
                                                          which parent is
                                                          more involved.
                                                          ---------------

                       ----------------
                         [QuickPoll]
                       In custody
                       battles where
                       both parents are
                       fit, what is
                       better for the
                       child?
                       ----------------

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

 [USAWEEKEND][CELEBS][HEALTH][DIFFDAY][RespondUSA][TEENS][ABOUT USAWEEKEND]

             Copyright 1997 USA WEEKEND. All rights reserved.