Responsibility for half...
Jan Lambert
close friends of mine) that "s hared custody" is not in the best
interests of the child. Such "shared" children are treated as
property, things, prizes in the game of "gotcha" between two
people who cannot, for one reason or another, tolerate the
sight of each other in the first place. "Shared" children I
have had experience with are subjected to abuses such as
administration of foods the child is allergic to (causing
the child to be severely ill while in the custody of the
other parent), arbitrary changing of bedtimes, denial of
activities the other parent has given active support to the
child's participation in, and refusal to return the child
to the other parent when the time arrives to do so. The child
is forced to go to the other parent whether he/she wants to or
not, and proof xxfxx of child abuse by a medical doctor has
been ignored by the courts on the grounds that the child
cannot "tell" what is happening to him or her.
I am strongly against shared custody for the above-stated
reasons, and have more reasons if anyone cares to ask.
As for the mother (usually the CP) having to bear half the
cost of child raising, it has also been my experience (both in
the case of raising my own son, and the cases of my single-mother
friends who are raising children) that a greater percentage of
OUR income goes into raising the child than does the father's.
However, we have preferred this inequity to having to hassle
with said fathers' presence in our lives. In an oft-quoted
truism of the '70's "if you take their money, you have to take
their shit, too." We preferred to be left alone in peace to
raise our children rather than try to rectify the financial
inequity and see our children suffer abuse, and to having to
take more abuse ourselves.
--
Email to: ja...@crow.csrv.uidaho
if that doesn't work, try ja...@uidaho.edu
My computer bytes back...but only in little bits.
(JA...@UIDAHO.EDU..)
mm...@batman.bmd.trw.com
> surely it has been my experience (and the experiences of xxfoxx
> close friends of mine) that "s hared custody" is not in the best
> interests of the child. Such "shared" children are treated as
> property, things, prizes in the game of "gotcha" between two
> people who cannot, for one reason or another, tolerate the
> sight of each other in the first place.
Jan,
Thank you for your interesting opinions. However, I don't
think that the examples you cited are really all that applicable
to a determination as to whether shared parenting is good
or not. There will be terrible stories from all possible
parenting circumstances. I do think that after input from
capable services that a judge should be able to conclude
that both parents may have the children's best interests
at heart and in actions. The example you cite really
sounds as if this is not the case. It wouldn't be fair
for a court to assume that parents just wouldn't do whats
best for their kids, even though they often don't. Parents
who let the fact that they "cannot tolerate the sight of
each other" interfere with the relationship of their ex
and their kids are guilty of child abuse and should not
have custody.
"Shared" children I
> have had experience with are subjected to abuses such as
> administration of foods the child is allergic to (causing
> the child to be severely ill while in the custody of the
> other parent)
This sounds like a very criminal deed and grounds for loss
of custody and jail.
> arbitrary changing of bedtimes, denial of
> activities the other parent has given active support to the
> child's participation in, and refusal to return the child
> to the other parent when the time arrives to do so. The child
> is forced to go to the other parent whether he/she wants to or
> not,
These are issues in any kind of parental circumstance and not
unique to shared parenting. Parents need to manage these
between them with the kids interests in mind.
and proof xxfxx of child abuse by a medical doctor has
> been ignored by the courts on the grounds that the child
> cannot "tell" what is happening to him or her.
What kind of abuse? Knowingly feeding the children allergic
foods should be determinable though maybe not pleasant
for the kids.
>
> I am strongly against shared custody for the above-stated
> reasons, and have more reasons if anyone cares to ask.
>
Your above stated reasons don't seem to apply to the concept
of shared parenting but rather to some specific circumstances.
> As for the mother (usually the CP) having to bear half the
> cost of child raising, it has also been my experience (both in
> the case of raising my own son, and the cases of my single-mother
> friends who are raising children) that a greater percentage of
> OUR income goes into raising the child than does the father's.
I would guess that this is probably often true and also the
source of considerable bitterness. It would be for me.
> However, we have preferred this inequity to having to hassle
> with said fathers' presence in our lives. In an oft-quoted
> truism of the '70's "if you take their money you have to take
their shit too."
I understand that you may have some bad circumstances going on
but let me tell you that one parent should absolutely absolutely
not have the arbitrary ability to just shut the other parent
out of their mutual children's lives. This would be and is a
profound absurdity and severe abuse of the child....Even if you
hate that other persons guts...Even if they give you shit.
Divorced parents so very very often succumb to the very strong
temptation of hatred in the separation and very much to the
strong detriment to the children. Stay the road....focus
objectively on what is best for those kids. And if your
counterpart can't or wont, dont worry about it. You will be
well served by this as will the kids...isn't that what counts?
(some stuff deleted here by accident)
We preferred to be left alone in peace to
> raise our children rather than try to rectify the financial
> inequity and see our children suffer abuse, and to having to
> take more abuse ourselves.
>
You should never stand idly and let your children suffer any abuse.
But you are making a terrible mistake and you would be severly
abusing your children if the financial matters between you and
your ex are causing you to try to get him out of your childrens'
lives. I hope thats not whats going on.
> --
> Email to: ja...@crow.csrv.uidaho
> if that doesn't work, try ja...@uidaho.edu
> My computer bytes back...but only in little bits.
> (JA...@UIDAHO.EDU..)
Bret Webster
Jim Livingston
The type of conduct you claim occurs when shared parenting
is ordered, sounds more like the type of conduct that a
CP mother inflicts on an NCP father because she does not
wish "her" child to go on scheduled visitation. The type of
conduct is more than likely commited by mothers who are
upset that a court did not deem them Custodial Parent. Somehow
figuring it was a slight on their mothering skills rather than
a more equitable disposition of child custody, in the best
interest of the child. Your argument that shared parenting
is not in the best interest of the child is obviously based on
your dislike of your son's father. This becomes apparent in
your last paragraph where you state you would rather not have
the money than have to have the father in your son's life.
As to your conjecture that NCPs don't bear half the cost,
let me set you straight. I have two children, a 5 year old,
and a 2 year old. The 5 year old is from my previous
marriage. My cost to raise the 2 year old are only 1/3 to
1/2 of the amount I must pay in child support every month.
Yes, my figure includes rent, food, clothes, and extras.
If you extrapolate the figures from my 2yr old to my 5yr old,
I am paying 200% of what it cost to raise her. If my ex
is supposed to be paying half than I'm paying 4 times to much.
I have no problem with child-support, it is my duty.
Not because the state makes me, but because I love my
daughter. So don't you ever tell a father who loves his
children and pays child support in excess of 200% of
what it actually costs to raise that child, that he pays
less then half.
Never have I seen a post that infuriated me more than
yours. You are so wrong.
Jim Livingston.
Ted Drawneek
> surely it has been my experience (and the experiences of xxfoxx
> close friends of mine) that "s hared custody" is not in the best
> interests of the child.
This has not been my experience. I've shared custody of our two
children (aged 11 and 12 at time of separation) on a 50-50 split
for the past two years and IMO it has been very successful.
At first, both kids went to one house one week, the other house
the next. After various experiments, driven mainly by what the kids
said, we have ended up with one at each place for a fortnight;
then they swap. I went to great pains to get a house close to
my ex's to make this possible.
The kids do not like the hassle of packing up and swapping but once
that's over, they seem very happy. They have both said they would
prefer to remain in one house while me and my ex swapped. I would
like this too as my house is vastly inferior to my ex's.
> Such "shared" children are treated as
> property, things, prizes in the game of "gotcha" between two
> people
This attitude - not the shared custody - is what is not in the
best interests of the children.
> As for the mother (usually the CP) having to bear half the
> cost of child raising, it has also been my experience (both in
> the case of raising my own son, and the cases of my single-mother
> friends who are raising children) that a greater percentage of
> OUR income goes into raising the child than does the father's.
With a 50-50 split, costs also split 50-50 in the long run, in my experience.
Ted Drawneek
David Garrod
> close friends of mine) that "s hared custody" is not in the best
> interests of the child. Such "shared" children are treated as
> property, things, prizes in the game of "gotcha" between two
> people who cannot, for one reason or another, tolerate the
> sight of each other in the first place. "Shared" children I
So you think totally empowering one parent to exclude the other
parent from the child`s life is better!
> have had experience with are subjected to abuses such as
> administration of foods the child is allergic to (causing
> the child to be severely ill while in the custody of the
> other parent), arbitrary changing of bedtimes, denial of
> activities the other parent has given active support to the
> child's participation in, and refusal to return the child
> to the other parent when the time arrives to do so. The child
> is forced to go to the other parent whether he/she wants to or
> not, and proof xxfxx of child abuse by a medical doctor has
> been ignored by the courts on the grounds that the child
> cannot "tell" what is happening to him or her.
>
Your experience and statements are TOTALLY OPPOSITE from the
majority of research performed in the area.
>
> As for the mother (usually the CP) having to bear half the
> cost of child raising, it has also been my experience (both in
> the case of raising my own son, and the cases of my single-mother
> friends who are raising children) that a greater percentage of
> OUR income goes into raising the child than does the father's.
THIS SIMPLY DISPLAYS TOTAL IGNORANCE OF CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES
YOU ARE WRONG.
> However, we have preferred this inequity to having to hassle
> with said fathers' presence in our lives. In an oft-quoted
> truism of the '70's "if you take their money, you have to take
> their shit, too." We preferred to be left alone in peace to
> raise our children rather than try to rectify the financial
> inequity and see our children suffer abuse, and to having to
> take more abuse ourselves.
>
The last sentence is totally self-centered. Don`t you realize the
psychological damage that occurs in many children raised without
a father figure?
and we wonder why society is crumbling!
David Garrod
Karl Denninger
>surely it has been my experience (and the experiences of xxfoxx
>close friends of mine) that "s hared custody" is not in the best
>interests of the child.
Especially when the parents are pricks and try to get at one another
using the kids.
>Such "shared" children are treated as
>property, things, prizes in the game of "gotcha" between two
>people who cannot, for one reason or another, tolerate the
>sight of each other in the first place. "Shared" children I
>have had experience with are subjected to abuses such as
>administration of foods the child is allergic to (causing
>the child to be severely ill while in the custody of the
>other parent), arbitrary changing of bedtimes, denial of
>activities the other parent has given active support to the
>child's participation in, and refusal to return the child
>to the other parent when the time arrives to do so.
All of the above, should they be able to be documented, should be grounds
for child abuse charges and <permanent> loss of custody. No second chances.
You play with a child like that, making them a pawn for your own
inadaquacies in coping with the realities of your situation, and you end up
a NCP AND in prison.
However, this is <after> the abuse starts. Until it does, the default
should be split 50-50 custody.
BTW, I consider moving out of the area to be one of those items you can add
to the list, unless the parent who moves foots the bill for transport in
<both> directions.
>I am strongly against shared custody for the above-stated
>reasons, and have more reasons if anyone cares to ask.
Yes, all of which are probably due to your own inability to deal with your
Ex. So? That's not the criteria that we should use. In fact, exactly the
opposite; if you can't be a human being with your kids, then you shouldn't
have them. Period.
>As for the mother (usually the CP) having to bear half the
>cost of child raising, it has also been my experience (both in
>the case of raising my own son, and the cases of my single-mother
^^^^^^
>friends who are raising children) that a greater percentage of
>OUR income goes into raising the child than does the father's.
That's not the point. Further, it is not YOUR Son, it is <BOTH OF YOUR>
Son. As such you <must> deal with this reality. No choice.
>However, we have preferred this inequity to having to hassle
>with said fathers' presence in our lives.
And "hassling" with the fathers' presence in THEIR children's lives, as
well.
Women like you make me ill. You ought to lose custody of your children for
this kind of attitude. You have no right to deny their father access, nor
to equality in parenting. If you can prove abuse, take it to a judge.
From what you've said here, if I were on the bench you'd be in jail and the
children would be with their father.
>In an oft-quoted
>truism of the '70's "if you take their money, you have to take
>their shit, too." We preferred to be left alone in peace to
>raise our children rather than try to rectify the financial
>inequity and see our children suffer abuse, and to having to
>take more abuse ourselves.
Just more mysogynistic nonsense. They ain't <your> children, they are
properly both parents, and your interferance in their relationship with
their father ought to be a felony.
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] LIVE Internet in Chicago; an MCSNET first!
Rick LaFave
>close friends of mine) that "s hared custody" is not in the best
>interests of the child.
Did you ask dad what he thought was in the childrens best interest,
or are you willing to take on such difficult decisions without
troubling him. Gosh... You must be a STRONG/SELF ASSURED woman.
> Such "shared" children are treated as
...as if they have two parents that count? Ooops I'm jumping the gun
here, pls continue...
>property, things, prizes in the game of "gotcha" between two
>people who cannot, for one reason or another, tolerate the
>sight of each other in the first place.
You are so right... I guess the only thing to do is let him
have sole custody so the children aren't tormented by that
nasty 'shared' thing anymore.
You did say that shared isn't in the kids best interest didn't you?
And the best interests of the kids should always come first right?
Then since he wont shove off, maybe you should consider
doing so. Unless of course you consider them as <more> your kids than
his?
> "Shared" children I
>have had experience with are subjected to abuses such as
>administration of foods the child is allergic to (causing
>the child to be severely ill while in the custody of the
>other parent), arbitrary changing of bedtimes, denial of
>activities the other parent has given active support to the
>child's participation in, and refusal to return the child
>to the other parent when the time arrives to do so. The child
>is forced to go to the other parent whether he/she wants to or
>not, and proof xxfxx of child abuse by a medical doctor has
>been ignored by the courts on the grounds that the child
>cannot "tell" what is happening to him or her.
Lets see...
allergic foods, accident maybe, poor communication maybe, no, no, wait...
It must be Evil Dad! Yeah thats the ticket!
arbitrary bedtime - Gosh, someone else (maybe even other women (oh
m'gosh)) have different parenting styles than you. And you haven't even
approved it or been consulted about it?! The injustice of it all!
You better write your congresscritter.
different activities - Ya'know its just like those Evil Dads to expose
their kids to different stuff.... Next thing ya'know your daughter
may be fixing the car. Ewwww Ickkk.
>
>I am strongly against shared custody for the above-stated
>reasons, and have more reasons if anyone cares to ask.
>
>As for the mother (usually the CP) having to bear half the
>cost of child raising, it has also been my experience (both in
>the case of raising my own son, and the cases of my single-mother
>friends who are raising children) that a greater percentage of
>OUR income goes into raising the child than does the father's.
Well if you work part time, and only get $2.50 an hour, I suppose
any financial contribution you make WOULD be a high percentage, so
what? Oh I suppose we could give you more money so your percentage goes
down, but.... Oh wait... I see.... the need.... for ALIMONY.....
...........
Step right up little lady, spin the wheel... See what he owes you
for sweeping, for doing dishes, for laundry, see what he owes you
for depriving of what you coulda been if only.... if only.... (if only
you'ld married a rocket scientist instead of a shoe salesman (oops brief
side trip to the Bundy abode)). Hey and how can we even put a dollar
amount on the pain and suffering of child-birth? Oh the life, the career
you woulda had if that slob hadn't married you. And hes gonna pay alright,
he owed you big time from the moment he laid eyes on you! Yes... Yes...
Step right up and spin the wheel! A myriad of possibilities just waiting
for a need to be demonstrated!
>However, we have preferred this inequity to having to hassle
>with said fathers' presence in our lives. In an oft-quoted
>truism of the '70's "if you take their money, you have to take
>their shit, too."
BTW just the other day I heard that oft-quoted truism 'women are attracted
by the size of the bulge in your pants... no no no stupid, not in front,
the left rear...' Yuck, yuck, yucyucyuc. Oooh and lets not forget
'Ya know why brides smile when they walk down the isle?' Hardy har harhar.
Bwwwhhhhhhaaaaa.
> We preferred to be left alone in peace to
>raise our children
Ok now lets think... Did she mean 'our' as in mine and the childs father
or 'our' as in benevolent sisterhood? Gee I wonder? Do I see a budding
feminist in our midst?
> rather than try to rectify the financial
>inequity and see our children suffer abuse, and to having to
>take more abuse ourselves.
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Ok enough fun.....
Do you think that sole custody is in the best interest of the kids?
Do you think that the childrens best interests come first?
Do you think that dad has any intention of 'getting out of the picture'?
Do you think that maybe you should give him sole custody for, of course,
'the kids best interest'?
Or maybe you...
think it causes him less pain to lose touch with his kids than it
would cause you?
think they are more your kids than his?
think it doesn't hurt the kids to lose contact with a parent?
Jan Lambert
love their children, and who actually care about what is in
the child's best interest.
In the case of my son and his father, it was much different...
from the day he was born his father would say to me "Take
care of your damn kid" and similar phrases if there was even
a CHANCE of him being asked to 'gasp' change a diaper, or
even hold the little guy.
My son has had time with his fater...the most recent was
three years ago, when he asked if he could accompany his
father in a career move to a foreign country (he was
excited about this possibility) and his father said "NO
WAY" (direct quote). Before that, it had been six years
since he had had any contact with his father...through
his father's own choice. I have NEVER interfered with
his visitation stated in our divorce settlement.
So, the responses I received from fathers who expressed love
and concern for their children were very refreshing to me,
but my "sisterhood" of single mothers are single for the
very reason that although some men seem to be delightful
companions for singles activities, they are not always
good husbands or good fathers. That was my point. I
am sorry that some of you felt that you were attacked,
and responded in kind.
My experiences are what they are.
Andy Moore
post, but I'd like to add a couple more... I'll try to be brief...
Jan Lambert writes:
}surely it has been my experience (and the experiences of xxfoxx
}close friends of mine) that "s hared custody" is not in the best
}interests of the child...
What is "in the best interests of the child" depends on EACH INDIVIDUAL
CHILD; sweeping generalizations, while easy, don't work.
}I am strongly against shared custody for the above-stated
}reasons, and have more reasons if anyone cares to ask.
Those "above stated reasons" are unfortunate situations, but
by no means the rule. If you really look and ask around without
bias (you can't just go by what a few friends say), you may find
many examples where shared custody not only works, but truely IS
in the best interests of the children.
I am strongly FOR shared custody for the following reason: every
child needs contact with BOTH parents. Both boys and girls need to
learn and grow from both men and women.
}... and the cases of my single-mother
}friends who are raising children) that a greater percentage of
}OUR income goes into raising the child than does the father's.
More generalizations based on a small, biased population.
}truism of the '70's "if you take their money, you have to take
}their shit, too." We preferred to be left alone in peace to
}raise our children rather than try to rectify the financial
}inequity and see our children suffer abuse, and to having to
}take more abuse ourselves.
This sounds like choosing the disgruntled *parent's* "best interests"
over the child's. Whether you like the other parent, or are made
uncomfortable by having to interact with him or her, is SECONDARY
to the best interests of the child. Unless the other parent is
actually abusive, the kids need to see and be with BOTH parents.
The idea of children raised by a single parent, rarely seeing the
other parent, and growing up in an environment of hatred and
cynicism under a digruntled person, really saddens me... Even
an imperfect system of sharing has got to be better for the kids
than that.
By the way, I personally am a little skeptical about 50/50 custody
sharing; seems like it would make it hard on the kids not to have
one *home* and another house where they are welcome, but not the
same as their single place "where we live". But then, each
family is different, and I applaud those for whom it works well.
--
Andy Moore (an...@ice.stx.com)
_______________________________________________________________________________
"Blasphemy! I should cast you out or smite you or something..."
- Q, Star Trek: The Next Generation, "Tapestry"
Mark Charalambous
>In article <1993Feb24....@serval.net.wsu.edu> ja...@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Jan Lambert) writes:
{...a whole bunch of misogynistic crap...}
>>I am strongly against shared custody for the above-stated
>>reasons, and have more reasons if anyone cares to ask.
>Yes, all of which are probably due to your own inability to deal with your
>Ex. So? That's not the criteria that we should use. In fact, exactly the
>opposite; if you can't be a human being with your kids, then you shouldn't
>have them. Period.
>>As for the mother (usually the CP) having to bear half the
>>cost of child raising, it has also been my experience (both in
>>the case of raising my own son, and the cases of my single-mother
> ^^^^^^
>>friends who are raising children) that a greater percentage of
>>OUR income goes into raising the child than does the father's.
>That's not the point. Further, it is not YOUR Son, it is <BOTH OF YOUR>
>Son. As such you <must> deal with this reality. No choice.
>>However, we have preferred this inequity to having to hassle
>>with said fathers' presence in our lives.
>And "hassling" with the fathers' presence in THEIR children's lives, as
>well.
>Women like you make me ill. You ought to lose custody of your children for
>this kind of attitude. You have no right to deny their father access, nor
>to equality in parenting. If you can prove abuse, take it to a judge.
>From what you've said here, if I were on the bench you'd be in jail and the
>children would be with their father.
Indeed. You just don't get it Jan, do you? Who appointed you to be judge
and jury of your son, his father, and their relationship? The boy is not
your property! Even if you have a court order that says so, we concerned
parents recognize that both parents should have an equal share in the
responsibility and privileges invloved in raising our children.
Unless the child'd father is obviously seriously abusive (not just by your
standards) he has as much right to access to his child as you do.
How dare you lay claim to your child on the basis that his father's presence
is a "hassle". You ought to be horse-whipped.
>>In an oft-quoted
>>truism of the '70's "if you take their money, you have to take
>>their shit, too." We preferred to be left alone in peace to
>>raise our children rather than try to rectify the financial
>>inequity and see our children suffer abuse, and to having to
>>take more abuse ourselves.
>Just more mysogynistic nonsense. They ain't <your> children, they are
>properly both parents, and your interferance in their relationship with
>their father ought to be a felony.
Jan, I hope one day you get to know the pain of having access to your
children denied to you. Please, get off this newsgroup. Your post is
foul and odious and not worthy of discussion by the people on this newsgroup
who have sufferred immeasurably by actions taken by women like you.
>--
>Karl Denninger (ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
>Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] LIVE Internet in Chicago; an MCSNET first!
Mark Charalambous
Allen Warren
that, and not in a shitty way. I just see how ugly divorce can
be when children are involved, and one or both spouses are bitter,
vindictive, screwed, or hurt (emotionally and/or physically).
I have seen some divorces that do work, where children really are
put forth as the most important item and that any differences between
the spouses must be put aside for the sake of allowing the children
to have as little pain as possible, but I realize that this is the
exception rather than the norm. I'm not blaming anyone. I have a
sister who is divorced, a brother who just recently got divorced, and
another sister who "might" get divorced in the next couple of years.
Of the two divorces directly related in my family, both were messy.
It's sad because I see the impact on my nieces and nephews. Having
married a woman who has a thrice divorced father (her mother became
mentally ill with manic depression following the divorce, his second),
a divorced brother, uncle and grandfather, I am extremely lucky that
she loves me dearly and wants our marriage to be everything her
parent's wasn't, but is smart enough to realize that life isn't a cup
of tea and problems will come and go. I can't even begin to imagine
being separated from my wife and three boys, but know that with the
type of person that I am, would try to put the boys above everything
else if for some reason my wife wanted to ever divorce me.
To those who are divorced, are going thru one, are planning to go thru
one, and have been or will be screwed by your spouse, I am sorry. I
don't give pity, but I do feel sadness. Reality and life with divorce
can be extremely rough. I just pray I never have to experience it.
allen
Toussaint
|> I am glad to hear that there are fathers out there who actually
|> love their children, and who actually care about what is in
|> the child's best interest.
|>
|>
|> So, the responses I received from fathers who expressed love
|> and concern for their children were very refreshing to me,
|> but my "sisterhood" of single mothers are single for the
|> very reason that although some men seem to be delightful
|> companions for singles activities, they are not always
|> good husbands or good fathers. That was my point. I
|> am sorry that some of you felt that you were attacked,
|> and responded in kind.
|>
|> My experiences are what they are.
|>
I sincerely to not wish to pile on here but this statement really got to me.
Of course we are all shaped by our experiences. But to use them as an excuse
for dismissing anything that does not conform to those experiences is simply
dishonest.
My ex-wife and I have had shared custody for nearly three years now. It has
not been all smooth sailing but I can sincerely say that to have done it any
other way would have been a disservice to my children. I am NOT saying that,
therefore, a 50-50 arrangement is right for everyone in every situation. I
am saying that there are powerful arguments for it if the parents involved
stay focused on the well-being of the children at least most of the time.
The behavior that you cite to condemn shared custody have nothing to do
with the characteristics of a shared custody arrangement. People who
do the contemptable things to which you refer will exploit ANY parenting
arrangement.
--
#include <stdDisclamer.h>---------------------------------------------
Keith Maurice Toussaint | Voice: 206.685.3235
Univ. Of Washington; Mail Stop:JE-41 | Fax: 206.543.0831
Seattle, WA 98105 | E-mail: kT...@cac.washington.edu
Jon S. Wood
>In article <1993Feb25.2...@serval.net.wsu.edu>, ja...@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Jan Lambert) writes:
>|> I am glad to hear that there are fathers out there who actually
>|> love their children, and who actually care about what is in
>|> the child's best interest.
>|>
> (references to poor fatherhood deleted)
>|>
>|> So, the responses I received from fathers who expressed love
>|> and concern for their children were very refreshing to me,
>|> but my "sisterhood" of single mothers are single for the
>|> very reason that although some men seem to be delightful
>|> companions for singles activities, they are not always
>|> good husbands or good fathers. That was my point. I
>|> am sorry that some of you felt that you were attacked,
>|> and responded in kind.
>|>
>|> My experiences are what they are.
>|>
>
>I sincerely to not wish to pile on here but this statement really got to me.
>
>The behavior that you cite to condemn shared custody have nothing to do
>with the characteristics of a shared custody arrangement. People who
>do the contemptable things to which you refer will exploit ANY parenting
>arrangement.
>
>--
Keith, excellent statement. SOME people will exploit ANY parenting
arrangement. Unfortunately, the laws today assume the only exploitation
possible is done by fathers (sorry female NCPs, your lower on the food
chain than male NCPs, if that is possible, I would guess a female NCP
is by default equal in character to a child molestor). The law
presumes that ALL divorces have a rotten dad, therefore to reduce
the courts involvement, they reduce compromises to a minimum by:
1. Granting full physical custody to only ONE parent (Mn practice)
The court presumes that Dad was never a parent and can
then reduce him to a visitor AND forcing him to share
near total responsibility.
2. Draconian child support rules and excessive child support
guidelines in essance say: Dad will maintain the children(s)
standard of living, mom's contribution is ASSUMED.
Easy ain't it.
The states' interest in maintaining the standard of living (best
interest of children, "oh thank you Hillary, you man-hating
bitch") is easy, NAIL the OL' MAN.
With the current administration, Donna Shalala included, the system is
only going to get worse.
Clinton, a man who has sold his testicles to the women's
movement asking for forgiveness, because of his inability to arrest his loinful
spurts filling spring Flowers, is now dedicated to destroying most or
all of my personal liberty.
May Clinton have a long, long miserable life.
*and his little dog, too!
Jan Lambert
: David Garrod
I was writing from MY OWN experiences. And, I do agree with you that
our society is crumbling...from just exactly the example you gave, lack
of a father figure. However, I do believe that NO father figure at all
is better than the poor excuses for father figures I have known (i.e.
my own, my two husbands, ex-husbands of my friends). Children do NOT
need to be subjected to abuse.
Also, in the case of my own son (who is now 21 and on his own), he
saw his father as much as he wanted to, but when I would not talk
about his father with him (I did not wish to catalogue events that
I considered abusive of my son to him at a young age), he was
confused. But an interesting event when the boy was 16 caused him
to tell me, "Now I understand Mom. He really does not love me."
He came to his own conclusions, and I came to mine. But subjecting
him to further abuse was NOT necessary, in any case.
It has also been suggested that children need a STABLE environment,
and switching homes, lifestyles and bedrooms every few days is NOT
stable. They may become resigned to it and eventually accept it
without protest, but in that case I refer readers to John Bradshaw's
books on abuse (use is abuse) and Alice Miller's books on hidden
cruelty in child-rearing.
I appreciated the comment from the woman whose children suggested
that the PARENTS switch homes every week. That is a suggestion
worth consideration.
Older children learn to love the adventure of change, and in that
case it may be good for them to expand their horizons, but I am
DEFINITELY AGAINST across the board shared custody. Having courts
ignore documented sexual abuse and awarding shared custody and/or
extended visitation rights to the abusing parent (in one case I am
familiar with, the abusing parent is a CONVICTED child molester)
is NOT in the best interest of the child.
I stand by my statements.
But will mitigate it with this: any broken family that can amicably
work out work out ways of salvaging the relationships with the children
needs to. It is the element of FORCE against the child that I object to.
Children in our society are powerless. I HATE that.
--
e-mail to JA...@UIDAHO.EDU
University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho
My computer bytes back.
But only in little bits.
Jan Lambert
: Several others have already made some good points on Jan Lambert's
if not, feel free to e-mail me at the below address. THnks. Andy, I hope I have responded to your concerns in my previous FOLLOWUP. If
--
e-mail to JA...@UIDAHO.EDU
University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho
My computer bytes back.
But only in little bits.
p.s. with the help of my cat, this may have become a bit garbled. I
tried to fix it, but cannot compete with a cat posessed by the spirit
of a kamikazee pilot. sorry.
Jan Lambert
: In article <1993Feb25.2...@serval.net.wsu.edu>,
: ja...@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Jan Lambert) says:
: >
: >I am glad to hear that there are fathers out there who actually
: >love their children, and who actually care about what is in
: >the child's best interest.
: >In the case of my son and his father, it was much different...
: >from the day he was born his father would say to me "Take
: >care of your damn kid" and similar phrases if there was even
: Just curious, was having a child a decision that was mutually agreed
: upon between you and your ex?
: >My son has had time with his fater...the most recent was
: >three years ago, when he asked if he could accompany his
: >father in a career move to a foreign country (he was
: >excited about this possibility) and his father said "NO
: >WAY" (direct quote). Before that, it had been six years
: From what you said above, it appears as no surprise. Why was the
: child's hope elevated?
: > stuff deleted...
: >
: >So, the responses I received from fathers who expressed love
: >and concern for their children were very refreshing to me,
: >but my "sisterhood" of single mothers are single for the
: >very reason that although some men seem to be delightful
: >companions for singles activities, they are not always
: >good husbands or good fathers. That was my point. I
: And with my sisterhood of wives and significant-others of
: NCP's we know about the women who seem to be delightful
: companions for singles activities who turn out to be
: lousy wives and mothers.
: >am sorry that some of you felt that you were attacked,
: >and responded in kind.
: >
: >My experiences are what they are.
: I hope this new experience has had an impact on you such that
: you realize not all men are like your ex. And I hope you tell
: your sisterhood of single mothers about what you have learned,
: so they too will not have the perception you previously expressed
: about fathers.
: Shirley Woods
: Arizona State University
Shirley,
When we married, we married with the agreed-upon statement that
we would accept children should any be conceived. We did not
"plan" one, just hoped for one.
When he arrived, the rejection was as much a surprise to me
as was his other about-faces (changes from kind-careing-loving to
physically-mentally-emotionally-verbally abusive).
My leaving him and taking the child (then 3) with me seemed to
be just as much of a shock to him that I would actually STOP TAKING
ABUSE, and REMOVE MY SON FROM ABUSE.
Yes, it is nice to hear about fathers who actually love their
children and actually want to spend time with them. Leaving out
the "gotcha" games all too familiar to those of us on the other
end of the spectrum.
As I have said in previous replies...it is the element of FORCE
with the power being in the hands of adults and the child being
the sacrificial creature or prisoner-or-war that I object to. And
judges are not blameless in this.
Jan Lambert
: ka...@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
: Mark Charalambous
I am responding to two of your statements.
First, being the child's parent gives me the RESPOMSIBILITY to protect
that child from further abuse at the hands of the other parent. For
corroboration of this, notice many cases of non-abusing parents serving
jail time for standing by and ALLOWING the abusing parent to continue
to abuse the child.
Second, I HAVE had to stand by a nd know the pain of haveing access
to my children denied to me. The abused child was eventually arrested
for "acting out" his experiences at the hands of his abusive father.
The second child I bore (painful experiences deleted here) I gave up
for adoption to a family who could treat him better than either my
second husband or I would be able to do. Included in my decision was
the wish to spare this child the pain of being subjected to a man
who abused both me and my son from the earlier marriage.
I did say I was willing to discuss my experiences in greated detail.
I still am. But I was unwilling to bombard people I did not know
with sordid details of my former life.
Be careful with your attacks. And I will post on this net as often
as I wish to.
XX na XX
Jan Lambert
: This whole thread, so far, has been extremely sad. I really mean
: allen
Allen, it is nice, too, to hear someone who can express sadness and
understanding at the same time.
Don Beaver
> As I have said in previous replies...it is the element of FORCE
>with the power being in the hands of adults and the child being
>the sacrificial creature or prisoner-or-war that I object to. And
>judges are not blameless in this.
Nor are parents who take the law into their own hands.
Nor are laws that place custodial power primarily in the hands of mothers.
Don
Ted Drawneek
In article <1993Mar2.1...@serval.net.wsu.edu>, ja...@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Jan Lambert) writes:
> [...]
> It has also been suggested that children need a STABLE environment,
> and switching homes, lifestyles and bedrooms every few days is NOT
> stable.
I think you are making too much of this. Having two bedrooms
and two sets of day-to-day routines is not instability.
With shared 50-50 arrangements, the situation is not that the kids
don't know who they will spend the day with tomorrow; nor do they
have to adjust to new lifestyles all the time. Quite the contrary.
The kids know what to expect from each parent.
> They may become resigned to it and eventually accept it
> without protest, but in that case I refer readers to John Bradshaw's
> books on abuse (use is abuse) and Alice Miller's books on hidden
> cruelty in child-rearing.
Our kids do not like swapping but it is a minor thing. When I ask them
about how they feel about living in each place, other things figure
as more important; such as being able to stay in bed an extra half
hour in the morning, which is also a minor thing.
> I appreciated the comment from the woman
I am not a woman.
> whose children suggested
> that the PARENTS switch homes every week. That is a suggestion
> worth consideration.
But not practical in my case at least. The kids basically were
asking the question: "Why should we have to do these extra things,
when the situation was made by you, not us?"
> Older children learn to love the adventure of change, and in that
> case it may be good for them to expand their horizons, but I am
> DEFINITELY AGAINST across the board shared custody.
Again: it is not change, at least in the sense of constant change.
I think shared custody should be the default; the default being
changed according to individual circumstances, of course.
> [...]
> needs to. It is the element of FORCE against the child that I object to.
> Children in our society are powerless. I HATE that.
It is true that children are powerless; that is why they need
parents to look after them until they become independent.
While in the care of their parents, they are subject to the rules
laid down by the parents. Would you have it any other way?
Ted Drawneek
Ryan Thiessen
: surely it has been my experience (and the experiences of xxfoxx