Thank you soccer stepmom
Larz Sterne
this post has become and debating me on the issues. I enjoyed reading
your post because even though you disagreed with me on almost every
issue, you did so in a unhostile and reasonable manner. I can only
imagine that this trait has served you well in dealing with your
stepchild's NCP. I stand in awe of your conciliatory powers, perhaps
YOU can give me advice on dealing with my Ex,
I also lived in Atlanta , not anymore though. And we obviously moved
in different cicles because I used darling all the time. The main
difference i guess is that in person with me it is obvious in tone and
manner that it is not meant as insulting. That is not true here, and
in the future if I continue to post here ( I'm thinking of leaving
here and changing my posting name since I'm afraid that I will no
longer be able to make any point here because everyone now hates the
sender) i promise to refrain from using the term. I deeply apologize
to all i offended with it's use.
as to scaring the woman off I apologize. I have already admitted that
indeed i may have jumped to a few conclusions, due to natural
scepticism. And I will admit that It was way over the top to take my
frustrations at all the other parents I've dealt with who left their
kids out on this one woman(and if your still lurking out there single
mom withOUT custody I deeply apologize directly to you too, if you
come back and answer Soccer Stepmoms questions I promise to leave you
alone)
But soccer stepmom if I remember correctly( it's hard because it's
been so long since this post was actually about her) she left
voluntarily and so therefore was an NCP by choice. She still may be
able to help tho'
I would offer to give you advice on how my Ex-wife deals with being
an NCP, however my personal and profesional opinion is that she is so
far beyond the norm that comparing with her would be kind of like
" You might be a redneck if......."
By the way the truth bank called, your reality check bounced.
Larz Sterne
Julie
One thing I'd point out, is that skepticism does not come naturally, it
is a learned behavior that you can choose to change.
A lot of us here have done it already, and I'm betting you can, too. Not
that you have to, of course, but I know I felt better about life,
parenthood, myself, blah, blah, blah, as soon as *I* did.
Again, nice post - SSM is indeed a class act.
Julie
SoccerStepMom
>
>
> But soccer stepmom if I remember correctly( it's hard because it's
> been so long since this post was actually about her) she left
> voluntarily and so therefore was an NCP by choice. She still may be
> able to help tho'
Perhaps we read it differently. Here's the DejaNews link if you are
interested:
http://x9.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=386184098&CONTEXT=905703668.1894383648&hitnum=8
I read her saying that she ended the marriage voluntarily, but had no
desire to leave her kids. It's just that her husband refused to
cooperate: unlike many men faced with a wife who wants out of the
marriage, he didn't say, fine, "take the house and the kids and half of
my net pay in CS. See ya every other weekend."
Instead, he said she could leave, but she wasn't taking the house or
income that he had been responsible for earning, and if she couldn't
support the kids on her own, then they would stay with the parent who
would be repsonsible for their support.
This is a radical position for a Dad to take. But in my view, perhaps
it would lead to fewer marital breakups if the parent who did the
leaving had to leave behind the kids and pay CS to the parent they were
leaving.
I must admit it was interesting to see the shoe on the other foot, and
try to think about what to say to the Mom in that position. Men have
been going through this same thing for generations.
SSM
janelaw
>
>
>
> ....But in my view, perhaps
> it would lead to fewer marital breakups if the parent who did the
> leaving had to leave behind the kids and pay CS to the parent they were
>
>
> SSM
>
>
Have you ever seen the movie "The War of the Roses?"
SoccerStepMom
OK, hoist by Hollywood hyperbole! And that was just fighting over
things, not kids. SSM
janelaw
My point exactly.
SoccerStepMom
OK, but take it to real life:
A couple whose kid plays on my SS's soccer team. 3 kids under the age
of 11. She works part-time outside the home, he is the primary
wageearner as a handyman, which gives him flexible hours. To all
observance, they share childcare duties.
She ends the marriage by having an affair with the coach of our kids'
team. He wants to keep the house and the kids. I was better friends
with her until this happened, but I think the Dad should get the kids.
After all, why should he have to lose everything because his wife
strayed? Also, he wants her back, and wouldn't she be more likely to
return if she missed the kids?
If it matters, there are no allegations of abuse, cheating, etc., by the
husband. (Both husband and wife have talked to a lot of people in our
circle about this, so we are fairly up on the details).
Thoughts? SSM
Larz Sterne
>She ends the marriage by having an affair with the coach of our kids'
>team. He wants to keep the house and the kids. I was better friends
>with her until this happened, but I think the Dad should get the kids.
>After all, why should he have to lose everything because his wife
>strayed? Also, he wants her back, and wouldn't she be more likely to
>return if she missed the kids?
>
>If it matters, there are no allegations of abuse, cheating, etc., by the
>husband. (Both husband and wife have talked to a lot of people in our
>circle about this, so we are fairly up on the details).
>
>Thoughts? SSM
First i would also like to thank Julie now for stepping back from the
sarcastic edge. I admit that you are correct that cynicism is learned
but in my position I think it's probably my defense mechanism for
coping. I'll try to remember to curb it some here.
I hope your right and that the coach does get the kids.Soccer Stepmom
He sounds like he has his head on straight. Tell him there's another
single dad out their praying for him.
Julie
>
> >She ends the marriage by having an affair with the coach of our kids'
> >team. He wants to keep the house and the kids. I was better friends
> >with her until this happened, but I think the Dad should get the kids.
> >After all, why should he have to lose everything because his wife
> >strayed? Also, he wants her back, and wouldn't she be more likely to
> >return if she missed the kids?
> >
> >If it matters, there are no allegations of abuse, cheating, etc., by the
> >husband. (Both husband and wife have talked to a lot of people in our
> >circle about this, so we are fairly up on the details).
> >
> >Thoughts? SSM
>
> First i would also like to thank Julie now for stepping back from the
> sarcastic edge. I admit that you are correct that cynicism is learned
> but in my position I think it's probably my defense mechanism for
> coping. I'll try to remember to curb it some here.
Don't do it on our account; if you choose to, do it for yourself and
your kids!
>
> I hope your right and that the coach does get the kids.Soccer Stepmom
> He sounds like he has his head on straight. Tell him there's another
> single dad out their praying for him.
>
> By the way the truth bank called, your reality check bounced.
> Larz Sterne
Julie
Mary Jo Sterns
house and kids. ANd perhaps, once she has strayed , she will return.. it
does happen.
MJ
SSM, said:
> OK, but take it to real life:
>
> A couple whose kid plays on my SS's soccer team. 3 kids under the age
> of 11. She works part-time outside the home, he is the primary
> wageearner as a handyman, which gives him flexible hours. To all
> observance, they share childcare duties.
>
Larz Sterne
>Instead, he said she could leave, but she wasn't taking the house or
>income that he had been responsible for earning, and if she couldn't
>support the kids on her own, then they would stay with the parent who
>would be repsonsible for their support.
>This is a radical position for a Dad to take. But in my view, perhaps
>it would lead to fewer marital breakups if the parent who did the
>leaving had to leave behind the kids and pay CS to the parent they were
>leaving.
>
Actually we do disagree there slightly at least in form. I don't think
it's so radical a position for a dad. After all if she's the one
that's unhappy there why should he have to leave?
Just as Robin told me that if I was unhappy here I could pack up my
marbles and go home. That didn't mean that I could take the newsgroup
with me ,did it?
One other problem I have is that you said that he wouldn't "cooperate"
by leaving and giving up half his income, and saying "see you on the
weekend" to his kids. As a dedicated single dad I am offended
(probably just as much as some of you ladies were at the darlin term,
I apologize again) that a man is still supposed to strictly adhere to
that definition while this group asks me to loosen up on a mother who
decides not to fight for custody. You tell me that this woman decided
that her children were better off with him. Maybe his "Radical
position" was taken because he agreed.
Also I see that you feel that since she felt that she had no choice
but to leave the kids behind in that situation that makes her an
involuntary NCP. Well as you've seen in earlier posts I believe too
strongly in personal responsibility.(Truthfully this newsgroup isn't
the only place I've been called self-riteous[sic] on that subject) to
buy that argument, however I can see your point of view.
And in any case the difference in voluntary and involuntary NCP's is
pretty marginal. You could very well be correct that she could have
been a valuable source of information for you, and you were right that
there are so few female examples of this that it was unforgivable of
me to drive her off, I will once again apologize for my thoughtless,
uncalled for tirade.
Thank you once again for debating me on issues rather than personality
I realize that I am probably being over appologetic however,despite
recent accusations , I really didn't get into this group to pick
fights. Since you and now Julie are the only ones willing to speak
civilly to me I certainly don't wish to alienate you two.
I am afraid that Petered will never change his opinion of me now no
matter what I say and since Didi and Steve are close to Petered and
heavily involved in the argument from the start I will probably never
get a fair shake from them either. Hopefully Opus can be convinced
that I was, by the time he got involved, being hostile more because I
was being ceaslessly attacked, than from natural inclination.
Hopefully I will eventually convince the majority of the group that my
posts were overzealous but not meant to start the war that they did.
While I may represent a stiffer view of parental responsibility that
the average poster to this group, and I realize that that fact will
draw considerable criticism , I do hope that I will convince this
group that my posts are not trolls. Hate my opinions if you wish, but
realize that they are my opinions, not fabrications posted to start
fights.
So to all of my detractors:
feel free to call my opinions arrogant.
feel free to call my opinions wrong-headed
feel free to call me self-righteous .
feel free to call ME arrogant.
I'm not really bitter or lonely, but call me that too if you like.
But please understand that those wrong-headed and arrogant opinions
really are mine.
SoccerStepMom
>
> SoccerStepMom <soccer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Instead, he said she could leave, but she wasn't taking the house or
> >income that he had been responsible for earning, and if she couldn't
> >support the kids on her own, then they would stay with the parent who
> >would be repsonsible for their support.
>
> >This is a radical position for a Dad to take. But in my view, perhaps
> >it would lead to fewer marital breakups if the parent who did the
> >leaving had to leave behind the kids and pay CS to the parent they were
> >leaving.
> >
> Actually we do disagree there slightly at least in form. I don't think
> it's so radical a position for a dad. After all if she's the one
> that's unhappy there why should he have to leave?
> Just as Robin told me that if I was unhappy here I could pack up my
> marbles and go home. That didn't mean that I could take the newsgroup
> with me ,did it?
I mean radical in the sense that most men, when faced with the impending
breakup of a marriage not my choice, seem too shell-shocked and
tradition-bound to stop and think about what is fair for them. For one
to actually effectively fight for his rights before he has been put in a
disadvantageous position is unusual and refreshing. It took my husband
3 years to recover from what he lost the day his ex told himm to leave.
>
> One other problem I have is that you said that he wouldn't "cooperate"
> by leaving and giving up half his income, and saying "see you on the
> weekend" to his kids. As a dedicated single dad I am offended
If you are going to post here, and if you are in fact who you say, you
have to learn to read tone and context. I was speaking in her voice,
not in mine. You can tell from my words that I don't think he should
have "cooperated".
Opus-
spake thusly:
<snippity-do-da>
> I am afraid that Petered will never change his opinion of me now no
>matter what I say and since Didi and Steve are close to Petered and
>heavily involved in the argument from the start I will probably never
>get a fair shake from them either. Hopefully Opus can be convinced
>that I was, by the time he got involved, being hostile more because I
>was being ceaslessly attacked, than from natural inclination.
I can accept that, if you can accept MY point of view as well.
[accept, not necessarily agree, altho I hope so].
You see, Janess [the original poster who started the thread] and I
live in the same city and have been good friends since 8088's were the
THE computer to own, if you had a spare $6000 lying around. In other
words, about 18 years. So therefore I know her and the situation far
better than anybody here could ever hope to. I apologize for my zeal
in defending a friend but I am not sorry I defended her, as I would
for any friend.
>Hopefully I will eventually convince the majority of the group that my
>posts were overzealous but not meant to start the war that they did.
>While I may represent a stiffer view of parental responsibility that
>the average poster to this group, and I realize that that fact will
>draw considerable criticism , I do hope that I will convince this
>group that my posts are not trolls. Hate my opinions if you wish, but
>realize that they are my opinions, not fabrications posted to start
>fights.
You must remember that there are other legitimate views of parental
responsibility. Has it not been said that walking away from a fight
is the hardest and bravest thing a person can do? I have walked away
from fights and I assure you, it's hard.
Whenever a couple splits, SOMEbody will NOT get custody. This does not
make them a bad parent. Is it really necessary to go thru a costly and
bitter fight to determine who that may be? And would the "winner"
really be the better or more dedicated parent?
My ex feels I am the better parent, so she moved out. What other
course of action would have been better?
>So to all of my detractors:
>feel free to call my opinions arrogant.
>feel free to call my opinions wrong-headed
>feel free to call me self-righteous .
>feel free to call ME arrogant.
>I'm not really bitter or lonely, but call me that too if you like.
>But please understand that those wrong-headed and arrogant opinions
>really are mine.
Ok. But I will give you credit sticking it out and explaining
yourself. Will you at least consider our opinions?
--
jbu...@remove.videonwave.com
(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh 04/20/94)
Your father was a hamster and your mother smelled
of elderberries!! Now go away or I shall taunt you
a second time!!
janelaw
>
>
> OK, but take it to real life:
>
> A couple whose kid plays on my SS's soccer team. 3 kids under the age
> of 11. She works part-time outside the home, he is the primary
> wageearner as a handyman, which gives him flexible hours. To all
> observance, they share childcare duties.
>
> She ends the marriage by having an affair with the coach of our kids'
> team. He wants to keep the house and the kids. I was better friends
> with her until this happened, but I think the Dad should get the kids.
> After all, why should he have to lose everything because his wife
> strayed? Also, he wants her back, and wouldn't she be more likely to
> return if she missed the kids?
>
> If it matters, there are no allegations of abuse, cheating, etc., by the
> husband. (Both husband and wife have talked to a lot of people in our
> circle about this, so we are fairly up on the details).
>
> Thoughts? SSM
I think you're falling into the trap of thinking about what's
fair to the parents rather than what's best for the children.
I don't know your couple, and I have no opinion on who the kids
should live with. I just instinctively recoiled when you said
that dad "should get the kids." That sentence makes the
children sound like prizes. Even if you feel that mom should
not have strayed, you have to admit that her failure does not
automatically make dad the better residential parent. That's
what you have to consider. We parents don't always get what's
fair.
I don't know. There could be great reasons for letting the kids
reside with mom. Sleeping with the soccer coach does not make
you a bad mother, it makes you a bad wife. (And tacky) If she
works part-time, she may be more responsible for day-to-day
parenting than he. If she is the primary source of nurturing,
discipline, support, etc. in the children's life, then maybe the
divorce would be less traumatic for them if they remain in the
home with her. I have no doubt that it would be less traumatic
for dad if he stayed in his house with his kids. But when he
had those kids, he agreed to put their needs before his own.
One thing I do know: you can never really know what goes on in
other people's marriages. As you said of your BM, if the
marriage had been working for her, she wouldn't have left. No
one is ever all right or all wrong in a marriage. You've been
married long enough to know that none of us can cast the first
stone.
I would cut mom some slack. Abuse and cheating aren't the only
reasons people decide they can't take it anymore. Maybe he
tells her he won't have sex with her because she's too fat.
Maybe, like Vicki R., she just felt she was dying inside.
Whatever her reasons were, you have to admit that she has stuck
it out for quite a while. She didn't just flip her hair and
shimmy off at the first sign of trouble. If she decided that
her marriage doesn't have a chance, then I have to assume she
knows. It's really hard to break up your family and leave a
person you have been with for a dozen years.
I'm rambling. My point is that custody has to be based on what
is best for the children, not on who was at fault in the
divorce.
Jane
janelaw
>
> Whenever a couple splits, SOMEbody will NOT get custody.
Actually, I believe joint legal and physical custody is the
norm, at least in the states where I have lived.
Larz Sterne
>> > One other problem I have is that you said that he wouldn't "cooperate"
>> by leaving and giving up half his income, and saying "see you on the
>> weekend" to his kids. As a dedicated single dad I am offended
>Soccer Step Mom Rightfully corrected:
>If you are going to post here, and if you are in fact who you say, you
>have to learn to read tone and context. I was speaking in her voice,
>not in mine. You can tell from my words that I don't think he should
>have "cooperated".
>
actually the tone and context problem is the same one i have had. It
is really hard to read without body laguage. I fact you will notice in
my post i pointed out what I percieved to be an inconsistency in your
post. you said the dads position was radical but said it was
esentially right in further explanation. In fact the problem was that
i had no way of knowing that you meant the "cooperate" part as
sarcastic(although the term you used was"her voice")
With that further explanation I understand you.
Once again I will say that I may be at a handicap here.
Most of my instincts have been trained now to look at how
someone says something.In my line of work it is often more important
than what's said. So maybe without realizing it i began jumping at
shadows when I was deprived of body language .
Larz Sterne
>You see, Janess [the original poster who started the thread] and I
>live in the same city and have been good friends since 8088's were the
>THE computer to own, if you had a spare $6000 lying around. In other
>words, about 18 years. So therefore I know her and the situation far
>better than anybody here could ever hope to. I apologize for my zeal
>in defending a friend but I am not sorry I defended her, as I would
>for any friend.
>
>You must remember that there are other legitimate views of parental
>responsibility. Has it not been said that walking away from a fight
>is the hardest and bravest thing a person can do? I have walked away
>from fights and I assure you, it's hard.
>Whenever a couple splits, SOMEbody will NOT get custody. This does not
>make them a bad parent. Is it really necessary to go thru a costly and
>bitter fight to determine who that may be? And would the "winner"
>really be the better or more dedicated parent?
>My ex feels I am the better parent, so she moved out. What other
>course of action would have been better?
>
Opus you have humbled me as no one else in this post could. Your
independant confirmation of this womans post (as I said, what someone
claims about themselves is always suspect ) is confirmation enough for
me. And in fact no apology is needed for defending a friend( I wish
you would have told me that originally) In fact i deeply apologize to
both you and Janess( Iknow alot of emoticons but I don't know the ass
kissing one can someone please send me it because i owe it to Janess
and Opus) Would you please contact Janess and tell her to return to
this group because Soccer Stepmom has some real questions for her, and
i owe it to that incredibly wonderful lady (SSM or Janess pick em) to
help out. I was wrong and in your own words Opus that means I should
walk away from the fight. I hope you will forgive me for making you
fight in the first place.
Wendy A. S. Taylor
Opus- <jbu...@remove.videonwave.com> wrote:
>My ex feels I am the better parent, so she moved out. What other
>course of action would have been better?
There are lots of possibilities which might have worked, the point
surely is that the two of you sat down as responsible and reasonable
human beings and found a strategy which was in the interests of your
child and agreeable to you both.
Wendy
Wendy A. S. Taylor
>I think you're falling into the trap of thinking about what's
>fair to the parents rather than what's best for the children.
I agree with you, Jane. The parents may not be able to work out the
problems with their marriage, but as parents they need to work together
to find the strategy which best benefits the children. I personally
believe that it is best for children to have access to both parents
and finding ways of resolving the finances so that both parents can
provide for the children when they are with them is what's required.
However, continuity at a time when their lives have been very disrupted
is important too, if not the family home, then maybe the same district
so they don't face the change of friends, school, etc at the same time.
Wendy
pet...@peterd.com
> Sleeping with the soccer coach does not make
> you a bad mother, it makes you a bad wife. (And tacky)
And these types of values, and actions, will probably lend itself to the
woman's teachings. Personally, for me? I don't want *my* kids thinking it's
okay to go screw the coach... just because. Just because I'm lonely. Just
because I'm fat and need to feel attractive. Just because I need to feel
loved. Just because I have no moral rectitude. Just because I'm bored.
> If she
> works part-time, she may be more responsible for day-to-day
> parenting than he.
You present a poor case, in my own opinion. Clinton diddling every bimbo that
shops and drops does make him less of a president. Does make it so that he
should not be the premier official of our country. I don't care if he *is*
the president and already has day to day access to the reins of our country,
we can remove him. Unless of course one does not think morals, values, and
one's word means anything in today's society, or have anything to do with
running a country or being a parent. Then one can just ignore it...
> If she is the primary source of nurturing,
> discipline, support, etc. in the children's life, then maybe the
> divorce would be less traumatic for them if they remain in the
> home with her.
Or maybe her access does need to be limited. Perhaps these are reasons *to*
give the father primary custody. If the situation is anywere close to as it
was presented, I see no compelling reason that it's "in the best interest of
the kids" to leave them with an adulteress.
And if the shoe is on the other foot? The adulterer does not automatically get
the right either, when the most compelling reason is "just because"...
peterd
--The original peterd. Accept no substitutes.--
http://www.peterd.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Mary Jo Sterns
picture would be looked at, and if in this situation the father was capable
of being the CP then he should have it.
MJ
Wendy A. S. Taylor <ccx...@coventry.ac.uk> wrote in article
<6tioou$f...@leofric.coventry.ac.uk>...
Char
janelaw wrote:
> SoccerStepMom wrote:
> >
> >
> > OK, but take it to real life:
> >
> > A couple whose kid plays on my SS's soccer team. 3 kids under the age
> > of 11. She works part-time outside the home, he is the primary
> > wageearner as a handyman, which gives him flexible hours. To all
> > observance, they share childcare duties.
> >
> > She ends the marriage by having an affair with the coach of our kids'
> > team. He wants to keep the house and the kids. I was better friends
> > with her until this happened, but I think the Dad should get the kids.
> > After all, why should he have to lose everything because his wife
> > strayed? Also, he wants her back, and wouldn't she be more likely to
> > return if she missed the kids?
> >
> > If it matters, there are no allegations of abuse, cheating, etc., by the
> > husband. (Both husband and wife have talked to a lot of people in our
> > circle about this, so we are fairly up on the details).
> >
> > Thoughts? SSM
>
> I think you're falling into the trap of thinking about what's
> fair to the parents rather than what's best for the children.
>
> I don't know your couple, and I have no opinion on who the kids
> should live with. I just instinctively recoiled when you said
> that dad "should get the kids." That sentence makes the
> children sound like prizes. Even if you feel that mom should
> not have strayed, you have to admit that her failure does not
> automatically make dad the better residential parent. That's
> what you have to consider. We parents don't always get what's
> fair.
>
From what SSM has said, they both shared in child care duties and there were
no signs of abuse...which makes both parents equal as good parents. First
off, there should be joint custody. However, if this is not possible, being
that both parents are equal, then I agree with SSM. "She" messed up. Either
dad or mom having the kids will not lessen the best interest of the kids, but
dad having the kids will lessen the impact of the one not at fault.
> I don't know. There could be great reasons for letting the kids
> reside with mom. Sleeping with the soccer coach does not make
> you a bad mother, it makes you a bad wife. (And tacky) If she
> works part-time, she may be more responsible for day-to-day
> parenting than he.
If she works part-time, then she will undoubtedly expect her ex to finance the
remainder of her expenses that the part-time job does not cover. Why punish
him further for her mistakes. What "should" happen, is that she will now need
to acquire "full"-time work, putting her day-to-day parenting availability on
par with his.
> If she is the primary source of nurturing,
> discipline, support, etc. in the children's life, then maybe the
> divorce would be less traumatic for them if they remain in the
> home with her. I have no doubt that it would be less traumatic
> for dad if he stayed in his house with his kids. But when he
> had those kids, he agreed to put their needs before his own.
>
See above. From what SSM has posted, the best interest of the kids will not
diminish with "either" parent. And the guy still wants her to stay....is
"she" putting the best interest of the kids first?
> One thing I do know: you can never really know what goes on in
> other people's marriages. As you said of your BM, if the
> marriage had been working for her, she wouldn't have left. No
> one is ever all right or all wrong in a marriage. You've been
> married long enough to know that none of us can cast the first
> stone.
>
I wouldn't agree so much with this when it comes to an abusive relationship.
No matter what an abused person can do, it does not warrant the abuse, and the
abuser is "totally" wrong. Though most marriages end due to faults of both,
many marriages are simply the fault of one individual who either changed their
mind, got bored, became violent, etc. Even should that person getting bored
claim that their spouse was inattentive, they should have spoken up. If they
did not, they have no one to blame but themselves.
> I would cut mom some slack. Abuse and cheating aren't the only
> reasons people decide they can't take it anymore. Maybe he
> tells her he won't have sex with her because she's too fat.
> Maybe, like Vicki R., she just felt she was dying inside.
> Whatever her reasons were, you have to admit that she has stuck
> it out for quite a while. She didn't just flip her hair and
> shimmy off at the first sign of trouble. If she decided that
> her marriage doesn't have a chance, then I have to assume she
> knows. It's really hard to break up your family and leave a
> person you have been with for a dozen years.
>
It is much less traumatic to speak with your spouse beforehand and tell them
how you feel before acting out. Your spouse is never a mind reader (unless
s/he works for Phsycic Friends) and does not know what you are
feeling/thinking. It is up to you to let them know and work on a solution.
If all solutions fail, then you at least know you have given it your best.
But if you don't even try, you have given it nothing.
> I'm rambling. My point is that custody has to be based on what
> is best for the children, not on who was at fault in the
> divorce.
>
> Jane
And when either custody situation is "equal" for the children, we can then
base it on fault.
SoccerStepMom
>
> Opus- wrote:
> >
> > Whenever a couple splits, SOMEbody will NOT get custody.
>
> norm, at least in the states where I have lived.
Joint legal, yes, but joint physical is extremely rare from what I've
learned in the past year on alt.child-support. And I have still been
searching for *anyone* who can show evidence that not having two "real"
homes is best for the kids (if the alternative is to have a very
involved NCP, but live primarily with one parent).
We have joint legal/primary physical, and the decree gives my husband
tie-breaker power on legal issues where they disagree. Without this,
you'd be relitigating the divorce every week, or at least we would.
And as you undoubtedly know, a joint legal/NCP parent gets a pretty raw
deal: they have to transfer income to the other household, they don't
get to tuck the kids in most nights, they can be fairly effectively
blocked by an uncooperative CP, particularly if the CP decides she needs
to move to get on with her life (ducking here). Basically, if you were
prepared to be a CP and find yourself a NCP, it's often a total
lose-lose situation.
All of this is done in the name of making sure that the parent with
primary responsibility for the kids gets more assets and freedoms to
take care of their needs. But even so, it feels like loss.
That's why I still feel that if both parents are prepared to be the
primary caretakers and CPs, the only fair way to determine it may be
fault. The current approach (just give to kids to the Mom unless she is
a real basket case) is just so unfair to so many men. And the kids
would often be better off financially, too.
I don't know. This is a tough and heart-rending issue. As a child of
divorce, the sister of a CP Mom in a divorce that works, and the wife of
a CP Dad in a divorce that doesn't, I have no easy answers. I enjoy the
debate on this one, if others are interested in contiuing it! SSM
(PS, I'm changing the name of the thread because we don't need to have
my handle in it!)
Julie
Your posts have sounded alternately arrogant and defensive. When you walk
into a group of people who *for the most part* ;-) communicate well, it's
not going to fly well to take that kind of a position without any type of
introduction or opportunity for the others to get to know you.
If you really do feel like you stated at the end of your post, there's no
need to be defensive. If you don't, address it directly rather than in a
post to someone about someone else.
This is a great group of diverse, intelligent people...I'd hate to see you
miss out on that because you've got your back up!
Just a suggestion...
Julie
Larz Sterne wrote:
> SoccerStepMom <soccer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Instead, he said she could leave, but she wasn't taking the house or
> >income that he had been responsible for earning, and if she couldn't
> >support the kids on her own, then they would stay with the parent who
> >would be repsonsible for their support.
>
> >This is a radical position for a Dad to take. But in my view, perhaps
> >it would lead to fewer marital breakups if the parent who did the
> >leaving had to leave behind the kids and pay CS to the parent they were
> >leaving.
> >
> Actually we do disagree there slightly at least in form. I don't think
> it's so radical a position for a dad. After all if she's the one
> that's unhappy there why should he have to leave?
> Just as Robin told me that if I was unhappy here I could pack up my
> marbles and go home. That didn't mean that I could take the newsgroup
> with me ,did it?
>
> One other problem I have is that you said that he wouldn't "cooperate"
> by leaving and giving up half his income, and saying "see you on the
> weekend" to his kids. As a dedicated single dad I am offended
> (probably just as much as some of you ladies were at the darlin term,
> I apologize again) that a man is still supposed to strictly adhere to
> that definition while this group asks me to loosen up on a mother who
> decides not to fight for custody. You tell me that this woman decided
> that her children were better off with him. Maybe his "Radical
> position" was taken because he agreed.
>
> Also I see that you feel that since she felt that she had no choice
> but to leave the kids behind in that situation that makes her an
> involuntary NCP. Well as you've seen in earlier posts I believe too
> strongly in personal responsibility.(Truthfully this newsgroup isn't
> the only place I've been called self-riteous[sic] on that subject) to
> buy that argument, however I can see your point of view.
> And in any case the difference in voluntary and involuntary NCP's is
> pretty marginal. You could very well be correct that she could have
> been a valuable source of information for you, and you were right that
> there are so few female examples of this that it was unforgivable of
> me to drive her off, I will once again apologize for my thoughtless,
> uncalled for tirade.
>
> Thank you once again for debating me on issues rather than personality
>
> I realize that I am probably being over appologetic however,despite
> recent accusations , I really didn't get into this group to pick
> fights. Since you and now Julie are the only ones willing to speak
> civilly to me I certainly don't wish to alienate you two.
>
> I am afraid that Petered will never change his opinion of me now no
> matter what I say and since Didi and Steve are close to Petered and
> heavily involved in the argument from the start I will probably never
> get a fair shake from them either. Hopefully Opus can be convinced
> that I was, by the time he got involved, being hostile more because I
> was being ceaslessly attacked, than from natural inclination.
>
> Hopefully I will eventually convince the majority of the group that my
> posts were overzealous but not meant to start the war that they did.
> While I may represent a stiffer view of parental responsibility that
> the average poster to this group, and I realize that that fact will
> draw considerable criticism , I do hope that I will convince this
> group that my posts are not trolls. Hate my opinions if you wish, but
> realize that they are my opinions, not fabrications posted to start
> fights.
>
> So to all of my detractors:
> feel free to call my opinions arrogant.
> feel free to call my opinions wrong-headed
> feel free to call me self-righteous .
> feel free to call ME arrogant.
> I'm not really bitter or lonely, but call me that too if you like.
> But please understand that those wrong-headed and arrogant opinions
> really are mine.
>
Julie
As far as who would be the best parent for the child at that time, I have to wonder
what the person who is initiating the divorce is going through.
Some would consider that a parent doing their best by their children would opt to
work on their marriage, rather than heading into an affair. If that's true, that
person may not be the best for the child(ren) simply on the basis that they
couldn't find happiness in their own home and is now on the hunt for it elsewhere.
It's JMO, but the spouse that handles marital problems this way is showing some
pretty weak character and a lot of selfishness. Not characteristics I'd like to see
in a primary caregiver.
It's obviously a gray area, because there are going to be a lot of people
initiating divorces because there is just no salvaging the marriage. I have to
wonder, though, when I see some of those parents out reliving their adolescence and
behaving almost as if they don't have children, even when they're the CP.
Sure wish I had all the right answers some days!
Julie
Wendy A. S. Taylor wrote:
> In article <35FCA98C...@excite.com>, janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
> >I think you're falling into the trap of thinking about what's
> >fair to the parents rather than what's best for the children.
>
janelaw
SSM's sympathy for her friend was clouding her judgment a
little. That custody should be determined according to what is
best for the children is one of those truths I consider to be
self-evident.
I don't know where you are coming from, Char. All SSM said was
that the couple appeared to share parenting responsibilities.
Somehow, you conclude from this that both mom and dad "are good
and equal parents." Who died and appointed you Judge Judy? You
have no idea what the specifics of this situation are.
I completely disagree with your assertion that "many marriages
are simply the fault of one individual...." Human relations
don't work that way. We all would like to think that our prior
relationships ended through no fault of our own. The truth is
that in hindsight every single one of us can think of things
(s)he would do differently if we had it to do over again. If
you don't, then you are not learning from your mistakes. It is
impossible not to make mistakes in marriage - or in any other
relationship.
Jane
janelaw
>
> janelaw wrote:
> >
> > Opus- wrote:
> > >
> > > Whenever a couple splits, SOMEbody will NOT get custody.
> >
> > Actually, I believe joint legal and physical custody is the
> > norm, at least in the states where I have lived.
>
> Joint legal, yes, but joint physical is extremely rare from what I've
> learned in the past year on alt.child-support.
I have an ENTIRELY different experience. Granted, I have very
limited knowledge. I have examined custody law in a few states,
though. Joint legal and physical is not only a judicial
preference, it is the legislated default position. I will look
this up later in the week and see how other states deal with it.
> And I have still been
> searching for *anyone* who can show evidence that not having two "real"
> homes is best for the kids (if the alternative is to have a very
> involved NCP, but live primarily with one parent).
I agree to the extent that pushing the "two real home" idea
deprives the child of the security of having any real home.
Some people seem to have a lot less trouble with this than I
would, though.
>
> We have joint legal/primary physical, and the decree gives my husband
> tie-breaker power on legal issues where they disagree. Without this,
> you'd be relitigating the divorce every week, or at least we would.
>
> And as you undoubtedly know, a joint legal/NCP parent gets a pretty raw
> deal: they have to transfer income to the other household, they don't
> get to tuck the kids in most nights, they can be fairly effectively
> blocked by an uncooperative CP, particularly if the CP decides she needs
> to move to get on with her life (ducking here).
Hey, I moved here for my daughter's health (partially)!
> Basically, if you were
> prepared to be a CP and find yourself a NCP, it's often a total
> lose-lose situation.
>
> All of this is done in the name of making sure that the parent with
> primary responsibility for the kids gets more assets and freedoms to
> take care of their needs. But even so, it feels like loss.
I'm sorry if I sound like a judgmental bitch, but I get so sick
of the whining in alt.c-s that I just want to scream, "GROW
UP!" Of course it hurts, feels like a loss, seems unfair, etc.
And venting can certainly help you deal with it. But if you
weren't mature enough to be the grown up, and put your own
feelings aside for the sake of the children, then you never
should have had any. (There I feel better.)
>
> That's why I still feel that if both parents are prepared to be the
> primary caretakers and CPs, the only fair way to determine it may be
> fault.
Well, I've certainly responded enough to this in other posts.
The question is not who is willing to be a primary caregiver,
but who is best able. Parents don't get what's fair. Marital
fault is left out of the equation because courts have found a)
that it is not particularly pertinent to parenting skills and b)
that it is impossible to determine from outside the marriage.
Besides, divorcing couples are basket cases. The last thing you
want to do is encourage them to point fingers at each other.
They have to put all that aside and work together to figure out
the best way to move on. BTW, divorce files are public
records. If you want to see how ugly things can get, pop down
to the court house and read through a few.
> The current approach (just give to kids to the Mom unless she is
> a real basket case) is just so unfair to so many men.
Last time I looked at this, I found that contrary to public
perception, in contested custody trials, fathers were far more
likely to win than mothers. (Maybe I'll look for stats next
week on this one.)
> And the kids would often be better off financially, too.
But so many other things are so much more important.
Opus-
Taylor) spake thusly:
That is exactly what we did. We were no longer a "couple" so therefore
one of us was going to move out. We were certainly NOT going to fall
into the trap of "staying together for the child".
My daughter does not miss her mother at all. For those who do not
know, my daughter is autistic and as is common with autistic children,
she has no bond what so ever with her mother. But she HAS formed a
bond with me.
Robbin Spoonamore Hubbard
> > Just as Robin told me that if I was unhappy here I could pack up my
> > marbles and go home. That didn't mean that I could take the newsgroup
> > with me ,did it?
Since the name is spelled with one "b", I'm not entirely sure you're
referring to me. However, since I'm the only Robbin around here lately,
let me state for the record that I DID NOT SAY THIS!! I've never
addressed Larz, either directly or indirectly. In fact, I've never even
acknowledged his existence. THAT'S how integrated *I* am.
:-)
----
Robbin Spoonamore Hubbard
http://php.indiana.edu/~rmhubbar
Peter F. DeMos
> Since the name is spelled with one "b", I'm not entirely sure you're
> referring to me. However, since I'm the only Robbin around here lately,
> let me state for the record that I DID NOT SAY THIS!! I've never
> addressed Larz, either directly or indirectly. In fact, I've never even
> acknowledged his existence. THAT'S how integrated *I* am.
> :-)
ROTFLMAOPIMP!!! Okay, okay... so I butchered the use of that particular
word, in that context. I was trying to say something, obliquely, but it
came out wrong. Does that mean I disINTegrated?
Hehehehe.
Larz Sterne
>Larz,
>Your posts have sounded alternately arrogant and defensive. When you walk
>into a group of people who *for the most part* ;-) communicate well, it's
>not going to fly well to take that kind of a position without any type of
>introduction or opportunity for the others to get to know you.
>
>If you really do feel like you stated at the end of your post, there's no
>need to be defensive. If you don't, address it directly rather than in a
>post to someone about someone else.
>
Well Julie, while I have admitted that I am being attacked due to my
own overzealousness earlier, the fact is i am still being viciously
attacked. It is an incredibly rare (and usually prematurely dead) man
who can be attacked and not get defensive.And as to my arrogance I
prefer to think of it as supreme self confidence:-)
In fact I have offered the olive branch even to Petered and hope he
will take it. In any case I am about to start a research project that
will keep me too occupied to participate much here anyway.
Larz Sterne
>
>I have an ENTIRELY different experience. Granted, I have very
>limited knowledge. I have examined custody law in a few states,
>though. Joint legal and physical is not only a judicial
>preference, it is the legislated default position. I will look
>this up later in the week and see how other states deal with it.
>
Actually Jane though it(joint physical custody) is technically the
legislated default position it is very rarely used for one very
important reason. In practice it violates both parents constitutional
right to live where they choose. Which another law guarantees cannot
be infringed upon in a divorce ruling. Indeed SSM was correct that it
is joint legal custody that is actually practiced. In practice
widespread joint physical custody would lead to re-litigation every
time any divorced parent recieved a better job offer in another town.
>>SSM wrote:
>> We have joint legal/primary physical, and the decree gives my husband
>> tie-breaker power on legal issues where they disagree. Without this,
>> you'd be relitigating the divorce every week, or at least we would.
My custody ruling and situation are like that as well
>>Jane wrote:
>They have to put all that aside and work together to figure out
>the best way to move on. BTW, divorce files are public
>records. If you want to see how ugly things can get, pop down
>to the court house and read through a few.
The main problem with figuring out how to move on is that most often
you are asking 2 people who now hate one another to decide who is
better suited to a difficult task.
A perfect example would be asking Petered and I to decide amongst
ourselves who is more qualified to raise both our children if one of
us had to die now. I am assuming he is a good dad, and i know I am,
but our personal opinions of one another would keep us from being able
to judge which would be better. Each of us would assume superiority.
>>SSM wrote:
>> The current approach (just give to kids to the Mom unless she is
>> a real basket case) is just so unfair to so many men.
Of course I agree there, your singin to the choir. However I will
admit that if my Ex wasn't a "basket case" I might have accepted the
traditional role of see you on the weekend dad.
After all my mother was my primary care giver( In an intact marriage,
in fact my parents just celebrated their 34th anniversary) so in most
circumstances even I will agree that MOST mothers are more suited than
MOST fathers( I hope the fact that i am a single dad myself will keep
people from posting that there are exceptions to that rule, I know
that since I am an exception)
My main problem was that my wife was only a borderline basket case,
and that is why it was a tough fight. All she had to do was put on a
halfway decent show of lucidity and she would have won. The fact is my
wife lost the case more than I won it.
And as far as how ugly a divorce can be, trust me i've seen it.
Both in mine and others
>>Jane wrote:
>Last time I looked at this, I found that contrary to public
>perception, in contested custody trials, fathers were far more
>likely to win than mothers. (Maybe I'll look for stats next
>week on this one.)
I think your standards for a "contested" custody trial must be set to
high. most custody trials ( and if there is a trial it is contested)
end with the mother getting custody. In many of the hotly contested
custody cases the dad does indeed win custody, because for the most
part, unless the woman is unfit( or in my ex-wifes case borderline
unfit) the trial doesn't go that far. My own lawyer initially thought
I was crazy to believe that I would win custody, and dismissed my
wish to have psycological tests done as useless. After our initial
trial he admitted that we might want to do them. After the second
court appearance he purposefuly decreed that our next step would be
those tests.
l
In most cases the husband is convinced by his attorney that a
settlement is best for all concerned, or the fight is narrowed to
contain the visitation and child support conditions (and rightfully so
since in most cases that is the best a dad can hope for)
>> (PS, I'm changing the name of the thread because we don't need to have
>> my handle in it!)
Sorry Soccer Step Mom I didn't mean to drag you up front but I just
had to say thank you for your previous kindness.
pet...@peterd.com
> The main problem with figuring out how to move on is that most often
> you are asking 2 people who now hate one another to decide who is
> better suited to a difficult task.
> A perfect example would be asking Petered and I to decide amongst
> ourselves who is more qualified to raise both our children
Errrrrr.... sir? I'll say this one time. If you really "wish to extend the
olive branch" then I suggest you stop doing this as well. Stop obliquely
referring to me in all sorts of different threads. Whether it's to get my
attention, or to attempt some weird side-fighting, it will accomplish
neither. Okayp?
Thanks.
peterd PS. You ever heard of ast? I'm an old, old hand at this stuff Larz.
I've played the game for a long time :-) --The original peterd. Accept no
substitutes.-- http://www.peterd.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Robbin Spoonamore Hubbard
> peterd PS. You ever heard of ast? I'm an old, old hand at this stuff Larz.
Just out of curiosity, what is ast?
SoccerStepMom
>
> Rob wrote:
>
> > Since the name is spelled with one "b", I'm not entirely sure you're
> > referring to me. However, since I'm the only Robbin around here lately,
> > let me state for the record that I DID NOT SAY THIS!! I've never
> > addressed Larz, either directly or indirectly. In fact, I've never even
> > acknowledged his existence. THAT'S how integrated *I* am.
> > :-)
>
> ROTFLMAOPIMP!!! Okay, okay... so I butchered the use of that particular
> word, in that context. I was trying to say something, obliquely, but it
> came out wrong. Does that mean I disINTegrated?
>
> Hehehehe.
>
> peterd
> http://www.peterd.com
Wait, wait, wait. Just because I asked it in a silly way, I still wanna
know what you mean by integrated! I'm not familiar with the term in the
context of mental health. SSM
Char
Larz Sterne wrote:
> janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I have an ENTIRELY different experience. Granted, I have very
> >limited knowledge. I have examined custody law in a few states,
> >though. Joint legal and physical is not only a judicial
> >preference, it is the legislated default position. I will look
> >this up later in the week and see how other states deal with it.
> >
> Actually Jane though it(joint physical custody) is technically the
> legislated default position it is very rarely used for one very
> important reason. In practice it violates both parents constitutional
> right to live where they choose. Which another law guarantees cannot
> be infringed upon in a divorce ruling. Indeed SSM was correct that it
> is joint legal custody that is actually practiced. In practice
> widespread joint physical custody would lead to re-litigation every
> time any divorced parent recieved a better job offer in another town.
>
Joint physical custody should not be a problem of violating any parent's
constitutional rights. It should be written that the parents have JC and
that to continue JC they must remain within a certain mileage distance of
each other, and that the parent moving farther than that distance
relinquishes the right to JC and becomes an NCP and must be responsible for
all expenses incurred for visitations. Either parent can move, they just
can't take the child with them and infringe upon the other parent's rights.
If written this way, it would not need to go back to court.
janelaw
>
> janelaw wrote:
> >
> > Opus- wrote:
> > >
> > > Whenever a couple splits, SOMEbody will NOT get custody.
> >
> > Actually, I believe joint legal and physical custody is the
> > norm, at least in the states where I have lived.
>
> Joint legal, yes, but joint physical is extremely rare from what I've
> learned in the past year on alt.child-support.
Okay, I just poked around a little, so don't quote me on this.
It seems that half the states order joint legal and physical
custody regularly. The other half order it only when the
parents agree. I guess the alt.c-s experience comes from the
latter half the states.
This info is from:
http://www.divorcesource.com/search/custody/nolo.html.
Peter F. DeMos
> Wait, wait, wait. Just because I asked it in a silly way, I still wanna
> know what you mean by integrated! I'm not familiar with the term in the
> context of mental health.
An integrated person has all facets of their personality intact. Their
behaviors are consistent, and appropriate for their particular age group.
Wendy A. S. Taylor
Peter F. DeMos <pet...@peterd.com> wrote:
>An integrated person has all facets of their personality intact. Their
>behaviors are consistent, and appropriate for their particular age group.
Consistent with their personality traits?
I'm a little puzzled by the reference to age group. I was accelerated
twice in primary school so was always with older people and had two
siblings who were 7 and 8 years older than I, so I never went through
a real adolescent phase. Then in my 20s I married someone 8 years older
than I. My marriage lasted 14 years, so here I am in my early 40s and
suddenly I'm wanting to be out meeting people and having fun (within
the restrictions of my parenting responsibilities, of course), and I
find I'm mixing with a wide age range, but that there aren't a lot of
people my own age who appeal to me, they're all staid as a very staid
thing. Does that mean I'm not integrated? In general, I think my
behaviour's pretty consistent, even if I do get bored easily and want
to be challenged and constantly learning. It's not like I didn't want
to have fun before, just spent most of my life bending over backwards
being loyal and trying to please other people.
Yours in puzzlement
Wendy
pet...@peterd.com
> It should be written that the parents have JC and
> that to continue JC they must remain within a certain mileage distance of
> each other, and that the parent moving farther than that distance
> relinquishes the right to JC and becomes an NCP and must be responsible for
> all expenses incurred for visitations. Either parent can move, they just
> can't take the child with them and infringe upon the other parent's rights.
> If written this way,
Exactly. If the courts ever start to go with the assumption that both parents
have the right to raise their children, and that the children have a right to
both parents, this would be easy to implement. And broken homes would be far
less broken, over time.
Children need their parents. *Both* their parents.
peterd
--The original peterd. Accept no substitutes.--
http://www.peterd.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Mary Jo Sterns
that are acceptable?
I am for sure an "integral" part of my daughters life and I can say proudly
that I do have "integrity".
But I am not so sure about being "integrated"!
MJ
Peter F. DeMos <pet...@peterd.com> wrote in article
<35FE763C...@peterd.com>...
> SSM queried about the word "integrated" thusly:
>
> > Wait, wait, wait. Just because I asked it in a silly way, I still
wanna
> > know what you mean by integrated! I'm not familiar with the term in
the
> > context of mental health.
>
> An integrated person has all facets of their personality intact. Their
> behaviors are consistent, and appropriate for their particular age group.
>
pet...@peterd.com
>> An integrated person has all facets of their personality intact. Their
>> behaviors are consistent, and appropriate for their particular age group.
> Oh my gosh... so it sounds like I am "un -integrated". Are there degrees
> that are acceptable? I am for sure an "integral" part of my daughters life
> and I can say proudly that I do have "integrity". But I am not so sure about
> being "integrated"!
Only you know I guess. Or maybe you don't. Geeeee... I don't know. There
really are many people who think they are, and their disease process truly
prevents them from being able to know otherwise. Maybe if you feel the need
to disect *this* simple fact, you aren't!!!
Here's a hint. If, in the last year, you found it necessary to defend
yourself from the therapist or your charge nurse, or refused to take your
meds cuz you know you're better, you're probably not. That's my only clue for
today for you. And Wendy.
Heh.
peterd
--The original peterd. Accept no substitutes.--
http://www.peterd.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Larz Sterne
>Errrrrr.... sir? I'll say this one time. If you really "wish to extend the
>olive branch" then I suggest you stop doing this as well. Stop obliquely
>referring to me in all sorts of different threads. Whether it's to get my
>attention, or to attempt some weird side-fighting, it will accomplish
>neither. Okayp?
>
>Thanks.
>
>peterd PS. You ever heard of ast? I'm an old, old hand at this stuff Larz.
>I've played the game for a long time :-) --The original peterd. Accept no
No I mean't no offense at all. (as I thought my statement that I
assumed you were a good father would show) I was merely using our past
disagreement to illustrate how difficult it can be for people to set
personal opinions aside .If it's this hard for two people who don't
know each other to do it then how much harder is it for a couple who
know each other closely?
and as to being an old,old hand at this stuff, Well I may have never
messed with the Usenet much until now, but Ive been hacking away for a
long time now myself. My first computer was a Commodore VIC-20 if that
tells you how long. As the old joke goes, I've been on the Internet
since it was CB- Radio.(hey the joke wasn't that good but it didn't
take that long, same complaint I get in bed ;-))LOL)
Larz Sterne
>
>
>Larz Sterne wrote:
>
>> janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I have an ENTIRELY different experience. Granted, I have very
>> >limited knowledge. I have examined custody law in a few states,
>> >though. Joint legal and physical is not only a judicial
>> >preference, it is the legislated default position. I will look
>> >this up later in the week and see how other states deal with it.
>> >
>> Actually Jane though it(joint physical custody) is technically the
>> legislated default position it is very rarely used for one very
>> important reason. In practice it violates both parents constitutional
>> right to live where they choose. Which another law guarantees cannot
>> be infringed upon in a divorce ruling. Indeed SSM was correct that it
>> is joint legal custody that is actually practiced. In practice
>> widespread joint physical custody would lead to re-litigation every
>> time any divorced parent recieved a better job offer in another town.
>>
>
>Joint physical custody should not be a problem of violating any parent's
>constitutional rights. It should be written that the parents have JC and
>that to continue JC they must remain within a certain mileage distance of
>each other, and that the parent moving farther than that distance
>relinquishes the right to JC and becomes an NCP and must be responsible for
>all expenses incurred for visitations. Either parent can move, they just
>can't take the child with them and infringe upon the other parent's rights.
>If written this way, it would not need to go back to court.
>
>
Actually it is written in just such a fashion in cases where it is
used. My point was that Judges normally use it only in cases where
both parents have heavy ties to the area and are really unlikely to
leave. The reason for that is that there are laws on the books that
make it very clear that a parent cannot lose custody because of a
desire, or need to move. As in any Conflict-of- laws there will
eventually be a challenge. To my knowledge it has not been challenged
as of yet, But because it could be, most judges are reluctant to use
it unless both parents agree.
SoccerStepMom
>
> Okay, I just poked around a little, so don't quote me on this.
> It seems that half the states order joint legal and physical
> custody regularly. The other half order it only when the
> parents agree. I guess the alt.c-s experience comes from the
> latter half the states.
>
> This info is from:
> http://www.divorcesource.com/search/custody/nolo.html.
Thanks for the link. Actually, what it says is not inconsistent with my
understanding. It says that only two states have preumptive joint legal
custody, where it will be ordered unless one parent can provide a
compelling case for it not being awarded.
In the other "half" of cases, it is permitted. It does not say in this
article that Joint residential custody is the norm. In fact it refers
to all of the traditional reasons that the Mom should be granted primary
phyisical.
If you don't mind, I'm going to ask the fathers' rights advocates on acs
what their data shows.
BTW, do you have joint physical custody? How is it structured, and how
does it work out? Perhaps I'm just skeptical becaouse I don't know
anyone actually doing it. SSM
SSM
Cici in Texas
>In article <35FE763C...@peterd.com>,
>Peter F. DeMos <pet...@peterd.com> wrote:
>>An integrated person has all facets of their personality intact. Their
>>behaviors are consistent, and appropriate for their particular age group.
>
>Consistent with their personality traits?
>
>I'm a little puzzled by the reference to age group. I was accelerated
>twice in primary school so was always with older people and had two
>siblings who were 7 and 8 years older than I, so I never went through
>a real adolescent phase. Then in my 20s I married someone 8 years older
>than I. My marriage lasted 14 years, so here I am in my early 40s and
>suddenly I'm wanting to be out meeting people and having fun (within
>the restrictions of my parenting responsibilities, of course), and I
>find I'm mixing with a wide age range, but that there aren't a lot of
>people my own age who appeal to me, they're all staid as a very staid
>thing. Does that mean I'm not integrated? In general, I think my
>behaviour's pretty consistent, even if I do get bored easily and want
>to be challenged and constantly learning. It's not like I didn't want
>to have fun before, just spent most of my life bending over backwards
>being loyal and trying to please other people.
>
>Yours in puzzlement
>Wendy
Wendy, the terms 'age group' and 'peer group' often get used
interchangeably, even though they don't mean the same thing,
particularly to gifted kids (and grown-up gifted kids).
Substitute the words "intellectual peer group" for "age
group" in Peter's explanation and see if it doesn't make
more sense.
BTDT,
Cici in Texas
(Remove xspam from address to reply)
Wendy A. S. Taylor
Cici in Texas <ccl...@xspam.gte.net> wrote:
>Wendy, the terms 'age group' and 'peer group' often get used
>interchangeably, even though they don't mean the same thing,
>particularly to gifted kids (and grown-up gifted kids).
>Substitute the words "intellectual peer group" for "age
>group" in Peter's explanation and see if it doesn't make
>more sense.
Much better thanks.
Wendy
Wendy A. S. Taylor
>> And I have still been
>> searching for *anyone* who can show evidence that not having two "real"
>> homes is best for the kids (if the alternative is to have a very
>> involved NCP, but live primarily with one parent).
>
>I agree to the extent that pushing the "two real home" idea
>deprives the child of the security of having any real home.
>Some people seem to have a lot less trouble with this than I
>would, though.
My ex and I have not been to court. I drew up a contract, in consultation
with my ex, and sought legal advice to ensure that it would stand in the
event of any formal divorce proceedings. The contract specifies my
home as the children's primary residence, but is clear that the care and
nurturing of the children is a joint responsibility, so to all intents
and purposes we have joint physical custody. We both pay towards child
care and all expenses are normally paid out of that account, which I
manage but for which I am accountable. Living expenses like mortgage,
utilities and the like are not deemed child related expenses because
we would have to incur those in all likelihood anyway, well to some extent.
The girls spend Mondays and Thursdays nights at their father's home and
Tuesday and Wednesday nights at my home. We alternate weekends which
consist of the Friday and Saturday nights, with whoever has the children
for those nights having the Sunday off. The girls schools are closer
to my home (the original family home), so after school my ex has a key
and he brings my younger daughter back their to wait for my older
daughter to get home from school, or on the days when my younger daughter
goes to the child minder my older girl comes to my house to wait (rarely
alone for more than an hour though and she's almost 13).
I wouldn't say it was necessarily easy. Our older daughter isn't the most
organised and has had to learn to become more so certainly. There is a
certain amount of 'to and fro'ing. I also have a key to my ex's so that
I am able to collect things the girls have left behind, etc.
The girls have adapted quickly. Their friends call and I say they're at
their Dad's, and give them the number if they don't already have it.
They have two homes, but I believe they find their sense of security is
derived from their continued and very much proactive contact with both
my ex and I.
In some ways it was tempting to return to Canada, where I'm from originally
and all my family reside, but I feel that the girls need to be near their
Dad and that it's worth staying here for their sakes. I've been looking
at other jobs recently, but would still try and get something within
commutable distance. That restricts my opportunities certainly, but
they are young for such a short time.
In my view, parenting is a commitment for life and no matter what pain
there was in our marriage we have to continue to work together for our
children. By which I merely mean, don't make the mistake of thinking
that it's always been easy to put the emotions on ice IYSWIM. My ex
and I were good friends once, but I think the best way to describe us
now is friendly. However, it is fair to say that we both see each
other as essentially good people and no pain has been inflicted
intentionally, so I do realise that others may have a harder time
overcoming their emotions.
So, in a nutshell, it is possible to share physical custody without
creating additional insecurities, or so I believe.
Any questions? ;)
Wendy
Char
Larz Sterne wrote:
> Char <almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Larz Sterne wrote:
> >
> >> janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I have an ENTIRELY different experience. Granted, I have very
> >> >limited knowledge. I have examined custody law in a few states,
> >> >though. Joint legal and physical is not only a judicial
> >> >preference, it is the legislated default position. I will look
> >> >this up later in the week and see how other states deal with it.
> >> >
> >> Actually Jane though it(joint physical custody) is technically the
> >> legislated default position it is very rarely used for one very
> >> important reason. In practice it violates both parents constitutional
> >> right to live where they choose. Which another law guarantees cannot
> >> be infringed upon in a divorce ruling. Indeed SSM was correct that it
> >> is joint legal custody that is actually practiced. In practice
> >> widespread joint physical custody would lead to re-litigation every
> >> time any divorced parent recieved a better job offer in another town.
> >>
> >
> >Joint physical custody should not be a problem of violating any parent's
> >constitutional rights. It should be written that the parents have JC and
> >that to continue JC they must remain within a certain mileage distance of
> >each other, and that the parent moving farther than that distance
> >relinquishes the right to JC and becomes an NCP and must be responsible for
> >all expenses incurred for visitations. Either parent can move, they just
> >can't take the child with them and infringe upon the other parent's rights.
> >If written this way, it would not need to go back to court.
> >
> >
> Actually it is written in just such a fashion in cases where it is
> used. My point was that Judges normally use it only in cases where
> both parents have heavy ties to the area and are really unlikely to
> leave. The reason for that is that there are laws on the books that
> make it very clear that a parent cannot lose custody because of a
> desire, or need to move. As in any Conflict-of- laws there will
> eventually be a challenge. To my knowledge it has not been challenged
> as of yet, But because it could be, most judges are reluctant to use
> it unless both parents agree.
>
> By the way the truth bank called, your reality check bounced.
> Larz Sterne
Except when one parent is not fit to parent, JC should be the default. That
would sure put a crimper in this law re: a parent cannot loose custody. Since
both would have custody, one parent cannot make the other loose custody either
by moving. All divorce decrees should also be a set format with fill-in the
blank info and set standards that judges must adhere to. "And", while we're at
it, since it is a simple civil case between two civil litigants and usually for
amounts more than $20.00...either party should have the right to request a jury
of their peers.
Nicol
Char wrote in message
<snip>
>Except when one parent is not fit to parent, JC should be the default.
That
>would sure put a crimper in this law re: a parent cannot loose custody.
Since
>both would have custody, one parent cannot make the other loose custody
either
>by moving. All divorce decrees should also be a set format with fill-in
the
>blank info and set standards that judges must adhere to. "And", while
we're at
>it, since it is a simple civil case between two civil litigants and usually
for
>amounts more than $20.00...either party should have the right to request a
jury
>of their peers.
You are referring to the 7th Amendment, correct? $20 when the constitution
was written. Justices have determined that that amount in today's dollars
is about $50000, I believe. Have you actually heard of a civil case with
amounts of $20 to, say, $10,000 actually ever getting a jury? Can you
imagine how many people would be needed for jury duty every time someone
sues someone for just 20 measly dollars or so? I suppose you could try to
get a jury...since the amendment does say that...but I don't think you'd get
very far.
Nicol
janelaw
>
> janelaw wrote:
>
> >
> > Okay, I just poked around a little, so don't quote me on this.
> > It seems that half the states order joint legal and physical
> > custody regularly. The other half order it only when the
> > parents agree. I guess the alt.c-s experience comes from the
> > latter half the states.
> >
> > This info is from:
> > http://www.divorcesource.com/search/custody/nolo.html.
>
> Thanks for the link. Actually, what it says is not inconsistent with my
> understanding. It says that only two states have preumptive joint legal
> custody, where it will be ordered unless one parent can provide a
> compelling case for it not being awarded.
>
> In the other "half" of cases, it is permitted.
My reading of this blurb was that ALL states order joint
custody. Half the states only order it when both parents
agree.
> It does not say in this
> article that Joint residential custody is the norm. In fact it refers
> to all of the traditional reasons that the Mom should be granted primary
> phyisical.
>
> If you don't mind, I'm going to ask the fathers' rights advocates on acs
> what their data shows.
>
> BTW, do you have joint physical custody? How is it structured, and how
> does it work out? Perhaps I'm just skeptical becaouse I don't know
> anyone actually doing it. SSM
>
> SSM
I'm so mad at myself. I found a really informative article
about this, but I didn't bookmark it. When I tried to email it
to you my browser crashed. I should know better.
Anyway, that article was not inconsistent with your experience
either. Apparently, joint physical is fairly new and has only
been around since the '60's. It is common in the states I have
lived in. States do not keep statistics on the specifics of
parenting plans. To get statistics, someone has to read through
each custody decree and count the results.
Since my ex and I were never married, there is no custody order
regarding my BD. We've never had so much trouble resolving our
differences that we ever needed to use the courts. DH has joint
legal and physical custody of his children, though. In fact,
just about everyone I know has joint legal and physical.
(Actually, one of my friends has sole legal/physical, but her ex
is dangerously psychotic.)
JL&P is no big deal. I really don't get the controversy. Joint
physical custody does not mean that the children reside an equal
amount of time with both parents. You still hammer out the
schedule that works. You each have legal custody all the time
and physical custody when you have the kids. It's not very
different from custody to one with visitation to the other,
except that it recognizes that time spent with both parents is
real "parenting" time. I think people get fired up because some
places connect child support to the percentage of time that the
children spend with each parent. If you leave that out of the
equation, joint physical is less troublesome than joint legal.
This is how JL&P with 50/50 coparenting works for my SIL.
According to the parenting plan, Husband and Wife agree to live
in the same town. H always has the children from Sunday evening
to Tuesday evening. W always has children from Tuesday evening
to Thursday evening. The Thursday evening through Sunday
evening block alternates between H and W. Since JL&P is common
there, the school district is comfortable with children
alternating between two different bus routes. H and W alternate
holidays, and each take the children for two weeks of vacation
during the year. H maintains medical and dental insurance, pays
half of all activities, and pays W approximately $3K/mo in child
support. W pays the other half the children's activities.
This seems to work pretty well for them, even though H and W
despise each other. Since they live within 5 miles of each
other, the kids don't have a lot of trouble keeping the same
friends all the time. There is some friction about activities,
consistency of discipline, etc. Recently the teen-age daughter
has pushed for additional time at W's, as her best friend lives
across the street. The 8 year old, OTOH, sometimes wants to
spend extra time with her little sister at H's house.
They work it out. They each take the children when the other is
sick. H is usually flexible when my daughter goes to visit
them. W took all the kids while SM was in labor watch. They
sporadically discuss all of them moving to the southwest once
the teen daughter goes to college. They seem to acknowledge
that the inconvenience is outweighed by the benefit to the
children of having consistent relationships with both parents.
some...@my-dejanews.com
janelaw <jan...@mailexcite.com> wrote:
[snip]
> This is how JL&P with 50/50 coparenting works for my SIL.
> According to the parenting plan, Husband and Wife agree to live
> in the same town. H always has the children from Sunday evening
> to Tuesday evening. W always has children from Tuesday evening
> to Thursday evening. The Thursday evening through Sunday
> evening block alternates between H and W. Since JL&P is common
> there, the school district is comfortable with children
> alternating between two different bus routes. H and W alternate
> holidays, and each take the children for two weeks of vacation
> during the year. H maintains medical and dental insurance, pays
> half of all activities, and pays W approximately $3K/mo in child
> support. W pays the other half the children's activities.
He pays $3K/month in CS PLUS half their activity fees? Wow, that sounds
like a HUGE amount. How many children do they have? 10?
[snip]
Char
Nicol wrote:
> Char wrote in message
> <snip>
> >Except when one parent is not fit to parent, JC should be the default.
> That
> >would sure put a crimper in this law re: a parent cannot loose custody.
> Since
> >both would have custody, one parent cannot make the other loose custody
> either
> >by moving. All divorce decrees should also be a set format with fill-in
> the
> >blank info and set standards that judges must adhere to. "And", while
> we're at
> >it, since it is a simple civil case between two civil litigants and usually
> for
> >amounts more than $20.00...either party should have the right to request a
> jury
> >of their peers.
>
> You are referring to the 7th Amendment, correct? $20 when the constitution
> was written. Justices have determined that that amount in today's dollars
> is about $50000, I believe. Have you actually heard of a civil case with
> amounts of $20 to, say, $10,000 actually ever getting a jury?
Yup. Went through one. The amount awarded was $1,280. Can you imagine how
unjust a system of appointing one individual, with biases and prejudices just
like everyone, as some kind of king would be? Other than the fact that that
individual has studied law, they are still just one person that can be swayed by
personal bias/prejudice. Much harder to sway 12 individuals to one form of
thinking.
> Can you
> imagine how many people would be needed for jury duty every time someone
> sues someone for just 20 measly dollars or so? I suppose you could try to
> get a jury...since the amendment does say that...but I don't think you'd get
> very far.
>
> Nicol
It is a right. However, if the courts were busy reviewing the evidence "before"
allowing individuals to simply sue as a matter of principle, there wouldn't be
the overload on court cases. If divorce were more just, there wouldn't be such
a high divorce court rate. People would try and settle their own differences
and keep the courts out of it if they know, that as a general rule, they are not
going to get everything. I would rather be heard by 12 individuals, some of
which may or may not have gone through the same thing, than one individual who
may or may not have.
Nicol
Char wrote in message <35FFF45D...@geocities.com>...
I'm surprised. That is contrary to what I've been told by political science
types about civil trials. The amount awarded and the amount asked for were
the same? And, of course, what you say about jury trials as opposed to a
judge is true...I'd rather not have just one person, despite their level of
competence, decide my fate. Of course, personally, I'd rather not have 12
people decide that either...but if the choice is mine and I just have to go
to court, of course 12 would be better.
>> Can you
>> imagine how many people would be needed for jury duty every time someone
>> sues someone for just 20 measly dollars or so? I suppose you could try
to
>> get a jury...since the amendment does say that...but I don't think you'd
get
>> very far.
>>
>> Nicol
>
>It is a right. However, if the courts were busy reviewing the evidence
"before"
>allowing individuals to simply sue as a matter of principle, there wouldn't
be
>the overload on court cases. If divorce were more just, there wouldn't be
such
>a high divorce court rate. People would try and settle their own
differences
>and keep the courts out of it if they know, that as a general rule, they
are not
>going to get everything. I would rather be heard by 12 individuals, some
of
>which may or may not have gone through the same thing, than one individual
who
>may or may not have.
Personally, I'd rather go through mediation and have more input on my own
life. I think in divorce or child custody situations so much is left out of
your own hands, and more people really can work together if they give it a
shot (and an impartial person is appointed to keep everyone in check).
Nicol
Char
Nicol wrote:
Everyone has the right to request a jury trial in a civil case, though most
people do not know it. My lawyer pointed it out to me. I was dealing with a
used car lot and a rotten lemon. Last resort was to paint lemons all over the
piece of junk and park it across from the dealer. I was going for full cost of
$3,000 for the vehicle but was awarded the repairs only. As an example....it
caught fire one hour after leaving the lot and the dealer refused to touch it.
If couples going through divorce knew that joint custody was mandatory unless
there was absolute proof of wrongdoing on the part of one of the parties
involved, and that all assets would be split 50/50, etc., most people would
choose the "cheaper" mediation, or simply work it out on their own, rather than
racking up large court costs knowing they won't get more than that anyway. Many
people take it to court simply because they feel they can either cheat or will
be cheated. If it were a more reasonable system, making it harder for the
cheating, more would settle out of court.
Leyton Collins
>
> janelaw wrote:
>
> >
> > Okay, I just poked around a little, so don't quote me on this.
> > It seems that half the states order joint legal and physical
> > custody regularly. The other half order it only when the
> > parents agree. I guess the alt.c-s experience comes from the
> > latter half the states.
50 - 50 huh? Then I'd like to know why the actual stats are that
mom receives sole or primary custody 86% of the time?
Leyton
janelaw
No, two. This is the amount they decided was fair based on his
income, her income, and her expenses in maintaining a home in
that town for the children.
janelaw
Well unless someone read through all the divorce decrees in this
country, I don't know know that I can rely on those stats.
Where did you get them?
janelaw
>
> >> And I have still been
> >> searching for *anyone* who can show evidence that not having two "real"
> >> homes is best for the kids (if the alternative is to have a very
> >> involved NCP, but live primarily with one parent).
> >
> >I agree to the extent that pushing the "two real home" idea
> >deprives the child of the security of having any real home.
> >Some people seem to have a lot less trouble with this than I
> >would, though.
>
>
> So, in a nutshell, it is possible to share physical custody without
> creating additional insecurities, or so I believe.
>
> Any questions? ;)
>
> Wendy
Yes. I did not mean to imply that this was not possible. I
don't think it is possible for everyone, though. Not all
parents are able to put aside their differences as well as you
have. Personally, I think I would have killed my ex if we had
your arrangement in the beginning.
Now we have thrashed stuff out, and it would probably work much
more smoothly. To be perfectly honest, though, none of us want
a 50/50 split. My ex, my child, and I all want her to spend the
bulk of her time with me and lots of time with him.
janelaw
>
>
> If couples going through divorce knew that joint custody was mandatory unless
> there was absolute proof of wrongdoing on the part of one of the parties
> involved, and that all assets would be split 50/50, etc., most people would
> choose the "cheaper" mediation, or simply work it out on their own, rather than
> racking up large court costs knowing they won't get more than that anyway. Many
> people take it to court simply because they feel they can either cheat or will
> be cheated. If it were a more reasonable system, making it harder for the
> cheating, more would settle out of court.
This may be another one of those geographical things related to
the states I have lived in. It is my experience that almost no
one goes through a divorce or custody trial. Certainly less
than 1%. I have heard judges scream at divorce lawyers in court
for failing to settle the issues before trial. Trials are
hugely expensive.
Is this different in other places?
Wendy A. S. Taylor
Char <almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>If couples going through divorce knew that joint custody was mandatory unless
>there was absolute proof of wrongdoing on the part of one of the parties
>involved, and that all assets would be split 50/50, etc., most people would
>choose the "cheaper" mediation, or simply work it out on their own, rather than
>racking up large court costs knowing they won't get more than that anyway. Many
>people take it to court simply because they feel they can either cheat or will
>be cheated. If it were a more reasonable system, making it harder for the
>cheating, more would settle out of court.
I don't think people take it to court to cheat. It goes to court because
one or both parties have failed to see that the other person's perspective
and they think that the other person is trying to cheat them. Mediation
helps people to stop and think about whether what they are asking for is
reasonable and whether what the other person is asking is based upon any
valid premise. Having someone who is objective and a buffer between two
emotional people seems to me a great boon.
Wendy
Wendy A. S. Taylor
janelaw <jan...@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>Yes. I did not mean to imply that this was not possible. I
>don't think it is possible for everyone, though. Not all
>parents are able to put aside their differences as well as you
>have.
No, you didn't say it wasn't possible, but you did suggest that
having two homes would take away from a child's sense of security,
their sense of a real home. To my way of thinking the fact that
we are able to put aside our differences and work together as a
family, even if it's a family in two separate dwellings, is far
more important than the security of always sleeping in the same
bed at night.
>Personally, I think I would have killed my ex if we had
>your arrangement in the beginning.
Ah the thought still crosses my mind, but never for long and
if I'm feeling like that I usually give myself a time out. ;)
>Now we have thrashed stuff out, and it would probably work much
>more smoothly. To be perfectly honest, though, none of us want
>a 50/50 split. My ex, my child, and I all want her to spend the
>bulk of her time with me and lots of time with him.
Then there isn't a problem, so long as it suits the two of you.
Sometimes I worry about consistency of approach and rules and some
of the most stressful discussions usually result from such issues,
but they did when we were married too.
Wendy
janelaw
>
> having two homes would take away from a child's sense of security,
> their sense of a real home.
Yes, I think it can. I think 50/50 coparenting requires that
both parents be mature, selfless, tolerant of their ex's
foibles, and respectful of the other coparent's differing point
of view. It also helps if the coparents live in the same
neighborhood and school district. You need to have one big
happy family in two houses.
Kids get so torn apart when their parents are still in the
"blaming" stage. If they are alternating between a "your mom is
a bitch" house and a "your dad is a bastard" house several times
a week, then I think they yearn for neutral ground. Also, I
think that the more uniformity the coparents can agree on, the
more stability there is for the children. Just as an example, I
think it is extremely difficult for children to spend half their
school nights in an 8:00 bedtime house and half in a 10:00
bedtime house.
I guess my main objection is to 50/50 coparenting being forced
on couples who are not ready. It is so like the story of King
Solomon cutting the baby in half: It's fair to the parents, but
disastrous for the child. My ex and I both try really hard to
do the right thing, and we both love our child to death. But in
the beginning every time she went with her dad, he and I had a
fight. Even though we kept her out of it directly, she sensed
the tension. If we had been switching 3 or 4 times a week, I
know that much more of our conflict would have communicated
itself to her. And we were really good about not maligning each
other to her and not fighting in front of her. So when parents
directly involve the kids in their war, I think the less the
children see them interact the better.
Char
Wendy A. S. Taylor wrote:
Well I've known of several couples where one did take it to court simply because they
wanted everything, the house, the car, the kids....all of it and felt the other
deserved not a dime. Aside from that, the courts should mandate mediation prior to
any divorce hearing.
As for my own divorce, my ex wanted it all, though he did nothing during the marriage
to gain it. I didn't want the added legal costs, I was planning to move out of state
and didn't want the increased wait time, so I literally "gave" it away and filed a
non-contested. It worked best in my situation.
Leyton Collins
<SNIP>
> > 50 - 50 huh? Then I'd like to know why the actual stats are that
> > mom receives sole or primary custody 86% of the time?
> >
> > Leyton
>
> Well unless someone read through all the divorce decrees in this
> country, I don't know know that I can rely on those stats.
> Where did you get them?
My stats? Statistics Canada. ABC News has reported the same stats,
so have several other special interest groups and news magazines.
Where did you get yours?
Leyton
Leyton Collins
>
> Wendy A. S. Taylor wrote:
> >
> > having two homes would take away from a child's sense of security,
> > their sense of a real home.
> Yes, I think it can.
> "blaming" stage. If they are alternating between a "your mom is
> a bitch" house and a "your dad is a bastard" house several times
> I guess my main objection is to 50/50 coparenting being forced
> on couples who are not ready. It is so like the story of King
> Solomon cutting the baby in half: It's fair to the parents, but
> disastrous for the child.
Your position is wrought with errors and just proves how much lawyers
are actually the cause of the emotional damage done to children in
divorced families.
First, the "sense of a real home" has more to do with the child's age
than the behaviors of the parents. Your position also ASS-U-MEs that
just because one parent bashes the other in front of the children then
the other must as well. Last, and possibly the most reprehensible is
that you try to assert the King Solomon story as a fairness to the
parents when it was actually an indemnity of parents, their egos and
their selfishness especially when it comes to children. Perhaps you
could find a Bible somewhere and read the WHOLE passage?
It absolutely disgusts me the number of people, and lawyers and judges
in particular, who think they can read a couple of psych. articles or
take a college intro. psych. class and instantly think they are actually
qualified to critique those same studies! Ask any number of psych.
professors in reputable universities to find out just how many psych.
students walk into 2nd year Research Methods classes and think they know
it all already. They don't, and lawyers and the general public know even
less. Its no wonder with the perpetuity of lay-psychologists and worse
psychologists with a grudge or have ethics for sale that the profession
has such a bad rap!
Is 'janelaw' a member of NOW, because from this thread I am seriously
starting to wonder how much a men's advocacy lawyer you actually are?
Leyton
KFairlei
janelaw wrote:
>It is my experience that almost no
>one goes through a divorce or custody trial. Certainly less
>than 1%. I have heard judges scream at divorce lawyers in court
>for failing to settle the issues before trial. Trials are
>hugely expensive.
>
>Is this different in other places?
>
Well, I'm in southwest Missouri. My divorce was dragged out for two years from
the date of separation, involved 2 days of trial testimony in front of a judge
(no jury), for which I had no attorney and still walked away with everything.
As for the expense, I'm not sure, I never got a bill for it. The only thing I
ever received billing for was the Guardian Ad Litem who was appointed by the
court and did not do a doggone thing. He recommended joint custody where my ex
didn't desire any custody or visitation, merely wanted to get out of paying
child support and get away from both me and the kiddo. Ex was-and still is--a
practicing alcoholic with 4 (at last count) alcohol-related traffic offenses
under his belt in 10 years.
That's my $.02 <cha ching>
Kate (aka "Meaghan's Mom") KFairlei at AOL dot COM ICQ 6802119
Single mom, student nurse, aspiring midwife
"Don't just live the length of your life, live the width of it as well."
--Diane Ackerman
Dididiaz31
Good to see you here, Kate! How's school?
Didi, single mother to Caitlin, 9, Patrick, 7, and Meagan, 4.
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against
it."
G.K. Chesterton
almost...@geocities.com
janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
> Char wrote:
> >
> > janelaw wrote:
> >
> > > SoccerStepMom wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK, but take it to real life:
> > > >
> > > > A couple whose kid plays on my SS's soccer team. 3 kids under the age
> > > > of 11. She works part-time outside the home, he is the primary
> > > > wageearner as a handyman, which gives him flexible hours. To all
> > > > observance, they share childcare duties.
> > > >
> > > > She ends the marriage by having an affair with the coach of our kids'
> > > > team. He wants to keep the house and the kids. I was better friends
> > > > with her until this happened, but I think the Dad should get the kids.
> > > > After all, why should he have to lose everything because his wife
> > > > strayed? Also, he wants her back, and wouldn't she be more likely to
> > > > return if she missed the kids?
> > > >
> > > > If it matters, there are no allegations of abuse, cheating, etc., by the
> > > > husband. (Both husband and wife have talked to a lot of people in our
> > > > circle about this, so we are fairly up on the details).
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts? SSM
> > >
> > > I think you're falling into the trap of thinking about what's
> > > fair to the parents rather than what's best for the children.
> > >
> > > I don't know your couple, and I have no opinion on who the kids
> > > should live with. I just instinctively recoiled when you said
> > > that dad "should get the kids." That sentence makes the
> > > children sound like prizes. Even if you feel that mom should
> > > not have strayed, you have to admit that her failure does not
> > > automatically make dad the better residential parent. That's
> > > what you have to consider. We parents don't always get what's
> > > fair.
> > >
> >
> > From what SSM has said, they both shared in child care duties and there were
> > no signs of abuse...which makes both parents equal as good parents. First
> > off, there should be joint custody. However, if this is not possible, being
> > that both parents are equal, then I agree with SSM. "She" messed up.
Either
> > dad or mom having the kids will not lessen the best interest of the kids,
but
> > dad having the kids will lessen the impact of the one not at fault.
> >
> > > I don't know. There could be great reasons for letting the kids
> > > reside with mom. Sleeping with the soccer coach does not make
> > > you a bad mother, it makes you a bad wife. (And tacky) If she
> > > works part-time, she may be more responsible for day-to-day
> > > parenting than he.
> >
> > If she works part-time, then she will undoubtedly expect her ex to finance
the
> > remainder of her expenses that the part-time job does not cover. Why punish
> > him further for her mistakes. What "should" happen, is that she will now
need
> > to acquire "full"-time work, putting her day-to-day parenting availability
on
> > par with his.
> >
> > > If she is the primary source of nurturing,
> > > discipline, support, etc. in the children's life, then maybe the
> > > divorce would be less traumatic for them if they remain in the
> > > home with her. I have no doubt that it would be less traumatic
> > > for dad if he stayed in his house with his kids. But when he
> > > had those kids, he agreed to put their needs before his own.
> > >
> >
> > See above. From what SSM has posted, the best interest of the kids will not
> > diminish with "either" parent. And the guy still wants her to stay....is
> > "she" putting the best interest of the kids first?
> >
> > > One thing I do know: you can never really know what goes on in
> > > other people's marriages. As you said of your BM, if the
> > > marriage had been working for her, she wouldn't have left. No
> > > one is ever all right or all wrong in a marriage. You've been
> > > married long enough to know that none of us can cast the first
> > > stone.
> > >
> >
> > I wouldn't agree so much with this when it comes to an abusive relationship.
> > No matter what an abused person can do, it does not warrant the abuse, and
the
> > abuser is "totally" wrong. Though most marriages end due to faults of both,
> > many marriages are simply the fault of one individual who either changed
their
> > mind, got bored, became violent, etc. Even should that person getting bored
> > claim that their spouse was inattentive, they should have spoken up. If
they
> > did not, they have no one to blame but themselves.
> >
> > > I would cut mom some slack. Abuse and cheating aren't the only
> > > reasons people decide they can't take it anymore. Maybe he
> > > tells her he won't have sex with her because she's too fat.
> > > Maybe, like Vicki R., she just felt she was dying inside.
> > > Whatever her reasons were, you have to admit that she has stuck
> > > it out for quite a while. She didn't just flip her hair and
> > > shimmy off at the first sign of trouble. If she decided that
> > > her marriage doesn't have a chance, then I have to assume she
> > > knows. It's really hard to break up your family and leave a
> > > person you have been with for a dozen years.
> > >
> >
> > It is much less traumatic to speak with your spouse beforehand and tell them
> > how you feel before acting out. Your spouse is never a mind reader (unless
> > s/he works for Phsycic Friends) and does not know what you are
> > feeling/thinking. It is up to you to let them know and work on a solution.
> > If all solutions fail, then you at least know you have given it your best.
> > But if you don't even try, you have given it nothing.
> >
> > > I'm rambling. My point is that custody has to be based on what
> > > is best for the children, not on who was at fault in the
> > > divorce.
> > >
> > > Jane
> >
> > And when either custody situation is "equal" for the children, we can then
> > base it on fault.
> I didn't expect this to be a controversial post. I thought
> SSM's sympathy for her friend was clouding her judgment a
> little. That custody should be determined according to what is
> best for the children is one of those truths I consider to be
> self-evident.
>
> I don't know where you are coming from, Char. All SSM said was
> that the couple appeared to share parenting responsibilities.
> Somehow, you conclude from this that both mom and dad "are good
> and equal parents." Who died and appointed you Judge Judy? You
> have no idea what the specifics of this situation are.
>
SSM stated "To all observance, they share childcare duties." If they share
child care duties and are not abusive, then they are both fairly equal on the
parenting. The sharing of child care has been "observed", at least when it
can be. Do you feel that he stops caring for the child "after" no one is
watching? I have not judged the man to be a good parent, a person observing
him feels that he is a good parent. My thoughts, why assume the mother is
always the better parent? They may be equal in this case, and if so, why
reward her (when neither way will be any worse for the child) for walking
out?
> I completely disagree with your assertion that "many marriages
> are simply the fault of one individual...." Human relations
> don't work that way. We all would like to think that our prior
> relationships ended through no fault of our own. The truth is
> that in hindsight every single one of us can think of things
> (s)he would do differently if we had it to do over again. If
> you don't, then you are not learning from your mistakes. It is
> impossible not to make mistakes in marriage - or in any other
> relationship.
>
> Jane
>
Ok, I suppose my getting pregnant at my ex's insistence was my fault. I
assume that's what caused the breakup of our marriage indirectly. I got
pregnant, he began beating me. I saw no other correlation for why he did
this except the pregnancy, as it only started directly after the pregnancy.
So my fault either lies in the fact that I a) married him and b) got
pregnant. These are the only two things I could have done differently.
Aside from that, I have seen other marriages in which one did everything
their spouse requested and the spouse "still" walked out. Where's their
fault?
Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone makes mistakes that are worth their
spouse leaving them. Some people just marry scum and therein lies their fault
in the first place.
--
Char
janelaw
>
>
> Is 'janelaw' a member of NOW, because from this thread I am seriously
> starting to wonder how much a men's advocacy lawyer you actually are?
>
>
I don't know what gave you the impression I was a men's advocacy
lawyer.
janelaw
Cites, please.
Peter F. DeMos
> Cites, please.
This is no flippin courtroom. Let's talk english, eh? I don't care if
you're a barrister, or even really edumacated.
And, you really a NOW attorney?
peterd
--The original peterd. Accept no substitutes.--
http://www.peterd.com
janelaw
>
> janelaw wrote:
>
> > Cites, please.
> This is no flippin courtroom. Let's talk english, eh? I don't care if
> you're a barrister, or even really edumacated.
>
> And, you really a NOW attorney?
>
> peterd
>
That's English. It has been for over 500 years. If you don't
know what the word "cite" means, you can just march over to your
dictionary and look it up, young man. I'll make it easy for
you: http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm
Leyton said:
> My stats? Statistics Canada. ABC News has reported the same stats,
> so have several other special interest groups and news magazines.
What am I supposed to do, just believe it because he said so? I
need to know where to go to find out where he got his
information. Although I am sure it has never happened to you,
Peter, I find that I am sometimes wrong. I find this true of
others, as well. I also find that people tend to hear, see, and
remember what supports their position.
I know damned well that no one searched through all the divorce
and custody files in all the counties in all the states to
tabulate results for Leyton's statistics. Maybe Canadian courts
have a different record-keeping system. Maybe Leyton's
statistics are right. But they don't mean jack to me coming
from Leyton.
And you know, what? I don't believe for one second that you
believe everything you read on usenet either. You know you
consider the source just as I do. You don't have to be in a
courtroom to want proof.
Jane
P.S. No, I'm not a NOW attorney. I never said I was any kind
of attorney.
pet...@peterd.com
> No, I'm not a NOW attorney. I never said I was any kind
> of attorney.
You didn't *have* to say you were, or were not an attorney. I can sense an
attorney from 1000 yards off. Ten bucks says you're an attorney!! Any takers?
:-)
peterd
--The original peterd. Accept no substitutes.--
http://www.peterd.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Peter F. DeMos
lawyerese:
> That's English.
Actually, it's just annoying :-)
> It has been for over 500 years. If you don't
> know what the word "cite" means, you can just march over to your
> dictionary and look it up, young man.
Make me. :-)
> What am I supposed to do, just believe it because he said so?
Hmmm... what do you think? Think I believe made up statistics on the fly,
on the NET for heaven's sake? Lololol :-)
> I need to know where to go to find out where he got his
> information.
but then you wrote:
> I know da*ned well that no one searched through all the divorce
> and custody files in all the counties in all the states to
> tabulate results for Leyton's statistics.
Errr...... so what that does tell me... You. Us.
> Although I am sure it has never happened to you,
> Peter, I find that I am sometimes wrong.
You are corRECT sir :-)
> And you know, what? I don't believe for one second that you
> believe everything you read on usenet either. You know you
> consider the source just as I do. You don't have to be in a
> courtroom to want proof.
But "cites please" is *really* annoying to those of us who aren't too fond
of attorneys in general already.
KFairlei
Didi asked:
>Good to see you here, Kate! How's school?
>
Well, I've been here, just too busy to do more than scan the posts.
School is kicking my butt. I'm a formerly A student who has had to deal with
the harsh reality of nursing school. It's a whole 'nother world. I did a lot
of psych research in my younger days on cults, and it is starting to strike me
how similar nursing school is to cult initiation. (Loss of identity--uniform.
Loss of self esteem. Constant harping on you from instructors. Exercises
designed so that the majority of students will fail. Sleep deprivation.
Replacing original values with new ones. Etc., etc., ad nauseum.)
So that's how I'm doing. I'd still do anything for THE PERFECT CAREPLAN. And
my paying price goes up the farther along we get into the semester.
BTW--I'm finding the education thread very interesting. I agree with all the
points that Peter brought up. And one thing that helps, although it's not
necessary, is for the kiddos to see *us* as grown-ups doing our homework. That
motivates them and makes them want to imitate. Although my daughter is only in
preschool, she has a little notebook and pen and will sometimes sit down with
mom to do *her* homework. It's all very cute, when I can open my eyes long
enough to see it.
Nothing pressing this afternoon--three days off--so perhaps I can catch a
little shut eye. Thanks for noticing me, Didi.
Ryan Reed
pet...@peterd.com wrote <along with other insightful comments>:
Jane wrote, amongst other things:> No, I'm not a NOW attorney. I never said I was any kind
> of attorney.
The only good kind of an attorney is the dead kind of attorney!!!!
Sorry had to jump on that one, kinda like the bully that keeps saying, "I'm gonna hit ya with a haymaker ... You just step up and punch that bully with a jab right on the nose!! :-0
Keep that lawyer monitor working peter!!!
"...but that's just my opinion,... I could be wrong" d miller
ryan
Ashlee's dad
janelaw
>
> Jane wrote, amongst other things:
>
> > No, I'm not a NOW attorney. I never said I was any kind
> > of attorney.
>
> attorney from 1000 yards off. Ten bucks says you're an attorney!! Any takers?
>
> :-)
>
> peterd
>
I suppose I should be flattered. At least you didn't assume I
was a janitor in a law firm.
P.S. If you really want to insult a lawyer, accuse her of being
a paralegal.
almost...@geocities.com
pet...@peterd.com wrote:
> Jane wrote, amongst other things:
>
> > No, I'm not a NOW attorney. I never said I was any kind
> > of attorney.
>
> You didn't *have* to say you were, or were not an attorney. I can sense an
> attorney from 1000 yards off. Ten bucks says you're an attorney!! Any takers?
>
> :-)
>
> peterd
Sure! And I'll e-mail ya the money. :-)
--
Char
Peter F. DeMos
> If you really want to insult a lawyer, accuse her of being
> a paralegal.
I have no reason to insult you, so why would I want to do that?
By the by, you remember our little convo a week or two ago about PC?
Notice in your last sentence Jane you state thant one wishing to insult a
lawyer should accuse "HER" of being a paralegal. Hmmmmmm..... either
you're a lawyer or I'm a kangaroo. Well Jane?
Hehehehe.
Peter F. DeMos
> I don't get your point. Are you implying that "she" cannot be
> used as a genderless pronoun?
No. But it can't. Be that as it may, it's beside the point.
> Jeez, Peter, first my diction,
> now my grammar. Are you sure you don't mean to post to
> alt.usage.english?
No, but perhaps alt.support.anti_pc :-)
>> Hmmmmmm..... either you're a lawyer or I'm a kangaroo. Well Jane?
> Well, if that's all you're worried about,....
> I assure you Peter that you are a kangaroo.
Yeah. Right. I'm sure....
pet...@peterd.com
> School is kicking my bu*t. I'm a formerly A student who has had to deal with
> the harsh reality of nursing school. It's a whole 'nother world. <snip> it is
> starting to strike me
> how similar nursing school is to cult initiation. (Loss of identity--uniform.
> Loss of self esteem. Constant harping on you from instructors. Exercises
> designed so that the majority of students will fail. Sleep deprivation.
> Replacing original values with new ones. Etc., etc., ad nauseum.)
I was a straight A student all my life. My SAT's were 1580. In nursing school
I quickly recognized that were I not to adjust, and accept, that things were
vastly different here than anything *I'd* ever known, I'd never make it. Took
me a full semester, but I finally accepted that B's and even <gasp!!!> C's
would be just fine, thank you. Good luck. Nursing school is the toughest
thing I ever did school wise.
> BTW--I'm finding the education thread very interesting. I agree with all the
> points that Peter brought up.
Of *course* you do. You have a *head* on those pretty shoulders there :-)
> And one thing that helps, although it's not
> necessary, is for the kiddos to see *us* as grown-ups doing our homework.
Ayup. Anything kids see or hear that emphasizes the joy and satisfaction of
learning. Emulating mommy and daddy is an easy way to get them to jump on the
train with you.
> Nothing pressing this afternoon--three days off--so perhaps I can catch a
> little shut eye.
Take good care of yourself Kate. Those of us that know, know. It's tough. But
those of us that did it also know it was worth every miserable minute :-)
peterd
--The original peterd. Accept no substitutes.--
http://www.peterd.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
janelaw
>
> jane wrote:
>
> > If you really want to insult a lawyer, accuse her of being
> > a paralegal.
>
> I have no reason to insult you, so why would I want to do that?
>
> By the by, you remember our little convo a week or two ago about PC?
> Notice in your last sentence Jane you state thant one wishing to insult a
> lawyer should accuse "HER" of being a paralegal.
I don't get your point. Are you implying that "she" cannot be
used as a genderless pronoun? Jeez, Peter, first my diction,
now my grammar. Are you sure you don't mean to post to
alt.usage.english?
Hmmmmmm..... either
> you're a lawyer or I'm a kangaroo. Well Jane?
Well, if that's all you're worried about,....
I assure you Peter that you are a kangaroo.
>
> Hehehehe.
Dididiaz31
I have a bunch of good careplans.......
Dididiaz31
Peterd wrote:
>I quickly recognized that were I not to adjust, and accept, that things were
vastly different here than anything *I'd* ever known, I'd never make it.
Peter?!? Adjust? Adapt? Conform?!? Now, I've seen it all..... <teasing>
>Take good care of yourself Kate. Those of us that know, know. It's tough. But
those of us that did it also know it was worth every miserable minute :-)
I agree, completely....it was worth every sleepless, nauseating,
up-all-night-studying minute! You'll get through it and miss it later!
Peter F. DeMos
> Peter?!? Adjust? Adapt? Conform?!? Now, I've seen it all..... <teasing>
Only in the feel good sense. I never meant it, I just wanted to feel good
and fit in :-)
susan
>
>
> >more smoothly. To be perfectly honest, though, none of us want
> >a 50/50 split. My ex, my child, and I all want her to spend the
> >bulk of her time with me and lots of time with him.
>
> Then there isn't a problem, so long as it suits the two of you.
>
THREE of them. Does anybody ever consider the children's needs and
wishes in these cases? Or is it just what's best and most convenient
for the parents?
> Sometimes I worry about consistency of approach and rules and some
> of the most stressful discussions usually result from such issues,
> but they did when we were married too.
>
Lots of times we worry too much about things that don't need to be
worried about at all. Kids are far more adaptable than we think at
times. They can easily adapt to two sets of rules. Think about it -
how many happily married parent couples do you see who are exact clones
of each other? I bet not many. Most couples complement each other -
have different opinions about things, different standards, etc. The
messy bedroom might drive one parent crazy and not even be worth
mentioning for the other parent. Kids learn to work with these
differences.
Cici in Texas
>Kate wrote, amongst other things:
>
>> School is kicking my bu*t. I'm a formerly A student who has had to deal with
>> the harsh reality of nursing school. It's a whole 'nother world. <snip> it is
>> starting to strike me
>> how similar nursing school is to cult initiation. (Loss of identity--uniform.
>> Loss of self esteem. Constant harping on you from instructors. Exercises
>> designed so that the majority of students will fail. Sleep deprivation.
>> Replacing original values with new ones. Etc., etc., ad nauseum.)
>
>I was a straight A student all my life. My SAT's were 1580. In nursing school
>I quickly recognized that were I not to adjust, and accept, that things were
>vastly different here than anything *I'd* ever known, I'd never make it. >Took me a full semester, but I finally accepted that B's and even <gasp!!!>
>C's would be just fine, thank you. Good luck. Nursing school is the toughest
>thing I ever did school wise.
<snip>
>Take good care of yourself Kate. Those of us that know, know. It's tough. >But those of us that did it also know it was worth every miserable minute :-)
>
>peterd
And those of us who may very well be your future patients
appreciate your dedication as well!
Cici in Texas
(Remove xspam from address to reply)
Cici in Texas
>In article <6tnbeo$20e$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>,
>Cici in Texas <ccl...@xspam.gte.net> wrote:
>>Wendy, the terms 'age group' and 'peer group' often get used
>>interchangeably, even though they don't mean the same thing,
>>particularly to gifted kids (and grown-up gifted kids).
>>Substitute the words "intellectual peer group" for "age
>>group" in Peter's explanation and see if it doesn't make
>>more sense.
>
>Much better thanks.
>Wendy
You're welcome. BTW, if you (or anyone else) would be
interested in participating in a listserv discussion group
for parents of gifted children, I can provide you with
information on a couple of very good ones. Let me know.