Tealwood - No, we don't always agree and have to say that I think you were a bit tough on carolann, but I appreciated that you noticed I had closed my account and posted that poem....um...you do know that was about a family pet, most likely a dog right?
It is ok though...tis the thought that counts always, never the gift itself.

Getting along with the Mother of your child is easy when you respect your boundaries and she respects yours. My simple advice is NEVER enter her home again wait outside for your child. Do not speak to her unless absolutely nessesary.

Things I have done that I am not proud of.....

1. Calling him a sanctimonious **stard more than once.
2. Calling him an arrogant pr*ck more than once.
3. Not immediately acknowledging his rights as a father, for expecting more from him simply because he is a man.
4. Listening to a stupid lawyer fresh out of law school and going for the jugular right out of the gate, when it wasn't what I wanted to do....I should have followed my own inner conscience.
5. Losing my temper with him and yelling at him.
6. Slapping him across the face while he held our 10 month old daughter in his arms.

To give you some context with what has not been told by itsallinthesoul is that I have been assaulted on no less than 3 occasions. Although I have never been harmed by these assaults they are troubling to me in so much as I would have been surely arrested and charged if I had committed those acts. I have been repeatedly threaten with court action, CAS involvement, and had police called on me a number of times for reasons the strain credulity

All that this post has convinced me of is that joint shared physical custody with the kid be shuffled back and forth weekly between two homes does not work. Two different philosophies, two different mindsets and one kid bearing the brunt of adult he said/she said pettiness and BS.

Aside from that one incident in May of 2008, I have no reason to believe that he is abusing her in any way. I am not a supporter of corporal punishment but I fully accept that he was/is but he has also seen the benefits of positive "teaching" over punishment and uses that method alot more frequently.

Restraining Order Brings Heartbreak to Entire Haverhill Family
Father Gets Jail Sentence for Calling to Wish His Child Happy Birthday
Massachusetts News
By John Maquire

Haverhill, October 1–When Dennis Watts found the note from his daughter under his pillow just before her tenth birthday, he got a lump in his throat. Sara had written: "Daddy, please ask the judge if you can come to my birthday party Sunday. Double-digits!"

He went downstairs to check, and, sure enough the cellar window was ajar. Sara had crawled in through the basement window of the house she used to live in, and snuck up the stairs to leave the birthday note for her Dad.

Dennis Watts was getting divorced at the time and like many men in the throes of wife-initiated divorce these days, he was discovering first hand – the hard-way – just how unjust a restraining order can be. He knew Sara’s touching note would mean nothing to officialdom. It was a Friday night. Even during business hours Family Court judges don’t pay attention to handwritten notes from children, no matter how heartfelt they are.

He recalls sighing and going to bed thinking of his two beauties, Denna and Sara. He then lived at 89 Orchard Street in Auburn, Maine. They had been the light of his life since they were toddlers and he had pulled them around the neighborhood in a wagon. They now lived a block away from him. They were 11 and 9, and they were forbidden by court order to see him.

Sunday about noon, when he knew the birthday party would be in full swing up the block, Dennis Watts felt he could not ignore his daughter’s plea for his attention. She was dying to have him attend her "double-digit" birthday party. He picked up the phone, dialed the house, and his daughter answered. He said to her, "It’s Daddy Sara, Happy Birthday. Happy Double-Digits Birthday," and he hung up.

He was still misty eyed with thoughts of his daughter ten minutes later, when the police cars screeched into his driveway and stopped. He was arrested, put into the car, hauled away.

His crime: violating the restraining order which said he would have no contact with his children. His sentence for the crime of calling to wish his child happy birthday: five days in jail.

But that wasn’t the worst of it. In a 16-month period in 1997 and 1998, as his divorce was underway, Mr. Watts was sent to jail five times, and each time the crime was nothing more than communicating with his daughters or even being near them.

The worst was the time he saw his older daughter, Denna, on the streets of Auburn, as he drove to the local mall. She waved to him, a big smile on her face, and he waved back.

It was a bad move for Mr. Watts. For waving to Denna, the court officials of Auburn, Maine, threw him in jail for 55 days.

His five trips to jail included, according to records from the Androscoggin County Jail:

• May 9-13, 1997, five days. Violation of protection order by calling to wish his daughter Happy Birthday.

• June 23-25,1997, two days. The jail lists this as "probation hold."

• August 6-September 25, 1997, 55 days. This was, according to Watts, "for waving to Denna on my way to the mall."

• October 16-17, 1997, two days. Violation of protection order.

• September 15-16, 1998, two days. Violation of protection order.

All these jail sentences, Watts says, were for contact with his children either by phone or by driving by them on the street.


A Good Neighbor

Judging from the letters of reference, conversations with his family and acquaintances and even from court documents, Dennis Watts was a near ideal father during the time of his marriage. Comments from letters include:

• "Dennis Watts’ relationship with his daughters is outstanding, one based on trust, respect, love and caring." Anne Schaefer, schoolteacher who taught both of Watts’ daughters.

• "Dennis was the kind of neighbor that you could always count on for a hand if needed.... I can’t tell you how many times Dennis had taken my kid with his kids to the beach, the carnivals, to his family’s house in Maine and many times just for an ice cream.... I can’t put a value on how much we appreciate this and how much it is missed now that we moved away." Jerome Cecere, former neighbor of Watts.

• "I think Dennis is committed to his kids," said Darcy Galgovitch, case manager with Maine Pretrial Services, who met Watts when he was spending 55 days in the Androscoggin Jail. "I think he’s appropriate with them and is compassionate about being involved in their lives. I think he loves them dearly."

Dennis Watts now lives in Haverhill, where he grew up. His family of origin is nearby. He is one of thousands of Massachusetts citizens who have discovered that restraining orders trample on the rights of grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews to be in touch with each other.

In Massachusetts, roughly half of the state’s 40,000 restraining orders each year have been estimated to be given on the flimsiest of reasons, as a routine first salvo in a divorce battle. If each of those 20,000 restraining orders affects seven people in the father’s family – as it does Dennis Watts’ family – then about 140,000 Massachusetts citizens are emotionally damaged each year by restraining orders.

Speakers at divorced fathers’ meetings around the state talk every month about the latest restraining order outrage they have had to undergo.

"I’m not at all surprised that neighboring states like Maine, Rhode Island and Connecticut are throwing men in jail for absurd reasons like waving in public to their children," said John Flaherty, a Milford legal specialist who runs a legal self-help course for fathers under the aegis of the Liberty Bell Union. "Massachusetts, sadly, has been the leader for a number of new and plainly unconstitutional practices that have spread through the region over the last few years."

"The tyrannical legal practices invented here are trumpeted as great advances in the so-called war against domestic violence," he added. "Quincy District Court and Northeastern’s Domestic Violence Center are good examples of this. Sick theories, including the idea that waving to your child is a form of abuse, have spread out from Boston like ripples on a putrid pond."

"I haven’t seen those children for two and a half years now," says Marilyn Willey, 65, her voice quavering as she talks of her granddaughters Denna and Sara. "I’ve missed everything they are ever in, their games, their plays. I missed Denna’s grade school graduation. It’s kind of hard, you know." (See sidebar.)

Marilyn Willey is Dennis’s mother. Her son’s restraining order restrains her, too. Because the order enjoins him from any "direct or indirect contact" with his wife or his children, no one who ever knew Dennis Watts can have contact with his daughters without putting Watts at risk of arrest and jail.

Though Marilyn Willey’s name is not on the court order, it targets her and every member of her family. This is now standard practice with restraining orders in divorce cases. In effect, such orders cut off one whole side of the family from any contact with their blood relatives. In Mrs. Willey’s case, five of her grandchildren can have a normal relationship with their "Nan." But the other two are prevented by law from doing so.

If Denna or Sara approaches their father, with whom they clearly are closely bonded, he will be hauled away by police. If their grand mom, Marilyn Willey, calls them, their father and her son could pay with jail time.

Men and Children Not the Only Victims

Though men and children are the primary victims of restraining order abuse, women are frequently harmed too. Dennis Watts’ mother has had her peace of mind interfered with because she cannot see her granddaughters growing up. Likewise, his sister, Diana Vencis, has been harmed. (See sidebar.)

In Massachusetts, the second wives of divorced men have reported that their husbands and families have been repeatedly harassed by the restraining order abuse of the first wife.

One 55-year-old mother of a young man in Randolph has told the heart-breaking story of a five-year persecution of her son by local police. His only crime was that he broke up, five years ago, with a vindictive girlfriend who discovered that she could use restraining orders ad nauseam to punish her ex-boyfriend forever.

The young man was, at one point, hiding in a rented attic room in Randolph, because every time he set foot on the sidewalk, his vindictive girlfriend would see him, and have him picked up for stalking her.

No-contact restraining orders allow people to be charged even for accidental violations, so a vindictive girlfriend need only report that she has seen her ex-boyfriend for him to be picked up by police. That’s enough for the man to be arrested. The fact that the contact was accidental, at least on his side, is no defense. For a man caught in this kind of bind, the only solution is to move out of state or go into hiding.

The Watts divorce was granted without a decision on how the children would be raised. It has still not been decided, and the father is still under a total no-contact restraining order. The strain has affected Dennis severely, as it would anyone in his situation.

He was hospitalized once for depression and suicidal gestures. Despite that low point, his therapist reports in writing that contact with his children is desirable. Meanwhile, Dennis Watts goes to work every day in a furniture plant in Haverhill, runs his small, interior painting company and hopes his case moves forward.

Though it may not help him directly because his restraining order is in Maine, Massachusetts citizens are working to reform the 209A restraining order law in this state. The legislature is currently considering changes. These would require some evidence to be presented to the court and would prevent a man from being arrested for an unintentional violation of an order.

"No one is there when I am sitting home all alone each night without my family," Watts wrote a friend recently. "My mind wanders endlessly to the past. I see the children at all different ages. Special moments flash through my mind all the time. Very happy times. I am then shocked back into reality. How did this happen? It’s like a bad dream."

"My children are being hurt, and not one person in the whole system gives a damn. Every single person I’ve dealt with in the system couldn’t care less about the children. I’ve asked every single one of them the same question: ‘Don’t you see what this is doing to the children?" They don’t know what to say. They absolutely avoid the question."

Not having a child with a woman he is married to and loves....

Look at me I'm a hawk!!!!

No I prefer to think of myself as a Mama bear protecting her cub. If you cannot be civil then stay off my property and don't call me. Do you feel Tealwood that you have some level of rights to be on your Exes property? Did she get the house, tough guy?
I don't believe that joint shared custody will be successful unless it is being done by parents that are above ego driven pissing contests. Children need stability, I don't see that in most of the angry posts here that are proclaiming their rights to their kids. Tealwood you cannot even manage to post here without getting mad.

Restraining Order Brings Heartbreak to Entire Haverhill Family
Father Gets Jail Sentence for Calling to Wish His Child Happy Birthday

Getting along with the Mother of your child is easy when you respect your boundaries and she respects yours. My simple advice is NEVER enter her home again wait outside for your child. Do not speak to her unless absolutely nessesary.

So if we go to the holy grail that woman speak of...the Duluth wheel of violence..abuse involves using coercion and threats...using intimidation...using isolation......using economic abuse....minimizing, denying and blaming...using the children...and using male privilege....or in the case of Carolanne...using female privilege.

The truth is, that I only ever made contact with her in with a single finger, and it was in self defence and the police agreed...... That said I am certainly not perfect nor am I a saint.

I have no problem suggesting that the guy was not respectful of his ex wife's boundaries..but equally there may have been a similar lack of respect on the part of itsallininthesoul in her supposed using of the CAS for something that legally is defined as acceptable.

January 30, 2004
Press Release
Supreme Court of Canada Upholds Constitutionality of
Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 6-3 split, handed down its decision today upholding the
constitutionality of section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This is the section of the Criminal
Code that justifies the use of corporal punishment by parents, teachers and others standing in
the place of parents, so long as the force used is by way of correction and does not exceed
what is reasonable under the circumstances.
While the majority of the Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 43, the Court has
narrowed and clarified the definition of “reasonable under the circumstances.”

The decision states:
“Generally, s. 43 exempts from criminal sanction only minor corrective force of a
transitory and trifling nature. On the basis of current expert consensus, it does not apply
to corporal punishment of children under two or teenagers. Degrading, inhuman or
harmful conduct is not protected. Discipline by the use of objects or blows or slaps to the
head is unreasonable. Teachers may reasonably apply force to remove a child from a
classroom or secure compliance with instructions, but not merely as corporal
punishment. Coupled with the requirement that the conduct be corrective, which rules
out conduct stemming from the caregiver’s frustration, loss of temper or abusive
personality, a consistent picture emerges of the area covered by s. 43. It is wrong for law
enforcement officers or judges to apply their own subjective views of what is “reasonable
under the circumstances”; the test is objective. The question must be considered in
context and in light of all the circumstances of the case. The gravity of the precipitating
event is not relevant.”
Marvin Bernstein, Director of Policy Development & Legal Support at the OACAS, expressed
mixed feelings about the decision. While disappointed that the Section was not struck down, he
is pleased that the meaning of “reasonable under the circumstances” has been narrowed
beyond what was set down by the Ontario Court of Appeal. He also feels it is a step forward to
have a consistent and uniform standard for parents and teachers across Canada.
“The position of the OACAS continues to be that although effective, positive and non-violent
discipline is needed in the parenting and nurturing of children, no form of corporal punishment is
ever justifiable,” Bernstein says. “We are concerned that children in our society continue to be
denied their fundamental human rights and the full protection of the law that is extended to all
other citizens – that is the protection from assault.”

He is hopeful that the guidelines mentioned above will provide more protection for children,
pointing out that: “Section 43 has been successfully used in the past to justify situations where
children suffered significant injuries after being hit with belts, sticks, extension cords, a hammer,
a horse harness and other implements.”
In fact, the Court decision stated: “It must be conceded at the outset that judicial decisions on s.
43 in the past have sometimes been unclear and inconsistent, sending a muddled message as
to what is and is not permitted.”
Section 43 is of particular concern to Children’s Aid Society staff because it contributes to an
environment where violence towards children is acceptable. Social workers may find it difficult to
counsel parents in using non-violent, positive approaches to discipline if the parents feel that
Section 43 supports them in using force to correct their children.
OACAS will continue to advocate for the repeal of Section 43. “Now that the Supreme Court of
Canada has ruled on the narrow constitutional question, the OACAS will focus on seeking a
parliamentary repeal of this section.”
Bernstein added: “The court decision is clearly out of step with current research, which has
demonstrated the risks of corporal punishment. Children who are physically punished are more
aggressive, more likely to experience depression and addiction, more likely to be involved in
crime. They are also at a greater risk of suffering injuries.”
Jeanette Lewis, Executive Director of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, points
out that the OACAS Board has been committed to urging the repeal of Section 43 since 1979.
“Our opposition to the use of corporal punishment has been unwavering,” Lewis explains: “As
the voice of child welfare in Ontario, the OACAS advocates for children, and we believe this is
an important step in protecting children and reducing child abuse.”
While OACAS will continue to advocate for a change in the law, Bernstein also feels that public
education is needed to promote positive, non-violent disciplinary techniques.
He adds: “With this decision, it is essential that we talk with parents and caregivers about the
purpose of discipline. It is not about inflicting pain on children. It is about teaching them how to
behave, be safe, get along with other people, and develop a sense of responsibility. It is about
guiding their behaviour, rather than forcing them to obey. Raising children without physical
punishment helps them grow into healthy, capable and caring people.”

That is outrageous! How can things like this happen?

Not my life, my child's life. If he is letting his "fear" cause emotional damage to his child, or prevents me from moving forward in mine out of spite, then he will stay on the fringes based on his own behavior "until that child is 18 or older" and I will do my best to make sure that happens.

You may want to stop jumping to conclusions. I do, in fact, have extensive understanding of human emotions and behavior. I just think that if those emotions and behavior are doing damage to others, it should be minimized and/or stopped. If you can't control yourself when interacting with the other parent to the point where what you're doing is criminal, then don't whine if that gets you less time with your child, supervised visits, loss of rights, etc.

If it did, parents would not kill and or abuse their children.You're giving a lot of people way too much credit.

Sometimes, when you're not "rational" you need to step back (forced to if necessary) until you can control yourself. Innocent people shouldn't have to suffer for it.

If you have a child together, your ex will be in your life while your child is at least under 18. Pick up/drop offs, birthdays, schooling, sporting, graduation etc. If you think that you can avoid your ex your whole life, your very naive.

I didn't jump to conclusion, I said, "if you knew" not "you don't know".

Now your talking about a small minority. I was not giving credit abusers.

The person that needs to "step back" is the parent that is dictating, controlling and trying to stop the other parent from seeing their child and the child from seeing their parent. If your going to continually poke someone with a stick, day after day after day, filing false accusations and trying to discredit the person, then, yes, they are going to react. Woman are the best at it too mostly because they have the courts behind them.

The innocent person in many cases is the parent who is being told they can't see their child and the other innocent people are the children that just want to see their mum or dad. But, because one parent chooses to act in a manner less than human, and have a pathetic court system that allows it, there will always be innocent victims of EX BULLY parents who think they own their child and have the sole right to dictate when that child can see their mum or dad.

There is a difference between restricting access to a parent that is actually abusing their child and a parent that has done nothing wrong other than marrying and divorcing a callas, manipulative, greedy, selfish, control freak that can't see for the life of them that they are the ones destroying their childs life..

You can have an opinion but, you can't really comment on a situation that you do not know how it feels. When you've been in a situation where your being dictated to when and where you can see your child, then you can comment. When you wake in the morning and your child is not there to greet you, cuddle you, say I love you, then you can comment. When you come home from work and you can't play with your child, then you can comment. When you want to speak or see your child and your ex tells you no!, for no other reason other than bitter feelings, anger, resentment from a relationship that went nowhere, then you can comment. Until then, you are only speculating and assuming.

Ah, so now we get to argue semantics. What does "if" mean and all that. You know as well as I do what your statement meant.... it implied I didn't. If this is how you argue with your ex (deflection instead of admitting you were wrong) then I can see how a lot of your problems started/kept going.

You can have an opinion but, you can't really comment on a situation that you do not know how it feels. When you've been in a situation where your being dictated to when and where you can see your child, then you can comment. When you wake in the morning and your child is not there to greet you, cuddle you, say I love you, then you can comment. When you come home from work and you can't play with your child, then you can comment. When you want to speak or see your child and your ex tells you no!, for no other reason other than bitter feelings, anger, resentment from a relationship that went nowhere, then you can comment. Until then, you are only speculating and assuming.

Rustic, are you saying that men who are abusive by nature act that way because they are provoked? Are you actually absolving them of personal accountability for their actions, or are you simply trying to justify their actions, or what?

What I read into what she wrote was we both should respect each others boundaries....

All that this post has convinced me of is that joint shared physical custody with the kid be shuffled back and forth weekly between two homes does not work. Two different philosophies, two different mindsets and one kid bearing the brunt of adult he said/she said pettiness and BS.

¦They can’t read newspapers or magazines
¦They can’t meet any of his girlfriends
¦They can’t have their photograph taken
¦They can only drink kabbalah water
¦They can only wear clothes made from natural fibers
¦They can only play with “spiritually and ethically” sound toys

What wasn't stated in that article was the reason for the restraining order.....kind of important information to have before making an informed decision about who was right and who was wrong.

Dennis Watts was getting divorced at the time and like many men in the throes of wife-initiated divorce these days, he was discovering first hand – the hard-way – just how unjust a restraining order can be.

In Massachusetts, roughly half of the state’s 40,000 restraining orders each year have been estimated to be given on the flimsiest of reasons, as a routine first salvo in a divorce battle.

FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS DENNIS WATTS HAS BEEN HAUNTED BY THE FALLOUT FROM WHAT HE CLAIMS WAS A FRIVOLOUS RESTRAINING ORDER--FILED BY HIS WIFE AS THEIR MARRIAGE WAS COMING UNDONE.

10.1.09-25 The kids told my wife they wanted to live with Daddy and that's what started this whole issue. I have nothing to hide--you can look at the records, the court records, the police records, and there's nothing! That's what makes this so absurd and I can't even believe this can happen in America!

http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/inthenews/chronicle-out-of-order.htm

What wasn't stated in that article was the reason for the restraining order.....kind of important information to have before making an informed decision about who was right and who was wrong.

David Letterman Fights Restraining Order
By Todd Peterson

Originally posted Wednesday December 21, 2005 02:00 PM EST
Attorneys for David Letterman are fighting a temporary restraining order leveled at the Late Show host by a New Mexico woman who claimed that Letterman wants to marry her and employ her as a co-host.

In a request filed Dec. 15, Colleen Nestler of Santa Fe claimed that Letterman has used code words to express his desire to marry her and train her as a host on his show. Nestler said Letterman has forced her to go bankrupt and caused her "sleep deprivation" and "mental anguish" since 1994, the Associated Press reports.

Nestler's temporary order, which she is trying to have made permanent, states that Letterman must stay at least three yards away from her and not "think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and hammering."

A state judge granted the temporary order, but attorneys for Letterman are seeking to have the order quashed.

"Celebrities deserve protection of their reputation and legal rights when the occasional fan becomes dangerous or deluded," Albuquerque attorney Pat Rogers wrote of the motion.

Included with Nestler's application for the order was a six-page typed letter in which the woman claimed that Letterman relied on code words, gestures and "eye expressions" to communicate with her, AP reports.

Nestler said that she began sending the late-night host "thoughts of love" in 1993, and that he responded with his code words and gestures.

Jim Jackoway, a longtime attorney for Letterman, called the woman's claims "obviously absurd and frivolous."

Nestler wouldn't comment on her request for the permanent order, but she told the AP: "I pray to God I get it."

The judge set a Jan. 12 date for the hearing on the permanent restraining order

Return Orders
When the court issues an ex parte order, it sets up another hearing in about two weeks, with notice to the defendant, where he can come and argue his case. This is called a "return" day.

Many people do not realize how important this hearing is. Once it is held, usually for a pitiful few minutes, the order is rigidly set in stone for life. Courts do not warn defendants of the vast consequences of this hearing, and they are usually conducted quickly, without the niceties of constitutional protection in place.

If there was ever a time to get a lawyer, this is it. At any cost

In a request filed Dec. 15, Colleen Nestler of Santa Fe claimed that Letterman has used code words to express his desire to marry her and train her as a host on his show. Nestler said Letterman has forced her to go bankrupt and caused her "sleep deprivation" and "mental anguish" since 1994, the Associated Press reports.

Nestler's temporary order, which she is trying to have made permanent, states that Letterman must stay at least three yards away from her and not "think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and hammering."

A state judge granted the temporary order, but attorneys for Letterman are seeking to have the order quashed.

How could a judge agree to this?

Russell of the Ocean City, New Jersey, municipal court declared, "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around....The woman needs this protection because the statute granted her that protection.... They have declared domestic violence to be an evil in our society. So we don't have to worry about the rights."

Judge Russell's comments, captured on tape and printed in the New Jersey Law Journal, raised a few eyebrows. However, he suffered no consequences beyond a mild chiding from the Administrative Office of the Courts. By contrast, recently in Maine, Judge Alexander MacNichol was denied reappointment by Gov. Angus King after battered women's advocates complained about his alleged insensitivity to women applying for restraining orders - which, the judge's many defenders said, meant simply that he listened to both sides of the story.

All your scenarios are stories from your friends or some other person you know.. Which are one sided stories. They are stories that they have told you.. You don't see what happens behind those closed doors..The things they don't tell you, the things they did that helped provoke the situation.

The other thing is, all your stories are about abusive people.. I told you, I'm not talking about abusers.. I'm talking about people that are being victimised by a bitter ex who can't move on with their life.

Ahh the assumptions.. ("how a lot of my problems started/kept going") I had to laugh at that.. And what problems would they be? The psychological disorder my ex had? the 3 times she hit me in front of the kids? The many times she verbally mouthed off in front of the kids? The many times she denied stuff in counselling, stuff that had evidence and or witnesses? and so on...
Don't be talking shit about things you have no idea about..
Yeah we argued for about 3 months after our separation, then, we talked through stuff and put it behind us... Thats because we are adults...

Its not "deflection".. YOur assuming I was saying you have no idea.. Which I now know you don't because you DON'T HAVE KIDS...and don't SHARE PARENT..

You know you talk about fathers not being there for their kids and distancing themselves.. You know why many of these fathers do this???? Its because for many of them, the arguing, the bias court system, the lies and BS from the ex wife and the controlling of visitation.. (I can see them but you can't because your a man) all gets to much to handle.. They are at their wits end and resort to distancing themselves to avoid the botterness and anger and lies from the ex. They don't want to do it because they want to see their kids.. But, what other choice do they have? They go to see their kids, the ex gets all stupid with them, they raise their voice out of frustration of someone trying to tell them they can't see their own flesh and blood and then have the police called on them because they raised their voice.. Ohh, but its ok that the woman screamed and yelled and physically man handled him..

I saw a guy at work earlier this year get arrested at the gate.. WHY? because he couldn't handle not seeing his children so he popped in and said hi to them (broke the pathetic restraining order) She called the cops and he was disgracefully arrested at the gate of his work.. Ohh.. it was a short term job that paid very well.. Not for him.. it was his first day and his last because of the arrest.. You wonder why people get frustrated? She not only stops him from seeing his kids, she financially ruins him, gives him a police record and so..

You know what, Two adults can argue their arses off, this does not mean they will do the same with their children.. They argue with each other because they have grown to hate each other.. They still love their kids..

You seem to like assuming things.. so I'll make the assumption that you will be one of these b*tchy mothers that restrict access to the father, use the courts in your favour and think that its perfectly fine and that the children will get over it..

It always gets me why people with out kids prowl the single parent forums and claim they know everything. When in actual fact, they know relatively little because they have no idea what having children is all about..All they know is second hand stories and things that books or newspapers tell them..

Stopping the kids from seeing the other parent is punishing that child and makes them feel that they are to blame for mum and dad not living together..

It always gets me that people assume (there's that word again) that people without biological children have never parented, and that extensive experience in child advocacy is tossed aside because I haven't shot a load up someone that "took".