|
|
|
|
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/18/2008 10:48:49 AM | ""p-trishTHEdish: I tried to email this apollogy to you directly, however the Plenty of Fish error message stated that p-trishTHEdish does not accept messages from the male gender...""
this is inflamatory bs put here by you. your alias was blocked ions ago. what a sad little man you are to put that here like that, to lie like that. how terribly pathetic of you. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/18/2008 11:02:20 AM | my settings dont allow any men under 40 or more than 75 miles in distance from me, among other things.
what was funny about that post is that he thought i could be offended by him. i would first have to respect you to even begin to think i might on some remote possibility be even the slightest offended by something you anyone on the internet said, who i dont have a personal relationship with. you are in my opinion, and offence to the human race. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/18/2008 11:08:14 AM | valleyrides wrote:
..many women use free legal aid lawyers here to contest a good father who is only asking for equal custody.I have personally reported such a women who isn't putting her owned real estate on the line to fight back to stay in the children's lives,but they continue to support her legal expenses ..
Finally! You speak the truth. When I had to sit in so-called "Family Law" court on hearing Mondays, I would see this type of gender-bias regularly grind ruthlessly on fathers whose only real error appeared to be in their choice of mates.
Women definitely use free legal aid lawuers to violate children's constitutional and human rights to have their fathers in their lives. I know of instances where mothers were litterally advised by their "workers" at Women's Shelters to seek a stay away order with no cause and specifically so they could take it to the DA's office and get state money from The Victim Protection Program.
In one instance the woman litterally set the poor guy up, having him arrested on false charges so she could execute this plan while he was in jail and the net result was that she and her children/meal-tickets ended up moving from the trailer park into a single family residance which she bought with the downpayment money she got from the state in this act of felonious fraud.
Of course she yes yet to be caught because her former spouse is now so caught up in "Family-Law" court fighting for custody of his kids he dosen't have time to try to fight the fraud.
How many Men's Shelters have you seen that will look out for a guy who is getting trampled by the ssystem and his former spouse (gasp - you mean women are just as capable as men of being jerks...).
father's are forced to settle because of the never ending financial expenses that run him under .When Legal Aid tried to stop this or cut back ..the womens movement complained about cut backs by legal aid because without the free legal aid mothers were loosing custody(i learnt about this on google).
I lived it! Look at the story I tell about the guy who got run up on false charges! For anyone who thinks this stuff is fairy-tale, go to your local court of civil law, find out which division handles "Family Law" and go sit in on hearing day. SEE THE TRUTH.
many fathers were fighting back and free lawyers helped maintain the womens edge when a father contested her sole custody request .lets see equal custody..and stop supporting anything other ..the system is very one sided and should be exposed for what it is and scrapped..
I'm telling you, college femenazi's take courses in grant writing and them appeal to the state and federal government for money to fund their cause. Part of the money-scheme is demonstrating a "need" so we get all the media hype about abusive men, even though statistics show that women are statistically guily of my domestic violence murders and injuries than men by like 60%.
Statistically we find the the types of things that land men in jail for domestice violence is a false allegation which is never contested and proven false - thus the man remains brenaded an "offender".
guynamejeff write:
unfortunately, equality in raising a child requires a great deal of cooperation. This at a time (divorce) when cooperation will likely be at its low point. I fear that some sort of third party involvement will always be required to establish parameters for how obligations, both residential and financial, will be established.
The Children's Rights Council produces studies which demonstrates that where pre-divorce councilling (like pre-marital councilling) is impliments AND WHERE JOINT/SHARED CUSTODY is being recommended by The Court, the divorce rate drops through the floor.
This means that if you take the overwhealming incentive rewards away from woman and put them in situations where they must work on things with their spouse - rather than filling lies, grabbing the money, property and kids - the MOTHERS CHOOSE NOT TO DIVORCE rather than to divorce.
happyboi wrote:
We want EQUALITY, not more power. And, quite honestly, I would speak out against a guy that wants more than equality, too. The pendulum is embedded on the mom's side right now. It needs to quit swinging, and just rest in the middle.
It has been my observation that, the women who want to deprive children of their constitutional and human rights to have their fathers in their lives - they will frequently argue against the swinging pendulum (whatever the hell that means) stating that it only imposes a new problematic power struggle.
Notice, they did not want the pendulum to stop swinging when it was going from women staying home with the family to women going out making a dollar or when it swang from woman tending the family to women having a voice and voting...
When it served "Women's" purposes, then the argument was that the pendulum naturally swings both ways and we needed to go from male dominated social values to liberation of women.
SO RIDDLE ME THIS: Why then when we all see that the pendulum has gone to far one way (violating children's constitutional and human rights to have their fathers in their lives) would we argue agains what was stated to be the natural course of the swinging pendulum when it served the FEMINIST AGENDA?
Unless we have been captivated by this agenda - in which case we might consider letting father's handle their fight to secure their children's constitutional and human rights to have their fathers in their lives for themselves.
Fathers do not need more rights than mothers, they just need more rights than they have now, so they can be equal to mothers.
CORRECT - so them maybe we can let the pendulum of social values and public opinnion keep on swinging, but we can also take the civil rights movement a step further to protect children's constitutional and human rights to have their fathers in their lives, as well.
I have read threads on here, where men have talked about how they are treated, that they are distrusted around their own kids, since "society" views fathers as unfit, in general. Others carry their divorce papers with them, to show that they are the custodial parent. Stuff like that.
Why would a father carry his divorce papers around to prove that they have custodial parentage of their children, I wonder...
I will offer you experiance and not speculation. There was an instance where my child was taken out of state on my visitation weekend by the mother who has a past of "pulling geographics = moving away with no notice" The cop automatically wanted to see my papers... then he wanted to see the original copies of my papers... then he wanted to talk to the DA to see if he should enforce the law (can you imagine if it had been a father who took flight?).
Four days latter I got a call telling me that the coast was clear for me to file a child abduction report...
It took me the better part of a week to get the cops to take notice of child abduction (even with copies of my order).
In other instances I had the doctor insist on seeing my papers before I could get records of my child's medical records which showed the child had been left for a week by the mom with a broken wrist.
In other instances I was forced by the denstist to show my papers before they would treat my child (primarily becuase the mother had already contacted them to try to cover up dental neglect).
And then lastly but not leastly, having had my resources exhausted from a 7 year battle to get the joint custody I should have had on day one, and needing to apply for medicare with the state so I could finish the dental work I - the father - was getting done for my kid - I needed to show my papers.
As if I were living in a fascist state, where the merit of my fatherhood was something suspended like Jews living in Nazi Germany, I could used to having to show my papers to prove my right to be a dad to my child.
I am not unique - this is happening to children (and their fathers) all across the country every day.
The system is broken, and most of us, just want equal rights.
Those of us who ant equal rights, better be willing to fight for equal right because as history has shown us - no power structure which has siezed control of a person's assets (and how prised an asset the parent-child relationship) will release it without a fight. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/18/2008 11:28:51 AM | p-trishTHEdish wrote:
this is inflamatory bs put here by you. your alias was blocked ions ago. what a sad little man you are to put that here like that, to lie like that. how terribly pathetic of you.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, but it sounds like it approximates a personal attack because as sad, little, terribly pathetic of a man I may be in your oppinion, I am executing due dilligence to keep this ON TOPIC.
p-trishTHEdish wrote:
my settings dont allow any men under 40 or more than 75 miles in distance from me, among other things. what was funny about that post is that he thought i could be offended by him. i would first have to respect you to even begin to think i might on some remote possibility be even the slightest offended by something you anyone on the internet said, who i dont have a personal relationship with. you are in my opinion, and offence to the human race.
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much... when you go on and on and on about how you don't care about something - it starts to give the impression that you might, indeed care.
Again, as stated before I am sorry if I offended you. And as stated before, I tried to take this effort at mitigating off the trhead by emailing you through Plenty of Fish and when I did try to send you my apollogy it came back: "blah, blah is not accepting messages from people your age or gender".
How this is my fault is not clear, but it is beyond the scope of my concilliatory efforts at keeping the peace with you.
You are correct, nobody in this thread care if you will only correspond with women over 40 and under 75 - so why wave so many red flags about it.
I'm sorry you are so hateful and I have notice you don't only take it out on me - but please try to keep your rants on topic, for your own dignity. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/18/2008 12:21:49 PM | ptrish msg. #144: "note* when clipping from someones post to reference, attempt at least to identify the actual point of it before shredding it for your own purpose."
Hi trish...no, I wasn't "shredding it for my own purpose." You said you would like to see what the statistics would be for deadbeat noncustodial mothers (in the future) for comparison purposes against the statistics for noncustodial fathers (as it exists today) if we got to the point where it is today, only shifted the other direction. How in the world would you be able to make that comparison without knowing the status quo? You wouldn't and couldn't. Therefore, since it is a statistic "you would be interested in finding out" and do not believe or trust a man to provide that info, I was suggesting you investigate it yourself. If you don't have the statistics for today, what are you going to compare future statistics to? How would you be able to affirm your implication? The point you were implying by your question (IMO), was that if the 'pendulum' swung the other way and fathers found themselves in the positions that mothers do today & vice versa regarding custody, that the mothers would be much better at fulfilling their noncustodial responsibilities as compared to how fathers of today fulfill those same responsibilities. My statement of giving you a heads up of what facts you would uncover, is that shirked responsibilities by noncustodial mothers today (prior to any pendulum swing or dynamics shift) is already on the rise and at or nearing record highs. So imagine if you will for a moment just what that statistic will be when the shift actually does occur.
I hope I have cleared this point up for you in a manner so as not to offend you again. Have a beautiful day.
~ds~ | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/18/2008 12:26:15 PM | dreamboat333
Knowledge can change things ....it's out of the bag now...keep it there ..
With internet access we can all see its very obvious yours as well as our justice system isn't the place for a father to turn for help anymore.This is so very wrong in every way one can Imagen .Our grandparents who fought in the world wars against repression would roll over in there graves if they new our governments used the freedom they fought for to destroy hard working fathers and separate there children from them the way they do in court.
have you ever checked out canadacourtwatch.com
..very interesting how many are getting beat up by the same courts that were established to ensure fairness to all ..
when I saw that protest on TV where they marched all the judges out onto the streets I thought thats what we should do here ..run them off ..because they don't think they have to bother listening anymore..but we are to civilized for that sort of thing..
we have freedom and justice here ..what a joke.. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/18/2008 12:58:50 PM | Over here we have something called
JAIL 4 JUDGES http://www.jail4judges.org/
I remember talking with a survivor of The Holocaust who told me the worse thing for them was when they were on the trains heading to the camps, seeing all those quaint little homes along the tracks with all the kids and moms and dads out in the lawns... and the way that you could smell the smoke all the way to the camps...
...how could so many, good, caring people not know what was happening... or was it that they just felt better looking the other way. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/18/2008 11:13:10 PM | Please read and comment on the following.
A GUIDE TO THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME
by
Stan Hayward Families Need Fathers (FNF) Research Officer
What is it?
The Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is the systematic denigration
of one parent by the other with the intent of alienating the child
against the other parent. The purpose of the alienation is usually to
gain or retain custody without the involvement of the father. The
alienation usually extends to the father's family and friends as well.
Dr. Richard Gardner in his book 'The Parental Alienation Syndrome'
states (P.74) "Many of these children proudly state that their
decision to reject their fathers is their own. They deny any
contribution from their mothers. And the mothers often support this
vehemently. In fact, the mothers will often state that they want the
child to visit with the father and recognise the importance of such
involvement, yet such a mother's every act indicates otherwise. Such
children appreciate that, by stating the decision is their own, they
assuage mothers guilt and protect her from criticism. Such
professions of independent thinking are supported by the mother who
will often praise these children for being the kind of people who
have minds of their own and are forthright and brave enough to
express overtly their opinions. Frequently, such mothers will exhort
their children to tell them the truth regarding whether or not they
really want to see their fathers. The child will usually appreciate
that "the truth" is the profession that they hate the father and do
not want to see him ever again. They thereby provide that answer -
couched as "the truth" - which will protect them from their mother's
anger if they were to state what they really wanted to do, which is
to see their fathers. It is important for the reader to appreciate
that after a period of programming the child may not know what is the
truth any more and come to actually believe that the father deserves
the vilification being directed against him. The end point of the
brainwashing process has then been achieved.
HOW COMMON IS IT?
Nearly every FNF member will have some experience of it. We have
cases where children as young as two years old 'claim' not to want to
see their father again, and cases where all children of one family
will all decide that they do not wish to see their father again. It
comes up to some degree in virtually every case where the father is
attempting to get or extend contact, and most appeals will include
aspect of PAS being a factor in the stopping or disruption of access.
WHY IS IT SO COMMON?
It is a very effective legal device for getting custody. There are
two reasons for this. First the Children Act of 1989 took more
consideration of 'the child's wishes', and secondly the Child Support
Agency separated the issues of court orders for maintenance and
contact. A mother who stops or disrupts contact 'defined by a court
order' is in contempt of court, and may be fined or jailed. There are
no cases of this actually happening because the courts will state "it
is of no benefit to the child for the mother to be punished", but it
does mean she may be repeatedly brought back to court for being
obstructive. To overcome this she will state "The child does not wish
to see the father". A Court Welfare Officer will then interview the
child and report that the child has confirmed that it does not wish
to see the father. The 'child's wishes' will then be taken into
consideration and the court will stop the fathers contact. The mother
will be in the clear, the CWO will have reported the matter
accurately, and the court will respond accordingly. The father will
have lost contact, probably for several years until the child is old
enough to become independent of the mother. In the majority of cases
the child will then return to the father. Interviews with adults who
have been through this experience as children make the common
statement that 'they did not know how to cope with the situation, so
avoided the father rather than hated him'.
WHY DON'T CWO'S RECOGNISE THE SITUATION?
They do, but a NAPO (National Association of Probation Offers)
spokeswoman stated "NAPO has no policy on PAS" meaning that though
recognised, there is no clear cut action to be taken. If the CWO
recommends Family Therapy it is expensive and time consuming. CWO do
not have the time, the experience, or resources to do what needs to
be done. They should interview the child out of the vicinity of both
parents, and better, in the company of each parent separately. Though
they are authorised to do this, they rarely choose to do so. A common
complaint of FNF members is that the CWO's interviews are not carried
out with the intent of getting the facts, but merely to go through
the motions. Most Court reports will be drawn up with the intent of
getting the result the CWO chooses rather than as information for the
court to decide upon.
IS IT OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED?
There are two distinct aspects of PAS; medical and legal. Medically
PAS is a form of emotional child abuse. Parents in hostile
separations typically suffer depression, anger, and aggression. The
expression of these feelings takes on the form of withdrawing love
and communication. This extends to the children via the custodial
parent. As a medical problem it is closely related to 'False
allegations of sexual abuse' used to stop the father having contact;
and to the 'Stockholm syndrome' which describes the children as
'hostages' afraid of the mother, and obeying her as a means of
survival. There are also aspects of 'False memory syndrome' whereby
the child may be instilled with false memories of the father. Legally
PAS is recognised as a behaviour pattern but often goes under other
names such as 'Coaching, Prejudicing, Rehearsing' and synonyms of
brainwashing. Although recognised by the courts it is rarely acted
upon because as a form of emotional abuse it is very difficult to
define, and would require bringing in Social Services. The other
forms of child abuse are Physical, Sexual, and Neglect, and are
easily identified by expert witnesses. Emotional abuse can only be
registered as part of these. Some courts will act upon it, but do so
by simply ignoring the mothers claims of 'the childs wishes' and
indicate that she is being obstructive. The more enlightened courts
will order family therapy, and ensure that visitation rights are
kept. Anyone claiming PAS should always look for Family therapy as a
way forward. Although PAS is currently recognised, but not acted
upon, it is actually a crime to 'incite hatred on the basis of
colour, religion, or creed' . Also the government is considering
making 'Stalking' a crime on the basis of 'emotional abuse'. In the
USA one father had maintenance suspended on the grounds that his
daughter 'hated' him even though he had made every reasonable effort
to form a relationship with her. Such an approach by the courts here
would prevent PAS being used as a loophole in the law.
OFFICIAL COMMENTS ON PAS
A spokeswoman for the Home Office 'Probation Service Division states:
"Both the Home Office and the court welfare service are also aware of
the fact that parents may seek to manipulate their children and
encourage them to make statements designed to lessen the chances of
the absent parent being granted contact with the child. Where an
officer suspects that such coaching or manipulation has taken place,
he or she will take this into account when preparing the welfare
report and ensure that it is brought to the courts attention".
A spokesman for the Dept. of Health said: "The potential for
alienation by feuding parents is a commonly recognised problem"
A spokeswoman for the Inst. of Family Therapy said: "With one parent
gone, their fear is that they will be abandoned by the other, so they
say whatever the present parent wishes to hear", and "When children
under twelve are forced to choose, they tend to align with the parent
they are living with".
A leading Child Psychiatrist states: "...a child states that they do
not wish to see the non-custodial parent happens far too frequently
as a result of the bitterness between partners after the breakdown of
their relationship" .
WHAT IS THE BEST LEGAL APPROACH TO PAS?
If you are getting a solicitor there are now solicitors who
specialise in this field. Find one that works in this field rather
than one who simply claims to know about it. Get advice from FNF on
this. Magistrates courts tend to be dominated by lady magistrates.
Experience has shown that they are less sympathetic to the fathers
case than judges in the higher courts. If possible, avoid a
magistrates court and go for a county court. You can refuse to have a
CWO who you feel is not reporting your case correctly or not dealing
with essential facts. Don't assume they will ask you the right
questions. Write down the questions you would like them to ask, and
prepare the answers. When you meet up with the CWO then have that
information ready for them. If it is not included in your court
report then question it. Also make sure you know the date when you
can expect to receive the report, as some CWO's don't bother telling
you. It is essential that you question ALL ERRORS AND OMISSIONS AT
THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME. Notify the CWO of these before your case,
and notify the court of the reply (or lack of one). Have a listing of
the errors and omissions available at the court.
Some CWO's will accept and report PAS. You should keep a diary and
copies of all communications between yourself, the mother of your
children, and your children as evidence. Recognised evidence is
typically:
a) The mother obstructs all attempts for you to communicate with her
or the children in spite of saying 'she is not stopping the children
seeing you'.
b) The children will suddenly start making excuses for you not seeing
them. They may say they do not want gifts from you. Gifts sent will
not be acknowledged, or they may even be returned - signed by the child.
c) Though the child supposedly doesn't want to see you, it will also
suddenly stop seeing anyone connected to you. This will include close
relatives, friends, etc. They will even stop talking to your
neighbours and anyone who might be in direct contact with you. The
mother will also stop contacting anyone connected to you in spite of
outwardly claiming not to be involved in the childs attitudes. All
such instances should be recorded as it is an indicator that the
child is frightened rather than hateful.
d) The mother will pursue the strategy of obstructiveness by going to
the school, clubs, and places where your children regularly visit,
and state to the authorities that you are not to contact your
children there.
e) You will find that others close to the mother will not communicate
with you.
In all, the mothers strategy will be to totally isolate you from the
children by gradually breaking every line of contact you might have
with her or the children.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Your strategy has to be the opposite, and to create every possible
line of contact with your children, the mother, and anyone connected
with them.
There are no rules as everyone's case is unique, but there are many
common sense actions you can take.
1. Work on the assumption that your child might turn up tomorrow.
Ideally they will find you happy and leading a full life. They will
want to see you as the father they knew. They will not want to be
reminded of the past or of conflicts you have with the mother. Your
first priority is to make sure you are not destroyed or undermined by
the situation.
2. You will go through a period of grieving for your child. It will
be similar to someone who has lost a child through death. It will
occupy all your waking moments and dreams. This will last until you
can 'let go' of your child. You can best do this by keeping yourself
as fully occupied as possible. If you have contact with other
children such as relatives, or can be involved in childrens
activities, this helps. Retain and develop your fathering skills.
3. Openly discuss the problem with anyone who will talk to you about
it. You may be surprised to find how many other people have similar
problems and have learned to cope. It will relieve the inner tension.
Don't brood on it. Regard it in the way of men separated from their
families during the war. Think positively.
4. Try to play an active part in FNF. The worst feeling is of
helplessness. Doing something, anything, gives a feeling that you
have some control over the situation.
5. Make yourself knowledgeable about the situation. Collect articles,
letters, etc. that deal with this problem. What initially is seen as
a confused situation will soon be seen as a predictable pattern that
helps you to assess your own situation. Having a plan gives you
direction.
6. In spite of some women being the perpetrators of this problem,
most women will be very sympathetic and supportive of your case. They
will often be able to give you a good idea of why the mother of your
child acts as she does. It is a great help to have women friends to
discuss this with.
7. Try to form contacts with other FNF members. Don't just come to a
few meetings or assume that there are clear cut answers. We find that
each case has some new insight. It is only by becoming aware of new
attitudes in the courts, government, etc. that we can look at new
directions. Your case is important to us all. Make sure it is known,
discussed, and reported. Your comments are valuable. Write to papers,
write to your MP, write to FNF.
WHY DOES THE MOTHER WANT TO GET RID OF THE FATHER?
There is no clear cut answer to this. In some cases it is done with
intent by the mother to get rid of the father, while in other case
the situation just gets out of hand and drifts to the point where PAS
just becomes one more step in the wrong direction. A survey of FNF
members showed the following variety of reasons. In many cases there
will be several different reasons combined.
There are many reasons why a mother should want the children to hate
the father. Some of these are listed below.
1. The mother wants to start a new life and wants the father out of
the way. She may be more successful than he is. He is seen as an
encumbrance.
2. The mother wants money/property from the father and uses the
children as bargaining pawns.
3. The mother hates the father and uses the children as weapons.
4. The mother is possessive and wants all the childrens love.
5. The mother is jealous of the love/gifts the father gives the child
but not to her.
6. The mother cannot cope with her own life. Contact with the father
in any form is difficult for her. It is a common statement by fathers
that the mother suffers from depression. Sometimes PMT, when rows are
likely to flare up over minor incidents, and lead to greater hostility.
7. Disappointment. She feels he is unworthy to be a father and
doesn't deserve the children.
8. The mother is egged on by other women hostile to men. Typically if
she is in a group of single mothers.
9. The mother uses access to control the children (if you don't
behave then you can't see daddy).
10. The mother can't compete with the father who may be able to give
the children more treats in the short time he sees them. The children
may boost him at her expense, and typically demand more from her.
11. The children may be the only aspect of control the mother has, so
uses it to boost her own esteem rather than for the interests of the
children. This is the power motive more commonly seen in men.
12. The mother may still like the father and uses the children as a
means of controlling him.
13. The mother may be punishing the fathers new partner indirectly as
the father may know that he could see the children if it wasn't for
the new partner.
14. The mother may be independent and never wanted a man around
anyway apart from fathering her children (entrapment) . Or she may
have gained independence during the marriage and now wants to exploit
it.
15. As often quoted, the mother may see children as a way of getting
a house, welfare money, and other benefits. The father was always
incidental in the matter.
16. Some women actually believe that men are not interested in their
children.
17. The mother assumes hostility by the father towards her is also
towards the children, so 'protects' them by keeping him away.
18. The mother has a different lifestyle to the father, and does not
want the children to copy his way of life.
19. The mother may have no family of her own (typically foreign
wives), whereas the father may have a family. The mother regards the
child as 'her family'.
20. The mother may become emotionally dependent upon the child, and
regard any affections the child has for the father as depriving her.
21. The mother simply regards the child as her property, and sees the
father as making a claim on her 'possessions' .
22. The mother dislikes the fathers new partner, who she sees as a
rival 'mother', so prevents the child seeing the father.
23. The mother's new partner is the one who is preventing contact
because he wishes to be seen as the 'daddy'.
24. She fears the children will leave her for him.
25. She wants to prove to her new partner that he is the only man in
her life.
26. She may have come from a broken family, and not be able to
sustain a relationship.
27. The father is a constant reminder of the failed relationship that
she prefers to forget.
28. She may be starting a new involvement, or having difficulties
with the existing one, and doesn't want the children to tell the
father about her affairs.
THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING WHY THE MOTHER DOES IT.
If you know why the mother behaves as she does then you are in a much
better position to deal with the situation. A mother who has another
partner will want the father out of her life for the simple reason
that it makes her life complicated to have him around. The childs
needs are secondary. On the other hand a mother who lives in a house
owned by the father and relies on his goodwill for extras over and
above maintenance, might be alienating the children as a means of
getting the property or getting more money. In such a case the
situation might be open to negotiation.
WHAT ARE THE FACTORS TO CONSIDER?
As the main aim of the mother is to stop all contact, while the main
aim of the father is to gain all contact there are a number of
factors that can be assessed to give the father an idea of his chances.
1. The age of the children. The older the better.
2. The locality of the children. The nearer the better.
3. The number of children. The more the better.
4. The independence of the mother. The less the better.
5. The friends and relatives of the mother and father. The more the
better.
6. The resources of the father. The more the better.
7. The mobility and availability of the father. The greater the better.
It is a mistake of many fathers to assume that the matter is in the
hands of the court, and decisions made there are the essential ones.
The reality is that the courts decisions are only one aspect of the
situation. The mother has her own life to live, and she will have the
same problems as most people, probably more, so she will not want to
add to those by devoting her life to being obstructive. She will only
do it so long as she can get away with it without too much effort.
The children also have their own lives to live and they will not want
to give up the father just to please the mother. They may obey or
reflect her wishes, but only so long as they have no choice.
Experience has shown that in most cases where the father has kept in
contact with his children he will see them again. The fathers own
situation will change. What seems to be an insurmountable problem
today may seem solvable in a years time.
HAVING A PLAN IS IMPORTANT.
When a father first realises he is going to lose contact with his
children his feelings go from disbelief, through despair, anger,
depression, confusion, and a total sense of injustice. It is based on
the assumption that 'everyone' knows how important it is for children
to have the support of their father, and that he obviously loves
them, and they love him. Such notions are unfortunately naive. The
law is itself very confused. A court that refuses to send a single-
mother to jail for stopping contact will send that same mother to
jail for refusing to pay a parking ticket or her TV licence. Such
inconsistences will be found throughout the law, and even when the
law is clear, experience shows that its interpretation and
application is more suited to the beliefs of the judiciary than the
children.
Having a plan means looking at the situation logically rather than
emotionally. You have to write out all the advantages and
disadvantages of yourself, the mother, and the child.
YOUR ADVANTAGES:
a) You are highly motivated, and where there's a will there's a way.
b) You will be in the company of many other fathers who can offer
advice and support.
c) There is a growing recognition by the courts and society generally
of the importance of the fathers role.
d) The situation is changing to your advantage as the children grow
up as in almost every case known the child wishes to have contact
with the father.
YOUR DISADVANTAGES:
a) You will miss out on the childhood years of your child.
b) Other aspects of your life will suffer in many ways due to your
distress.
c) You will be unable to plan for the future in any way that will
include your child.
d) Much of your time, money, and resources, will be spent on the
problem without much to show for it.
THE MOTHERS ADVANTAGES:
a) She has the children and the law backing her.
b) She is probably able to get legal aid and other forms of financial
support.
c) She will be in contact with numerous other single-mothers who will
support her actions.
THE MOTHERS DISADVANTAGES:
a) The nature of PAS is itself the behaviour of someone who is
distressed, so she will not be a happy person.
b) She will know that the children will be mixing with other children
who have fathers, and that her children will be aware of this.
c) She will not be able to offer the experiences and support of a
father. The children will have a higher than normal chance of
suffering educationally, emotionally, and socially. She will have to
compensate for this in some way at the expense of her own life.
d) She will know that when the children reach an age of independence
they will almost certainly try to contact the father, and she may
even lose them altogether.
THE CHILDRENS ADVANTAGES:
a) There are no advantages for a child to have its parents separated,
or if separated, not to have free access to both, but children get
older, and with time question the mothers behaviour.
b) The disadvantages are losing one half of its family and all the
support and experiences that represents. A higher than average chance
of suffering from many social problems, which may include repeating
the cycle over again.
OUTLINING A PLAN.
1. The first stage is looking for direct contact with the mother and
child. Can you meet, write, or phone. If you can, then each instance
should include some aspect of continuity. Give your child stamped
addressed postcards to send before your next meeting. If the child is
old enough give them a phone card. You can even get a 'family' phone
card so your child can phone you from anywhere in the world. If the
mother allows it, pay for comics and magazines to be sent to your
child so that they are reminded of you regularly. Give your child a
couple of phone numbers of people they trust who they can contact if
they want to speak to someone.
2. If you are not allowed to contact your child, ask friends and
relatives to do so on your behalf. Get them to send invites and gifts
(even if you have to pay for them). If the mothers friends and
relatives are still in contact with you, see if they will give you
news of the situation. Try to retain good relations with them.
3. Apart from friends and relatives, the mother and child will have
contacts at school, clubs, playgroups, and various local places where
the mother and child go. There will be people who make contact with
the mother and child and may be able to give you information about
them. Remember, the mothers strategy is to block off all information
to you. If you are aware that your child plays in the local football
team on Saturdays at the park then this will give you some
satisfaction from both seeing your child and not being controlled by
the mother.
4. Can you participate in your childs activities? If you are not
actually banned from seeing your child, or from seeing only on
certain occasions, then you might be able to be a school or club
helper. In spite of some mothers choosing to interpret 'defined
contact' as the maximum, in fact it is the minimum. You would not be
breaking a contact order if you went to a school play or sports event
on days outside of your contact providing you went for the event and
not to have a one-to-one contact with your child. The same applies if
you were a helper in your childs school.
5. You can create situations that help you without meeting anyone
directly connected to your child. Participating in local events will
often enable you to get seen and known by people who know the mother
and child. If you can involve yourself in activities that get the
attention of your child, or children who know your child then the
chances are that it will get back to them. School and club outings,
Council sponsored events, charity shows, library exhibitions, and the
like are all places that require helpers. Being helpful and seen can
pay off in unexpected ways.
6. You can also get known by having letters published in local papers
and forming groups of other fathers locally. If the mother knows you
are presenting your case in a public way (without crossing legal
constraints) then she will know it reflects on her. What she wants is
for you to disappear. If you have a high profile in the community
then obviously you are not going to disappear, and she knows that it
is a problem best resolved by acting with more regard for the child.
7. Chance is a factor. It is quite common for FNF members to meet
their children by chance in local places. You can increase the
chances by being in the right place at the right time. It is not a
good idea to pursue this line, but simply be aware of it.
8. Ultimately the answer is for better laws and a more enlightened
court system. That will not come easily, but if it is to come at all
then it needs every little help it can get. Most fathers finding
themselves in this situation quickly learn that the 'legal path'
doesn't lead anywhere most of the time. Some members have spent huge
sums of money on legal fees without getting results. Just imagine
that money being directed to advertising our case in papers,
magazines, and letters to authorities. The results would be more
significant. In spite of this it is easier to get most fathers to
spend several thousand pounds on solicitors fees than to get them to
write to their MP and complain. One of the best boosts you will get
is knowing that someone in authority has read your letter and given
it consideration. You can learn to write letters by reading what
others have written. Even if your letter does not get published, the
paper you write to will publish similar letters because it knows the
subject is controversial.
SUMMARY.
Overall your plan is to do something. If you can do something that
directly contacts your child then do that. If you can do something
that indirectly contacts your child then do that. If you can do
something that keeps up your fathering skills do that. If you can do
something that promotes our cause generally, then do that. If you can
do none of these, then at least keep yourself busy so that you do not
get depressed or in a state that leaves you open to the criticism of
not being a capable father even if given the chance.
BEHAVIOUR PATTERNS OF THE MOTHER.
The most common pattern of the mother is to show that 'she is in
control'. She will do that in a variety of ways ranging from ignoring
you to humiliating you. Paradoxically she is able to do it on the
basis that you love your child so much you will put up with it. If
you didn't love your child you would walk away, she assumes you will
not, so will push her control as far as she can. Here are common
examples. In most cases the mothers do not take the children away
with any clear cut strategy in mind, it is usually an extension of
normal hostile reactions going through the sequence of :
(1) Arguing
(2) Hostile silence
(3) Restricted communication
(4) No communication
(5) Hostile action.
1. To insist that you come and go exactly at the times she
stipulates. If you are late or early she will make you suffer for it
in some way.
2. She will insist that you detail where you take the child and under
what conditions. She will not inform you of anything she does with
the child.
3. She will make changes to arrangements you have with the child but
not give you these changes until the last minute. If you complain you
will lose the contact time. If you have to change arrangements she
will simple refuse to accept the changes and you will lose contact time.
4. She will deliberately offer the child alternative events on your
days and then say the child has chosen the alternative event. She
will make you choose to insist on your contact time or allow the
child to do the other thing so that you will appear mean to stop the
child.
5. She will duplicate gifts you give the child to undermine the value
the child puts on it.
6. She will hide, break, or deliberately be careless with things you
give your child.
7. She will deliberately misinterpret anything you do or say to the
point where you will think twice about doing or saying anything.
8. She may ask for extra money for the child, and present the request
in such a way that it obviously implies you will lose out on contact
if you don't make the offer.
9. She will write to inform you of changes in contact times but post
the letter so that it cannot possibly reach you in time.
10. She will not keep you informed of the childs well being,
education reports, activities or anything that you might expect as a
parent.
11. If you do anything to help the child the mother may thank you in
a way she might thank a stranger doing a favour.
12. Should you buy the child clothes she will criticise your taste or
understanding of the childs needs.
13. She will criticise your home, friends, and life style. She will
use any of these as an excuse to stop contact.
14. She will tell the child that the court 'doesn't allow it to see
the father more than on the court order' when in fact the court order
only states the minimum contact time.
15. She will allow the child to miss homework during the week so that
it has to be done in your contact time, so vying with anything else
you will have arranged.
16. She will interpret your contact time as being the total amount of
time available for all purposes. If your parents want to see their
grandchild it will have to come out of your contact time.
17. If she sees you in the street when she is with the child she will
ignore you and force the child to do the same.
18. If you participate in school/club events and see your child there
she will tell your that you are not allowed to do it. She may well
contact the school and inform them (incorrectly) that the court has
banned you from such events.
19. If you have a new partner she will insist that the new partner is
not involved in contact times as it distresses the child.
20. If you send your child gifts on special occasions they will get
'overlooked' on the day.
21. If you phone your child and she takes the phone she will say the
child is busy or out. If the child takes the phone she will listen in
or interrupt the child.
22. She will constantly remind you of your shortcomings as a father
in front of the child. Any replies to this will be regarded as
'rowing in front of the children'.
In all, the mother will look for any way of undermining your position
in the knowledge that if you retaliate in kind she can stop contact
and use your retaliation as evidence of your attitude towards her
(not the child). It will be her intent to use such provocative
behaviour to push you past your limits and act in a way that can be
quoted against you.
KEEP A RECORD OF THESE INSTANCES. If she has a solicitor you might
send it to him/her and ask for the mother to be reminded that such
behaviour is disturbing to the child as well as provoking unnecessary
rows. You may have to arrange to meet up in a neutral territory so
that the mother has less chance of doing these things.
FNF gets hundreds of cases of PAS. The most common being a foreign
wives or women with a history of emotional illness. In most cases the
mother needs help. It seems that only a small percentage of mothers
who indulge in PAS are normal, stable, and independent. These would
more typically be professional women who have another partner and
exploit loopholes in the law to get rid of the father. FNF also gets
many letters from grandparents who lose their grandchildren, and
second wives who suffer (often intentionally) from the mothers
behaviour towards the father in using the children as weapons.
The reason fathers suffer is that most studies of broken families are
carried out by women for women. This is not to say they are carried
out against fathers but simply the fathers side has not been given
full consideration. It is only now that this is happening, and is
more the outcome of the Child Support Agency investigations than a
study of fatherhood in itself. It is for this reason that FNF has to
rely upon our members own experiences to get the information needed
for progress to be made.
SUMMARY
1. Fathers who can stay in contact with their children somehow or
other will almost certainly gain regular access to them again.
2. Fathers who can retain some form of communication with the mother
will probably regain access.
3. Fathers who have some form of network, family, neighbours,
friends, etc.,who can keep in contact with the child or mother will
probably regain access.
4. Fathers who rely on the court system to help them will certainly
be disappointed.
This may seem an extreme action, but look at who is actually involved
in your case.
1. Your solicitor. He will certainly have your best interests at
heart, but it is still work for him whether he wins or loses.
2. The Court Welfare Officer. She will doing at least one case a
week. At most she will only have about three hours to discuss your
case, and probably two days to write it up. It is likely that her
decision will be made on her personal reaction to those involved
rather than on the evidence. Court reports are notorious for being
full of mistakes, misinterpretations, and omissions. Also, even
though CWO may be well- intended, sympathetic, and knowledgeable, in
the end they carry no weight in court. The report may be completely
ignored by the court. This hardly motivates the CWO to produce much
more than an outline of the case. Apart from this, most CWO's take on
the job as a second career. Many have very little experience or
training in the area of child welfare. If they are women, then it is
likely they have more experience at being mothers than being court
officers. This is often reflected in their assessments. It is a very
common experience for fathers to have the CWO tell him how well he
can cope with his children, only to find the court report stating the
very opposite.
A good CWO is probably your best friend. If they like you, and
believe you have a good case they will give you better unbiased
advice than anyone else. It is a pity that they have little power to
help in a more practical way.
3. The Magistrate. Family law magistrates are predominantly women,
and likely to be mothers. Though well intended, they may well feel
that what is good for the mother is good for the child. This is not
malice on the part of the magistrates. A typical magistrate may well
have been a legal secretary for thirty years prior to becoming a
magistrate. They have a background in legal technicalities, but not
years of training that allow the broad interpretations of the law to
be applied. Many apply the law in the sense that a traffic warden
applies the Highway code. In all, you are better off if you can avoid
having your case tried in a Magistrates court.
4. The Judge. At County Court level you will get a mixture of Judges.
The worst are those who feel it is beneath them to deal with the
'litigant in person'. It is well known that some Judges will always
turn down a father who presents his own case. Others are simply out
of touch with what is going on, or use the court for their own
performance. Because the court is what it is, one cannot act and say
as one would in other circumstances, but a just look through a book
of aphorisms relating to Law and Judges will show that they haven't
changed all that much over the ages.Of course, a good Judge is one
who can help. But as the above letters show, the Judges insistence
that a mother obeys the court order is no guarantee that she will.
5. The Mother's solicitor. He/she is your worst enemy. It is to his
benefit if he can 'win' - by which we mean take your children away
from you, or at least keep the matter going for years. The mothers
solicitor represents the mother, not the child.
6. The Child Psychiatrist. These generally agree the problem is
between the parents and not the father and child. Most will advise
mediation. Most mothers refuse. Most Judges will not insist on
counselling between the parents, though in the USA this is now a
common approach and a successful one. Most child Psychiatrists and
Psychologists agree that the courts are a waste of time in resolving
family problems.
IS THERE HOPE?
'Parental Alienation' is emotional child abuse. The Health department
has no clear definition of what 'emotional abuse' is. This means that
a 'emotional child abuse' is rarely - if ever - acted upon. It is
only acted upon as an extension of Neglect, Physical, or Sexual Abuse
when investigated by Social Services. For the courts to accept
'emotional abuse' as evidence would require calling in Social
Services. That is expensive and time consuming, so courts avoid it if
possible, in spite of the evidence.
Also, the standard answer from the Lord Chancellor's department is
that 'It would not be in the child's best interests if the mother was
sent to jail for disobeying a court order'. This of course, implies
that it is in the child's best interest to lose it's father forever.
In spite of that, the Criminal court will, and have sent several
single- parent mothers to jail for leaving their children at home
alone. They do so on the basis of the child being 'emotionally
abused', but in terms of neglect.
IF YOU CANNOT GO TO THE COURTS, WHAT DO YOU DO?
In practice you cannot avoid the courts totally, but they should be
used as a last resort. If you consider your situation in terms of war
then there are three possible outcomes:
1. One side wins.
2. Neither side wins or can win, but they stay in a state of
hostility and fight a war of attrition.
3. Peace is negotiated.
The problem here is that if the mother has been given custody she has
no reason to negotiate. But there are two cases where she might.
a. If she wants something from you.
It is obvious if she wants money, property, etc. This is common
enough, but she may want something that is not obvious, and she is
not prepared to tell you. It could be a change in attitude towards
her. The above list of 'Why mothers want to get rid of the father'
will offer some clues on this.
b. If it becomes too much of a problem.
This is where the courts can be useful. The nature of the system
means that everything takes longer than it should. It will generally
be inefficient - losing papers, adjourning hearings, sending the
wrong forms, etc. This overall bumbling can be put to good use. If
you have already lost your children, and effectively have nothing
more to lose, then you can continually make new applications, query
everything that comes along, send letters to her solicitor, demand
ongoing information, etc. By keeping the issue going the mother will
realise that you are not going to abandon your children. She may well
feel that it is not worth the trouble, and eventually ease up on
restrictions. Also remember that her life is not plain sailing. She
will have problems. She or the children might be ill, and you are the
only person around who can help. If you make it clear in all you
correspondence that you are open to putting the past in the past then
chance may well favour you.
THE LAST WORD
Tens of thousands of fathers lose their children every year. Those
(most) that want to keep up meaningful relationships with their
children fight an uphill battle due to inbuilt bias in the legal
system, lethargy by Family support systems, confusion and ill-defined
policies by government authorities.
This is offset by the fact that the media is increasingly
highlighting the problems of broken families. The social problems
that spin-off from broken families results in cost to the government,
and indirectly, concern to solve those problems. Fatherless families
are now a political problem as well. Most of all, the increasing use
of communications among FNF members, and allying ourselves with
similar groups of both fathers and mothers separated from their
children is now paying off. The recognition of PAS officially would
in itself effectively block a major loophole in the law, with the
subsequent benefits for children. This is the aim of FNF. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/19/2008 6:47:41 AM | Thank you. In all previous posts where I have spoken about Parental Alienation - this is exactly what I have been referring to.
The mental health expert who originally coined the phrase Parental Alienation Syndrome and presented the studies which have helped restore the constitutional rights of so many children to maintain meaningful relationships with their fathers... ended up getting knifed to death by his ex-wife.
A financially well-to-do dad, with a degree, who fights the injustice of the so-called "Family Law" system by writing scholarly reports which are getting public attention and ends up assasinated by his ex-wife in an act of domestic violence.
Our movement to restore children's constitutional and human rights to have their fathers in their lives is an extension of The Civil Rights movement.
It should not come as a surprise then that a leader in our movement gets conveniently knocked off as was the case with the honorable reverand Martin Luther King Jr.
So the objections to the usage of even so much as the word father which we have read so many times in this thread must be seen as man hating jargon from a dangerously perverse agenda.
Indeed, as history has reminded us, if we Men/Fathers do not rise up in righteous ingination and demand change, who will hand it to us freely?
Will the women/mothers who are systematically incentivized to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in exploit of their rage?
Will the Women's Shelter and special interest groups who have made a multi million dollar business out of gender-biased hate mongering?
Will the lawyers who out of one side of their mouths speak to the reality of how the so-called "Family Law" courts ruin families, while out the other side of their mouths use false allegations against fathers in order to support their law practice?
Maybe the judges who protect their careers by going with the flow and rubber stamping fathers out of their kids lives like we were all just annoying cases need to be filed away? | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/19/2008 7:52:32 AM | p-dish, wtf? "an offence to the human race"?
you make yourself and all women look like hysterical jokes.
don't do us any favor with your irresponsible remarks and put downs. you set women back about 100 years and nobody is taking you seriously. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/19/2008 8:56:50 AM |
The mental health expert who originally coined the phrase Parental Alienation Syndrome and presented the studies which have helped restore the constitutional rights of so many children to maintain meaningful relationships with their fathers... ended up getting knifed to death by his ex-wife.
A financially well-to-do dad, with a degree, who fights the injustice of the so-called "Family Law" system by writing scholarly reports which are getting public attention and ends up assasinated by his ex-wife in an act of domestic violence.
That's funny, this says Dr. Gardner killed *himself* in 2003... Yet another hazard of using highly biased sites as information sources. :)
(Original source HERE for those who automatically discount Wiki...) | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/19/2008 7:38:16 PM | I am frequently in contact with a person who knew Dr. Gardner and who has verified the following about the means of his passing:
Dr. Richard A. Gardner, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed a theory about parental alienation syndrome, which he said could lead children in high-conflict custody cases to falsely accuse a parent of abuse, died on May 25 at his home in Tenafly, N.J. He was 72.
Dr. Gardner committed suicide, said Gardner's son, Andrew, who added that his father had been distraught over the advancing symptoms of reflex sympathetic dystrophy, a painful neurological syndrome.
There was and still is much controversy about Dr. Gardner's findings and opinions on PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome) and HAP (Hostile Aggresive Parenting) I have been a victim of exactly what Dr. Gardner discovered through his research and know many others who have as well. In fact the numbers run in the millions. During Dr. Gardner's research it was mostly Fathers who were identified as the Target Parent. Today it is recognized that there are mothers and fathers who are the Target Parent. Our movement is non-gender biased. We do not use terms such as mothers, fathers, men, women, male or female when describing victims of PA. Instead we use the terms TP (Target Parent) and AP (Alienating Parent) Our world has become one of equality and it should be this way. That does not mean that I or others who support the movement for change do not recognize well developed statistics which prove the AP is more likely to be the mother. PA does not just apply to parents. Siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, etc. are targeted by the AP as well. | |
|
| |
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/21/2008 6:56:49 AM | If you are a parent who has been kept away from your child or children by the other parent for no good reason, please share your story with us.
If you are an adult and as a child you were kept away from one of your parents by the other parent please share your story too. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/22/2008 7:03:39 AM | I am the parent of a child who was removed from my home after the mother exposed her addiction to prescrption medication and gambling, after she gambled our families money away one night in Las Vegas.
Fearing that Child Protective Services might remove our child from our home if they discovered the mother's breakdown and irresponsible gambling and drug use, she disappeared one evening with my car and our child.
The only note she left said that she had left my car at the airport and was taking my child to the maternal grandparents home. However, when the only number I had for the maternal grandparents turned up non-operable and when I discovere my vehicle was not at the airport, I turned to the police.
The police could not locate nor contact the maternal grandparents to confirm the safety of my child and I was still unaware of where my car was.
The police and DA's office recommended filing a child abduction case to return my child to the safety of our home once the mother was found.
My ex-father in law,being a divorce attorney who never approved of our marraige due to religious and ethnic idfferences, upon being contacted by the authorities and realizing that there were issues he never wanted to come out in court, filed pre-emptive divorce papers which were in turn served on me by the very detectives who were helping me locate my kid.
My former spouse had fled to her father's ranch house 1,000 miles from our family's home, where she was now staying rent free (presumably to recover) and to support the move there were ex-parte papers filed (meaning I could not be present) which made false allegations and caused the judge to rubber stamp the move.
I have spent the last 10 years, mostly In Pro Per, restoring my parental rights and protecting the care of my child.
I now have 50/50 Shared Custody and depending on the behavior of the mother, this is the way it may stay until the child turns 18. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:22:55 AM | FOR YOUR CLARIFICATOIN REBECCA,
""p-dish, wtf? "an offence to the human race"?""
what part didnt you understand?
"you make yourself and all women look like hysterical jokes."
how could that be even remotely possible, i dont and have not claimed to speak for anyone other than myself, especially not the whole collective of women in the planet for gods sake.
"don't do us any favor with your irresponsible remarks and put downs. you set women back about 100 years and nobody is taking you seriously. "
a) i am not in the habit of doing ppl on the internet favors, so your request is granted before its made. b) my remarks are responsible, they are in fact accurate as well and dont use the large brush to paint a picture as the op does. c) i could honestly care less who takes me seriously or not in a public internet forum.i am posting on here like everyone else,, like it or dont, i am not losing sleep either way. umnlike some ppl, ( the poster this is in reply to specifically) i dont really spend time , caring who in a net forum , is taking me seriously or not. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:33:05 AM | "YOUR ARGUMENT appears to encourage the notion that we should just allow things to run their course, "
AND HERE IN LIES THE RUB,, as they say. you clearly and quite obviously stated that you do not and have not comprehended one thing i have said. even the very clear and direct point when i said "the entire system is fractured and it needs to be tossed out and started back from scratch"(to paraphrase). shifting the gender bais doesnt fix whats wrong, it just moves the very same the issues to the other side. shifting the bias doesnt make things fair, it mereely changes the gender baias. so then you would see the other side ( M v F) having the bias in their favor. the point is, there should be no arbitrary bias in either direction. seems the colletive is a bit bent on vengence than it is on fairness. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/25/2008 12:14:22 PM |
...i said "the entire system is fractured and it needs to be tossed out and started back from scratch"(to paraphrase). shifting the gender bais doesnt fix whats wrong, it just moves the very same the issues to the other side. shifting the bias doesnt make things fair, it mereely changes the gender baias. so then you would see the other side ( M v F) having the bias in their favor. the point is, there should be no arbitrary bias in either direction. seems the colletive is a bit bent on vengence than it is on fairness.
Trish, have a look back at the threads. ALL of the guys, at least, think the system is terribly biased for women. We do NOT want it changed to be biased to men, we want it, same as you, "no arbitrary bias in either direction".
To GET to that point, we have to move to the center between men and women. Right now, it is deeply biased twords women. Leaving the status quo in place, until someone comes along and rips it apart and puts in something new, is NOT the answer. The immediate answer, is to remove bias. Maybe, there is a loss of communications in this point. Moving the bias twords men, at this point, moves everything twords a non-biased standpoint. You may be interpreting THOSE statements as we want the bias to us, but that is not the case. We want there to be no bias, or a neutral bias.
You have to look at what we have now, as the status quo. The status quo is based on a heavy bias twords women. ANY movement, to reduce that bias, is a movement twords a male bias. I look at it as very linear. Any movement, at all, to make things unbiased, is quite frankly, a movement twords men. Ultimately, from what I have read, we all want fairness in our children's lives. Some of us are lucky, and did not have to fight hard, others have had their lives destroyed because of child custody battles. It isn't wrong to want equality in the eyes of the law. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/25/2008 3:20:24 PM | | i dont agree that kids need both parents, i know this is a subjective view but in my case my childrens father divorced them when i divorced him so what do you do when the father doesnt want to know? my children are now aged, 34, 32, 23, 22, 21, 19 and 16, and they will all tell anyone that they never needed a father as i should imagine can be the case with a lone father and his children. one parent is perfectly capable of doing the job of both . | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/25/2008 4:16:16 PM | I suppose the same could be said that a person doesn't need two legs. Lots of people manage to be successful with only one leg. How can we blame them if it wasn't their fault they lost a leg. If we were to ask them, they would say they get along just fine with one leg.
Does that mean it's not a bummer though? | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/25/2008 6:40:05 PM | one parent is perfectly capable of doing the job of both
angel54 thats your opinion and you might have had no troubles doing it yourself but the fact is children with both parents in there lives 50-50 have much fewer problems ..there have been many studies that will show the results of children having both parents or only one on the internet now..so we all no its better to have equal custody ,but still many women still use there children as a cash grab ..even after knowing that the odds are all in favour of the children's future life getting damaged by creating a single parent environment for there children..proving that the assumed care giver doesn't care ..leading me to have to beleive its just all about greed and control.. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:31:24 PM |
i know this is a subjective view
one parent is perfectly capable of doing the job of both .
Yes it is a very subjective view.
No one said that one parent could not do the job if need be. What is being said is that it has been proven time and time again that in most situations children do much better when both parents are involved equally. It is sad that the father of your seven children chose to not be a father. That is not what this is about. It is about those of us fathers who WANT TO be involved in our children's lives but are prevented from doing so for unjust, uncivil and anti-social reasons. Some of us have had our lives and the lives of our children destroyed at the hands of sociopath narcissist psychopaths who are allowed to manipulate the judicial and social systems in many countries throughout the world. Did you know that perjury is not pursued in Family Courts in this country?
Try this. Put the shoe on the other foot. Say your children’s father took your kids and began alleging that you abandoned him and them. Say he claimed you abused him physically, mentally and emotionally. Say he alleged that you abused your children. Say he alleged you are a dope fiend or a drunk. Say he was able to and did go to the cops and get a protective order against you, then drug you into court to make it a long term or forever protective order. Say he lied about the support you provide for your kids. Say he would not let you see or talk with your children…….Are you getting the picture? This is what is occurring daily around the world. Mostly to fathers but it also happens to good loving mothers. What if you were one of those mothers? Would your comment be the same on this forum topic | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:41:09 PM | ""What is being said is that it has been proven time and time again that in most situations children do much better when both parents are involved equally""
perhaps a more accurate statement is:
"children do much better when both genders as adults are modeled to the child and involved in the raising of the said child".
this modeling is not exclusive to the "parents". It is equally ridiculous to presume only the "parent" can provide the stability of an adult model and influence to a developing child. that key bond is formed within the first six years of the childs life. beyond that age, it becomes increasingly difficult for a child to trust and bond with any adult, even if that adult turns out to be a "once absent" biological parent. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:08:57 PM |
my remarks are responsible, they are in fact accurate as well and dont use the large brush to paint a picture as the op does. c) i could honestly care less who takes me seriously or not in a public internet forum.i am posting on here like everyone else,, like it or dont, i am not losing sleep either way. umnlike some ppl, ( the poster this is in reply to specifically) i dont really spend time , caring who in a net forum , is taking me seriously or not.
Well Ms. I Don't Care; I, the OP, do care that you continue to twist my intentions of this topic into the garbage which you attempt to make it out to be. You obviously have deep seated issues pertaining to this topic. Let me say this, since we are free to voice our opinions on this "net forum"; I am of the opinion that you are one of those parents who have committed the very acts that we as loving parents are attempting to have stopped and prevented. It is further my opinion that you have demonstrated to what lengths you will go to disrupt anything which is good for anyone other than yourself. You claim your remarks are in fact accurate, yet the only source of you have provided for your so called accurate remarks is the “Census Bureau” and we all have seen you weasel out of sharing where in the Census Bureau you obtained your information. I and other posters have provided our sources of information. A couple of conclusions have been reached on your input to this topic. 1) A person cannot carry on an intelligent debate with you because it takes two intelligent people. 2) Your so called accurate remarks are not accurate at all.
I guess all good shows come with a heckler………….. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:26:44 PM | ""I am of the opinion that you are one of those parents who have committed the very acts that we as loving parents are attempting to have stopped and prevented. ""
what would possess you to arrive at this particular conclusion? considering what i said about my ex's "access" to our children after the divorce while he was still drinking and doping, i do wonder what on earth would make you arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion. as far as the census bureau records, i made the presumption you and others could navigate a search engine. perhaps i was remiss in that presumption. | |
|
|
| Page 7 of 17
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Home
login 
