An interesting argument-

[twysted73]

That's what we call an "analogy."



You'd be amazed at how well crazy people can hide their craziness when they want to.



No, you don't sound like it, and, yes, they are.

Amen to this whole thing.

Bunny, I think I'll put this in my journal.

 

[FurryFury]

IMO all things need to be considered. Stability of mind being high on the list. If I had the perfect answer I would be submitting it to all states for consideration. However I think that states arbitrarily deferring to the mother or swinging in the opposite direction and giving primary to the father in an attempt to be progressive fails too many times. Each case is individual and should be looked at as such.

I agree with you.

I understand the idea of the child staying the mom in most cases because, after all, in most relationships the mother carried the child, birthed the child and took care of 90% or more of the child's care up until school.

Mental health being an issue kind of scares me. Maybe because such issues run in my family and who is to say I would be considered sane enough to be "healthy" for me kids?

Money sometimes becomes the deciding factor. Often that's when men get the kids. To me that's a false issue. As a child money was often short. As long as I was with my mom I felt loved and (usually) safe. That safe feeling may have been false but I wouldn't have traded being with my mom (in those years) for all the money in the world.

The best interests of the child should be the deciding considerations. What the child wants should also be a strong deciding factor and become stronger the older they get.

Unfortunately, the court often puts "things" and money at the top of the list of what kids need. That's partly because they either want to make money on the case or at least not have to contribute money for the child when a parent can provide. That means the court is more interested in what is best for the court, big surprise.

All this court mandated shit is scary to me because I've been through a divorce as a child and it sucked.

I've been through a divorce with a child as a parent and it sucked. I'm just lucky my child is alive today. I'm hoping she will not be emotionally, subconsciously fucked for life because of those terrible visitations she was court ordered to go on.

There are times when I hate myself for not realizing what a monster he would be to her. I truly get upset at myself for ever loving him, for not checking out his mental or health issues prior to mating with him and so on.

Of course if I had done the wise thing I wouldn't have this wonderful daughter in my life.

 

[madetotakeit]

Of course if I had done the wise thing I wouldn't have this wonderful daughter in my life.

Excellent proof that whatever we have to go through in life, no matter how difficult...there is a reason.

 

[FurryFury]

Excellent proof that whatever we have to go through in life, no matter how difficult...there is a reason.

Heh, well, I can't buy that entirely but it would be nice if I had that kind of faith.

 

[rida]

Analogy aside, it is hard to ask a court to decide what is best for the child.
Most of the cases are not so black and white that a decision is easily reached.

Just because the mother really loves the child, does not make her the most fitted parent. Just because the father is the one that walked away from the marriage, does not mean he is not fitted to be the custody parents. It is true the each case should be analyzed one by one, but honestly it would be very expensive and never ending. What I perceive the court are doing with the joint custody thing is to basically not have to make a decision. Ultimately let the parents work it out, hoping that their love for their child will eventually supersede any animosity and lead them to chose the best for the child.

The example from EmpressFi of the child spending 2 month each in a different household is surely sad. And yes the parents should stop competing with each other. But saying that one should move or give up the arrangement is a bit shortsighted.
It is stressful to travel so often, but it surely seems that both parents are being loving and caring and providing at the best of their ability. Moving might make them loose their job. Giving up the joint custody might make the child feel abandoned after getting used to such a life. We are in no position, as the judges often are, to say what is best. So far the child seems adjusted and happy. So far the arrangement works. That is all that should matter. Even if that arrangement would not work for us.

As an aside, I love my kids dearly and have no intention to get divorced. But if for any reason I felt that they were better off without me in their daily life, I would let them go.

 

[FurryFury]

There is no way that child is truly happy and well adjusted. He is just coping the way kids do. The proof of what he is really feeling will come out later.

I do agree the courts don't care. They do encourage the parents and their lawyers to work out the details. Sadly, the parents often do NOT put the children first. God knows lawyers don't.

I had the hardest time trying to get my lawyer to understand that money wasn't the thing I was most interested in my divorce, sole custody was.

He also didn't understand why I preferred my older reliable car over a newer unreliable car.

It's all about money and power to them, most men and the courts.

BTW, another thing I would like to believe is that if my life had been different, the life energy that went into my daughter, would have gone into anther baby that came into the world under better circumstances. I don't believe that but I'd like to.

 

[Netzach]

How many children from intact families are well adjusted and happy?

We all have our "stuff" one way or the other, happiness of children is used to keep adults miserable and hostage to a bad life far too often.

Some people should be as far from one another as possible and some children as far from one or more bio parent as possible.

 

[DVS]

Talk about lowering children to nothing more than simple leverage against your Ex!
Sam and Lindsey Porter were last seen with their dad, Daniel Porter in June, 2004. He and Tina Porter shared joint custody and they were together with him for a weekend visit.

For more than three years, Porter refused to say where Sam and Lindsey were, only saying they were safe. He also told many other stories, saying he sold them to strangers, they were with friends, and even that they were dead. There was no evidence of their location, and because he wouldn't cooperate with authorities, Tina Porter had to live with the uncertainty of her children's safety for those three years.

Porter was convicted of kidnapping his children...the only charge they could convict him of, without any evidence of where Sam and Lindsey were. He was given the chance for a lighter sentence, if he would just say where Sam and Lindsey were. He refused to change his story.

Even after numerous pleas from Tina, family and friends, Porter would never say where they were. He would only say that they were OK and that she would never seen them, again. His only reason for acting this way was because he wanted to get back at Tina. He said he wanted her to suffer, as he did.

Finally, in September of 2007, Daniel Porter confessed to killing Sam and Lindsey and buring them in shallow graves, in a wooded area he was familar with, as a boy. He told where he had buried them, to save himself from the death penalty. He shot each in the back of the head.

Porter said he knew what he was doing, the whole time. But, the fact still remains that he did it to get back at Tina. He used his own children as pawns. Tina wanted sole custody, because she thought Daniel might have thoughts of taking the kids out of the country, or hiding out somewhere with them, so she couldn't see them. But, nobody, not even Tina, thought he could harm his own children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl6mWCa4xkM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yly9MDjXqxc&feature=related

 

[SweetGigi]

Well this thread is just sunshine and rainbows!

That just made me do a spit take!! HHAHAHA

I think that that analogy overly simplifies the situation, and not in a "now its more easy to understand" way.

I agree. Each situation is unique and needs to be considered individually.

How many children from intact families are well adjusted and happy?

We all have our "stuff" one way or the other, happiness of children is used to keep adults miserable and hostage to a bad life far too often.

Some people should be as far from one another as possible and some children as far from one or more bio parent as possible.

I couldn't agree with this statement more. There are some people who just don't need to be any where near their kids. Crazy is as crazy does.

 

[FurryFury]

How many children from intact families are well adjusted and happy?

We all have our "stuff" one way or the other, happiness of children is used to keep adults miserable and hostage to a bad life far too often.

Some people should be as far from one another as possible and some children as far from one or more bio parent as possible.

I agree with you 100%!

 

[FurryFury]

Talk about lowering children to nothing more than simple leverage against your Ex!
Sam and Lindsey Porter were last seen with their dad, Daniel Porter in June, 2004. He and Tina Porter shared joint custody and they were together with him for a weekend visit.

For more than three years, Porter refused to say where Sam and Lindsey were, only saying they were safe. He also told many other stories, saying he sold them to strangers, they were with friends, and even that they were dead. There was no evidence of their location, and because he wouldn't cooperate with authorities, Tina Porter had to live with the uncertainty of her children's safety for those three years.

Porter was convicted of kidnapping his children...the only charge they could convict him of, without any evidence of where Sam and Lindsey were. He was given the chance for a lighter sentence, if he would just say where Sam and Lindsey were. He refused to change his story.

Even after numerous pleas from Tina, family and friends, Porter would never say where they were. He would only say that they were OK and that she would never seen them, again. His only reason for acting this way was because he wanted to get back at Tina. He said he wanted her to suffer, as he did.

Finally, in September of 2007, Daniel Porter confessed to killing Sam and Lindsey and buring them in shallow graves, in a wooded area he was familar with, as a boy. He told where he had buried them, to save himself from the death penalty. He shot each in the back of the head.

Porter said he knew what he was doing, the whole time. But, the fact still remains that he did it to get back at Tina. He used his own children as pawns. Tina wanted sole custody, because she thought Daniel might have thoughts of taking the kids out of the country, or hiding out somewhere with them, so she couldn't see them. But, nobody, not even Tina, thought he could harm his own children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl6mWCa4xkM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yly9MDjXqxc&feature=related

This sort of thing is unimaginable to me but sadly, happens far too often.

 

[sereneone4u]

There are also many women who do horrific things to their children to get back at their ex. Check out Parental Alienation Syndrome and Malicious Mother Syndrome. No matter what your gender, people can and will get nasty when a marriage ends. It is heartbreaking, because the number one casualties are the children themselves.

Also, money is not a huge factor in deciding custody, financials can be evened out by ordering child support and spousal support. Major factors are who will allow the other spouse open and equal access to the other parent, the child's well being and development in whichever parent's care, ties to the community, morals, etc. Many men pay out the ass and their exes refuse them any visitation, going to court over and over again to be allowed access while the witches scream about their golden uteruses. On the other hand, there are insidious filth such as posted above that kill their children as punishment...

We do not realize until it is too late how careful one must be in choosing who one mate's with...

 

[Primalex]

Stability of mind being high on the list.

How unfair. Where would you find such a woman?

 

[Primalex]

"If you put a dollar in a soda machine and the machine gives you a soda; does the soda belong to you or the machine?"

Well, you could also say:

If you put your dick in a soda machine, you get what you deserve.

 

[rida]

There is no way that child is truly happy and well adjusted. He is just coping the way kids do. The proof of what he is really feeling will come out later.

If we go down the "truly happy" road, than we are going to the "they should have not divorced for the sake of the child" road. And I personally know all to well that happiness is not found there.

Of course in a perfect world, people would mate with the perfect partner and work through difficulties and live happy ever after. And people that has no business having children would know that and voluntary abstain from procreation.

I do agree the courts don't care. They do encourage the parents and their lawyers to work out the details. Sadly, the parents often do NOT put the children first. God knows lawyers don't.

I had the hardest time trying to get my lawyer to understand that money wasn't the thing I was most interested in my divorce, sole custody was.

He also didn't understand why I preferred my older reliable car over a newer unreliable car.

It's all about money and power to them, most men and the courts.

BTW, another thing I would like to believe is that if my life had been different, the life energy that went into my daughter, would have gone into anther baby that came into the world under better circumstances. I don't believe that but I'd like to.

{hugs} to you

 

[Primalex]

Of course in a perfect world, people would mate with the perfect partner and work through difficulties and live happy ever after.

I would have thought the perfect world is much more socialistic. The problem is that kids are seen as personal property.

 

[caela]

The not being allowed to move thing simply sucks. I understand the logic that it's meant to make it easier for BOTH parents to be involved with their child but in many cases one parent or the other doesn't necessarily WANT to be involved with the child but simply uses that law to make the other person unhappy.

It's a law I've had to think about a lot of late because of being pregnant and the sperm donor (I refuse to call him a father!) wants nothing to do with the baby. He told me that if I chose to have the baby that my mistakes were my own. Granted I can still sue him for child support but if I do that here than he can turn around and keep me from moving any further than 100 miles away from where he is regardless of whether he actually bothers to visit or not. The fact of him paying entitles him to force me to remain on the off chance he might deign to make an appearance in my daughter's life.

 

[HottieMama]

The not being allowed to move thing simply sucks. I understand the logic that it's meant to make it easier for BOTH parents to be involved with their child but in many cases one parent or the other doesn't necessarily WANT to be involved with the child but simply uses that law to make the other person unhappy.

It's a law I've had to think about a lot of late because of being pregnant and the sperm donor (I refuse to call him a father!) wants nothing to do with the baby. He told me that if I chose to have the baby that my mistakes were my own. Granted I can still sue him for child support but if I do that here than he can turn around and keep me from moving any further than 100 miles away from where he is regardless of whether he actually bothers to visit or not. The fact of him paying entitles him to force me to remain on the off chance he might deign to make an appearance in my daughter's life.

Get him to sign over his parental rights. You won't get child support, but he will have no legal claim to the child whatsoever.

 

[FurryFury]

There are also many women who do horrific things to their children to get back at their ex. Check out Parental Alienation Syndrome and Malicious Mother Syndrome. No matter what your gender, people can and will get nasty when a marriage ends. It is heartbreaking, because the number one casualties are the children themselves.

Also, money is not a huge factor in deciding custody, financials can be evened out by ordering child support and spousal support. Major factors are who will allow the other spouse open and equal access to the other parent, the child's well being and development in whichever parent's care, ties to the community, morals, etc. Many men pay out the ass and their exes refuse them any visitation, going to court over and over again to be allowed access while the witches scream about their golden uteruses. On the other hand, there are insidious filth such as posted above that kill their children as punishment...

We do not realize until it is too late how careful one must be in choosing who one mate's with...

I totally agree with the statement I've put in bold.

I think in general women are more like to be nurturing and less likely to kill their kids than men but yes, horrible things do happen with both sexes.

 

[FurryFury]

Get him to sign over his parental rights. You won't get child support, but he will have no legal claim to the child whatsoever.

I agree that would likely be best.

I think my daughter would have been MUCH better off if I had been able to arrange that.

Sadly, my ex enjoyed messing with her too much and through her, me and my family.

 

[FurryFury]

If we go down the "truly happy" road, than we are going to the "they should have not divorced for the sake of the child" road. And I personally know all to well that happiness is not found there.

Of course in a perfect world, people would mate with the perfect partner and work through difficulties and live happy ever after. And people that has no business having children would know that and voluntary abstain from procreation.



{hugs} to you

I agree with you for the most part. I was so truly happy when my parents divorced because it meant less fighting, crying and drama which I was sick of. I cried when they got back together. That's not supposed to be the norm for a child I know.

Children are very adaptable and thank goodness. It takes a while before they understand and can communicate about their feelings. Often they simply push them down, disconnect through various forms of media and/or act out without understanding why.

Sometimes they are so afraid of the adults around them that they seem perfectly happy and well adjusted when they are very far from it. Only with time does the damage become more apparent. As the child grows up angry, and with (often, self), destructive tendencies.

Parents want to see the child as happy. As long as the child isn't causing any active problems they therefore assume all is fine.

I was, and still can be, a great chameleon.

 

[FurryFury]

I would have thought the perfect world is much more socialistic. The problem is that kids are seen as personal property.

I totally agree that the statement I put in bold is a huge part of the problem.

 

[Primalex]

I think in general women are more like to be nurturing and less likely to kill their kids than men

Huh? This surprises me. In my opinion it's more the opposite way. Women tend to kill the younger ones, men tend to kill the older ones (with the mother in one go). When a man abuses a young one till it dies, then usually together with the woman. This is at least my impression.

 

[FurryFury]

Huh? This surprises me. In my opinion it's more the opposite way. Women tend to kill the younger ones, men tend to kill the older ones (with the mother in one go). When a man abuses a young one till it dies, then usually together with the woman. This is at least my impression.

In general, women if they kill, may be more likely to kill younger kids and men might possibly be more likely to kill older kids, I'm not sure about that. I'd need to look into it.

However, statically and historically speaking, men are far more likely to kill, and/or physically damage, period.

Although our society is and has for sometime been changing, I believe women are far more likely to be doing things for their kids and SO than men.

As women have more life choices and opportunities, our society has seen an upswing in crimes by women as well as women who voluntarily bow out of child rearing.

Though, ideally both parents should be in a child's life, these days that is often not the case. Losing either parent, for any reason, can damage a child. Yet, having the wrong sort of parent can, in many ways, be far worse.

Parents who hurt children or kill them are mentally ill IMO.

I believe the loss of a mother is more likely to cause problems for a child. This is, in part, because it is so rare and less accepted by society in general. Our society still sees mothers as nurturers. All of this makes it harder for the child to understand that sort of abandonment.

Whereas, father's have a long history of child and mate abandonment. Statics show many risk factors in these cases. So, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's ideal for the father to be out of a child's life. That depends on the type of person the father is with his kids. I just believe it's somewhat easier for a child to cope with emotionally and socially.

 

[rida]

I would have thought the perfect world is much more socialistic. The problem is that kids are seen as personal property.

Guess I should scrape "perfect" from my vocabulary. After all chances are my idea of perfection is not the same as yours.
True, children should not be considered property. But alas it is not going to stop any time soon ...

I agree with you for the most part. I was so truly happy when my parents divorced because it meant less fighting, crying and drama which I was sick of. I cried when they got back together. That's not supposed to be the norm for a child I know.

Children are very adaptable and thank goodness. It takes a while before they understand and can communicate about their feelings. Often they simply push them down, disconnect through various forms of media and/or act out without understanding why.

Sometimes they are so afraid of the adults around them that they seem perfectly happy and well adjusted when they are very far from it. Only with time does the damage become more apparent. As the child grows up angry, and with (often, self), destructive tendencies.

Parents want to see the child as happy. As long as the child isn't causing any active problems they therefore assume all is fine.

I was, and still can be, a great chameleon.

I can relate to that. Except my parents never divorced and never will. No fighting or drama either here. Just cold resentment and total distaste from one end and total oblivion on the other, if not that I was (and they still try ) made to be the ambassador, and the recipient of their displeasure with the other party.

But as Netzach pointed out, even intact family children have their own damage. Believing in Karma and reincarnation, I see our struggles as the lesson we are meant to learn this life, unresolved issues from the previous one.

It was not perfect and I was not happy. I'll put up the happy face and go about. But I've learned a lot from this. And I am trying to apply what I have learned in my life.

Still I know I am not doing such a great job with my own kids, although I am doing my best. For that, I'll have a stash of cash labeled "children mental health fund"