Fathers seize child agency office

Expatica ^ | 20 November 2003 | Novum Nieuws

[RogerFGay]

Fathers seize child agency office

20 November 2003

AMSTERDAM — A group of angry fathers, who are involved in custody battles over their children, took over an office of the Dutch child protection agency Kinderbescherming on Thursday, the International Day of the Child.

Between 15 and 20 men seized control of the building in Zutphen and effectively imprisoned five staff members, Kinderbescherming spokeswoman Annette van der Hoorn said.

The men, who have been denied visitation to their children, said they had taken the drastic action on World Child Day to highlight the injustice of their situations.

They have not allowed anyone in or out of the offices and hung banners from the window of the offices.

The men have demanded the child protection agency only give advice on how custody arrangements should be made. Present legislation means that parents who breach an imposed custody arrangement forfeit their custodial rights.

The fathers have also demanded a meeting with Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner, the mayor of Zutphen and Kinderbescherming director H. Pasman.

Van der Hoorn said the agency's staff members who were being held in the building did not appear to be in any direct danger. Staff were continuing with their work and the police were not called to the scene.

The UN designated 20 November as the International Day of the Child after the signing of an official convention on the rights of children in 1989.

[jjw]

'There is no better place for a child than with its mother.' 12/2002 - my family court judge in direct contradiction to Florida Statutes

[Pan_Yans Wife]

What is fascinating, in today's culture, is that new parents always congratulate themselves on co-parenting... that they both work and they both take care of the kids equally.

And then, when divorce happens, the father who got up with the infant for the bottle feedings, and took the kids to the doctor, and went to t-ball practice, just as much as the mother did, is still considered unfit to be the only guardian of the children.

That is not only unfair, but it seems like a terrible hardship for the children to absorb.

[Orangedog]

"family" court judges don't have to follow the law, and they know it.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I may be a more pragmatic woman than most.

But, I have no doubt that my husband is the better parent, and in the end, he would run circles around me through the courts, to prove it.

That being said, I won't risk it and see how the courts would decide my children's fate. I'll stay put, like a good mother.

[Jonx6]

"Joint meaning?"

joint custody n.
in divorce actions, a decision by the court (often upon agreement of the parents) that the parents will share custody of a child. There are two types of custody, physical and legal. Joint physical custody (instead of one parent having custody with the other having visitation), does not mean exact division of time with each parent, but can be based on reasonable time with each parent either specifically spelled out (certain days, weeks, holidays, alternative periods) or based on stated guidelines and shared payment of costs of raising the child. Joint legal custody means that both parents can make decisions for the child, including medical treatment, but where possible they should consult the other. Upon the death or disability of either parent, legal custody will go to the remaining parent and will give the active parent the sole ability to act as parent for the child without further order of the court. The primary affect of this is a psychological benefit for the parent and the child, so that a child can be told that both parents cared for the child, even though the child had to live most of the time with one of them.

[Pedantic_Lady]

How in the world did you make that non sequitur leap? Your moniker does not suit.

Thanks for your comment. I'll file it right here:

[Pedantic_Lady]

in divorce actions, a decision by the court (often upon agreement of the parents) that the parents will share custody of a child. There are two types of custody, physical and legal. Joint physical custody (instead of one parent having custody with the other having visitation), does not mean exact division of time with each parent, but can be based on reasonable time with each parent either specifically spelled out (certain days, weeks, holidays, alternative periods) or based on stated guidelines and shared payment of costs of raising the child. Joint legal custody means that both parents can make decisions for the child, including medical treatment, but where possible they should consult the other. Upon the death or disability of either parent, legal custody will go to the remaining parent and will give the active parent the sole ability to act as parent for the child without further order of the court. The primary affect of this is a psychological benefit for the parent and the child, so that a child can be told that both parents cared for the child, even though the child had to live most of the time with one of them.

Yeah yeah yeah. I know what joint means. I wanted you to tell me what the perfect situation is, since you obviously feel that you are an expert on the subject.

[Pedantic_Lady]

Do you think men should have rights in abortion decisions of their children?

No.

[mlmr]

Why didn't you move?

[m1-lightning]

Do you think men should have rights in abortion decisions of their children?

No.

I see. Pure feminist selfish ilk straight from the liberal handbook. The world does not revolve around you.

[Pedantic_Lady]

I see. Pure feminist selfish ilk straight from the liberal handbook. The world does not revolve around you.

Nor does it revolve around you. What makes you think that you have the right to determine the future of a child growing in someone else's body? Typical selfish ilk straight from the "men's rights" handbook.

[thoughtomator]

I can give you a firsthand account. For a male child at least, growing up without a father is simply devastating. It took me many many years to come to grips with what had happened.

I would have married 10 years ago had I not been determined not to inflict on my own children the grave harm inflicted upon me by the baby-boomer self-absorption of my parents. Since I was too young and immature to be a proper parent at that time, and I knew that, I declined to marry and let the lady I loved fulfill her needs to be a mother - with another man. I'm still torn over it, but on balance I feel I did the right thing. Given a father's guidance in my own childhood, however, I may very well have been ready then to be a good father in my own right.

I can suck up the effects of my own personal tragedies, but I will not sit silently as I watch it happen to other families nationwide!

[Orangedog]

Better question: why did the court let her move? What are dad's supposed to do, sell our homes and be forced to find new jobs every couple of years whenever the ex decides to look for greener pastures? Considering that my ex is on victim, er, I mean husband #4, she's due to be "upgrading" to #5 before long. Guess I'm just lucky that she moved less than 100 miles away.

[thoughtomator]

What gives any woman the 'right' to have her own child murdered for her convenience?

[Pedantic_Lady]

What gives any woman the 'right' to have her own child murdered for her convenience?

The SCOTUS, last time I checked. Roe v Wade. Look it up.

[Jonx6]

"Yeah yeah yeah. I know what joint means..."

Then don't ask what it's meaning is.

"I wanted you to tell me what the perfect situation is..."

Next time, try being pedantic and asking the question you what an answer to instead of asking a different one and getting fussy when I can't read your mind. The perfect situation is for the both parents to work on the marriage to keep an intact family for the kids.

"...since you obviously feel that you are an expert on the subject."

Again, try being pedantic and just stick to the information on the posts. You keep making things up and it makes your ramblings hard to follow.

[Orangedog]

There's that double-standard again.

[Coop]

What makes you think that you have the right to determine the future of a child growing in someone else's body?

The same folks that tell me I'm financially responsible for supporting said child.

[thoughtomator]

Last I checked, Roe v. Wade was plainly unconstitutional and widely acknowledged to be the worst ever opinion of the SCOTUS. Last I checked, the Constitution said nothing about abortion. Last I checked, the Constitution indicates that the subject of abortion rightly belongs to the individual States, as it does not fall within any of the enumerated powers of the federal government, and therefore, as the 10th Amendment states, the federal government has no Constitutionally-authorized say in the matter.

Last I checked, the line you are feeding us is exactly the same line as that of the failed radical-feminist movement.

[Pedantic_Lady]

"Yeah yeah yeah. I know what joint means..." Then don't ask what it's meaning is.

"It's" means "it is" or "it has." Literally translated (and you asked me to be pedantic), you said "Then don't ask me what it is meaning is." What the hell does that mean? Like I said, you asked me to be pedantic.

Next time, try being pedantic and asking the question you what an answer to instead of asking a different one and getting fussy when I can't read your mind. The perfect situation is for the both parents to work on the marriage to keep an intact family for the kids.

And keep the wife barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen where she belongs?

Again, try being pedantic and just stick to the information on the posts. You keep making things up and it makes your ramblings hard to follow.

LOL...that's rich coming from you. You can't even tell the difference between the possessive case of a pronoun and subject/verb contraction. FYI, they taught that in elementary school.