Presumption of Shared-Parenting - the ONLY Viable Solution

In Divorce proceedings involving children in the United States, law abiding and wholly-fit-to-parent Fathers are relegated to little more than "visitor" in 85% of those proceedings. This "marginalization" of the critical role of the Father has removed a critical developmental influence from the lives of our children - the negative impact upon the societal landscape of the United States is readily apparent to anyone that cares to open their eyes and honestly survey that landscape.

Visitors are not in a position to impart core-values to their children. The children are then often required to acquire their values on the streets of life - a street where differing values of "good" can cost that child his/her very life - conformance to the street then becomes a de facto necessity for life.

Visitors are not afforded the luxury of sufficient time to effectively mentor their children. The children instead emulate the thug on the street who has accumulated fancy clothes, jewelry, cars and drugs through illegal activities. Our children view these things as the "mark of success" and align their behaviors with the thug so as to gain the same material things in life.

Visitors do not have the opportunity to adequately serve as spiritual leader to their children - do we need to dig any deeper to determine the root cause of the decline in American morality?

Visitors do not have the opportunity to present a positive role model for their children that the children will then grow to emulate. The children instead begin to emulate the behaviors they view on television and on the local street corners.

Visitors are not in a position to implant the concepts of Right OR Wrong, Discipline, OR Self-control. The children instead learn antisocial behaviors from their equally disturbed and as equally angry peers.

Visitors are not allowed to serve in the critical role of disciplinarian to their children, and it is no small wonder that children of divorce are out of control!! The children instead run free throughout the streets of our Nation, learning new antisocial behaviors and vices.

I could go on an on about the limitations of a "visitor" when it comes to parental roles. Suffice to say, our children absolutely NEED BOTH PARENTS in their lives if they are to be properly prepared for life in the real world - a world which is fast becoming "not a pretty place."

Empirical data being indisputable, I have provided (below) current statistics from the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the Census Bureau and private studies, which clearly communicates the significant damage that has occurred courtesy of the "Failed Social Experiment" of the last 35-years - an experiment with human souls implemented by the Federal and State Legislatures at the behest of the TRILLION Dollar per year Divorce Industry, and an experiment which would certainly make Dr. Mengle' proud.

Simply by restoring BOTH "FIT" PARENTS to the lives of the children, these extremely tragic "single-parent statistics" can be reversed in a relatively short period of time. Children raised without BOTH PARENTS in their lives are: are 33 times more likely to be seriously abused (so that they will require medical attention). are 73 times more likely to be killed as a result of abuse. account for 71% of teenage pregnancies (Costing the US Taxpayers $40B per year). daughters are 2.1 times more likely to have children during there teenage years than are children from intact families. are 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide are 6.6 times to become teenaged mothers are 24.3 times more likely to run away are 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders are 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institution are 10.8 times more likely to commit rape are 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school are 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager account for 90% of all homeless and runaway children account for 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions account for 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers account for 85% of prison youths account for 63% of youth suicides account for 85% of all children the exhibit behavioral disorders account for 80% of rapists motivated by displaced anger disorder The ONLY viable solution to this societal crisis is the "Presumption of Shared-Parenting" for ALL "fit parents" and the "enforcement of the fundamental liberty right to parent one's children absolutely free from unnecessary governmental interjection unless/until it is clearly established that a parent is unfit to parent." This one reform in Family Law will "on day-1 of implementation eliminate the vast majority of contentious divorces, and will in fact, reduce the number of divorces due to the "elimination of incentives for divorce" which are so much a part of the lure built-in to the vile system of the Divorce Industry.

This "solution" is not just the opinion of this Father (or the 25-MILLION similarly-situated parents), but has been corroborated by the Journal of Family Psychology (March 2002, Vol. 16, No. 1) which published the results of a detailed meta-analysis of 33 studies, involving 1,846 sole-custody children, 814 joint-custody children, and 251 intact families. Participants were randomly selected from court and divorce records, convenience samples, national samples, school samples, and clinical samples. The finding clearly established that "that children in joint custody arrangements were as well adjusted as children in intact families, and better adjusted than children in sole custody arrangements." Further, the findings clearly established that "children in joint custody arrangements had fewer behavioral and emotional problems, had higher self-esteem, better family relations and school performance than children in sole custody arrangements" and that "these children were as well adjusted as children in intact families on the same measures."

Given the empirical data that accurately reflects that damage that is being done to our children by the forced-absence of a parent following divorce, AND given the empirical data that clearly identifies the solution - "Presumption of Shared-Parenting" MUST become the Law of the Land within the FAMILY Court Arena!!

CLEARLY, the "Presumption of Shared-Parenting" for all parents that are "fit to parent" IS in the best interest of our Nations Children.

The single argument that the opponents of Presumptive Shared-Parenting can muster is the time-worn tall-tale of Domestic Violence. Outright misrepresentation of Domestic Violence data was presented to obtain initial passage of the gender-discriminating VAWA legislation, and the Secular, Feminist, Lawyer and Medical lobbies of the TRILLION Dollar Divorce Industry continue to beat this fallacious drum in an effort to maintain their lucrative incomes AND Federal Subsidies - AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR CHILDREN AND OUR SOCIETY!

The governments own statistics indicate that Domestic Violence involves LESS THAN 2% of the US Population (currently 296-MILLION citizens) - while that is 2% too much, it is not indicative of rampant and wide-spread Domestic Violence. Domestic Violence (again the governments own data!) shows that of that < 2%, 1.2% of the victims of domestic violence are women AND .9% of the victims of domestic violence are men. This ".3% victimization differential" clearly establishes that Domestic Violence is a Gender-Neutral" issue (For this reason the discriminatory VAWA must be made "Gender-Neutral OR Repealed). Further, the "Less than 2%" statistic empirically precludes the vast majority of the 85% of the Fathers that have been made noncustodial at the behest of the Divorce Industry ARE NOT perpetrators of Domestic Violence!

Domestic Violence as an argument against "Presumption of Shared-Parenting" simply holds no weight!!

PLEASE see through the Feminist's anti-Family/anti-Society/anti-Male agenda. MAKE "Presumption of Shared-Parenting" the Law of the Land, AND either make VAWA Gender-Neutral or REPEAL IT!!

As an "unacknowledged" MALE victim of domestic violence, I can attest that Domestic Violence is in fact gender-neutral. I can also say with absolute certainty, that Domestic Violence is NOT the plague that the Secular, Feminist, Lawyer and Medical lobbies of the Trillion Divorce Industry would have the American believe it is!

There are currenly 25-MILLION Fathers in this Nation that have been rendered "visitor" to their children. Given that 1.2% of the incidents of Domestic Violence were perpetrated by males, AND assuming (wrongly) that Domestic Violence is only commited by noncustodial fathers (it's not), this would indicate that 300,000 of the 25-MILLION noncustodial fathers are perpetrators of Domestic Violence. While this number (would be) a tragedy if true (it's not!), how can this (bogus) datapoint be used as to formulate policy that has any logical OR moral basis - (failing) policy which is then used to (un)lawfully deny 40-Million American children a critical and meaningful relationship with 24.7-MILLION noncustodial fathers that could not be perpetrators of Domestic Violence??

CLEARLY, the vast majority of noncustodial Fathers are empirically precluded as perpetrators of domestic violence -- further reinforcing the Department of Justice Statistic that establishes that fully 71% of all claims of Domestic Violence are FALSE CLAIMS that are "designed" to gain leverage in divorce and custody proceedings.

Let us PLEASE stick to THE FACTS, rather than relying on the emotionally charged, "yet statistically insignificant" tripwire subject of Domestic Violence, and then resorting to outright lies and misrepresentation of data in an attempt to achieve one's desired goals.

The following CDC data accurately reflects that women are the primary perpetrators of Domestic Violence (http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm), Females within Single-Parent Households are they are also the primary perpetrators of child abuse: (http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm98/cpt6.htm)

US HHS data regarding child abuse is also indicative of a "gender-neutral" issues, although the preponderance of abuse is committed by the female of our species:

Single Parent Household Child Abuse statistics from U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Chapter 6 Perpetrators

A perpetrator of child abuse and/or neglect is a person who has maltreated a child while in a caretaking relationship to the child. Although the majority of perpetrators are parents, other persons in caretaking roles—for example, other household members, other relatives, day care providers, and residential facility staff—may also be considered perpetrators of maltreatment.

This chapter describes the characteristics of perpetrators—including age, sex, and relationships to child victims; attention is also given to the relationships between perpetrators of specific types of maltreatment and their victims, based on case-level data from the DCDC.

6.1 Characteristics of Perpetrators Figure 6-1 shows that for the States that submitted case-level data, about three-fourths (73.1%) of substantiated or indicated reports identified only one perpetrator, regardless of the number of maltreatment victims. Almost half (49.6%) of the reports had only one perpetrator and one victim. As seen in figure 6-2, three-fifths (60.4%) of perpetrators were female, and two-fifths (39.6%) were male. Female perpetrators were typically younger than their male counterparts, as reflected by the difference in their respective median ages, 31 and 34. Figure 6-2 shows that nearly half (46.1%) of the perpetrators were women between the ages of 20 and 39.

As displayed in figure 6-3, more than four-fifths (87.1%) of victims were maltreated by one or both parents. The most common pattern of maltreatment was a child neglected by a female parent with no other perpetrators having been identified (44.7%). This pattern may be influenced by the fact that female parents are more likely to have primary caretaking responsibilities, especially in single-parent households.

Table 6-1 indicates that when the type of maltreatment is considered, there are similar patterns of relationships between victims and perpetrators. For all types of maltreatment, more than half of the children who were victims were maltreated by one or both of their parents. The most striking difference, however, is that children who were victims of physical and sexual abuse, compared to children who were victims of neglect and medical neglect, were more likely to be maltreated by a male parent acting alone. In cases of sexual abuse, more than half (55.9%) of the victims were abused by male parents, male relatives, or other males.

============ REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin S. Fiebert Department of Psychology California State University, Long Beach

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 169 scholarly investigations: 133 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 152,500

Contained on this site, is information which dispels the MYTH that men is only committed by the males of our species. (http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/sheriff/dvra/dom_viol_facts_main.htm. The second and third items struck me as particularly interesting as the information is in total opposition to that used by the Feminists in obtaining VAWA's initial passage - clearly demonstrating that false testimony was used to obtain which has painted ALL MEN as domestic violence perpetrators.

MYTHS FACTS 95% of the domestic violence is by men against women. The National Institute of Justice and the Center for Disease Control estimates that 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are the victims of domestic violence each year. According to this NIJ/CDC survey, 37% of the domestic violence is against men. 100% of the federal domestic violence funding under the Violence Against Women Act is to be used for domestic violence against women. 100% of the federal domestic violence research funds disbursed to several federal agencies is devoted to domestic. Domestic violence by women against men is not serious. According to the NIJ/CDC National Violence Against Women survey, 10.8% of the women but only 4.1% of the men used a knife on the victim. 21.6% of the male victims were threatened with a knife, while only 12.7% of the women were so threatened. 43.2% of the male victims were hit with a hard object capable of causing serious injury, while this was true of only 22.6% of the female victims. When all serious forms of domestic assault were added together, as many assaulted men as women were seriously assaulted. All or almost all domestic violence by women is in self-defense. A survey 0f 1,000 women, perhaps the largest survey of its kind, found that 20% had initiated violence. The most common reasons for women initiating domestic violence were: "My partner wasn't sensitive to my needs," (46%), "I wished to gain my partner's attention," (44%) and "My partner was not listening to me" (43%). "My partner was being verbally abusive to me" (38%) was a distant fourth.

========= In Divorce proceedings involving children in the United States, law abiding and wholly-fit-to-parent Fathers are relegated to little more than "visitor" in 85% of those proceedings. This "marginalization" of the critical role of the Father has removed a critical developmental influence from the lives of our children - the negative impact upon the societal landscape of the United States is readily apparent to anyone that cares to open their eyes and honestly survey that landscape.

Visitors do not have the opportunity to adequately serve as spiritual leader to their children - do we need to dig any deeper to determine the root cause of the decline in American morality?

Simply by restoring BOTH "FIT" PARENTS to the lives of the children, these extremely tragic "single-parent statistics" can be reversed in a relatively short period of time. Children raised without BOTH PARENTS in their lives: are 33 times more likely to be seriously abused (so that they will require medical attention). are 73 times more likely to be killed as a result of abuse. account for 71% of teenage pregnancies (Costing the US Taxpayers $40B per year). daughters are 2.1 times more likely to have children during there teenage years than are children from intact families. are 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide are 6.6 times to become teenaged mothers are 24.3 times more likely to run away are 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders are 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institution are 10.8 times more likely to commit rape are 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school are 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager account for 90% of all homeless and runaway children account for 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions account for 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers account for 85% of prison youths account for 63% of youth suicides account for 85% of all children the exhibit behavioral disorders account for 80% of rapists motivated by displaced anger disorder The ONLY viable solution to this societal crisis is the "Presumption of Shared-Parenting" for ALL "fit parents" and the "enforcement of the fundamental liberty right to parent one's children absolutely free from unnecessary governmental interjection unless/until it is clearly established that a parent is unfit to parent." This one reform in Family Law will "on day-1 of implementation eliminate the vast majority of contentious divorces, and will in fact, reduce the number of divorces due to the "elimination of incentives for divorce" which are so much a part of the lure built-in to the vile system of the Divorce Industry.

CLEARLY, the "Presumption of Shared-Parenting" for all parents that are "fit to parent" IS in the best interest of our Nations Children.

CLEARLY, the "Presumption of Shared-Parenting" for all parents that are "fit to parent" IS NOT in the "best interest" of the TRILLION Dollar per year Divorce Industry, and CLEARLY, that is the interest that is being served by anti-Family Laws of this Nation. Simply FOLLOWING THE MONEY, establishes this as fact

"Shared Parental Responsibility." In our work as women's advocates, how often have we heard custodial moms wish that their children's father would share the parental responsibility? Unfortunately, "shared parental responsibility" is the new doublespeak for joint physical custody by so-called "father's rights" groups.

For example, in Michigan proposed legislation supported by these groups would impose joint custody on parents who are in conflict over custody. Most studies report that joint custody works best when both parents want it and agree to work together.

The Michigan legislation states that in a custody dispute the judge must presume that joint custody is in the "best interests of the child" and "should be ordered." To make any other decision, a judge must make findings why joint custody is not in the children's "best interest." This is a high legal standard that makes it very difficult for judges to award any other custody arrangement. It is also a departure from the generally accepted standards determining what's in the best interest of the child.

Michigan NOW opposes forced joint custody for many reasons: it is unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it ignores the diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support.

Forced joint custody is also a top legislative priority of fringe fathers' rights groups nationwide. These groups argue that courts are biased and sole custody awards to mothers deny fathers their right to parent. They allege that, in most cases, mothers are awarded sole custody, with fathers granted visitation rights. The men cite this as proof of bias against fathers.

The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian. According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases.

The legislature's determination to impose joint custody on parents in conflict is a frightening proposition for many women and places them and their children in harm's way.

There is documented proof that forced joint custody hurts children. "In the majority of cases in which there's no desire to cooperate, joint custody creates a battleground on which to carry on the fight," one researcher reported in the legal magazine, The Los Angeles Daily Journal (December 1988).

In "Ongoing Postdivorce Conflict: Effects on Children of Joint Custody and Frequent Access," Janet Johnson and her colleagues compared children in court-ordered joint custody with children in sole-custody homes. In both situations, the parents were in "entrenched conflict." This study showed that under these circumstances frequent shuttling between both parents in joint custody "is linked to more troubled emotional problems" in children than the sole-custody arrangement.

Imposed joint custody is particularly dangerous to battered women and their children. As the director of the Michigan Domestic Violence and Treatment Board said in her testimony opposing this bill, "...the exchange of children during visitation can be the most dangerous time for the [domestic violence survivor] and her children."

"My experience with presumptive joint custody as a domestic relations lawyer in Louisiana was almost uniformly negative," said NOW Executive Vice President Kim Gandy. "It creates an unparalleled opportunity for belligerent former spouses to carry on their personal agendas or vendettas through the children -- and with the blessing of the courts.

"Attorneys often referred to it jokingly as the `lawyer protection act' because repeated trips to court over minor issues kept the fees rolling in, and the mothers were more likely to suffer," Gandy said.

Joining Michigan NOW in opposing this legislation are: antiviolence/ women's shelter groups, the bar association, child psychologists, social workers, family law experts, judges, lawyers, and even the Family Forum (a right-wing, "traditional family values" group).

You can check out the supporters of this bill and become familiar with the groups' real agenda by logging on to the Internet using any search engine such as Yahoo to search for "fathers' rights," or connect to: http://www.speakeasy.org/fathersrights/ or http://web2.airmail.net/fathers4 to learn more about their activities.

Further information on forced joint custody, including a list of studies and reports on its dangers, is available from the NOW Foundation at 202-331-0066.

================= LAW PROTECTS WOMEN BUT VICTIMIZES MANY MEN Letter to the Editor

In my view, the Violence Against Women Act should be taken as a wake-up call for children and fathers. For all people of good will, the critical reality of the act is that things are not as they seem.

The apparent goal of the law is to protect women from domestic violence. This certainly is a worthy goal and one that no member of Congress can fail to support.

There is, however, a critical hidden agenda. That agenda - buried under the smokescreen of Violence Against Women Act rhetoric - is: (a) the separation of fathers and children; (b) the establishment of matriarchal control over one of society's must fundamental institutions, the family; and (c) the transfer of wealth from men to women.

The key mechanism underlying this agenda is the denial of due process to men following the filing of domestic violence allegations. This denial of due process is why Congress either must sunset or rewrite the Violence Against Women Act rhetoric - or lose votes in 2006.

The hidden agenda is very simple. Under the Violence Against Women Act, any woman can obtain restraining or protection orders against any man under even the most blatantly false of pretenses. This occurs because there is no due process protection for men once the restraining order has been requested in civil rather than criminal court.

Further, these restraining/protection orders are required to be issued even if based only on the claim of how a woman states that she "feels," and not on any evidence of actual abuse.

Once a mother has a restraining/protection order, the father is separated from the children and the house and is obliged immediately to begin supporting the lifestyle of his former wife and children. With the subsequent divorce the mother obtains physical custody of the children more than 87 percent of the time, thus establishing post-divorce matriarchal control of the family. Most men will not believe that this could happen to them.

What makes this scheme so diabolical is that it is men's tax dollars that finance the destruction of their own families and their separation from their children and their wealth.

The transfer of wealth from men to women is accomplished through the child support collection industry and alimony. Allegedly, this transfer is done under the guise of "the best interests of the child." However, the true beneficiaries are women who receive child support and alimony utterly free of any accountability for how the wealth is saved or spent.

The mother is virtually guaranteed of this transfer of wealth because of the Catch-22 enforcement mechanisms built into the child support collection industry. If a father falls into arrears for any reason - including reduced pay because of military call-up - he cannot escape impoverishment because of the Bradley Amendment. The Bradley Amendment requires fathers who fall into arrears to continue to pay - and pay back - child support at the level of their formerly higher income no matter what their current income - or face debtor's prison.

The family court system colludes with the child support system to impoverish fathers because it makes it virtually impossible - through delay, gender bias, immense effort and exorbitant expense - to get child support or alimony obligations reduced, no matter what the changed financial circumstances of the father or mother may be.

For children and fathers, the Violence Against Women Act is the opening wedge from which post-divorce matriarchal control of the family and the transfer of wealth from men to women are accomplished in a seamless system.

All persons of good will should demand that their senators and representatives either sunset or rewrite the act to include due process for men. At stake are votes in 2006.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Florida International University Miami

=================== REFORM FAMILY LAW NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! Make "Presumption of Shared-Parenting" THE LAW OF THE LAND!!! The "Best Interest of our Children" Demands It! The law abiding and wholly-fit-to parent Parents DEMAND IT!!! The Peace, Tranquility and Security of this Nation DEMANDS IT!!!

Warm Regards from the LIVE BEAT Dad of Cassidy and KaraLynn - two INNOCENT VICTIMS of the Maryland (anti)FAMILY Courts,

Glenn L. Eckles, Jr. Gerrardstown, WV 25420 (formerly of the State of Maryland, where children are systematically denied their Fathers) GLEckles@aol.com

"Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

Sent to: Shelley.Capito@mail.house.gov, asa.hutchinson@mail.house.gov, senator@sarbanes.senate.gov, senator_levin@levin.senate.gov, Chairman@gop.com, mailbox@gregg.senate.gov, cbass@mail.house.gov, senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov, vice.president@whitehouse.gov, senator@biden.senate.gov, tellupton@mail.house.gov, senatorlott@lott.senate.gov, senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov, senator@rockefeller.senate.gov, mailbox@sununu.senate.gov, bradley@mail.house.gov, senator@shelby.senate.gov, Info@gop.com, president@whitehouse.gov, contactus@constitutionparty.com, barack_obama@obama.senate.gov, john.conyers@mail.house.gov, senator@stabenow.senate.gov, John_McCain@mccain.senate.gov, senator@akaka.senate.gov, senator@breaux.senate.gov, senator_byrd@byrd.senate.gov, senator_carnahan@carnahan.senate.gov, senator@clinton.senate.gov, senator@conrad.senate.gov, senator@dodd.senate.gov, senator@dorgan.senate.gov, dick@durbin.senate.gov, russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov, senator@feinstein.senate.gov, bob_graham@graham.senate.gov, tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov, vermont@jeffords.senate.gov, tim@johnson.senate.gov, senator@kennedy.senate.gov, john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov, senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov, senator@levin.senate.gov, blanche_lincoln@lincoln.senate.gov, senator@mikulski.senate.gov, senator_murray@murray.senate.gov, senator@billnelson.senate.gov, jack@reed.senate.gov, senator@schumer.senate.gov, senator_torricelli@torricelli.senate.gov, Neil.Abercrombie@mail.house.gov, Anibal@mail.house.gov, gary_ackerman@mail.house.gov, jay.inslee@mail.house.gov, rick.larsen@mail.house.gov, brian.baird@mail.house.gov, adam.smith@mail.house.gov, senator@boxer.senate.gov, lynn.woolsey@mail.house.gov, George.Miller@mail.house.gov, sf.nancy@mail.house.gov, barbara.lee@mail.house.gov, budmail@mail.house.gov, snyder.congress@mail.house.gov, faleomavaega@mail.house.gov, ed.pastor@mail.house.gov, democratic.caucus@mail.house.gov, zoegram@lofgren.house.gov, samfarr@mail.house.gov, gary.condit@mail.house.gov, lois.capps@mail.house.gov, brad.sherman@mail.house.gov, Howard.Berman@mail.house.gov, arcoiris@mail.house.gov, Rep.Harman@mail.house.gov, Millender.McDonald@mail.house.gov, talk2geb@mail.house.gov, loretta@mail.house.gov, degette@mail.house.gov, david.skaggs@mail.house.gov, Kennelly@mail.house.gov, bozrah@mail.house.gov, rep.boyd@mail.house.gov, thurman@mail.house.gov, pdeutsch.pub@mail.house.gov, alcee.pubhastings@mail.house.gov, cymck@mail.house.gov, john.lewis@mail.house.gov, guamtodc@mail.house.gov, neil.abercrombie@mail.house.gov, leach.ia01@mail.house.gov, rep.boswell.ia03@mail.house.gov, bobby.rush@mail.house.gov, luis.gutierrez@mail.house.gov, danny.davis@mail.house.gov, sidney.yates@mail.house.gov, jfc.il12@mail.house.gov, lane.evans@mail.house.gov, tim.roemer@mail.house.gov, in09.wyr@housemail.house.gov, rep.carson@mail.house.gov, john.olver@mail.house.gov, jim.mcgovern@mail.house.gov, mtmeehan@mail.house.gov, joe.moakley@mail.house.gov, william.delahunt@mail.house.gov, rep.cardin@mail.house.gov, rep.tomallen@mail.house.gov, stupak@mail.house.gov, jim.barcia-pub@mail.house.gov, debbie.stabenow@mail.house.gov, dkildee@mail.house.gov, david.bonior@mail.house.gov, slevin@mail.house.gov, martin.sabo@mail.house.gov, tell.bill@mail.house.gov, tocollin.peterson@mail.house.gov, oberstar@mail.house.gov, gephardt@mail.house.gov, ike.skelton@mail.house.gov, thompsonms2nd@mail.house.gov, gene.taylor@mail.house.gov, EClayton1@mail.house.gov, bob.etheridge@mail.house.gov, david.price@mail.house.gov, CongMcIntyre@mail.house.gov, nc12.public@mail.house.gov, Rep.Earl.Pomeroy@mail.house.gov, rob.andrews@mail.house.gov, bill.pascrell@mail.house.gov, steven.rothman@mail.house.gov, thomas.manton@mail.house.gov, jerrold.nadler@mail.house.gov, major.owens@mail.house.gov, rep.carolyn.maloney@mail.house.gov, rangel@mail.house.gov, jserrano@mail.house.gov

You're obviously a bunch of callous clods.

Let me see...You have someone who posts are only about one subject.
Does not or rarely replies to questions...
You can see why this may attract attention.

Now, We see you are calling people names...
Not a good way to make friends

As with family, friends are better in theory, than reality; and more illusive.

Cute pictures though.

Too, besides the obvious personal trauma this poster is suffering, this is a national crisis, and the populace should be alarmed at all the programs our Federal government is funding that undermine, and provide monetary incentive to state governments to harm, families and children.

One recent program that is just beginning to get legs and will be layed at GWB's door is the New Freedom Initiative that he put into place by Executive Order. Wait until you see what this is going to do to children, families and individual rights.

Was out of town and didn't mean to ignore your post, but RE: shared parenting:

Most shared parenting is not quite as bad as the Lohstroh-Geisler example, but they're close.

BTW, do your kids live with you this week or next? Or do they bounce from your home to the ex's home on a monthly basis? Or do you have a different schedule that keeps them here 50% of the time and there 50% of the time?

Do you pay or receive child support? If so, why? A true example of equal/shared/50-50 parenting is where no one pays support to either party. And of course both you and your ex earn the same salaries. There can be no equality if the kids have to spend 50% of their time living with a parent who earns, say $20,000 less annual income.

And how lucky for you that neither you nor your ex wants to move away. Moving out of state, or even out of town blows the success rates for shared parenting all to pieces.

I could go on and on and on with real life examples of how shared parenting DOES NOT work. But if you say it works for you, then, hey, I'm glad you feel that way.

Actually my boy spends half the day with me and the evenings with my ex.

I pick him up from school when he gets off and then I take him to his mother at 7:30 at night. Wash repeat the next day.

Weekends are staggered.

We work things out between us and altho it's not the best condition in the world, it's better than us fighting over it.

Right now Child Support hasn't been determined, but I am pushing for nobody pays.

Otherwise I'm going to get custody and she'll be required to pay, but I'm going to kick the money back to her in her bank account.

I don't want her money, all I want is for her and I to continue to raise our boy as best we can in a bad situation.

No worries on the lateness of the response, glad you were able to finally tho :)

JFYI...Glenn Eckles,Jr. who wrote all of the shared parenting threads in July 05, was killed in an auto accident in Aug. 05. Thus, his inability to respond to all of the blogs. He left behind 4 daughters: 2 from frist marriage, and twins (4yr old) from second marriage. I came across this blog while googling my husbands name, and just felt compelled to give this info. Andrea Eckles

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.