Fathers seize child agency office

Expatica ^ | 20 November 2003 | Novum Nieuws

[sweetliberty]

"Neither partner should get full custody. It should automatically be joint."

If you have 2 parents that are honestly committed to the wellbeing of the children, it can work well. Generally it requires a cooperative relationship between the parents. In other situations it isn't even a healthy option. Divorce often involves one or both individuals who are dysfunctional in some way to begin with. Often legal joint custody between these types of people does little more than reduce the child to a psychological "chew toy."

I know the thinking, at one time anyway, was that it was important for a child's stability for there to be one parent who had the final word in disputes. With reasonable people there is a lot of room for flexibility in a sole custody arrangement. Of course, the key here is "reasonable" people. All too often those involved in custody battles are neither reasonable nor putting the child's best interest first.

I have seen joint custody work well, and I have seen it be a disaster, with the children having no sense of permanence with either parent. What you end up with is the perpetual involvement of the state and 2 or more families with their lives completely under their control, which, as we should know from any number of other situations by now, isn't looking out for any body's interests BUT the state's.

[LexBaird]

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.

Two things wrong here. First, the SCOTUS doesn't have the ability to "give rights". Rights are assets that every human enjoys. The Constitution, with the Bill of Rights, enumerates SOME of these rights and protect the rest under the much-ignored 10th A.

All the SCOTUS has done with Roe v. Wade is say that abortion is legal. The phrase "abortion rights" is a rhetorical device to conflate abortion with actual human rights.

Second, just because something is legal doesn't make it right, nor does it make it a right. The vast majority of the time abortions are performed, it is for selfish and morally vacant reasons.

When a woman aborts her child, it is a separate, distinct life form, with separate, distinct DNA. By snuffing that child out, she is declaring (with the support of the SCOTUS decision) that her personal needs prevail over the human rights of the fetus. This is rarely morally justifiable; perhaps when the mother's life is threatened or severe deformities are present. But, with the state of modern, readily available contraceptives, the rate of abortions in modern times is more tragic than the AIDS crisis of Africa.

[Orangedog]

Every man should have to accept that responsiblity. As per Bill O'Reilly, personal responsibility in this nation is just an abstract thought.

O'Reilly doesn't have any problems with the way the current system is, other than that he thinks that more men should just pay up, shut up, and take whaever role the court graciously allows them to have with their own kids. I don't have any problems with people taking responsibility, but there had damn well better be some substantial rights to go along with that. As it is now, one party gets the bulk of the rights and the other gets the bulk of the responsibility.

[cantfindagoodscreenname]

No, "it's" is also the possessive form of it. Look it up.

Sorry, but you're wrong here. I assumed you've "looked it up" since you're adamant about this. Where did you find this information?

[CajunConservative]

I have seen joint custody work well, and I have seen it be a disaster, with the children having no sense of permanence with either parent. What you end up with is the perpetual involvement of the state and 2 or more families with their lives completely under their control, which, as we should know from any number of other situations by now, isn't looking out for any body's interests BUT the state's.

If I am not mistaken, I think it was Ted Nugent who had a great idea on the custody issue. The kids got the house and the parents had to be the ones moving in and out for joint custody. IOW, the kids need for stability and permanence was more important to them. I think that is a great idea.

I had a friend who had joint custody and it was literally 50/50 the kids spent half the week at dad's and the other half at mom's, they lived in the same school district. The only thing was the poor kids were basket cases. They were very angry and wild. Of course both boys were put on ritalin b/c they were "ADHD", they were 3 and 5 at the time. Maybe their behaviors were their only means of communicating the chaos in their lives because they did not have the verbal skills to express their feelings?? Could this possibly the reason so many kids are "ADHD"??

They never had the time to enjoy their homes because before you knew it it was time to pack up and move. The father was the better parent and should have received sole custody with liberal visitation imo.

[sweetliberty]

"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."

So I take it from your remarks, PL, that you are pro-abortion. Please correct me if I am wrong on that count.

A child growing "in someone else's body" as you say, didn't get there by immaculate conception. That child, as you rightfully termed it, has a mother AND a father. The child has a right to life, but until he or she is a legal adult, decisions about the welfare of the child should rightfully belong to both parents. Of course, I am assuming that people will behave rationally, which I should have learned by now, is all too frequently no longer the case.

The whole notion of a child being best off with the mother came from the underlying premise that no one in the world would fight to protect the child like it's mother, so strong was the bond between them. The fact that a woman would fight for the "right" to kill her child at the point where it is the most vulnerable and most dependent upon her for nurture and sustenance is an abandonment of that natural bond, and in my opnion, a father who wishes to save his child from death at the hands of its own mother is by definition a more suitable parent and should have the right to not only save, but raise, his child.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

The fear can be overwhelming... and I believe that's why the issue is so important.

Personal responsibility must be stressed, because in making good choices, we prepare ourselves for the next steps along the way.

You are blessed that you were mature enough to see the bigger picture.

[sweetliberty]

I have seen such situations as well, and rarely would I say that the interests of the children was served by dividing them up like that. I like the idea of the parents being the ones to move in or out. Of course, people move families as well, so it may not always be practical, but a good idea when doable. After all, if we would return to placing a high value on the family as a society, we would automatically be shed of a lot of these issues, not to mention the state's involvement in personal matters.

[m1-lightning]

You are blessed that you were mature enough to see the bigger picture.

I'd rather see it as having good parents. : )

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Amen to that! Bless them, too!

[m1-lightning]

I don't have any problems with people taking responsibility, but there had damn well better be some substantial rights to go along with that.

I second that notion.

[sweetliberty]

We seem to have a feminist among us.

[m1-lightning]

I've been trying to find a metaphor to relate to the hypocrisy in father custodies/abortion decisions. This metaphor isn't implied toward you but rather just in general speaking.

I have a seed for a tree. You and I jointly decide to plant it in YOUR yard on agreement that it's OUR tree. After I put it in the ground, you now declare it's your tree because it's on your property and I have lost any ownership of the tree. The tree later grows out of the ground and becomes a nuisance for you to mow your lawn. Now you demand that I pay you to have it trimmed back every year because you claim it's my responsibility too. Is there any fairness to the level of rights and responsibility there?

[sweetliberty]

"How many times have I had male friends (the vast majority of my close friends are male) whine to me that they got some girl pregnant that was "on the pill."

I suppose it never occurs to them to keep it in their pants. Of course, if women would go back to exercising that ever so important word, "no," then we'd be having a lot less abortions AND have a lot less unwanted children running around. By no stretch of the imagination can recreational sex be construed to, in any way, facilitate family values and it is the loss of family values that has created this monster in the first place.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I know one couple who does share the house, even though they are divorced. He lives in the adjoining apartment, and she and the kids are in the main part of the house. They are both active participants in their children's lives. I give him a ton of credit, he has put forward great effort, even moved to rejoin his kids in their new home state. An excellent example.

[sweetliberty]

"I didn't say "sh*#," "f**%" or any other of your presumably preferred words in my post."

Cut her a little slack. I think she's doing very well at curtailing the DU expletives. Most of them would have outed themselves long before now.

[CyberCowboy777]

Abortion tickles. This is just sick and heartless. I have friends who support limited abortion rights that would be ashamed to have you on their side. Abortion is not funny or fun for the child or mother.

[Coop]

The whole notion of a child being best off with the mother came from the underlying premise that no one in the world would fight to protect the child like it's mother, so strong was the bond between them. The fact that a woman would fight for the "right" to kill her child at the point where it is the most vulnerable and most dependent upon her for nurture and sustenance is an abandonment of that natural bond, and in my opnion, a father who wishes to save his child from death at the hands of its own mother is by definition a more suitable parent and should have the right to not only save, but raise, his child.

Beautifully put!

[CyberCowboy777]

A child at 4 weeks has a working heart, brain, nervous system, individual DNA and blood.

All before most women know they are pregnant.

[m1-lightning]

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 said everything about Congress regulating commerce.