Posted on 11/26/2007 10:26:35 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
As a general rule, plaintiffs who file for "no-fault" divorce should be found unfit to gain custody of their children. This should be done for the protection of the children involved. But most importantly it should be done to restrain the growth rate of the scourge known as "no-fault" divorce.
Radical homosexual activists have been bold in their attempt to redefine the basic make-up of the family by assaulting the God ordained institution of marriage with whatever creative sexual union could be devised. Yet the damage they've inflicted upon children to date is miniscule compared to the arrogance, selfishness, and defiance that the plaintiffs of "no-fault" divorce have unleashed upon child after child.
Particularly dangerous has been the growing effect of women seeking no-fault divorce only to then seek casual cohabitation with replacement men. According to this Associated Press story out last week "abusive-boyfriend" syndrome is increasingly putting children into not just emotional, spiritual, and mental jeopardy - but now sadly - increasing physical risk of life and limb.
Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri abuse reports published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005. Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center. Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or their father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University. The problem in large measure is that plaintiffs in "No-Fault" cases are living in such denial and total and complete selfishness that they don't truly care about the welfare of their children - not truly.
Oh they may say they do - especially when their guilty conscience comes to the custody portion of the divorce proceeding. Overcome by the guilt they know in their hearts as to how immoral their "no-fault" claim is that in order to compensate for a failed marriage - they publicly verbalize their propaganda to being all that much better of a parental unit. Yet in reality this argument is disingenuous given the fact that they are saying before the court that they are willing to destabilize the life of their children for literally "no reason."
I am not arguing that possible legitimate reasons for marital dissolution should be eliminated in custody concerns. Infidelity, abuse, and addictive behaviors should serve as distinct considerations when evaluating the decision-making ability, integrity, and trustworthiness of the potential parents who seek custody. But the idea that one can come before a judge and say "there is no legitimate reason" for us to crack up the stability of the universe that I committed to providing for the children I was given responsibility for seems a stretch in logic.
Prior to the emergence of "no-fault" divorces faith and legal communities both helped restrain people's willingness to divorce. In forcing the plaintiff to cite a cause as to why such a tragic measure should be taken the message to society was strong. Adultery jeopardizes the welfare of children, because it jeopardized the welfare of the marriage that created those children. Physical abuse was seen as a criminal aberration in marriage - one that was carried out by a minority of those who engaged in the institution and certainly one that puts the welfare of spouse and children in physical risk of injury and life. Addictive behaviors and abandonment are all also easily understandable risks to the health of the family unit.
Yet here is the fowl smelling stench of the truth behind "no fault" divorce. Sinful humans grew tired of having to live up to the vows they took before God, and the responsibilities they committed to before man.
Wanting to fornicate without consequence wasn't enough - now we wanted a guilt free way to make it happen. So as a result people are "finding themselves", "trying to figure things out", or stating that "they are not ready for the responsibilities" that marriage brings with it and just need an amicable way of exiting the situation.
Yet they were "responsible" enough to form a legal union, create children, and begin the act of attempting to parent them?
Many decades ago the average age at which people got married was younger, even in the teens in many cases - and the maturation process of the persons involved in these unions was something that grew as the commitments of life multiplied.
Today it is our pathetic desire to extend adolescence to later and later into adulthood coupled with the sin of envy that is more often than not the root cause of the whole demonic lie of why "no fault" divorce is so "necessary."
This scourge has brought with it some additional unforeseen secondary problems as well. Violence against the non-blood-related children by the new man is just one example. (In nature the new lion will often eat the cubs of the previous male when mating with a previously mated lioness.) Men who cruise women with children is a phenomenon now that we can track statistically. And then there is the Woody Allen syndrome of the individual who is drawn toward sexual acting out with the blooming daughters of the formerly married woman.
Put bluntly there is NO benefit to the children of a society that makes marriage as easy to escape from as choosing which store to shop at.
And the price of doing so is killing our children.
We should return to the day of accountability and responsibility as a culture - particularly when it comes to the welfare of children.
And plaintiffs who file for "no-fault" divorces should be ready to lose their children in the process of doing so.
Kevin McCullough's first hardback title "The MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking" is now available. Kevin McCullough is heard daily in New York City, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware on WMCA 570 at 2pm. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com.
And you are one of the conservative men I know (amongst several) who remind me that you are the good guys.
Smooch.
OK let’s look at this from a NFD = small government perspective.
NFD and out of control divorces have lead to more district courts hearing more divorce cases - Bigger government.
NFD and out of control divorces have lead to more welfare cases for moms with single children - Bigger government.
NFD and out of control divorces have lead to more kids growing up without fathers which leads to more crimes needing more prisons - Bigger government.
NFD and out of control divorces have lead to a huge increase in the Attorney Generals office collecing child support - Bigger government.
So.... go ahead with you small government argument. Tell me how you think NFD = small government.
I’m listening.
Sometimes people a mistake when they get married. It happens. Should they be forced to stay together for the good of the children and then have the situation deteriorate?
&&
No, they should not be forced by others; they should force themselves to stay together, to figure out a way to save their marriage for the sake of the children they both love. Too many people do not understand the entire concept of marital love. Love is not something that “happens” to you; you need to work on your marriage, nurture it every day. It’s not your love that sustains your marriage, but it is your marriage that sustains your love.
When you answer the other posts to you regarding this, I’ll respond to yours.
Hell of a bitter rant there.
My sympathies.
You are correct, and that is a good thing.
.......but good for children.
You are incorrect and that is not a good thing.
What a horrible thing to post...........you should be ashamed of yourself.
Yeah, they’ll be much happier after being raped by Mommy’s new boyfriend.
________
I will tell you honestly, fellow freeper, that comments such as yours really pi$$ me off.
I am (was) Mommy’s new boyfriend (we have been married now for approaching 20 years). The kids, then 6 and 3, are now 25 and 22. Cases such as mine are far and away more common that the scenario you paint, but because situations such as mine are not newsworthy, you hear nothing about them.
Once again, evidence that mass media proclamations are as favored by freepers as anyone else when one’s preconceived notions are supported by said media proclamations.
I have no idea what other posts you think I should respond to.
But I’ll give you credit for cutting and running from the very fine points I made in post # 102.
Courage.
I agree with you. People are making the mistake of thinking abolishing no-fault divorce means you are forcing people to stay together in bad situations. No such thing. If things are really that bad, you always have the option of separation. No one is arguing we should take that right away.
And FWIW, my wife and I got married knowing that there was absolutely zero possibility of divorce for us (we’re both devout Catholics). That attitude really shifted our focus when we got engaged as to what we were doing, and it has really solidified our marriage in terms of us knowing that we have to make this work no matter what. It is tremendously liberating. I can’t imagine having gone into this with the idea that it might end.
Sometimes you have to have bitter to taste sweet....
I’m happier than ever!
However, it took a horrible marriage for me to know what true freedom and true happiness is....That is why I want minimal government and no nanny-statism. I want every smidge of freedom I can squeeze out of my life and I now question everything.
So, I’ll be the very last human on earth telling anyone to stay married. Kids or no.
And to make it governments job to do something ‘for the children’ sounds awfully socialist to me.
Oh please!
You’re the one calling for DFACs to come in and take the kids away if there is a ‘divorce’ because obviously both parents are bad.
Sheesh,
Hillary, I didn’t know you posted here.
The point of the article is that NFD is bad because children are better off living with both parents. How is option of separation an improvement?
However, if the interaction isn’t loving or healthy, the jury’s out on whether or not that is better than divorce.
&&&
It is up to the parents to MAKE it loving and healthy instead of thinking of their own satisfaction. Once you have brought forth a child, the child’s well-being is central. Too many couples today are too selfish to concede this.
I am ashamed. I should have stated....
Sometimes I KNOW DU has hijacked Free Republic.
You are equating the 2 issues (what happens to the kids and what happens to the marriage) inappropriately.
It does not follow that kids go to hell as a result of the existence of no-fault divorce.
Please take the following in the spirit in which it is intended - I am tremendously amused that anyone would think there is ANY issue on which all Freepers would agree.
I have no intentions of ever marrying again, either -— of course I said that when my divorce was final back in the 80s, OTOH hand when I got married I also said I would never get divorced, and that was aslso in the 80s.
Life experiences always change us. I never planned on being a parent because of personal experience growing up, yet I love being a mom and people often tell me we are doing a great job as parents to our daughter.
Yeah, like my ex-... he would not initiate the divorce. Just fooled around, told me he wanted to be weekend dad, didn’t want to have to mow the grass, didn’t show up for things for the kids because he was at the bar. Then after 2 years of that and an attempt at counseling, I finally filed for divorce. Then he kept saying it was my idea to get divorced, still tells people that all these years later.
First off, tell me where the government has a right to force someone to be in a situation they do not wish to be in. That’s Freedom 101.
Secondly, those judges that have to oversee divorces would have more murders, child abuse cases, and crazy disaffected criminals without divorce in some cases.
Let me qualify my past posts:
I am newly and happily married. Have no plans to divorce.
However, I’ve seen enough bad situations in marriage that I think divorce should remain an option. I’ve seen women abused by cheating and drug-addicted men who were incorrigible and refused to change themselves or work on making the marriage salvageable. I’ve seen men similarly abused by women.
I don’t think NFD in its current form is right. I do think too many people divorce out of convenience and unwillingness to work hard, but I don’t think entirely scrapping it is right either.
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.