How, specifically, and actually? 
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.
Assuming both parents are sane and of sound mind (and not under the influence of drugs,) I agree.
However, I’ve witnessed (in friends, not myself, I’m married and happy) people who had a spouse that was so crazy, drug-addled, or otherwise f-ed up, pardon my French, that making it work more impossible than getting Dennis Kucinich to vote in favor of going to war with Iran.
You are amazing.........good for you.
I don’t think NFD in its current form is right....
You’re a good man. BRAVO!!!!!!!!!
Separation does not break the contract or the vow. It suspends it until such time as the other party comes to his/her senses.
I'm guessing the kids will know the difference....in the former scenario, there's always the possibility that the mother and father can get back together. Divorce and remarriage makes that totally impossible. So I wager there is more of a psychological break there.
And you imagine that is any better??????????
sorry - you have some serious issues here, although I can’t figure them out..........
You realize that both parties can date during a legal separation. If they are looking for ‘greener grass’ they will for sure find it during that period of time.
Of course---the same type of people like to stick their noses into other peoples' business, and quite enjoy playing social engineer. Dems like to do it through property confiscation, Pubbies like to do it through tongue-clucking.
There is no guarantee that a person will ever "come to his or her senses" and come home. In my state, you have to be separated for a year if the parties agrees and two years if only one party wants to end the marriage in order to obtain a NFD. If someone has left the marriage for two years or more, chances are that they are never coming back.
I'm guessing the kids will know the difference....in the former scenario, there's always the possibility that the mother and father can get back together.
I would think it would be worse for children to hold on to false hope for years rather than to accept reality.
. . . Or prolongs even longer the agony of the eventual divorce.
From time to time, some folks have told me I’m quite good at tongue-clucking.
Yess... I’ve been called a clucker on more than a few occasions.
There's nothing that aggravates me more than pseudo-conservatives that, like Her Thighness, favor giving more power to the government to deprive citizens of liberty in order to advance their social{ist} engineering agendas. IMO, the abuses dished out by CPS agencies are one of the major reasons more and more folks are choosing not to get married and not to have children. Sadly, many of the SoCons on our side are just as bad as the 'Beast when it comes to nannyism: the *other* former Arkansas governor from Hope, AR (who's running a close 2nd in Iowa) comes to mind.
Nanny-statism, regardless of whether it comes from the left or right, is as big a threat to our liberties as Al Qaeda.
“What’s so “bunky” about calling for the end to no-fault divorces?”
Exactly.
We have a LOT of social liberals on this forum.
Is it surprising that we have trouble finding candidates that are true conservatives???
Still doesn't break the original contract though.
I'm old fashioned I realize, but I'm one of those dinosaurs who believe marriage is forever.
Yess... I’ve been called a clucker on more than a few occasions.
_______________
Again, in the spirit in which it is intended - on this thread you have been the mother of all cluckers.
Yes, you are the perfect Holier-Than-Thou Freeper.
I say that with love...*snicker*
A motherclucker?
How, specifically, and actually?
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.