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.
Marriage is a wonderful thing. I found the right woman after nearly a decade of my adult life thinking she didn’t exist. However, I never lost hope for her gender as it appears you, sadly, have done.
That’s what I’m saying.
I know you mean a ‘lets take a break, get our heads level and think’ separation.
But for many its “PARTY PARTY PARTY”. They were out of the marriage even BEFORE the separation.
You can’t force a person to feel the emotions you believe they should feel. If someone doesn’t love you, and most of all, doesn’t want to love you and be faithful to you, all you have left is force to make it look like they do and are ;) (as in the government).
Thank God we live in a free country.
May I ask you a personal question? Are you religious?
I ask because you seem to have a very materialistic viewpoint about hope, which is bread and butter to anyone who puts faith in an unseen God.
I would not get rid of NFD however I would make increase the separation period needed to obtain it. In some states six months separation or less is required for a unilateral NFD, and I do believe that people should have more time to consider what they really want.
I think that parents who seek a divorce should be required to take a class on the impact of divorce both on their finances and their children.
Mediation, where the spouses (no lawyers) sit with a mediator and try to work out a suitable parenting agreement, should be required. I think that joint custody should be strongly encouraged, if not a presumption.
I think that parties that seek to use the children as pawns by denying visitation or making false accusations should be punished by losing custody.
Above all, we have to realise that divorce is as much a moral question as a legal one and that the legal system is not a fairy godmother who can make everything right again. If people, both men and women, remembered that every people you have sex with could be the mother or father of your child, I think 90% of these problems would go away.
Well, but for the grace of God go I, but I chose a spouse who does think the same way.
And if she should change her mind on this score, I am well aware of what that entails for me and am quite willing to accept that fate.
Not particularly religious, no.
Either way, the “millionaire” thing was just an example.
Yes, hope is a virtue. However, one must also accept reality, even if you have faith that it can change, it still effects you right now, today.
That would hardly be a "no fault" divorce. (In fact, hopefully, "Daddy" would be in jail.) Children are far more likely to be sexually abused by non-relatives (expecially men) living with them, than by biological parents.
Or, what if Mommy becomes a drunk to deal with her horrible marriage?
Life is full of "what if" possibilities, and divorce is often better than the alternative, however, it should be remembered that children are put at great risk in broken homes.
It’s the gist of the thread! Its one thing to post ‘spouse, mate’ etc. on these threads, but to go at any female with a ‘Mom likes you best’ attitude is divisive, and makes enemies out of a big chunk of posters simply because of our gender.
And as for the childish,
Neener neener.
I was glad to see this. It would be nice if everything was ideal. Sometimes people get married too young or because they have to. People change. Sometimes they change and they grow apart, not together. It seems to short change both parties if they stay together, because neither is really happy. Better to part as friends with a common interest (the children) than to just let years wear on and the bitterness just continues to smolder.
Can you find the stats on ‘far more likely to be abused by non-relatives’.
My experience is more 50/50 (most kids know and are even related to those who abuse them). But I’d like to have something to keep on file if you have it.
Exactly. And I wonder how much our EZ-divorce culture contributed to their thinking PARTY PARTY PARTY.
As for a “free country”, I needn’t remind you that divorce was much much more rare before we were a big-government nanny-state. I think limitations on divorce is perfectly consonant with freedom.
If my spouse doesn’t want to love me and be faithful to me, then she is the agent of destruction in the marriage. I don’t see though why I should do her one better and kill it with my own hands.
Ok, thank you, that helps me understand your position. :)
Bottom line, I think kids can live much easier with one parent who gravely wounded a marriage than with two who killed it outright. I may be wrong, but them’s my 2 cents.
We can agree to disagree then.
I have no problem with NFD, in the sense that if the marriage is dead, you can part civil, versus being made to call someone ‘evil’ and actually create bad feelings where there may not have been any.
Sometimes, it IS hard to find the fault. Sometimes, it’s simply a very very bad marriage.
So you’d be happy being unfulfilled with someone who hates you?
Granted, I’m happily married and can’t see that happening to myself, or, likely, you either.
I have friends though who were in such situations.
Well, once you take that vienna sausage, it’s gone! That milk just keeps on flowing.
You may not want to believe it, but children are much more likely to be molested, when living with an unrelated adult.
Excellent points and quite consistent with my position. The problem isn’t NFD, it’s the attitude that started filling the air here that divorce is NEVER acceptable.
It certainly isn’t an option for my wife and I who are quite happy, but we both know people for whom that wasn’t the case.
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.