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.
This is why equitable distribution beat community property states. It allows for the use of ecconomic cost of an affair as a diminution of marital assets.
This proposal does make sense. Perhaps even tweak it to make it time dependent. Presumption of no fault with no children and duration of marriage of less than five years, rebutable presumption of marriage of less than fifteen years, no no-fault after fifteen years. The longer one is married the more intertwined the assets become. (pensions, homes etc)
That's true, but children are far more likely to be molested when living with unrelated adults, than when living with both biological parents.
I think we should stop trying to parent adults, myself.
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.
You've just proposed two more suggestions that would only get in the way of mature people making their own decisions and inject some other person who has no business being there. My parents are probably the model of divorce. They worked it out without any court-mandated arrangement. The minute you start mandating these counselors and mediators, you're injecting people with likely degrees from liberal arts colleges whose motives may not best serve your situation.
Do I think people act selfishly, vindictively and sometimes just stupid in divorce? Absolutely. Do I think a more controlling court system will change that? No. I think people being stupid is one of those side effects of being free. Free people do have the freedom to really make a mess of things. Makes it all the more admirable when we make a success of it.
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.
I think they should be publicly flogged. Are you OK with that?
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.
Best part of your post. This is the sentence I most wanted to respond and agree with!
I’m just asking for stats and a source.
I know from personal, familial and job related data, it’s more 50/50, but I was just asking for a source, thats all :)
My husband did after almost 30 years of marriage. I know several others who did to be with other women just like he did.
Our daughter has had nothing to do with him since he left and told him that every time he looked a the other woman she wants him and his family to know that it cost them their relationship with her.
Make your case. I said that the no-fault option is a woman oriented thing, and women make out with it, usually at the expense of the man. One does not take counsel for the continuance of a program from those who are enlarged by the program.
Show me wrong with actual data. 
That makes sense to me.
Yep,
sometimes you don’t even know you’ve had one even!
...most kids know and are even related to those who abuse them...
While your comment (above), is true, it would include Mommy's boyfriend, uncles, cousins, etc. Also, more children live with Mommy and Daddy than with Mommy and her boyfriend.
“Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or their father...”
I’d say she’ll have a hard time proving that.
It’s simply a pendulum swung to far on a good idea. And yes, you do sound like someone who got bitch-slapped in a NFD.
I remember the ‘bad’ ole days before NFD, when bad things were ignored because folks knew they could get away with it. The. ‘shame’ of divorce was too great. When lots of nasty things got swept under the rug to keep up appearances. No one wanted to go through an ugly public, name calling divorce.
My father got custody of my half-sister in his divorce— because he had that much clout, and his first wife just didn’t want to go through the hell the man could dish out.
My Mom didn’t divorce him because she really believed he’d get custody of all of us. His first divorce was legend.
So yeah, maybe 50 years ago, divorce was more on the mans side, maybe now it’s more on the womans.
The goal should be to just make it fair and civil for all sides.
Anyhow, the premise is good and I’d hate to see it go back to the horror it was before.
I was just throwing ideas out there, however in defense of mediation I believe that it helps in getting people to try to work things out without bringing up all the issues and bitterness. A decision imposed by a judge often leaves both sides very unhappy, versus coming an agreement both can live with. No one is forced to reach an agreement and any agreement still could be taken to an attorney for review before a formal divorce is granted.
This is exactly why I asked you the religious question! :)
Would I be happy in the way you mean it, absolutely not. But I think I *would* be fulfilled, because there's a spiritual level operating here that's going to be hard for me to explain. I'll try anyway.
As a Catholic, I believe in the power of prayer...that my pouring forth my heart and soul to God is not just falling on deaf ears but falling on the ever-attentive ears of Love Personified, who knows what I need more than I myself do. If an all-good God is allowing this kind of suffering, it must be only that He can draw some great spiritual benefit out of it. So even if my wife were treating me like absolute dirt, I can still storm heaven with my prayers and--perhaps--eventually win her over.
Second of all, we believe very much in redemptive suffering. That means we can "offer up" our own pain and help ease the pain of another or bring some great good to that person. That's why we are big on crucifixes--Christ up there bruised and bloodied is not some masochistic thing, but it reminds us that through a great terrible Passion came a glorious Resurrection. "Greater love no man hath than this--that he give up his life for his friends". We kinda saw something very like this on 9/11...where in the midst of tragedy heroism shined out for all to see.
So by suffering through a tortuous marriage, by humbly accepting the crosses that we cannot avoid, we can actually bring great good into the world. There have been saints who were married whose husbands treated them like dirt, but they accepted that cross and eventually the husband came around.
Yes, it is painful, and it is terrible, and I pray God I may never have to endure such a trial. But if I do, I hope I remember that God allowed it for a reason, and if I turn it to good use, it can be an immensely powerful force for my own sanctification and the sanctification of everyone around me.
But even kids who live with Mommy and Daddy are molested by someone they know-— that’s the stat I’m talking about. whether it’s one of the parents, a sibling, a grandparent, aunt/uncle, cousin etc....a two parent home doesn’t keep molestation from happening.
About 40 to 50% of the ones I know of are the above scenario.
Don't like that? Then there's also the V-day divorce. The person wanting to walk away for no good reason keeps nothing gained during the marriage, including the kids.
The only men I know who actually ~sought~ full custody deserved it and got it. Men don't usually seek custody, most wouldn't trade places with the mother for all the money in the world, which is why they usually see the real downside of divorce as financial.
In most circumstances, neither parent should be awarded custody, they're both still parents with rights, and responsibilities.
“No fault” divorce is nothing but a legal euphemism which really means “it’s always the man’s fault.”
Go to the Heritage Foundation website - lots of statistics that prove exactly what she said.
I went through something similar and I will tell you now, that the only good thing that came out of it is to tell others if you find yourself with someone making your life hell, get out.
Life is too short, and no, good things don’t always result in such hardship.
I understand. I tend to think people usually work out the best arrangements when they do it for themselves. Yes, the court mandated arrangements are usually not best. But people don’t have to leave it to the courts.
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.