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.
“There were far fewer divorces back in the old days of your grandmother and mother in law.”
But when they did occur, it more often than not - left the mother and children fighting for survival while daddy got off scott free, so the result of that is what we see today - a tendency by the courts to ensure that mother and children are provided for.
And if nothing else - this should teach us that when we try to rely on the court system to remedy societal problems - the courts will never get it “just right”.
“Now we have marriages failing at neatly 50%.”
From what I’ve read of other freeper comments, this 50% figure is skewed because it includes marriages by 2nd timers (and 3rd and 4th)
I’m not sure what the figure is for 1st time marriages, but I suspect it is lower.
“As our home and families go, so goes our Nation. “
I agree, I’m just not sure how much courts can do about it when people don’t believe in God anymore - or faithfulness- or self sacrifice.
It seems the fundamentals that are required to hold up good marriages are not being promoted in our culture anymore.
That is not something the courts can remedy.
“If we make divorce an even more expensive and difficult process.”
I’m not sure if I’m supportive of making lawyers wealthier than they already are.
Maybe it would be good to go back to one party having to “prove” their case for divorce (ie...adultery, abandonment...etc.)
This law might benefit women, but it does not benefit society, upon which the security of women depend.
Women have always been major property owners, and run businesses. Run down to your county recorders office and check.
You really need to read about women, marriage and divorce and the common law in decades past. I'll bet you never have read any actual text published during those periods. Go to the same place, county seat, and pull some old appellate court cases then get back to me. 
Propose what you’d like to do and how it will help.
It was, actually. I amend the question, which you dodged (an oversight, I'm sure).
Did you read my post? I answered your question.
The same way you get any law changed.
Too many interests involved in this divorce industry. You hadn't figured that out? Waiting for you to tell me how to overcome them.
It's a billion $ industry involving courts (legislative tribunals) lawyers and women who seek to gain, plus various other public officials and those who seek to tear down the integrity of the country for their own ends.
"The same way you get any law changed."
Too many interests involved in this divorce industry.
Ah, so I was right.
You want to use the force of the state to settle a political argument you think you can't win.
Not a conservative position.
That may be a feasible and winnable fight whereas flat repeal would not be.
In English? None of that ~say~ anything.
What is liberal is breaking down the system of honor and responsibility each person takes when becoming one with another and making children.
What is liberal is providing a loaded gun for public use on every street corner entirely dependent on the good faith, sense, honesty and self governance of the individuals that have access to it, with little or no oversight.
Do you see yourself in those last two paragraphs?
What is liberal is providing a loaded gun for public use on every street corner entirely dependent on the good faith, sense, honesty and self governance of the individuals that have access to it, with little or no oversight.
Ah, an emotional argument. And one that raises the spectre of those darned guns, to boot.
Yep, a liberal's response. Through and through. Unworthy of you, and unworthy of this forum.
I'm sorry you feel you have no convincing argument, that you have to resort to emotional appeals and then the power of the State to make your case.
I live in a Right to Work state, so that is the context in which I posed the question.
In the scenarios I outlined, as the employer, I would have to demonstrate just cause in the firing if taken to court, and it would have to be backed up by extensive documentation. I know this because I’ve had my legal department advise me to keep employees longer than necessary (based on ability/performance) strictly so we could ensure we were sufficiently documented to protect against lawsuit.
But in a no fault divorce, as a husband I would have no standing to demand a similar demonstration of cause if my wife chose to leave me for no specific reason.
That’s whack.
An analogy.
What kind of penalty? Forty lashes? Public humiliation? Take their kids away and never let them see them again? Give them the kids but no money? Forfeit their investment in common property? What?
Also,
what if (as in many cases) both parties want the divorce. The marriage is over, they both want to move on. Who gets slapped if both are in agreement?
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.