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.
Sad and foolish, I know, but I’ve been through this twice. As things stand today, if a woman wants a divorce, there’s nothing whatsoever the husband can do, except to be unrelenting in keeping up his involvement in the lives of his children. I have a 17 year-old son whose 45 year-old mother moved her 22 year-old boyfriend into the house. It didn’t last long after I cut off the money I was giving her, but by not paying, I was violating the law. Once the boyfriend was gone, I paid up and in the meanwhile provided money directly to my son.
My 14 year-old daughter - from another marriage - recently came to live with me after years of chaos with her mother. I am still legally required to pay the mother almost $500 a month in child support even though the child is living with and being supported by me. I simply can’t do both. Whatever I’ve had to go through is my own fault for my foolish choices, but I have done all that I could over the years to minimize the impact on my children - although it’s never enough. They’re old enough now to see things as they really are and that’s a relief, but it took constant contact and I am glad I did it.
If the gays ever get involved in my marriage, I'll tell them the same thing I'll tell you. Butt out.
Works both ways.
Most have a new girlfriend half their age....
Advice to young men: Do not marry, do not have children
Went on for days. Over 500 replies.
This one has the same potential.
Come on over if you're up to it....
Sorry, I was actually agreeing with you.
Should have made that a bit clearer.
Doesn't mean they are still in the marriage. Men get unhappy and bored and want out of marriages too, they just usually have no real motivation to do the paperwork.
Point taken. Let me rephrase - “if one spouse wants a divorce, there’s nothing the other can do about it”. I have read stats that say 2/3 of all divorce actions are filed by the wives, but can’t vouch for their accuracy or what causal links might be involved.
Bunk?
What’s so “bunky” about calling for the end to no-fault divorces?
I remember that thread. It’s sad that thing have come to this, especially when we’re staring a long term cultural threat from Islamofascists in the face. The long term calculus for our civilization is very bad right now, and the worst is yet to come.
Butt out???
So you think femi-nazism and no fault divorce are just peachy keen.
Whatever.
My ex wifes excuse. “ I just don’t want to be married anymore.” Nothing I could do with that one.
I see a no fault divorce as a way for two people who either still care for one another on a platonic level, or really hate one another but are tired of fighting to part ways and be done with one another.
I can’t think of any other US court system where you get to take half of everything someone owns (not to mention their kids) based on the other pary often not having done anything wrong.
Great for the “family law” business, bad for families.
Nothing at all.
Trying to penalize people for exercising their legal rights because you're unable or unwilling to end no-fault divorces is bunk, however.
Would you really want to stay married to such a person, anyway?
The way you see NFD is just fine and dandy.
When there are no kids involved.
But... if there are children, then divorce should be as hard and as painful as possible.
Better the kids should grow up in one unhappy home than two unhappy homes.
But, I see a lot of bad marriages out there and making laws to force people to stay together aggrivates me...
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.