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.
No, I think femi-nazism is mostly a meaningless buzzword used by weak and bitter men. I think a lot of people make dumb decisions in who they marry, in why they divorce, and in how they behave in divorce, but it's none of my business when they do. Adults making their own decisions in life, even decisions I wouldn't make, is just one of those side-effects of ~freedom~.
Divorce is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. The state should have as little to do with it as possible. The fact that you need a license to get married gives the state too much say already. Individuals shouldn’t have to justify themselves to the state regarding their marriage.
One potential problem: the no-fault rule was made so that folks could escape bad marriages. Applying this new idea would mean that, in such instances, the mistreated spouse have to choose between leaving his or her kids in the hands of an abuser, or staying in that bad situation for the children’s sake (thus robbing the no-fault rule of the sole decent benefit that it was written to provide).
Uh oh...the HTT’s will get ya for that...
You are wrong there. Kids who live with two fighting parents forced to stay together will be so emotionally scarred that they will probably NEVER marry....if they do not commit suicide that is.
Too bad!!
I’m not scared.
Well my eleven year old certainly wouldn’t have had a problem with it.
While I sympathize for the plight you have found yourself in and have no use for such women that have done to you what you describe, I can not let this particular statement stand without comment.
I am thankful there were no children involved in my first marriage, yet the ex tried everything in his arsenal to make me pay when I said no more and walked on him. I'm sorry, but men can be just as vindictive as women. Not only did he seek spousal support from me, he sought over $1,000 in legal expenses. I chose the no fault option as much to save him community humiliation as to save myself from it
Nearly 20 years later, with a strong marriage and a 9 year old child I can look back on it as comedy/tragedy, but at 27 it was far from comedic to me at the time. It was a devestating and demoralizing experience.
Thank you.
Femi-nazism may be a meaningless buzz word for you.
But no fault divorce is no buzz word. It’s a real serious social evil that is ripping apart the moral fabric of America.
I guess I’m just suprized that you and other FReepers (Hello JRBC) are in favor of NFD.
People tend to forget that the best thing a kid benefits from seeing is the healthy, loving interaction of two parents.
However, if the interaction isn’t loving or healthy, the jury’s out on whether or not that is better than divorce.
Moral Absolute ping.
I’m naive. I woulda thought that ending No Fault Divorce was a moral absolute that all FReepers would agree with.
Clearly I’m wrong. There seem to be plenty who think divorce should be easy come-easy go.
And to hell with the children.
I’m not ‘in favor’ of NFD. I don’t plan on doing it. But I don’t meddle in the personal affairs of other adults, unless they ask me.
You can't force them to stay together, just to stay legally married. My great grandfather abandoned his wife and children in the 1930's, but technically they were never legally divorced. The effects on my grandmother was still the same.
But no fault divorce is no buzz word. It’s a real serious social evil that is ripping apart the moral fabric of America.
I hear this a lot, but I just don't buy it.
It isn't exactly a breeze to get a divorce in New York State, and yet that doesn't stop a lot of people.
Of course, men can be just as bad. I guess the difference is that I’ve never been married to one. The central idea of the original post seemed to be that “no-fault” is not a problem in a case like yours was with no kids involved. I’m happy for you that your life has so greatly improved.
While NFD itself I have mixed feelings on, I also don’t believe that a person should be forced to stay in a marriage where they are continually abused, either by action, or INACTION (being ignored, unloved, etc) or cheated on.
ping
Because there are many situations where such an alternative is far superior than dragging dirty laundry out into public.
Concern for the children is foremost in my mind. Why should the children be subjected to more crapola that arises when abuse or adultery are the reason for the divorce. Do you think dragging those children into a courtroom to provide witness/testimony against one or the other parent is a good thing for them?
I have seen marriages end in divorce with children involved where the no-fault was a far superior wasy to go than the attempt of proving the abuse -- as there are other forms of abuse than just physical. I've also seen mariages continue that should not have because of the lack of no-fault divorce at the time.
I am against forcing people to stay together when they are miserable.
NFD may have its problems.....but not having it has problems too.
Yeah, they'll be much happier after being raped by Mommy's new boyfriend.
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.