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.
What if they’re raped by Daddy? Or beaten?
Or, what if Mommy becomes a drunk to deal with her horrible marriage?
How is that better than a divorce? Your grandmother was abandoned and was not free to not marry a more responsible man.
I’m glad you don’t plan on doing it.
And I’m sure Mrs Dog won’t either.
But the point is.... she can. NFD allows her to leave you, move in with a new boyfriend, take the kids, keep you from legal visitation and all the while get the State to force you to pay child support.
Happens every day.
I saw first hand what parents staying together for the kids did to someone. The fights were horrendous and legendary. The kids from this 2 parent home (house of horrors, more like it) from seeing the parents fight, and hearing how the parents were trapped because of them made one commit suicide at 14, one is a drug-addicted, prostitute somewhere in NYC (maybe dead now), the other in a mental institution. You will not change my mind about this.
ROFL!!!! My husband and I were together for 9 years and lived together almost 7 before we got married ........we did have a child 18 months later, though :)
We do not want children. But, you know after living together we knew we could put up with each others crap...
Uh,
yer talkin’ to the Missus Dawg :)
Oh goody!
Another “Men hate women” thread! How novel!
Damn, and my friends wonder WHY any sane woman would want to associate with this tripe.
Children are better off if their parents remain married. This is true educationally, physically, materially, and in many other ways.
NFD is bad for the kids. If parents know that their "dirty laundry" will harm their kids in the home, then why will they care if it harms them in a court of law?
I think what it comes down to for me is, for all the lofty goals of those who would make divorce harder, they will not improve the marriages they ‘save’, they will only make those divorces worse.
The ‘shame-of-divorce’ cat is out of the bag. People no longer see it as noble to stay in bad marriages, or even to stay in marriages that bore them. We can wish it were otherwise, but it isn’t. And anyone who has ever tried to get a cat back in a bag it doesn’t want to go in, knows, it’s easier said than done.
People do still have the right to choose carefully who they marry and how they themselves behave in such marriage. That’s the only control we have a right to have. Other people’s marriages are not my business, no matter how lofty my societal goal.
And for all the men who complain about the high cost of child support, and it is high, I feel for them, I see few who would actually trade roles with their ex wives. There are some, I know them. But most would rather pay the money than actually have to get the kids up and off to school before work every morning by themselves, or tote them around through all the errands of daily life. No... most love to complain about how good their ex has it, but they wouldn’t trade places for the world.
It was my great-grandfather who abandoned my great-grandmother and their children, including my grandmother. My point is the same as yours- the fact that my great grandmother held out hope that her husband would return and therefore, did not get a divorce, and my grandfather, as the faulting party could not get a divorce, did not protect my grandmother from the consequences on not having her father around.
I know just as many females who were raped/molested by someone (including Daddy) while Mommy and Daddy stayed together and pretended it didn’t happen.
It’s just as sick and twisted as the ‘boyfriend’ crap too.
Shhh. I'm sure my opinion now means nothing to him ;~)
Exactly, we call it Darwinism in reverse.
Right now the only people pro-creating are muzzies and the part of society that is a drag on the rest ( uneducated morons ). The end result as soon as one of these factions outnumbers the rest is the same.
Whether or not this fellow has a legitimate point, I don't care to find out: I stopped reading right there. It's clear from this non-sequitur that he's more interested in racheting up an emotional response.
I can understand what you’re saying,
but like my earlier posts....
Some kids are way better off if Mommy and Daddy divorce. Sometimes hell is simply hell and the child needs to be removed from it.....
Come’on and take a free ride. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Quite the contrary. You have my blessings to use NFD to your full advantage.
I would expect no less from you.
You are right...see post 60.
“Get back in the kitchun wooman un fix mah supper! Den hab dat baby, and a nuther, and doncha dare talk back!”
Hrmpt.....
Yep, these’ll be the same idjits whinin’ about women votin’ for liberals (maybe because they at least pretend they like us ;) )
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.