Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHY DIVORCE IS SO PREVALENT: The #1 Answer To Society's #1 Problem
Toogood Reports ^ | Uncertain | Unknown

Posted on 12/14/2001 3:21:12 PM PST by Dr. Octagon

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 401-406 next last
To: GreatOne
Adultery, abuse, and addiction are valid reasons for divorce. In lieu thereof, I'd like to see equitable, non-gender-biased custody awards, predicated upon a legally encoded rebuttable presumption of joint residential custody.
81 posted on 12/14/2001 9:29:37 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Octagon
I tell you, I practice law in West Central Minnesota, covering, and in the 4 primary counties I practice in, there is only 1 judge out of 8 who will always give infant children to the mother. I personally believe that children under 8 should go to their mothers in most (not all) cases, which I know may be disagreed with vehemently here. Just based on 5+ years of practice (and my own marriage!).

I also agree that we need to go back to fault divorce, and that if fault is proven, that faulting party will be penalized in the property division as well as custody determinations. It would make a lot of peopel think twice before they throw the towel in (so to speak).

If you're familiar with the proposed (draconian) new bankruptcy laws, debtors have to go to financial counseling before filing for bankruptcy. Same thing should go for divorce, although I know that if one party wants out, most times all the counseling in the world won't help. Regardless, divorce should be difficult to obtain; there are adequate protections for women in abusive relationships today so that that won't be as big of an issue.

82 posted on 12/14/2001 9:44:12 PM PST by GreatOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: GreatOne
I do disagree with the tender years position. Fathers can bottlefeed. And it is a myth that fathers are in any way lacking in parenting instincts. If a father can care for, and address the needs of his child, who is to say that the reality of that relationship should take second place to anyone's gender biases?
83 posted on 12/14/2001 9:50:24 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: GreatOne
I don't mind a primary-secondary caregiver standard, under which the child-raising arrangements after the marriage ends reflect, as nearly as possible timewise, those to which the child was accustomed within the marriage. Zero gender presumptions. Fair enough?
84 posted on 12/14/2001 9:53:09 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: JoeSchem
"So it's a no-win situation for the guys."

Pretty much.

85 posted on 12/14/2001 10:00:07 PM PST by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Octagon
WHAT CAUSES DIVORCE?

From this shrink's perspective:

essentially:

SELFISHNESS AND PRIDE

Certainly poor parenting of the parents by THEIR parents plays a huge part . . . but that's often been too much modeling of SELFISHNESS and PRIDE as much as anything else.

86 posted on 12/14/2001 10:06:45 PM PST by Quix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Octagon
Yes and no. Under Minnesota law, there are 13 factors which go into determining custody, of which the primary caretaker is but one (the rest deal with parent or child wishes, abuse, child's connection to home and community, religious upbringing, etc.).

I don't mean at all to be disagreeable, because I represent/have represented many fathers who seek custody of their children. It just appears to me that most mothers are better with the younger children than the fathers. Believe me, there are two fathers whom I am fighting like hell for in order to get their kids (one is particularly disgusting, where at a temporary hearing the fat pig accused my client of raping her, sexually abusing the kids, using drugs, and beating her - no police reports, and she didn't telll her mother, who testified, any of this), and they are clearly better than the mothers in these situations. I'm open to believing that I'm biased after looking at my own situation and that of my family (we married good women, what can I say).

Don't mean to pry, but any personal experience?

87 posted on 12/14/2001 10:24:23 PM PST by GreatOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: GreatOne
I just want to avoid gender-stereotyped presumptions which conflict with actual parenting arrangements in the marriage, and the actual parent-child relationships. Thus the joint-residential and/or primary-secondary standards are by me not described, but prescribed. With every fibre of my soul.
88 posted on 12/14/2001 10:32:25 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: GreatOne
And the 13th tends to be "whatever else the judge says is relevant". That one has to get tossed.
89 posted on 12/14/2001 10:34:26 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: GreatOne
I represent/have represented many fathers who seek custody of their children

Good for you. :o)

90 posted on 12/14/2001 10:38:03 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
That is so funny! You have me laughing when I should be going to sleep! I will be passing this .jpg along!
91 posted on 12/14/2001 10:42:19 PM PST by gracekelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Octagon
I agree with you regarding the gender stereotyping. For F.Y.I. purposes, these are the 13 factors:

M.S.A. § 518.17. Custody and support of children on judgment

Subdivision 1. The best interests of the child. (a) "The best interests of the child" means all relevant factors to be considered and evaluated by the court including:
(1) the wishes of the child's parent or parents as to custody;
(2) the reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express preference;
(3) the child's primary caretaker;
(4) the intimacy of the relationship between each parent and the child;
(5) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with a parent or parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
(6) the child's adjustment to home, school, and community;
(7) the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity;
(8) the permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home;
(9) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; except that a disability, as defined in section 363.01, of a proposed custodian or the child shall not be determinative of the custody of the child, unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interest of the child;
(10) the capacity and disposition of the parties to give the child love, affection, and guidance, and to continue educating and raising the child in the child's culture and religion or creed, if any;
(11) the child's cultural background;
(12) the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if related to domestic abuse, as defined in section 518B.01, that has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual, whether or not the individual alleged to have committed domestic abuse is or ever was a family or household member of the parent; and
(13) except in cases in which a finding of domestic abuse as defined in section 518B.01 has been made, the disposition of each parent to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact by the other parent with the child. The court may not use one factor to the exclusion of all others. The primary caretaker factor may not be used as a presumption in determining the best interests of the child. The court must make detailed findings on each of the factors and explain how the factors led to its conclusions and to the determination of the best interests of the child.
(b) The court shall not consider conduct of a proposed custodian that does not affect the custodian's relationship to the child.

In Minnesota, most of these situations are resolved prior to a trial with a guardian ad litem/custody evaluator peforming a custody investigation based upon these factors and making a recommendation to the court. Works pretty well.

Regarding visitation, I have conflicting thoughts. While I know how important it is for a child to have both parents present in their life, for many reasons not the least being so the child knows their parent loves them and they are not rejected, many cases of visitation disputes I'm involved in occur because the younger child typically will not want to leave the parent they're with, and when they do go visit the other parent, the first few days after visitation are spent "coming down" from the visit. I absolutley believe that a 50-50 split (alternating weeks being the most popular) is not at all good for children. They have no stability in their home, which is very important, and their bonding with both parents suffers. It's a problem with no solution, I fear, other than parents being able to stay together. That's why that recent study which stated that children are better off in homes with troubled marriages than being in tranquil homes with a divorced parent.

92 posted on 12/14/2001 10:54:13 PM PST by GreatOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: gwmoore;onyx
What is with the continued reverse snobbery on FR ? This Marxist crap is getting as predictable , as the woman bashing, macho little boy rants, and the hubba hubba Ann Coulter threads.

Mr. nopardons and I were married in 1967 ... that'll be 35 happy, wonderful, faithful years come May. Our wedding reception was at TAVERN ON THE GREEN, in N.Y.C. and was fantasic, great fun, and EXPENSIVE. Two week honeymoon in London , theatre almost every night, shopping, magic memories. He and I have ALWAYS had expensive tastes, saved for whatever we wanted and never bought what we couldn't afford to pay for at that moment, never bought anything just to be " IN ", but because WE wanted whatever we have purchased. Neither " hard times " ( everyone has them ! ) , death of family members, illnesses, nor anything else has shaken our love, devotion, and commitment to each other. We were best friends back then, and best friends to this day.

Just look at the comments, on this thread and others, by males ! No, you are NOT men ! You are little boys , saying that girls are evil, and or talking about never marrying, having sex but no marriage, and whinging about women being " gold diggers", emasculating ( the old " toothed vagina " fears ) sluts, etc. WHO WOULD EVEN WANT YOU GUYS ? GROW UP!

And , for you who indulge in " hate / reveile the rich " persifage, get over it. There is NOTHING " noble " in being poor or middle calss, and NOTHING inherintly " evil " in being wealthy.

onyx, FYI

93 posted on 12/14/2001 11:13:14 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
BRAVO! My friend!

The answer to the original question is three words:

NO FAULT divorces.

94 posted on 12/14/2001 11:24:54 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
In the future, lose gracefully.
95 posted on 12/14/2001 11:25:39 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Leveling a mass of insults against previous posters, as you have done to many of those whose replies appeared on this thread, is the last refuge of the incompetent.
96 posted on 12/14/2001 11:28:35 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
And who are you to say that what many have here expressed is less than valid?
97 posted on 12/14/2001 11:30:07 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Real men stand up for themselves. There are good men, and good women, in equal measure. Ditto for bad men and bad women. Inequity arises when presumptions of virtue or the lack thereof are gender-biased. That bias is real. It is what many have objected to.

And ever will.

98 posted on 12/14/2001 11:33:24 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
You are clearly a gender feminist, and would be happy on a left-wing male-bashing board.
99 posted on 12/14/2001 11:37:24 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs;Uncle Sham;Dr.Octagon;Mark17;wasfree;wwjdn
PING! Come check out the feminazi diatribe of post #93 in this thread!

And respond I hope!

Salutations,

Doc

P.S. Check this out even if it's a while before you're back online. It's worth responding to.

100 posted on 12/14/2001 11:44:22 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 401-406 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson