Replies

another poor me father thread...

another whiny father that has to pay child support..

because that is what it is all about isn't it>

you got stuck actually paying for creating children and you just don't like it so you will disrupt your family as much as you can.

... Babies need their mothers, bub...they are born of woman for a reason...they come out of our bodies, we suckle them...neither of these things can a well-meaning dad do..

Joint custody is a huge politically correct mistake....to disrupt children their entire young lives so daddy and mommy can each get a piece of them is so barbaric and self-serving on the part of the parents..

I would love to see the children stay in the house and mommy and daddy come and go....that would make more sense..

Maybe if dads realized that their very families will be hurt when they decide to divorce, or play around , or do whatever they do to disrupt the marriage, and maybe if they realized that they will lose their children if they commit adultery or divorce, then maybe , just maybe, they would try to stay married to the little woman...this goes visa-versa for women as well..

In fact, perhaps the rule should be that whoever is the adulterer, or the drinker, or the drug abuser, or the batterer,in short the person who in reality breaks up the home, if that person was guarenteed to not get custody, wow, what a change would take place.

This article stinks of ignorance and self-pity.

Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York City, was denied the time he sought to spend with his own children.

There are a LOT of factors that get considered in family law courtrooms. Without knowing many of the necessary factors in his case, its impossible to have an informed opinion of what happened. That said, Giuliana is an adulterer. Regardless of the leadership he showed post 9/11, the fact that he was an adulterer, that he was the primary cause of the dissolution of his marriage, and that he's a man are all factors that are going to weigh in favor of the mother.

This is how American divorce courts treat fathers, purely out of anti-fatherhood sexism.

Could you be any more general, or biased?

However, he is by every credible account a good father, and that must be the pre-eminent consideration in his child custody proceedings.

Actually, you're wrong. There are MANY factors that get considered, not just the quality of the parent involved. Even the "good father" standard you speak of is incredibly complicated. Take, for example, the mayor of New York. How much time per week do you honestly believe he will have to "father" his children?

He should not, just as millions of other faultless fathers should not, have been reduced to being merely a visitor in the lives of his own children.

Faultless? Are you kidding? You yourself just referred to his adultery. He made his OWN choices when he dipped his stick in the wrong oil.

The whole concept of child-custody proceedings as a winner-take-all situation...

I suggest you read up on the issue before you make yourself sound even more ignorant. In case you haven't heard, child custody is almost NEVER EVER a winner-take-all. Joint 50/50 custody is common, so is primary with major visitations.

What on Earth does "traditional" mean, so used? That fathers being reduced to every-other-weekend visitors in the lives of their own children is now something "traditional"?

Traditional means (1) mothers are more important in the full-time upbringing of minor children that fathers and that (2) men are traditionally the bread winner and more involved in their careers than are women.

I have laid out the argument to a T. What is sad about the majority of the posters on this thread is that they fail to address the specific things they are complaining about.

I've received nothing but personal attacks, for simply sharing my opinion and trying to flesh out a real analytical issue for this topic.

You wouldn't believe how many private messages I've received from people in support of what I've written.

Child custody law is a STATE issue. Every state has its own family law. They are handled very differently from state to state. Each case has its own specifics.

This post is full of hateful rhetoric and personal attacks, yet I'm still waiting for a serious attempt to point out some specific instances of bias that seem unfair or harsh.

It is the fundamental right of a father to maintain custody and control of his children. The status is called guardianship by nature. This is what you might call legal protection for fatherhood. Most emasculated men out there, cowed by the new liberals, are afraid to stand up for this bedrock of family government. Why is that? This right is not absolute, and can be lost for good cause (such as adultery). The "no fault" standard for dissolutions does not apply to custody proceedings. The standard for releiving a father of his natural right to parent is strict scrutiny, as is interference with any natural right.

Mothers are certainly more capable these day of earning enough to care for children when it is necessary. This right, however, is subservient to the father's. Until this right is recognized and again protected, the rush to divorce court and for child support will continue at it's current break neck speed. Is it possible that the real threat of having to walk away from a marriage without custody of the children would convince some women to work harder to restore their marriage, rather than jumping for the current incentives to separate?

By the way, before the feminists (male and female) tell me that's no longer the law, look it up. Show me where legislation has trumped the natural right to parent, leaving it to the complete discretion of the court. An historical search of these laws will reveal their foundation in guardianship determinations for wards of the state. That's not to say the courts haven't made some bad case law in situations improperly invoking this law. They surely have. Policy and bad case law can not trump a natural right.

It is the patriarchial system of family government that has held families together for thousands of years. Look at what the falacy of equal rights to parent has taken us. Joint custody is properly left to the discretion of the father, as it "traditionally" has. Let's not get sucked into the lie of equality of the sexes. Folks, wake up. We do not have an equal right to parent, for a very good reason.