Replies

'The Children Of Children' A Rockin' Window On Divorce
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: July 29, 2002;
Author: Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.
Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths
Source: Men's News Daily; Published: July 22, 2002;
Author: Roger F. Gay
Why There Are So Many Women in the Fathers' Movement
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: June 21, 2002;
Author: Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

NOW has lobbied hard against shared-parenting

Since it is axiomatic that the child benefits from exposure to both parents except in cases of abuse or neglect, NOW's resistance can't come from concern for the child. No, it's about Little Tommy Mealticket. Children represent power over men, power in the form of money (child support) that is extorted from men by the state on women's behalf. THAT is NOW's motivation, nothing nobler.

As a father of a 4 and 2 year old trying to get my wife's undiagnoised, suspected mental illness discovered, I have spent over $14,000 and 1.7 years in court.

My wife has successfully stalled for over a year in getting a mental health evaluation with little or now consequences to herself. She still has sole temporary custody of the children even though my PREVIOUS lawyer told me that the court has very little bias anylonger.

Yeah, right. It will take two kids floating face down in the bathtub before anyone takes my concerns seriously. :((

Family court is a joke.

I go to court next Friday to get a "temporary parenting plan" put in place to give me legal "custodial parent" status of my daughter until the official court date late next spring.

My daughter has been living with me and her step mom since mid February.

Her mothers protest (the reason this is even going to court) is that my daughter should continue to live with me but I should continue sending her child support which she will reimburse every month provided I meet certain criteria.

Oh, I haven't seen any money yet.

Her response was basically, "you keep the kid and keep sending me money."

I'm hoping the court sees it that way...

I just represented a father who was being sued by his ex for the college costs for their three sons. He was a respectable (slightly arrogant) business professor who had managed to accumulate millions of dollars on a college professor's salary by simply being frugal. (She waived alimony because she walked away with a nice house free and clear and nearly a million in cash). He had no problem promptly paying for his children's tuition, room and board, and college related expenses. What he did have a problem paying for was any frivolous spending by the three kids such as magazines, late fees, withdrawal penalties, etc...He was of the opinion that the kids should have a part time job and help defray some of the minor expenses.

To make a long story short, we got hammered by a judge who promptly decided that, pursuant to the socialist based child support guidelines in New Jersey, that he should not only pay these minor items, but give each kid an additional $ 2,000.00 a year so they wouldn't have to work. The father was honestly just trying to instill some values like hard work, frugality, and personal responsibility and the judge turns around and reinforces the exact opposite behavior.

I left the court room bewildered. I hadn't lost like that in a long time. The court is right by Washington's Headquarters in Northern New Jersey. Outside the court room are portraits of some of the founding fathers and revolutionary war heroes like Nathaniel Greene. I remember thinking to myself, if only these guys had known.