You amaze me. Are you truly incapable of understanding that there are MANY men out there who are as good, if not better, parents than the mother? I assure you its true. Kids are statistically harmed 10X more by the mother than by a man, and when it is a man, it is 90+% of the time a bf, relative, or new husband. I personally know of dozens of fathers who DO spend as much time as they are permitted by the mother with their children.

"LF, your recent post says you are involved. Your prior posts read as if you'd given up the fight because your lawyer said so."

Not my post. Sounds like you are describing someone elses.

"Again, did you request a psychological evaluation? If not, why?"

Again, you are confused. Not my post. But on this subject...my husband believes it is wrong, at least for his children, to subject them to this type of fighting between him and his x.

"I agree with Nellie, in many cases, the non-PPR parent doesn't want more time, they just want CONTROL. There are many parents who don't operate in the best interest of their children."

There are lots of cases where a father does not truly want time with his kids and wants control. No doubt. I have an ex like that myself. But that doesn't make these laws right. Every case should be looked at without prejutice. This is not happening. Whenever possible CHILDREN DESERVE TO KEEP BOTH PARENTS in their lives. After all, the kids aren't divorcing, the parents are. You are right, there ARE many parents that don't operate in the best interest of the children...AND IT IS VERY OFTEN THE MOTHER. Many use their control as a weapon for their vindictiveness.

The first step in changing family courts is the child support laws and language...visitation to parenting time, etc. Second step is presumptive parenting for fit parents. There is a plan for all this you know.

My husband does spend every moment with his kids that he is permitted by the x. This includes numerous trips to take them places like school, functions, every wednesday for dinner and their activities, and normally friday to an activity. She will never ben willing to compromise. She enjoys keeping his children from him. She says she will do everything she can to hurt him. The problem is the dumbB is harming her own children in the process!

How condesending of you to think that "the mother" should be the one to determine if the father is fit for more time with his own children!

You are biased beyond belief. Every man isn't your x!

Nellie,
What state are you in?

New,
You state doesn't have presumptive shared parenting according to a site listing info for all states. It was last updated 1/2005.

"NEW JERSEY
no statutory language promoting shared parenting

Statutes Annotated; Title 2A, Chapter 34-23
Sole or joint custody may be awarded based on the following factors: (1) the physical, emotional, mental, religious, and social needs of the child; and (2) the preference of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity.
BACK TO TOP"

LF, you are right, I was incorporating someone else's post.

I also never said the mother should determine if the father should have more time. If both parents are fit, it should be shared parenting.

The court required classes referred to shared parenting, and if it is not yet in law, it is used in reference in my state.
Again, my X is an odd case. He demanded the psychological evaluation, and it backfired on him. His inability to act in the best interest of the children, and his inflexibility was noted by the independent reviewer, hence the judge accepted the recommendation that he get less time. Yet, this same review gave him more time than truly involved fathers get in other states.

If my X can get more time just for fighting for it, although I don't know your state, I still believe that others can get more time too.

"I also never said the mother should determine if the father should have more time. If both parents are fit, it should be shared parenting."

I'm so glad I misunderstood. It really is for the kids best interest to have both fit, loving parents in their lives. It has been shown over and over again in studies to be so.

When you have an x like yours, you are limited in what you can do. Totally understandable. I have an ex like that. He has never really gotten the hang of parenting. Involving the kids in the middle of the fighting is the worst thing for the children.

"If my X can get more time just for fighting for it, although I don't know your state, I still believe that others can get more time too. "

Depends on the state laws and the judge involved. The is the problem. If shared parenting was the presumption in all states, then good fathers would not be cut out of their children's lives...ever. In every state that has shared parenting, there is still the safety language protecting children from those parents who are not fit. But when you start from the stance that every father is unfit, unless proven otherwise, that is nothing but gender prejutice. No different than prejutice against certain races.

My husband is finally going to take his x back to court after the holidays because he has tried everything to get her to permit the kids to spend the time they want with him. This is a last alternative and he hates to do it, but she has left him no choice. This is a man who has been to every event his kids have ever been in. He has always attended all school functions and conferences. It is very sad that he has to resort to court action to get something that should never be fought over.

My X just mouthes the words "I want more time with the kids" but attends nothing. In mediation now about holidays, and the mediation lawyer has taken a strong stance on his attendance at things - offering him every opportunity, and still he fails to attend. My X's actions sabotage his words that he wants the kids more.

Just like I did for so long, my children desperately want to believe his words, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. And yes, I've taken them to counselors to deal with the divorce and to learn how to process their feelings about it, and to Rainbows classes.

As I stated, we are in mediation over holidays now. The mediator just wrote me the following:
"I am concerned about the apparent disparity between his professed desire to have more time with the girls and his actions."

And since he spouts the same stuff to DD's, imagine how confused they are about it.

""I want more time with the kids" but attends nothing. In mediation now about holidays, and the mediation lawyer has taken a strong stance on his attendance at things - offering him every opportunity, and still he fails to attend. My X's actions sabotage his words that he wants the kids more."

Actions always speak louder than words! He is full of it if he is just saying he wants more time and not attending every function they have!!

I applaud you for taking your children to counselors and Rainbows. Those very actions prove you are a great mother. My belief is that every child of divorce (except for under 3) would benefit from Rainbows and counseling.

How are your children fairing? I see you've been divorced a little more than 2 years and your children are young still. They probably "need" to believe that dad wants more time with them and it would be detrimental to their self-esteeem at this juncture in their young lives to tell them otherwise. He will reap what he is sowing in the end.

Here is a great example. Just got word from a friend that they are having problems with the school, even though he has joint legal custody of his child. He just changed schools BTW. Looking at the legal language adopted by the school (in 1989!) you will see the reason. Hopefully, this person will bring suite against the county school system doing this.

". NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT:
The non-custodial parent, shall be afforded the following:
1. STUDENT RECORDS:
A non-custodial parent may request a copy of the school records for his/her child.
This request:
a. Must be placed in writing to the principal and notarized. (MOTHERS NEVER HAVE TO EVEN PROVE THEY ARE CUSTODIAL PARENTS MUCH LESS HAVE NOTARIZED DOCUMENTATION)
b. Shall be honored:
(1) Within forty-five (45) calendar days, unless prohibited by a court order or
other legally-binding document; and
(2) After the school makes an attempt to notify the custodial parent of the request
for records and the school's intended compliance.
2. TEACHER CONFERENCES:
a. The District recognizes that upon divorce, only the custodial parent has the
authority to make decisions pertaining to a child's upbringing, including the child's
education. (THIS IS FALSE. LEGAL CUSTODY GIVES THE FATHER THE SAME RIGHTS REGARDING EDUCATION)
b. However, the non-custodial parent, absent a court order or other legally-binding
document which provides otherwise, is encouraged to attend joint conferences for
the purpose of clarification and interpretation of student records with the custodial
parent during the regularly scheduled conference weeks in grades K-8 and during
the regularly scheduled advisement weeks in grades 9-12.
c. If either the non-custodial or custodial parent objects to attending a joint
conference, either parent may request that the non-custodial parent be provided a
separate time for clarification and interpretation with a staff member may be
requested by the non-custodial parent. This request for a separate conference
shall be made by a notarized letter to the Principal or designee.
3. SCHOOL ACTIVITIES:
Absent a court order or other legally-binding document which provides otherwise,
the non-custodial parent may:
a. At the beginning of the school term request, by a notarized letter to the Principal
or designee, copies of school information given to parents at that time. This
information should include procedures for purchasing school pictures. (AGAIN, HERE WE GO WITH THE ONE SIDED, PREJUTICE TREATMENT OF MEN)
b. Attend any public or spectator activity involving his/her child. Attendance at
public or spectator activities does not include:
(1) Lunchroom visits.
(2) Classroom visits, except to attend classroom activities to which all
parents/guardians are invited. (THE FATHERS ARE KEPT OUT OF THEIR OWN CHILDREN'S LUNCH ROOMS!!!)
(3) Other activities that are not classified as public or spectator.
c. The non-custodial parent will not be permitted to check-out or pick-up students
unless proper authorization from the custodial parent is on file with the school. (HE CAN'T PICK UP HIS OWN CHILD, BUT JUST TRY NOT PAYING CHILD SUPPORT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!)
d. Exception: The custodial parent may provide a notarized statement to the
school giving permission to the non-custodial parent to check-out or pick-up
the student and attend non-public/spectator activities (luncheon visits, and so
forth). This document must be maintained at the school and must be specific
as to the permission granted.

Adopted: 1/11/89 "

Is there anyone who thinks that this county's policy isn't prejuticed against men??

Why is that policy prejudiced against men? Against the NCP of either sex, maybe. I can see the schools' point - they want to protect the kids from kidnapping and protect themselves against suits that would be brought against them if any of their students were kidnapped by the NCP.

I am not clear on why you are so involved in something that is really your H's issue. Is he as involved as you are?

You know what...I have been in this divorce "game" for 3 years now. The kids are hurt by divorce. My ex ran off with a bimbo...calls them when he feels like it, plays on their emotions, tries to buy back their love and then complains because they want little to do with him.

My children are upset by forced visitation. They feel like it is a disruption to their lives because of his selfishness. We no longer can have just a normal break from our usual busy schedules for three day weekends or holidays...because he forces the kids to spend time with him. Every holiday is a nightmare....they just want to be a normal family.....they don't want TWO houses.....

You know what...we have tried to be understanding. We have tried to live with the consequences of what he desired for happiness for him. At this point, the kids don't respect him, they are tired of him trying to justify his actions or inactions, they are tired of the financial hole he has put us all in, and they are tired of trying to do what he wants without considering how it disrupts their lives. THAT IS THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIVORCE....and it is definitely not fun. Just my two cents......(The fun just never ends....I just had to hold my daughter because she is being forced to go with her father over Thanksgiving...and she does NOT want to go.)

For anyone suggesting that there is a good way to break up a family....forget it....the kids lose every time. JMHO!!!!!

"I am not clear on why you are so involved in something that is really your H's issue. Is he as involved as you are?"

A little background. I became involved with the father's rights movement prior to marrying my husband. When I moved to the state that I am in, because I work with mostly men, I became aware of the severe injustice served upon men. Since my husbands divorce, he has become just as involved, if not more so, than I. It is a cause that anyone who truly cares about justice, and allowing children to keep both parents in their lives, will support (when both parents are good ones). I'm involved because of the prejutice that exists, and for the rights of these poor children who get harmed by adults making bad decisions.

Are you insinuating that because I am not a father that I shouldn't be involved in changing laws that protect our children? In the groups that I belong to there are many members who are women. In fact, the leaders are women. Why? Because politically we get further when women are in those positions.

movingon,

Have you put your children in counseling? If not, you really need to. When you see the father's parenting time with his children as inconvenient, that's a big red flag. Your children NEED this man in their lives for their own self esteem. If he is a fit father, you are very wrong and doing harm to your children in not encouraging a relationship with their father. If he is not fit, take it to the courts and don't let him near them.

So your daughter doesn't end up in a few years seeking love (read sex) in inappropriate places and too soon, you would be wise indeed to encourage a good relationship with her father. I've been in your shoes and I know the struggle. I made the decision to encourage my daughter to reunit with her father who had been totally out of her life for 7 years. It paid off. I have never regreted it. Tell me, does he "force" child support money upon you too? I noticed you didn't complain about that. You just want the father to be a paycheck and stay out of your way, right?

Nellie,
The policy is prejuticed against mostly fathers because in the county and state this law is in, fathers are the ncp 90+% of the time. And an ncp mother doesn't get questioned! I have several teachers as friends and they have told me this. Why is it only fathers that are suspected of kidnapping to you? There are far more mothers who take the children from the father than vise versa in this country.

"You know what...we have tried to be understanding. We have tried to live with the consequences of what he desired for happiness for him. At this point, the kids don't respect him, they are tired of him trying to justify his actions or inactions, they are tired of the financial hole he has put us all in, and they are tired of trying to do what he wants without considering how it disrupts their lives. THAT IS THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIVORCE...."

This is the reality. I have tried so hard to inform my x, notify the school and teachers of the situation, etc. Some parents, just believe that they can be a parent on their own terms - despite what the children need.

Parent teacher conference - you must be kidding. The mediator actually told X to go, and no surprise - he didn't bother to attend. I am tired of takign the high road, of keeping him informed, and watching my children's faces when he cant' be bothered with them.

I ran my DD through numerous tests and a child study team because her father said (in front of her) "There's something wrong with this child". We found out she's above average intelligence, and a wonderful child with no problems - other than a father who seems unable to give her the love she craves from him.

So far, my 8 YO seems to want to process the D stuff. The 6 YO wants to hear nothing about it - she was young when he left so she remembers less.
My children are cheated because of a selfish father. That's the reality of many of us on these boards.

Somehow, LoversFirst1997, you lose credibility in my eyes.



As the second wife?



Why wasn't this step the first one???
For getting it changed, it would automatically change CS, wouldn't it??

LF, why do you think that I assumed parental kidnappers were generally male?


That's scary. Women leaders of fathers' rights groups makes no more sense than male leaders of NOW or white leaders of the NAACP. Can't these supposedly capable men fight their own battles without having to depend upon their second wives/girlfriends? Why would a father even want it to appear that men are incapable of leading an organization one of the purposes of which is to convince people than men can be competent parents? I can't imagine how it would be politically advantageous to have second wives in a position of power in such an organization - most people would be highly suspicious of their motives.

Wow...I haven't been on these boards for awhile. Definitely have an OW here...haven't heard those type of responses in a long time.

LoversFirst1997...you are way out of line. In the first place my exH left a family that loved and supported him all the way through our 23 years of a military marriage. He was our hero.
No longer.

I have encouraged my children to communicate and see their father. However, they don't want to anymore, unless they need to. He has abused his rights as a father. They have witnessed his unbelievable selfishness, his alcoholic irrational abuse, his lack of responsibility and his lack of caring for what they are going through.

They have tried to talk to him, they have tried to discuss their feelings, they have tried to understand why he has deserted them physically, emotionally, and financially.
In the last five years, he has done nothing but hurt them.

He needs to go to counseling. He needs to understand his irrational anger outbursts, his alcoholic rages, why he gets spun up over totally irrational things. His behavior hasn't changed any...in fact it has gotten worse.

Fortunately, my kids have a warm, loving, supporting man in their lives....who does act like a father should. He is there for them always...and they adore him.

My exH is living with the consequences of his behavior around the kids and myself. There are consequences...but in this liberal society, I guess you don't realize that.

For your information, he owes me almost $30,000 in back child support....so stop with the B*** about child support. Obviously, your ex has to pay it also....You seem to have the same attitude about it. It is "child support" dufus!!!
It is to support the family that is left behind.

I have great kids...and they are doing well. Have they been hurt by the actions of their father--you bet.

Too bad you decided to get in the middle of this situation also....miss high and mighty. I am raising my family....I didn't leave them, I have always been there for them...and they know it.

Divorce hurts kids....he knew that...he chose to leave his family....it was a choice. Now he is whining because they have moved on with their lives. Poor baby.

Am I sorry the kids don't have their natural father. You bet. He chose to leave. He chose to move across the country. He chose not to be here for them. He chose not to pay his child support. He chose not to be part of their lives on a day to day basis. That was his choice...not ours.

Father's Rights.

My definition of a father is someone who puts their family first. Someone who is there to listen to them as they go through life's struggles and triumps, a man whom his kids can look up to.

My kids father was so into himself, that that was all he could see. We put him up on a pedestal, his career put him up on a pedestal. He thought he was God's gift to women. He thought he was better than everyone. He had at least 6 affairs that I now know of. The rules didn't apply to him. He tried to get hired back here where we live a few years ago, and imagine that...they didn't want to hire him. It has taken me 5 years to get the picture of what he really is. My kids saw it way before I did. Are they struggling with trying to figure out a relationship with him...yep.
It will take a long time to get over some of the stuff he has done to them over the last few years...much less what he has done before.

Do I feel sorry for him...not one bit. I feel sorry for my kids-----he destroyed a great foundation for them. His choices have hurt us all.

Newly,
I have an ex who is about the same way. I spend more time asking him to stay involved than he actually stays involved. My child is older, so the consequences are not going to be there like when a father walks out of his children's lives at a young age. Keep in mind though that these fathers groups are filled with good fathers. Men who want to stay in their children's day to day lives. All men aren't like your ex. Some men are fantastic parents. No doubt, there are some on this board. Also, the groups are being joined more and more by wives of these men. You can't blame them, and I applaud them because they are addressing a huge inequity and prejutice.

What most people don't know is that in cases like our state, before this law was passed, they did not even consider the needs of any children born in second marriages. Personallyl, I thought it was an outrage. (Just to clarify, I don't have children from a second marriage), but it bothered me greatly that any child wouldn't be counted. This is the main reason I got involved. And as far as questioning why women are the leaders? You'd have to really know politics to understand. The leader of the one group who is a married woman and has children from her second marriage, got involved to insure that her children counted just as much as any other child. She's been a great leader and has the ears of many Senators and Representatives. Her one child was born with an illness, so I think that has made her even more dedicated to making sure her child's needs aren't ignored.

Belonging,
As I said before, I joined the "cause" while I was a single woman because I saw an inequity that needed fixed. The children are the ones that suffer the long term consequences. The groups tackled the cs law first to change statute to make all children count in the eyes of the laws. There are many more reasons that I won't go into, but all are valid.

Moving,
"Am I sorry the kids don't have their natural father. You bet. He chose to leave. He chose to move across the country. He chose not to be here for them. He chose not to pay his child support. He chose not to be part of their lives on a day to day basis. That was his choice...not ours"

I am sorry I assumed that your children's father was a father who still wanted to stay involved. The sentence above speaks volumes about him...and it isn't good.
Needless to say, I have little understanding or respect for a man who moves away from his children or who doesn't pay child support to help finanically raise them.

I don't get this at all.

Do you mean no CS for children from second marriages??
(I assume a father provides for their kids in 2nd marriages, so I have to guess this is a fight to recognize CS after 2nd m. divorce. Correct?)

Btw, I agree, all children should be equally treated.
And also, I'd allow men (and women) to have as many children (treated equally) as they want ONLY if they can (anyway) support ALL of them.
And - Not if they cannot!


OK, this is about children from second marriages - after the divorce. To ensure they get CS as children from the first marriage.
Am I right?
Nothing wrong with that, all children should be equally treated, and I'd support that too (never at expense of children from the 1st marriage though!!)

But I don't see here that this is about allowing fathers to be involved as much as they want, because 'the first B***** wives don't allow them and they just want cs checks from them', as you began with something like this.
I see just money matter here.

Two totally different issues here, at least as I can see it.

Maybe I miss something, maybe:
answering this would give me enough info...
Probabbly those info would just confirm my opinion...

POOR CHILDREN! :-(((
And DAMNED those ones who make them poor!

Or does LF mean that she lobbied to change to child support laws to make it easy to reduce the child support for the first family just because the NCP made the decision to have more kids? In the eyes of the law in most states, responsibility toward the children of the first family rightly comes FIRST - if you can't afford a second set of kids out of your net, after child-support income, you shouldn't have them, and the first family shouldn't suffer financially because of an irresponsible decision to start another family. (And, in case you are wondering, there is no chance that my kids' father will have kids with his current wife, since they are both in their mid-fifties.)

Let me try and make this clearer.

"Do you mean no CS for children from second marriages??
(I assume a father provides for their kids in 2nd marriages, so I have to guess this is a fight to recognize CS after 2nd m. divorce. Correct?)"

The issue was that children from a second marriage were treated by the state as if they didn't exist. When taking into consideration the monies available from all parents, there was no money allocated for these children. Their existance was not even acknowledged! They would only be considered if the parents divorced. I could give you horror stories that even I wouldn't believe if I hadn't been witness to them.

One that comes to mind is the father who paid cs until his daughter was 18 and graduated. I recall it was about 7-8 years. Never missed a payment. The divorce decree did not include college in it for the girl. Now his exw enrolled their daughter in an Ivey League school without so much as consulting him and no discussion of money. Keep in mind this woman has a lot of money because she remarried a very wealthy man. (two years later) The father got remarried when the daughter went off to college and had a baby. The baby was born very ill, needs surgery every few months for some years. Some sort of throat problem. Requires constant attention. The mother had to stop working. The father was barely making it because of the medical bills. Got this so far? So what does the exw do? She sues him for half of the college money. I forget the amount. More than the guy makes in years total. Guess what? She won the lawsuit and the judge gave this guy a month to come up with the money or go to jail. Does anyone think that the "child's best interest" was ever thought about?? This baby from a second marriage didn't count one bit. It's nothing less than an atrocity for us to call ourselves humane and do this to a child. The daughter in college was and is taken well care of. The mother had plenty of money to keep sending her to the college she was attending. The baby on the otherhand was not considered. Our state cared more about animals on the street than these children of second marriages.

This was about making ALL CHILDREN COUNT into the equation regardless of their birth order or their parents marital status.

Personally, I think that adults that have children and don't have the resources to be having those children, should be made to get fixed! It is irresponsible and unfair to existing children to have others if you can't afford to take care of the ones you already have!!! The problem is, we don't have a law preventing them from doing this. So what are we to do? Make the innocent children brought into this world suffer? Tell them, too bad, you can't have food because your daddy is an idiot? It's a problem I've yet to find an answer to besides making them get fixed or at least take BC shots. BTW, I'd back a bill like that.

Nellie,
Did you see where the couple in PA who are in their mid 60s just had a child? (surrogate of course) They have to be off their rocker in my humble opinion.

" In the eyes of the law in most states, responsibility toward the children of the first family rightly comes FIRST "

By far most states have laws that protect all children and make them all EQUAL no matter their birth order. To say that children born of an earlier marriage are more deserving than children of a later marriage strikes as prejutice to the same degree that our nation once poured out upon Black people. I know of 36 states that do for certain count all children as equal. Not sure on the remainder. What state do you live in? Surely you don't think that all children shouldn't be taken care of?

I suspect there is a lot more to the sob story you reported. First of all, an ivy league college costs about 41,000. Half of that is about 20K, and I don't really believe the guy didn't make more than that in a year, nor do I believe that the court would require him to pay more than his annual income, or that she would win the suit unless the state was one in which the NCP is required to contribute to college expenses. In my state, the NCP is supposed to contribute to college expenses, but my H managed to completely get out of it within a couple of years after he left. His new wife is very wealthy, and he was able to stay unemployed for over two years and then she found him a job at a negligible salary - and the court ruled that the poor guy shouldn't be expected to pay a red cent - even though by his own admission he doesn't have to pay any housing expenses and she bought him two expensive vehicles.

Why did the guy even have another kid without decent medical insurance?

What's so bad about paying $20K a year for ONE kid to go to college? He's got many years to save for the next one. I have to pay that much for just ONE of my six kids, even though she got a large merit scholarship and I qualify for quite a lot of need based aid. He could get a federal PLUS loan and pay it off with a monthly payment of less than $100. Why would anyone not want their child to go to an ivy league college if the child was smart enough to get in?


So it's ok to tell the children of the first family, but not the second, that they can't have food, because their daddy is an idiot?

That is pretty much what happens to the first family when the father leaves, if he was the major breadwinner. Even if my H had kept his job, our family net income immediately dropped by about fifty percent, based on the child support guidelines - and yet the family size only decreased by 1/8, and the only bill that declined noticeably was food.