False charges are common in divorce cases and when the women is making the accuasation, the man has to prove his innocence.

Yes, the presumption is "guilty till proven innocent". That's what I mean by no Due Process of Law in the family courts.

In criminal court a prosecutor must prove the defendant is guilty (note, this doesn't apply to Domestic Violence or sexual realted accusations like rape). In family court the accused must prove his innocence which he can't do since it is his word against hers and if he does have evidence that she lied, the judge won't accept it.

Uh, prove it? The courts are the one ordering her to go into rehab after she was arrested time and time and time again. It has already been proven.

If he had custody and was arrested on a drug charge the courts would take it upon themselves to take the children.

He would also get worse than drug rehab. Criminal law also has a clear bias but that is another topic (and of course, I can prove that too).

So it is your belief that mothers know best and never act in selfish interests?

It is your belief that if a mother claims a man is a bad father, it must be true?

What you are saying is that fathers should be less concerned about being good fathers and be more concerned with impressing mommy. How sexist can you be?

You talk of super dads who fought for their kids. Here's what you're forgetting.

Fighting the courts is expensive, most men don't have thousands and thousands to spend on a lawyer. Second, why should men have to fight, women don't.

Uh, prove it? The courts are the one ordering her to go into rehab after she was arrested time and time and time again. It has already been proven.

If he had custody and was arrested on a drug charge the courts would take it upon themselves to take the children.

He would also get worse than drug rehab. Criminal law also has a clear bias but that is another topic (and of course, I can prove that too).
**********************************

UH.....We are Not talking about the same person....the woman I mentioned was never arrested on a drug charge and the court never sent her to rehab.

All I know for sure......If you need to deal w/ the law...get a good lawyer (right or wrong... man or woman....fair or unfair) You can't afford NOT to in this country.

My mistake, I guess we were talking about two different people.

You are right, to get anything done you need a lawyer and that is a shame since most people can't afford it. Get a lawyer, don't pay the rent. No one should have to make a choice like that in a free country.

However, the family courts do favor women and if neither side had a lawyer, mom always wins. This injustice needs to be addressed before men can trust marriage again. You must have some concern about the future of marriage.

Nia, generally that is true. The first time my ex tried to take my kids, it cost me over $40,000 in legal and other associated fees, but we never reached a settlement until I fired my attorney and did it myself. I determined later that this loser was probably using my case as a loss leader so the other attorney would give on cases that were more important to my attorney. They all know each other well and go against each other often.

Also, realize most cases have two attorneys, and one wins and one loses. Actually, the kids lose, but you get the point.

I would guess that if we abolished all attorneys, more fairness would ensue.

I would guess that if we abolished all attorneys, more fairness would ensue.
***********************************

I don't disagree but it's not just the lawyers...it's the whole system....I really wish the legal system, would do a better job at truly looking out for the welfare of the child.

But they SAY they are, doesn't that make it true?

Don't allow yourself to get caught in the trap "best interests of the children". They can do anything and claim that and get away with it. People are afraid to question "best interest of the child" or "it's for the children".

We must remember that adults have rights too. In a civil matter all rights should be observed. Mom, Dad and children, anything less is biased.

Anyway, you adopt a Shared Parenting (50/50 custody and no money changes hands) and you will see alot less "because I can" divorces.

I am twice divorced and have one child with each ex-husband.

My first ex and I have 50/50 custody of my oldest (well, did until last year...he turned 18 and is an adult now!). We got pregnant in high school, married and had our son and separated by the time I was 20, divorced at 23. We had 50/50 custody for 16 years and it worked beautifully for all involved. No child support. We each paid 50% of my son's expenses, whether medical, extra-curricular, or whatever. We each now pay 50% of his college tuition, his car insurance, his medical insurance and expenses. My ex#1 and I get along wonderfully, and he is an excellent father. My oldest son is a very happy kid and is very well adjusted and has a great relationship with his father.

Ex#2 is very close to being a deadbeat dad. He "usually" pays the minimum child support that is ordered. I say usually because it is not paid through wage garnishment, but he writes a check every month...but he doesn't even pay the ordered amount, and he doesn't always pay every month. Over the last 10 years, he's about $4,500 short of what was ordered, but it adds up so slowly I haven't bothered to take him back to court to collect it (he would claim to not have the money anyway, so it would be pointless). When we divorced, we went to mediation (required in the state of Texas) and mutually agreed to a visitation schedule that allowed him double the time over a "standard" visitation schedule. He is entitled to have his son every other Friday night through Monday morning and every Wednesday night through Thursday morning. Basically, this adds up to 10 overnights per month (versus the standard order of 4 overnights per month). He only followed the order for about 6 months then started refusing to keep his son on Wednesday nights and Sunday nights...then slowly started skipping weekends (or picking him up and dropping him off at grandma's house rather than spending time with his son)... **note: as I was typing this, my ex#2 just called to say he won't be picking up his son for the weekend tomorrow because his wife "surprised" him with an anniversary trip to Vegas** again.........typical of him!

I have court ordered child support of $325/month from ex#2 that gets paid when he feels like it, and was based on the salary he was earning over 10 years ago when we divorced. His salary has since at least doubled, probably close to tripled. He has the money for new pickup trucks, a new hunting dog every couple of years, a very expensive deer lease 6 hours away, golfing whenever he wants. I could take him back to court tomorrow and get a judgment for EASILY double that if not more...but, it's not worth my trouble of having to deal with him. I don't even bother asking him to pay his half of my sons medical expenses because, you know what? I'm his mother and I will take care of him. My ex was court ordered to provide health insurance for our son and he has never (not one day) ever provided it. I have paid for health insurance for him since the day he was born. (This is also money I could recover in a court judgment if I were to pursue it.)

I do believe that there are many more deadbeat dads than moms, and that not every divorced mother is out to screw her ex to the wall and is just out for cash. That certainly isn't true in my case. I think it is very unfair of SYF and Garak to try to lump EVERY woman into the same category as money hungry villains who only want to use the children to obtain better settlements in court. That's a bunch of crap.

And for the record, I am completely opposed to MF attempting to get 100% custody of her children (I think I may have posted that earlier). Children need their fathers. She knew the kind of man she was marrying and only now does she think he's not good enough to be a father...too late! If she felt he wasn't father material then she should have used birth control.

You don't get to change the rules halfway through the game. Those are his kids, just as much as they are her kids, and she has no more right to them than he does. If he decided that suddenly he thought he should have 100% custody she would be freaking out and raising ******...what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have proven that deadbeat moms are a higher percentage. There is no reason to believe that more non custodial mothers would result in a lower percentage. Likely, the percentage would remain the same regardless of how many mothers are non custodial. If you choose not to believe what I have proven, so be it but it doesn't change the facts.

Funny, you claimed that you believe there are more deadbeat dads than moms but you claim SYF and I are lumping women together? Aren't you lumping men together? Difference is, I brought proof, you brought your beliefs.

Agreed! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Actually, what I said was that there are more deadbeat dads than moms. A fact also proven by your numbers. 1.7 million deadbeat dads vs. 250K deadbeat moms. I thought we were discussing facts, not hypotheticals... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Yes, hypothetically, if the world were to suddenly balance out with dads having custody 50% of the time, then there would potentially be more deadbeat moms than dads....but it is a moot point right now. I wasn't talking in percentages, but actual numbers (that you provided).

No, I wasn't lumping all men together. In fact, I showed you, through my own personal experience that there can be some wonderful fathers that raise their children even though they are divorced.

My point, again, was that not every woman wants custody as a means to get more money. In fact, of all the divorced women with children that I personally know, that is not true for ANY of them. Just because you may have had horrible experiences, you cannot assume that EVERY woman is a money hungry villain. THAT was my point.

Since we aren't dealing with even numbers of non custodial fathers and non custodial mothers (thanks to the family court bias) the overall number is meaningless.

The percentage is what matters. For every sample (let's 100 mothers), 43 do not pay, for men using the same sample, only 32 do not pay.

Surely you understand this?

Uh, no, you didn’t prove it. I proved from your facts that women make one-third of what men make. Let’s see you pay child support when you earn $15,000/year.

And if women make one third of what men make, how on earth could they ever even hope to afford it?

And that is absolutely false! And a grand generalization. And unfair to the millions of honest people – including some women - who have not screwed you.

The fact you gave also stated that the women in question earned on average $15,000 while the men earned $40,000. $15,000 is poverty level, in case you didn’t know. That means that a person can barely pay rent and buy groceries and if they’re lucky get a piece of crap car, and only afford insurance if the employer offers it – and in most cases of a $15,000/year job, there are no benefits. Out of that $15,000, she is supposed to be able to afford to give an ex-husband who is making 2 to 3 times what she makes, and excessive amount (your words) of that $15,000? Of every divorced couple I know, except one, the man goes on to use his higher salary to buy a new house, pay for stuff for a new girlfriend, buy the toys he always wanted but never got like boats and jet skis and golf carts, and take care of girlfriend's kids. While the women stop shopping for new anything, spend any spare money they have on their own kids, and half the time never even date again, let alone shower a new love interest with gifts or houses.

I understand that the women in your data earn less than half, even one third, of what the man makes, so what she can and can't afford to pay is ultimately far different and may be the difference between affording electricity or groceries; not so for the men.

I'm really sorry you two have had such lousy experiences. If I had to guess, from your attitudes, your situations weren't entirely the fault of your ex-wives. But that's just the image I'm getting from your anger and bitterness. Who am I to say?

That said, I'd like to return the thread to MF, to whom I will reiterate, you do NOT want to take your kids from their father, no matter how crappy you may think he is. He is still their father, and they need to learn whatever they will learn from having a father.

It is not true that women have all of the control. When my ex refused to allow our 14 yr old son in his house anymore, I could not do anything to protect my son. He can not be forced to stick to the child custody agreement and take his son when he is supposed to. Not only that, but I could not have the child custody agreement changed after he refused to let his son in his house because I was told the courts do no like to take parental rights away from the father as long as no abuse is occuring. So if he did finally decide to see his child after he rejected him then my son had to go whether he wanted to or not. We were completely at the mercy of my exhusband's moods.

Uh no, the wage gap has been debunked many many times. Wow, there is alot you just aren't aware of.


http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba392/ba392.pdf

Two links for you (one is a video), want more, type "Wage Gap Myth" into any search engine.



See above




So you don't think the courts are biased in favor of women? Do you believe that 90% of divorced/seperated fathers don't want their kids?



Again, see above.



Again, see above.

Your whole case is built on this premise: "Women make less so they deserve default custody and child alimony".

Of course, since the wage gap is a myth....well...next?

Odd case, usually mothers withhold the child and fathers can't get visitation. In which case, fathers have no control.

What do you mean the wage gap is a myth? I know in the science field it is still alive and well!