Garak - my point is that men can only blame themselves for the status-quo. Stop excusing continued bad fathering by sticking up for them - you make yourself look bad.

Instead, work for JUSTICE in the courts - equity for good fathers and mothers - and condemn the bad ones.

Not all fathers are fit to be around their children. Likewise for some mothers.

You would like to paint it all black and white - and as with my domestic violence example that men get the short end of the court system - they can only blame the bad apples and do what they can to provide influence to change, rather than excuses for bad fathering, bad spousal treatment, etc.

By talking about good fathers who get screwed I am somehow excusing bad behavior?

Whatever, you just refuse to hold the courts accountable and wish to instead blame fathers.

If I am working for change in the courts and you are not holding them accountable and instead blaming fathers, then you are making it harder for change to occur.

Some women don't want the courts to change, are you one of those women?

You were the one who started the all-or-nothing thinking - You are posting on a woman's thread - a woman who's husband abandoned his children financially - and somehow expects by magic that they will have sufficient to wear, eat and be sheltered by - but by all means - do not cut short this worthy father's rights to play with his children - like his toys - that he doesn't take care of the rest of the time... You want her to avoid offering her husband a financial out - by getting ALL out of their lives. No - it would damage your cause if he were made that offer because you suspect he'd go for it - thus weakening your claim that ALL fathers are fit fathers and worthy fathers.

I want the courts to change - I saw the injustices to my brother and his children. But unless you face the realities that created this unjust system - and work to persuade your brothers to behave themselves toward their children on all accounts, you will continue to fight a losing cause. statisics - since you like to cite them so much - are not on your side to claim that fathers support their children's needs.

I'll tell you what. You go find me evidence that proves that fathers forced the courts to be so unjust.

The courts are unjust because they are making a fortune doing business the way they are but go ahead, find me some evidence. What really amazes me is that you are ok with having unjust courts, just as long as you can blame men. What has America become?

I don't need to do that - I'm not the one in the fight. I'm just wanting to give you an edge. But like my son would rather argue than face what's right in front of him, it seems that is your choice as well.

Funny how it's all about the money to you. To some women it's about their ex husbands leaving them twisting in the wind to take care of their children's housing, clothing, food, medical, dental, education, and other needs - and the courts being their only recourse.

Chasten your brethren, not me, if you want change. You do have voting rights, do you not? You can talk to the media just as well as women can about unjust judges who are coming up for election to retain their office, right? But stop your brothers from giving reporters ammunition to neutralize your case! Give them such a story as to the inequities of theh justice system for fathers - use the rising crime rates of children from homes without fathers (this is a fact) - but then don't have the glaring truth of the fact that those criminal children from fatherless homes live in abject poverty while the mother works two or three low paying jobs cause that's all she can get, while a lousy bum of a father drinks or drugs away all his child support money.

Evil is on both sides of the gender battle. Hold your brothers to a higher standard - take your fight to the media and stop treating women who give you honest feedback like they are your enemy!

That would be a Yes! Garak has his own thread now. This conversation should really be taken there where it can be better followed.

So you can't back up your nonsense. You juat want to continue to enjoy the benefits of our biased family court system.

If you wanted to fix the leaky sink, you wouldn't be blaming the shower head.

So you can't back up your nonsense. You juat want to continue to enjoy the benefits of our biased family court system.

If you wanted to fix the leaky sink, you wouldn't be blaming the shower head.
*********************************

If she wanted to fix a leaky sink that was in her house, I imagine she'd call a plumber......but, WHY would she call a plumber to fix the leaky sink in YOUR house??

This isn't her (or my) battle, Garak.


What exactly would you like her (or me or any other woman) to do for your cause?

I would like her to back up her statement that fathers are to blame for the unjust family courts.

She put herself in this battle, I didn't bring her in and she made that statement on her own. Now I ask that she back it up. It just makes sense.

Sorry Garak - you're the one with a dog in the fight - not me. I'm just suggesting what you can do to strengthen your argument. I'm not going to fight your fight for you.

Edited to add: Garak - the only way you're going to win this fight is to neutralize the evidence that can be used against you and your cause. Stop denying that it's there. Start digging for it, rooting it out, calling those bad fathers to account for their misdeeds - show that you are not anti mother in your zeal.

First of all, Kayla, the father in this thread didn't abandon his children financially, he asked for 50 - 50 and mom refused. It was MOM who offered to take no CS if dad took only 20% timeshare.

The big problem with our current system is it gives mom (in the vast majority of cases) unjust power over the father. In most situations where one party has power over the other there WILL BE abuse of said power.

The solution is equality - equal rights, equal authority, equal responsibility. The laws are actually written to promote equal responsibility, but biased judges change the rules for their own benefit. Judges are supposed to rule on law, not create it. Creating law is the legislature's job, but is sadly usurped by our judges. Fathers are forced into a role of responsibilty for providing without authority for deciding (hey, that rhymes!)

How many of us would willingly get into a relationship where we had to completely provide for the other, but the other made all the decisions, and even if we didn't like the decisions we were stuck with them?

I doubt anyone would yet that is exactly the situation faced by fathers (most, not all) in family court.

And that ties in directly with the start of this thread - mom was trying to tell dad what he could have, and dad was not given a say in the matter. Dad wants 50% - why can't he have it?

By the way, he wants 50/50 custody to avoid child support. He said he wants on paper 50/50, but our children can live with me and he just stop to see them when he wants. Every offered I made him, the word "NO CHILD SUPPORT AND I SIGN" came out of his mouth. Do I want my children with a man who hit them when he is angry? of course not. He hit my oldest son with my brothers quitar and had a bruice for weeks just cause he found out that I leave my son with my parents for couple of hours without telling him. He also took out belt and wanted to hit my baby on more than one occassion, but I was there and I stopped him. He told me before that he hit our youngest, who is three 'til a plastic cloth hanger broke cause he was crying. He said he only hit my son on his butt where the diaper is. I told him if he hit my son again, I will call the police on him. What where happen when I'm not there or when he is very angry.

Everyone is making my post about their cause. How sad is that...

It is sad Moonlight, and I believe a new thread was started for the other rants. Back to basics for you. Given the violence, I hope you are seeking help beyond this board. I hope you can find a local women's crisis center in your area to deal with the domestic (and likely emotional violence). These centers can offer you counseling, as well as legal advice specific to your situation.

We know there are parents who will walk away from their responsibilities and won't support their children. It is sad.

Have you considered asking the courts for a Guardian Ad Litem (a court advocate) for your children, so they can help determine the best custodyarrangement and support.

You can't do this alone, you need help from people who deal with this on a regular basis. Good Luck.
What you lived is real, and no one is discounting that. Continue to act in the best interest of your child/children.

OK MF, now you have clarified your situation, I think you'll find a little more support. If he is hitting your kids with objects (belts and guitars), this is abuse. Under no circumstances should children be left alone with anyone who abuses them. No court should allow that, though there may be a fair bit of process proving it. When I leaving my abusive M, the court initially granted supervision for the exchange for a 2 hour visitation once a week. When XH screwed that up, it went to full supervised visitation with children's aid. When he screwed that up, he lost all visitation. CS never came up - I didn't ask for it, but nowadays the non-custodial parent is responsible for CS regardless of whether or not they see their kids. Talk to your lawyer and find out what the most likely outcome would be in your state. Then don't back down even if it costs money. Money is replaceable, your children aren't.

Uh, why exactly haven't you already called the police? If he does it again??!?! Don't you realize you can be found guilty of inaction?

Something don't smell right,.........

Sometimes, you do not know how to react to something like that 'til after the fact. If I can go back in time, you bet the police will be by the door and he will be in jail. Trust me on this, you do know 'til it happen to you, not that I'm wishing it on you. I would never wish anything like this to anyone or their children.

Moonlight,

You will never have unanimous support to do what you need to do for your children. I have seen governments and well-meaning people insist that biology means more than a person's fitness to be in the presence of their children.

I used to have a co-worker who's x had beaten her senseless more than once - and she put up with it, feeling that it was better that she was there to supervise the father's interactions with the children under the guise of an in-tact family, but when their youngest was less than a year old, and the oldest was less than 4, he started in on his raging against her once again, only this time the oldest stepped between them and the father attacked the child. Remember, 30 years ago, there was not the police support for women getting beaten by their husbands, because this was considered something that happened behind closed doors, and women were still very much considered property, though that stance was beginning to change.

She left that night - with only the clothes on her back and her children in tow. She endured judgment and ridicule from even her minister because her husband was such an expert liar - astonishing as she was quite bruised up and the child also had bruises. She did manage to get a police report and got an injunction against him having any one-on-one contact with the children - all supervised visitation. She went into hiding, sometimes driving 40 miles for the supervised visitation, taking an indirect route home so that he couldn't know where she lived. He found a way around that by going to work for the postal service.

I share this with you so that you understand - this woman's minister sided with her wife-beating child abusing husband. People can be deceived, and want to believe the best, even in spite of what's in front of their eyes.

So don't worry about a few inflammatories here. They have their agenda.

I'd still like to see if your stbx takes you up on your offer - because it appears that his only concern is the money.

You know, the men who try to say that child support and visitation are two separate and distinct issues ignore one very big fact: these children frequently live in poverty, dependent on government aid, or doing without some of the necessities. But this supposed caring father needs to be able to play disneyland dad, being the fun parent who isn't concerned about their shelter, food, clothing, lessons, or other physical, mental and emotional needs. This isn't a parent - this is a big-brother. That's what your husband wants - to be the big brother with no financial duties to his offspring.

A father would want to give whatever he can to insure his children's quality of life.

Most fathers have no problem giving FOR THEIR CHILDREN. But, what do you think of the vast number of women who use the money on themselves, or the far too large percent of women who dupe their husbands into thinking the kid is theirs?

You rip on the bad apples in the dad cart, but what about the bad apples in the mom cart?

Maybe some dads go running because of the actions of the mom. I know in my case the temptation is there, I just won't give up. Not all guys are as tenacious as me.

Again, equality is the answer. The one in power will, most often, abuse it. Power brings corruption, in business, politics and family law.

Ladies, you might get some more support from the guys here if you would admit that both men and women have their bad apples instead of the tactic used so far - "It's not our fault, but you need to weed out the bad dads."

I heard of a guy who was unfairly sent to anger management. He had no issues requiring the courses, but that didn't matter to them. He was not allowed out of the classes until he admitted to having anger problems. The ultimate catch-22.

So, if we folloow earlier suggestions to admit there are many bad fahers out there, and that we alone are causing our problems, where will that leave us? Behind the 8 ball, if you ask me!

I don't think I said that perfectly clear, but I hope you get the point.

Bottom line, each side has made mistakes, but answering for each one is not the solution. Until we have true equality, there will be no solution that works.

As for MF, the way she has brought the facts to light, especially the eleventh hour revelations of abuse, leaves one wondering if we have all the facts. It might help to get all those facts, the good and the bad on both sides. It isn't ofetn that one is perfect and the other is just a jerk for no reason at all. Help us understand.

Set you free,

As I said before, I am not perfect, just like many of you are, but I do not hit, scram, steal or cheat and I do not intentionaly hurt anyone whether I am angry or not. When I found out that he cheated, I confronted him and he admitted to cheating and said it has nothing to do with me, but everything to do with him. He said he was bored 'cause of the long distant that he has to drive to work everyday, but then continue the cheating after he got fired. He could easily call me, it doesn't have to be his girlfriend. What a lousy excuse. I am wondering why you're continuing to make excuses for this man. Care to explain... Were you one of them?????

As for child support, I do not plan to spend it on myself. As I told my ex, I am going to open two college savings account and deposit the money in every month so when they are old enough to attend college they have the money to pay for college. I told my ex, I'll give him copy of the monthly bank statement.

Maybe more women here and out there would agree with you guys if you stop supporting the bad fathers out there.

Not making excuses, just wanting more info to enable better advice.

I don't support truly bad fathers any more than I support bad members of my profession. I'm not a lawyer (I actually have a conscience), but it sure sucks that they refuse to weed out the bad ones. I think a father should support his children. Period. Not the ex's extravagant habits, just the children.

I applaud your intended use of any CS. Now, I know most states do not require fathers to pay for college, and you aren't doing that. You are choosing to use the money in that way, and that is your perogative.

No one here is supporting bad fathers. What we are saying is many fathers grouped into the "bad father" category are anything but bad. Their actions may appear "bad" due to nothing more than getting royally screwed by the current system. They may feel they have no choice but to act the way they do - running, avoiding and the like. I feel that if mothers would more include fathers, they would be less likely to avoid "responsibilities."

If your ex is truly all that you claim, then he is a louse. What were his good properties, the ones that kept you two together?