In his new, cleverly titled book, Taken into Custody, Stephen Baskerville, president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, paints a bleak picture of the routine injustice a divorcing father can expect when a woman initiates a divorce. Baskerville baldly warns: “If I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today, it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.” His book, like many others of the genre, makes a persuasive case. Men should read them. If the system does not become equitable, don’t be surprised if men choose increasingly, and with reason, to play their trump card: Voting for equality with their condoms.ÂÂ
I eagerly look forward to the rewrite of Lysistrata. Fortunately, help is on the way.You ain’t gettin’ none of my he-lixir, baby.ÂÂ
This subject is like picking a scab, isn’t it. Can’t leave it alone.
…ta
Bye, Bohemian.
;-)
Who’s Bohemian and why is he/she leaving?
I forgot the “ta” in Lysistrata.
It’s just not Lysistrata without her tatas.
I’m not exactly sure why this site has been pushing the whole “don’t get married and don’t have kids” meme the last few weeks/months, but it tiring and lame in the extreme. It’s not going to happen as this “movement” of unfairly-treated-dads is tiny a percentage of men. Plus, most men want to get married and have children, so telling men not to is not only unrealistic, it’s idiotic. This isn’t the way humans are organized socially, and it won’t be.
Uh, we’re not pushing it. We’re debating it, and frankly demonstrating how absurd a masculinist adoption of radical feminist tactics and rhetoric would be.
The “who initiated the divorce” thing is misleading anyway.
My best friend indeed initiated the divorce, but that’s because her husband was just fine remaining married while he slept with other women.
Everyone is a victim when it comes to divorce, that’s why they end up so nasty. I hate this competing victims when the relationship ends narrative, especially when it comes to defining marriage based on divorce.
kly demonstrating how absurd a masculinist adoption of radical feminist tactics and rhetoric would be.
Exempting, of course, those who don’t see their arguments as absurd. Cough cough.
I don’t know if this old piece ever hit PW, but it seems to kinda fit into this discussion. Somehow.
Well, I’m one of those dads whose experiencing this firt hand. Do I regret having children? Nope. Would I do it again? Yup. But I’m a masochist I guess.
The thing is, 50% of marriages are eventually defined by divorce. But they’re not all nasty. I’d guess it’s half of them that are, and when they are, it royally screws the children up and over. This is not a tiny percentage and it’s wreaking social havoc.
Doesn’t matter, Pablo. It’s tiring and lame in the extreme. This “movement†of unfairly-treated-dads is a tiny percentage of men. Most men want to get married and have children so it’s idiotic. This isn’t the way humans are organized socially. And it won’t be.
Who needs more convincing than that?
And it bugs Carin. Stop already.
Love the Seinfeld reference. Really tarts the whole place up, IMHO. As it were.
It is an issue that must be addressed. Men routinely get whacked in Family Court simply because of their gender. Children are routinely emotionally manipulated to dislike their fathers by cynical wives.
I lived through this until my son was 16 and his mother had a new husband and “couldn’t deal with him.” She dropped him off at my door with all of his possessions in plastic garbage bags 600 miles from where he grew up.
The linked post by one RogerFGay is, by the way, superbly crafted. It’s not rhetoric, it’s not hyperbole. It is fact. As Dan says, it points up a policy that were the genders reversed, would be run out of town on a rail.
I have a question for the trolls who instinctively know better and express that keen insight as…hyperbole: Why, precisely, do you resist this simple message?
How is it that we could NOT have in place a system of law, policy, practice, and standard that extends from gender-feminist cant through to willful harm? By what inherent guarantee would we protect rights so? Is the NOW, the VAWA, the entire DC social support architecture, and conventional wisdom perfectly motivated by gender-neutral, objective, individual justice? Is it elsewhere in the political realm?
Can you cite any guarantee that it is or would be?
If you are immune to plain fact can you at least explain how you’re so positive the system currently in place simply cannot do what hundreds of thousands say it can and indeed does and what you have never experienced? Is it somehow impossible for special interest to do what’s being alleged of it?
Does your gut somehow trump a victim’s first-hand experience?
…researchers discovered that women who do not use condoms when they have sex are less vulnerable to depression and less likely to attempt suicide compared to women who practice sex with condoms and women that are sexually inactive.
This finding points to the conclusion that semen contains powerful mood-altering molecules.”
So, this means I haven’t been lying when I tell that morose bimbo at the end of the bar I have just what she needs? Cool.
Semen is known to contain several hormones like testosterone, estrogen, prolactin, luteinizing hormone and prostaglandins, which can pass through the vagina’s walls into the bloodstream and elevate mood
I wonder if it works with men as well … might explain why the term “gay” evolved as it did …
Does your gut somehow trump a victim’s first-hand experience?
Funny, that first-hand experience that supports your assertions counts, but first-hand experience that says otherwise doesn’t matter.
Oops, did I engage? Sorry.
Already parsing the questions? At any rate, do elaborate. Go forward comfortable in the conviction that your Trooth replaces others. And other’s.
You’re among friends. Engage away.
No, no …no time for this today. I gotta work out. We’ll have to play another day JH. See, I apologized for engaging. I cannot do “heavy” today.
No problem. Profound insight must be carefully dispensed, Carin.
It’s not that it can’t be the case, JHoward. It’s just that if it is, it’s For The Children™, and you’re just a man so shut the fuck up already.
Carin,
There are a number of realities out there, borne out by experience. It’s not that the others don’t matter, it’s just that the fact that there are others doesn’t change this one. They should all matter, no?
Except (shit) – my trooth doesn’t replace anyones. You have truth, I have truth. We have truth together. Sometimes, the dad who says he was screwed over by a bitch ex-wife doesn’t wanna tell you that he was banging the secretary during his kid’s b-day parties, and sometimes the evil wife really doesn’t spend the kid’s child support on food and clothing (I know that trooth, since I lived it.)
I just refuse to believe, categorically, that all instances of child support are bad. Personally, I prefer joint custody, but sometimes one of the parents isn’t that into it – and thus should take the “buy-out” as it were.
To me, it seems that you have taken the case of welfare moms in California (the no-dad/who’s your daddy issue), and extrapolated it out to encompass all cases of child-support across the country. Don’t stats show that joint custody is best for the parents? Instead of being anti-child support shouldn’t you be more Pro joint-custody?
And, I say this, and then I leave – men should be old enough to know the truth that if he impregnates a woman, he may become an unwilling daddy. Sorry. EVERY TIME YOU get your jollies, it’s a risk. Proceed accordingly. My bil got “stuck” that way, but he’s been man enough to stick with it (and his wife is a REAL peach -oye) for the sake of the child. Because that’s life.
If you don’t want to knock up some chick, get the snip. Or become gay. Or – insure she doesn’t get pregnant- by avoiding those activities.
Shouldn’t have patted me on the back so quickly. Going to work out now. LOL. Imagining me fleeing from a firestorm …
Wow. Did anyone actually say anything that might be interpreted like that? Is it strictly necessary that you take this topic of discussion and treat it as a rigid generalization?
My jollies. Yes, of course: no one I ever had sex with did it because they wanted their jollies.
I think the fire is all over on your side of your eyeballs. Us, we’re just having a chat.
IIRC, the last time we had this explosion of flame from Carin, we were talking about the injustice posed by a guy being forced to pay child support for a child that was not his.
But of course, since this pales in relationship to other injustices in the world, it must not be mentioned. Ever.
Actually, I suggested just such a thing, Slartibartfast. The reasoning is that once you include the great shift in social values — Pablo alluded to it — the unintended consequences-cum-intended consequences of the federal govt incentivizing family breakup through Title IV-D and a universal child support court standard vastly outweigh the professed benefits.
Stack the NOW, Joey Biden’s VAWA, TANF and the DHHS, Clinton-era “welfare reform”, and crap like the Bradley Amendment behind it and all of a sudden we’re talking wasting and redistributing real money, redistributing being the political lure.
Around here, the subject is discussed because it symbolizes the trinity of leftism: Rubbish pop-wisdom replete with all its sacred lingo (and prohibitions against fact,) overt socio-political discrimination in the name of equality, and subsequent harm by special interest legislation. Were it womyn wrecked like this, it’d even be topical.
The notion that child support supports children — within a bigger picture of 50%+ divorce and mandated support payments enforced by Washington — is as questionable as the one that the welfare state provides for social welfare.
Honestly, I swear I’m not flaming. I’m just chatting. I think JHoward and I have progressed in our relationship. As long as he doesn’t call me a troll, I’m chipper.
And, I had a great workout.
Then what’s your point of view based on?
And your truth doesn’t replace anyone’s? Augment? Contrast? And if they conflict?
I’ll remember to use that bit of postmodernism to defend your right to your opinion, then. And back to square one we go.
Read: Stereotype > stereotype > moral justification for the child support system? Note to self: Never contest a point of political principle with a woman scorned. Or one paid support.
Two points: (1) Since when is it wise for central power to mold moral behavior to a majority ideal? And by what inherent right?
(2) Given that the spoils motivate the split and the split then sets the greater norm and practice, how exactly will you promote joint parenting…with a system that encourages anything but?
The only reason I brough up “trooth” was the last line of comment #18. My “gut” doesn’t trump a victims first hand experience, but the my friend’s experience balances out the “victims.” Why bring up “victims” experience, if I can’t counter with experiences I’m aware of?
Two points
1)Are custody payments a governments attempt to mold moral behavior? How does it differ from the dividing up of household items? If a man loses his house in a divorce settlement, but he refuses to leave, are their legal recourses to that situation? And, how does that differ from the long-arm of the law garnishing a dad’s wages for back child-support? Without delving into how right/wrong this is, please explain the difference.
2) how do you KNOW that the spoils motivate the split? I mean, does this really happen? Isn’t women with children (divorced or no dad) the largest segment of those living in poverty?
I have five children, and I have no idea what kind of support that would get me should I divorce, but I certainly know that economically my situation would dramatically go down. My children’s expenses (food, clothing, health, etc) really adds up. Children don’t live on air.
That said, I was in the middle of this situation myself, so I’m not sympathetic. My mom had full custody, my dad was supposed to pay support. He even got thrown in jail at one point.
That said, my dad remarried, and the treatment my half-brother got was dramatically different than mine. College- paid for. Cars, given to. Children from first marriages really are the biggest losers. It wasn’t just random that those fairey tales often feature an evil stepmother.
General Ripper in Dr. Strangelove: “I don’t shun women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence…”
I’d guess it’s half of them that are, and when they are, it royally screws the children up and over. This is not a tiny percentage and it’s wreaking social havoc.
Agreed. I think one of those social manifestations is that we keep getting books about whether women will get screwed in a divorce and therefore shouldn’t stay home with the kids, and whether men will get screwed in a divorce and therefore won’t marry.
And then we have the people that decide they really can’t commit to marriage, because divorce is so awful and unavoidable, but are ready to have a child together.
. I hate this competing victims when the relationship ends narrative, especially when it comes to defining marriage based on divorce.
When the marriage ends, there are serious consequences. The true victims of the relationship are the kids, of course, and the wronged individual if there is one. Doesn’t matter if it’s the cheated on wife or the mentally abused faithful husband, it’s wrong to ruin the innocents life.
Here’s my proof of the obvious:
Say you are happily married, and socialize with another couple with kids down the street. Not best friends, but your kids play together and you’ve enjoyed time at each others homes. A few years of this, then you unexpectedly hear they are getting a divorce.
Who do you think will be the first one moving from the neighborhood?
Men are going to bear the most unjust consequences of a family break-up in a no-fault society.
‘Cuz of biology.
I don’t say that as a judgment, I see it as a natural result of abandoning more, ah, traditional family law.
By traditional, I mean before boomers and “no-fault”.
I never suspected that hating one’s ex could be a political cause.
If you don’t like no-fault divorce, I have a solution. It may sound crazy, but I think you’ll find it elegant in its simplicity. Don’t get married in a no-fault state.
. Don’t get married in a no-fault state.
Or, if you do, and see it as a great and harmful social injustice, you might feel a civic duty to try and reform the bad law where you and your decendants live.
Just another ‘crazy’ alternitive…
Sorry, that might not have been clear.
If you “do” live in a no-fault state…
Because your gut then trumps the collective POV of a majority of victims of Support Nation. Roughly nine tenths of divorce is initiated by the female and roughly nine tenths of primary/secondary splits, thanks to the State, end in mom’s custody. A majority end with mom in the family’s house. A majority end with dad out on his own, typically the victim of a restraining order (the kind of which finally has bar association members themselves issuing essays about the depth of the national custody and support problem.)
Do you have a copy of Baskerville’s book? Your experiences and mine would be irrelevant. Clearly, there is no “balancing out”…but thanks for explaining your point of view.
Just before you left in an indignant huff last time, Carin, you issued a terribly sexist statement, one not unlike a comment you made on this thread. In short, making baby-making a man’s problem is a moral position, in this case, one with real moral repercussions, thanks to State policy. Custody payments are the adjustment to moral norms that allow you to tacitly blame pregnancies on thinking men and not require that unthinking women have much to worry about when they have something of a federal insurance policy.
Seven or eight hundred bucks a month isn’t enough for Single Mom to raise junior? Then why do men carry the majority responsibility, Carin?
How you morally define the aftermath of welfare reform (child support) is up to you. I see it as a proposition front-end loaded with all the rhetoric in the world about male responsibility and evil, and all the assumption in the world about inherent maternal excellence. All that’s the myth incumbent in the blatant sexism and the general fraud of feminism, at least to the degree such upsets bona fide gender equality. Then it’s back-end loaded with a vicious toll on society, all the while advocating itself as just, reasonable, and equal.
It doesn’t. They too are the spoil of that war. They have a definite place in the equation your State saw fit to institute by impetus of faulty conventional wisdom and dedicated special interest.
You’re losing your own point. If a man loses his house, wage, and children in one of those unilateral divorce settlements, he cannot refuse to leave and he cannot prevent those losses. He has nearly no legal recourses in that situation and he has none to recover those losses, that despite their being unilateral, against his will, and illegal if committed elsewhere.
Moral? Just? Can you reconcile any of it with his constitutional rights? Do you care to try?
You tell me: Wage-garnishment in these cases is extortion by another name as it assaults one’s freedom simply for being a father. How are you on debtor’s prison, Carin? Is it moral?
I gave you the two ratios. What do you realistically expect the answer is, Carin? Can you see the cause and effect? Might Baskerville just be speaking from a position of researched expertise?
The great majority of child abuse and neglect in the US is committed by women. Might the explanation to both phenomenon be that the huge majority of single parenting is also conducted by women?
To a mother, a family of five children can easily represent an untaxed income of $45,000. For making a phone call. That’s not exactly air.
I’ll fix that for you, moopsie: Don’t get married in the US, the UK, Japan, Europe, Australia, or New Zealand. China has stuff pretty well sorted out by different means, should you choose it instead.
“Roughly nine tenths of divorce is initiated by the female …”
This one is worth backing up, isn’t it?
I’ll concur that divorce law is often (or perhaps even usually) unfair to men, but this is the first time I’ve heard the claim that 90% divorces are initiated by the wives. So back it up.
I’ll concur that divorce law is often (or perhaps even usually) unfair to men, but this is the first time I’ve heard the claim that 90% divorces are initiated by the wives. So back it up.
And, as I said earlier, it means nothing. Who initiates the divorce means nothing. It can be the wronged party, it can be the person that wants to marry the lover. You can’t tell just by numbers.
I have five children, and I have no idea what kind of support that would get me should I divorce, but I certainly know that economically my situation would dramatically go down. My children’s expenses (food, clothing, health, etc) really adds up. Children don’t live on air.
To a mother, a family of five children can easily represent an untaxed income of $45,000. For making a phone call. That’s not exactly air
Ok, wine drunk, and not willing to tackle all — but $45,000 would be a step down for me. Explain how I would be wining the lotto if I divorce my husband? Keep in mind, though, that I gave up any career (Grad school degree) to care for the kids, so I wouldn’t exactly be able to step into any job above the level of bartending – but I can make a mean drink!
I’m assuming you’re talking welfare? I have no idea how welfare and child support would work, but I imagine the two conflict. The more child support, the less welfare, right? $45,000 wouldn’t even pay my housebills.
Just before you left in an indignant huff last time, Carin, you issued a terribly sexist statement
Sorry, how you misinterpreted my comment is on you. I’m not sexiest. I’m not a feminist, and I’m not a liberal, no matter how you attempt to libel my good name.
You’re losing your own point. If a man loses his house, wage, and children in one of those unilateral divorce settlements, he cannot refuse to leave and he cannot prevent those losses. He has nearly no legal recourses in that situation and he has none to recover those losses, that despite their being unilateral, against his will, and illegal if committed elsewhere
So, apparently dividing the assets of the marriage is unfair as well? Just trying to understand what you are saying.
I mean, let me get this straight – you are advocating that people just “act fair” in divorce, right? That women, if left with the kids while the husband finds a new honey (Oh,right, that doesn’t happen in JH’s world because he’s gonna trump out the “90% of all divorces are initiated by women” stat – as if that means anything.) Honestly, what does that mean? that all those men are crying over their beer because the love of their life left them? Women – we’re all just cheating bitches.
The great majority of child abuse and neglect in the US is committed by women. Might the explanation to both phenomenon be that the huge majority of single parenting is also conducted by women?
So, the fact that having and raising a child might influence your earning potential has no bearing? That a woman may not be able to “get ahead” at work because she has children at home … might that explain the fact that women are over-represented among the poverty levels?
In short, making baby-making a man’s problem is a moral position, in this case, one with real moral repercussions, thanks to State policy.
From a man’s individual perspective- baby making is HIS problem. Just like it’s the problem of the pregnant woman. Who owns “more” of the problem. I would say a woman, since the baby is in her body. But I will advise my three boys to NOT sleep with any woman they FEAR impregnating. It’s just the reality of the situation.
Just as any woman shouldn’t sleep with ANYONE unless they can deal with what my happen.
Personal responsibility from both perspectives.
If my boys came to me and said they had knocked up some woman who was horrible, my disappointment would be the hardest thing to deal with. My bil has had to deal with untold amounts of trouble because he knocked up the wrong woman. She even said she “couldn’t” get pregnant. She is a horrible person, but she didn’t suddenly become horrible after she got knocked up. She always was.
You make your bed …
Who do you think will be the first one moving from the neighborhood?
Men are going to bear the most unjust consequences of a family break-up in a no-fault society.
‘Cuz of biology.
I agree that much like the women are most often the parents that stay home from work with the kids, the dad is most often the one that moves from the neighborhood. Is it biology? I don’t know. I do think it’s terribly unfair if it’s the woman that dumps a loving husband and then gets the house and the ‘hood and the friends. I’ve known that to happen.
I don’t say that as a judgment, I see it as a natural result of abandoning more, ah, traditional family law.
By traditional, I mean before boomers and “no-faultâ€Â.
Do you mean before divorce was so prevalent? I’d agree with that. I don’t think that divorce law and settlements have ever been especially fair, and certainly not ‘natural’.
Many of the laws, as they stand, are to make up for past wrongs, when it was much too easy to just leave with few consequences.
EVERY TIME YOU get your jollies, it’s a risk. Proceed accordingly….If you don’t want to knock up some chick, get the snip. Or become gay. Or – insure she doesn’t get pregnant- by avoiding those activities.
Interesting thesis. Suppose an anti-abortion activist said this to you:
EVERY TIME YOU get your jollies, it’s a risk. Proceed accordingly. If you don’t want to get knocked up, get the snip. Or become gay. Or – insure you don’t get pregnant- by avoiding those activities.
I’m guessing that would be “different” somehow, wouldn’t it?
Of course it would. Because 9 months worth of inconvenience trumps 18 years of involuntary servitude.
The government keeps no figures I’m aware of. The following works are commonly cited, but may be outdated. That said, the phenomenon of female autotonomy as a ratio of other financial securities is both natural and fairly well established: The support culture breeds support need and dependence, not surprisingly.
Anecdotal accounts from local attorneys put the figure much closer to 100%, a percentage that defies reason, but there it is.
About #44, Carin, come back when you’re coherent…or not, as it may be. You immediately interpret plain English from a line back as if it were Martian, and you say your written sexism is an interpretation problem, that despite you’re being frequently called on it. You’re wasting my time.
Interesting thesis. Suppose an anti-abortion activist said this to you:
EVERY TIME YOU get your jollies, it’s a risk. Proceed accordingly. If you don’t want to get knocked up, get the snip. Or become gay. Or – insure you don’t get pregnant- by avoiding those activities.
I’m guessing that would be “different†somehow, wouldn’t it?
Of course it would. Because 9 months worth of inconvenience trumps 18 years of involuntary servitude.
Except, I’m pro-life. Or, anti-abortion. So, yes, I think every woman should proceed with those thoughts. I’m of the theory that the primary purpose of sex is to have kids. Whatever side-benefits are just along for the ride. Hee he … ride, get it? When a woman gets pregnant, she doesn’t have the right to kill the innocent victim of HER mistake.
Of course, I think that if most (young) women didn’t have their heads filled with propaganda regarding abortion – they 1) wouldn’t spread their legs so much and 2) wouldn’t consider abortion an option.
You immediately interpret plain English from a line back as if it were Martian, and you say your written sexism is an interpretation problem, that despite you’re being frequently called on it. You’re wasting my time.
I know exactly what I’m talking about, and your fixation on a throw-away, off the cuff line I made – oh – A WEEK AGO is bizarre. You can pound it away all you want, but I’m not sexist. Why don’t you explain RIGHT HERE how I’m sexist?
You’re wasting my time.
Said, seriously, on an internet debate.
JHOWARD WINS THE THREAD.
Wine certainly becomes you. But sure. You mean other than general tone, imputing justice to responsibilities enforced by the State, which by the numbers, is doing a hell of a sexist job of it?
A risk to whom? See in that Carin tone, crap like that simply fails the test of reason, not, at least, until you complete the thought and make all possible parties to cost equal party to cost. Have you done so?
JHowie, New York still requires grounds for divorce. You don’t have to go all the way to China.
which by the numbers, is doing a hell of a sexist job of it?
What do the numbers show? That women statistically have more favorable outcomes than men in family court? Did you know that whites statistically have more favorable outcomes than blacks in criminal court? Would you conclude, based on that, that the criminal justice system is doing a racist job of it?
No, I wouldn’t. Would you?
And as far as New York, moopsie, it’s no-fault there if the parties agree to it, making the convention of at-fault litigation — you know, who gets everything and who gets the street within no-fault — a fifty-state phenomenon. Your assertion that New York requires grounds is incorrect.
I’m of the theory that the primary purpose of sex is to have kids.
You must be loads of fun in bed.
Hmm… I’ve had sex with my wife thousands of time and she’s only gotten pregnant once. I guess we must be doin’ it wrong, eh?
Which hole are you using, SB&P?
Nope. Then what is the basis for your conclusion that US divorce law is deeply misandrist? I read the RogerFGay post and only the third paragraph had a lot of facts, but a lot of them don’t really support that conclusion.
Your assertion that New York requires grounds is incorrect.
I don’t think it is. See para 10 of this:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/law/20060307/13/1781
I also remember learning that for the bar exam, fwiw.
Most fathers in the world worry how they’ll keep their kids fed, clothed and safe. Then we have those who worry how they’ll keep their money out of their ex-wife’s hands. There’s a case there for mandatory homosexuality.
Again, moops, NY doesn’t require grounds. It may grant no-fault. For but one of a thousand examples:
http://208.106.168.239/FAQ'S.cfm#qualify
Translated, roughly:
(m)Oops.
Not that it matters. In the age of enlightened no-fault, “in agreement” has no attraction. Therefore custody is indeed war…for the cash and the house, the kid’s physical custody facilitating both and in that equation, dad being about one in ten. Having taken the bar, do you wonder why?
Moreover, all that racket about handsomely selecting a no-fault state in order to avoid the inevitable fight was racket.
So women initiate a divorce more often. But without the “why” the stat is meaningless, JHoward.
M.E.A.N.I.N.G.L.E.S.S.
What percentage was it mutually agreed that she file? What percentage was because she felt no alternative because he is (1)a substance abuser (2) philanderer (3) physically abusive?
Good god, it’s as if you never heard the term “passive-aggressive.”
And I always get a good laugh about all those moms squandering that $300/mo child support (average award) NOT on rent/food/clothing/school supplies/gas for the car to get jr to-from school, sports, etc but using that make-Midas-blush-amount to fly to Rio for Carnival and sup raw oysters from the cabana boy’s taut abs.
Slart take notice that JHoward wants no mom to get child support under any circumstance. He considers the divorced woman not worthy of any property rights and the children should become legal bastards if the father decides to stand up and declare them no longer his.
Men just want reciprocal reproductive and family law rights. What’s crazy about that?
Darleen, are you saying 45% of America’s men are substance abusers, philanderers, and/or physically abusive? Cites?
Are you saying a majority of divorces are unilateral? Cites?
Correction: not unilateral.
Darleen wrote, “JHoward wants no mom to get child support under any circumstance. He considers the divorced woman not worthy of any property rights and the children should become legal bastards if the father decides to stand up and declare them no longer his.”
I’m not sure that’s his position. In any case, Women can anonymously give a child up to an orphanage without the father’s consent. Thus, women can unilaterally declare a child to be “not hers” and “not his” and thus create bastards.
Many women here seem to miss the point. Men aren’t asking for special rights, only the SAME rights that women enjoy. It’s logically and rhetorically ineffective to complain about what men want, when women already have the same thing. Duh.
Jhoward- surely you agree that who initiates divorce is an absolutely meaningless stat, right?
I do not.
If women do indeed initiate divorce at a substancially higher rate than men, I would say that is a statistic whos meaning needs to be found.
Pablo
BTW…can we PUHLEEZE get away from the 50% divorce rate myth?
Jeff
I’ve stated quite clearly I think both parents should be equal before the law. I’ve even said that family law courts as they are currently configured should either be overhauled or abolished
BUT that marriage contract … with the obigations and responsibilities for both signers should still be adjudicated in civil court if a legal stipulation cannot be reached.
Your link doesn’t say what you think it does. Approximately half of marriages performed today are projected to end in divorce. Half of all intact marriages won’t.
http://www.divorcerate.org/
JHoward
You are the one that attaches some sort of substantial significance to the initiation of a divorce, not me.
YOU prove it.
The 50% is still myth/rumor/misreading/misunderstanding of reality. Plus it is also very difficult to get hard figures because it is dependant on SURVEYs rather than hard stats.
The longer the intact marriage, the less likely of divorce. The age of the participants makes a difference.
You know, the most opened new business is in the food service industry (restaurants of all sizes)…it is also has the highest failure rate.
I suppose we should just ban that kind of business and not afford the partners that open them any kind of neutral setting to dissolve the business.
Can’t answer my question, Darleen? You implied that nearly half of American males are grossly dysfunctional, thereby validating the State taking their kids, their property, their cash, and their freedom.
Then this:
Fuck you.
You want to escalate with me? Your bullshit personal charges are exceeded only by your dishonesty about the general topic. Suddenly you’re a family court reformer.
The only lacking proof is that of your credibility and integrity.
No JHoward… I asked you to break it down and I gave you some reasons OUTSIDE OF THE GOLDDIGGER SELFISHNESS you continue to push as the reason why women file for divorce. Stop dancing so hard … the Hustle is SO yesterday.
JHoward… you are so invested in your hobby horse you refuse to debate in any good faith way. I’ve said before I would be willing to see family court GO, with the caveat that dissolutions still have a legal venue to settle things that cannot be settled by stipulation. LIKE ANY OTHER CONTRACT LAW.
I have been consistent. You, sir, have been hysterical.
Let’s review:
Slart @ #27:
JHoward @ #29
Hmmmm…what was that about credibility??
Darleen wrote, “I’ve stated quite clearly I think both parents should be equal before the law. I’ve even said that family law courts as they are currently configured should either be overhauled or abolished…BUT that marriage contract … with the obigations and responsibilities for both signers should still be adjudicated in civil court if a legal stipulation cannot be reached.”
Apologies, Darleen.
I think government should get out of marriage. The marriage contract should have a UCC definition, and it should be negotiated and adjudicated like any other contract. The idea of government mandated “no-fault” contracts would be easily seen as disastrous in any other area of law.
Here.
As you note, darleen, it’s a tough number to pinpoint, but the percentage is huge. And downward pressure on that number? That’s from people not bothering to get married, a development that doesn’t improve the situation we’re addressing nor substantially change the dynamic.
I do not.
Why are they filing?
Because they think it in their best interest. Do you suppose that if they weren’t virtually guaranteed custody of the children and the attendant financial benefits that as many would think divorce will improve their lot in life?
Jeff, Darleen is juggling all the pins now — today its suddenly court reform and equal rights for men. The underlying problem is that opportunity determines that rhetoric and there are typically few limits on the misrepresentation and shady rhetorical ploys. It’s rigged pool with all the usual leftist/feminist trappings, just dressed as something else in order to pass local muster. I won’t play it anymore.
The evidence is adequate but never gets seriously addressed. The greater family law system is motivated by special interest, plays on ostensibly conservative but foolish need to “reform” welfare, and over on the equally enabling left side, includes a substantial helping of Clintonesque power playing by the usual suspects and their enablers/dependents in the legislatures.
It’s no mystery. It has it’s fiscal roots here:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter7_subchapteriv_partd_.html
“False feminist views”. Sound familiar? PW’s own shrill womyn appear to think half of the country’s men are abusers.
I continually ask by what fundamental right all this occurs. That question is never answered, turned instead into a mindless contest to prove that what things appear to be by the evidence is what actually they are, typically off in some tributary of the gender war. Some womyn are highly invested in uniquely validating Support Nation while slamming the Welfare Nation that now cradles it. Reconciling that dissonance means that not much is then off limits conversationally.
So, by what right? This one, among others:
It really does take a village, I guess. A village of supporting industry that not so coincidentally relies on a lopsided mom-to-dad custody ratio to earn its living.
So, what protects your rights? Your children’s? Luck, because nothing else can or will. But please don’t talk about it.
Because they think it in their best interest. Do you suppose that if they weren’t virtually guaranteed custody of the children and the attendant financial benefits that as many would think divorce will improve their lot in life?
When it comes to something being in someone’s best interest, though, why does one choose divorce over marriage? Do you just wake up one day and say, “I would get custody of the kids if I filed for divorce today”? Obviously, there is something that more to it than that.
Do you think men’s fear that they might have to pay support and lose primary custody of the kids keeps them from filing? I do.
“Slart take notice that JHoward wants no mom to get child support under any circumstance.”
I disagree with JHoward vigorously, but I think he’s far too busy being righteous to hear such a thing.
But: point taken.
My POV is simply that children are the responsibility of both parents, and that the shirking of said responsibility by one or more parents is no excuse for anyone else to shirk theirs.
Anyone arguing otherwise just sounds like an asshole to me right now, so maybe I ought to return tomorrow and see what’s been said.
Lots of reasons. Some valid, like abuse or addiction, others as simple as dissatisfaction or greener grass with the new boyfriend. Marriage is hard work and too many people expect the benefits without having to do the work necessary to get them. Now that divorce is so easy to get, it’s no surprise that women will opt for it knowing that the downside is relatively small.
A woman can wake up and say that every day.
Yes. And women need not fear that and are thus not restrained by that fear. Any equality in that?
Yes. And women need not fear that and are thus not restrained by that fear. Any equality in that?
I’ve never known any woman that filed for divorce that felt unrestrained by that fear. Unless, of course, she just didn’t want the kids. The fear may be unwarranted, but if it makes you feel any better, every woman I know has had that fear.
A woman can wake up and say that every day.
Do women wake up and say that every day?
I don’t think that to make the case for men’s rights in divorce we need to make women sound quite so creepy.
In most cases it is unwarranted, and if you’ve never met a woman without it, I could introduce you to a number of them, one of whom used to bear my last name.
I’d imagine that the ones considering divorce wake up and say that for a number of consecutive days. Then they file.
Well, we’ve gotten to the point we’re at now by making creeps out of men. But I just stated a fact there, is all.
I’d imagine that the ones considering divorce wake up and say that for a number of consecutive days. Then they file.
Everyone’s story is different. With friends and family, I’ve been through some really heart-wrenching decisions on whether or not to divorce, and some really protracted attempts to keep the marriage together. Among my friends and family, those that have been cheated on have had a really hard time wanting to give up on the marriage. Those that have done the cheating have been much more calculating. It’s never cut and dried, though. My cousin’s husband told her he just didn’t love her anymore and he didn’t want kids, but he was in no hurry to get divorced. Sure, there were no kids involved but it was still an emotional and financial nightmare. Certainly no waking up every morning thinking, “I could get 50% of our assets!”
Well, we’ve gotten to the point we’re at now by making creeps out of men.
As I said, the laws are the way they are now to overcompensate for past wrongs. And yes, men that would never ditch their families are often treated as if they are just like all the guys that would ditch their families. That doesn’t make women big, creepy money-grubbing divorce junkies, though.
Which hole are you using, SB&P?
Well, I’ve never been able to get nostrils and ears to work. Do you think that’s it?
How many of them end with Mom getting custody and a support order?
Indeed.
Those who take advantage of the bias inherent in the system are people who are taking advantage of the bias in the system. You can call it anything you like, other than fair.
My POV is simply that children are the responsibility of both parents, and that the shirking of said responsibility by one or more parents is no excuse for anyone else to shirk theirs.
Anyone arguing otherwise just sounds like an asshole to me right now, so maybe I ought to return tomorrow and see what’s been said.
Well, then I’m safe. No matter how JHoward wishes to twist my arguments.
In regards to sex being primarily for making babies – isn’t that a biological fact? My husband got snipped five years ago,and yet we’ve continued to have sex, so apparently I’m “some” fun in bed.
Pablo, notice the ladys’ subjectivity: I don’t think women think this, do/don’t you men think that, you won’t lure more “father’s rightists” with that line, etc. From there we get the vague: parents have responsibilities and somebody should do something, about what I don’t know. And: keep it in your pants.
The larger points just keep circling. One of which is that they’re endorsing a system where there are no safeguards for basic rights. Come home to find a false restraining order waved in your face, locked out of your house, your wage and children taken from you without recourse and it’s all on the benevolence of the woman and her new partner, the state. No problem. We gals don’t just get up in the AM dreaming this stuff up so deal with it.
This, of course, stands just fine. Because, well, I just don’t think you guys get it unless you deserve it. And around we go while the larger questions about policy, statute, and politics and practice get ignored. No NOW, no VAWA, no Title IV-D, no federal support apparatus, no gender-feminist ideology.
Slart, I suggest considering abolishing child support statism out of the arguable belief, one contrasted against that dishonest leftist totalitarian-socio-feminist bullshit, that less harm is likely done by demolishing both the no-fault civil custody law structure (and with it its profiteers and hundred billion in annual redistributed federal funds) than by leaving it intact where it can help create the generational decay of that near-fifty percent divorce culture, within it an easy unilateral-out-with-benefits if you’re not male.
So far no takers. I’m challenged on the only point of sail the womyn know, that one about proving their collective mindset by the overwhelming preponderance of facts about their divorce and custody initiatives already on the ground, all the while ignoring the specific motivators, the payouts, the systemic habits, methods, and routines common to the custody regime.
Is dismantling Support Nation outright the greater or lesser evil? Would putting women back in charge of their own destinies eventually be seen as the greatest empowerment feminists could ever hope for? I don’t know the answers but I find the defenses against so much as seriously considering them as laughable as they are ironic.
Men are sexist abusing pigs simply by the statistical evidence found in the wake of feminist legislation. Women have the lesser responsibility in procreation. It’s not sexist to take away an entire safety net of rights from one gender because, surely, the other one cannot be held accountable for its actions. And the damage done by a system that’s designed by the special interest of one group has no bearing on the legitimacy of the protests of the other — prove it, goes the only retort.
See what I mean? Utterly immune.
But Pablo, that means that keeping your pants on is no less important than keeping it in your pants.
Is that what’s meant about changing the very fabric of American society? I’m not sure that’s acceptable.
Why? Because.
Men are sexist abusing pigs simply by the statistical evidence found in the wake of feminist legislation. Women have the lesser responsibility in procreation. It’s not sexist to take away an entire safety net of rights from one gender because, surely, the other one cannot be held accountable for its actions. And the damage done by a system that’s designed by the special interest of one group has no bearing on the legitimacy of the protests of the other  prove it, goes the only retort.
Focus, JHowie – explain to me how “I” think women have lesser responsibility in procreation. Don’t forget that I’m pro-life. I know you’d like to have it both ways (hold me responsible for what I claim to believe, but then still stuff me into the framwork of abortion rights/womyn/gender sexism that I don’t ascribe to.)
I have never claimed men are abusive sexist pigs, but you have claimed that 90% of all divorces are caused (your initiated stat) by women. And, of course, all those women are driven by a desire to “stick it to the man” and cash in for life, living high on the hog of child support payments.
I found this interesting. You seem to ignore that 6.6 million (in ’98 out of 14 million divorces cases) of “custodial” parents do not have legal child support agreements (.2 mill had agreements pending.) Man, that’s a whole lot of bitches not sticking it to the man … They must not have known that winning a child-support agreement is just like winning the lotto … of course $350 a month ain’t gonna keep me in lobster and champagne.
Carin, again you’re asking to prove mindset. I’m saying that there’s that damning trio of facts out there to be hurdled: Divorce initiators become support obligees and count on special interest legislation.
Seriously, Carin, given neither of us read minds, what would you take from that?
Motive is clearly established by the special interest-nature of the legislation and lobby both supported by and supporting feminism, such as it may be. From there we must conclude that those numbers mean fathers are dogs and/or mothers are using the system, to some tbd ratio.
I think we both know it’s a mixture. But why the skewed figures? Why are nearly 80% of cs dollars collected from men after some 90% of cases are adjudicated against them?
The material I’ve seen tends to support the nature of Support Nation’s unintended consequences becoming intended opportunity. Pushing any talk of gender-specific dysfunction off the table for the moment, which is fair, what are we left with?
Women seek and receive single parenting and support. Special interest refuses to grant fathers their rights.
What we do with that is up to us. But to say that there isn’t intent here is ignoring reality. To then say that cheating philanderers somehow deserve such treatment in a proudly no-fault culture of prized gender equality is rubbish.
Which returns you to those larger questions: By what right will government defeat the fundamental rights of parents? Why the sexism in the law? Why manipulated stats on DV and the perils of the single-parented? To what “costs-to-society” ends would we justify the system?
And what of the children born into this tradition?
A review of literature lead to a 2005 study which saw a correlation between strict child custody payment/enforcement and fewer out-of-wedlock births.
The cause of the correlation? Either the men are doing more to insure they don’t have to support a baby they don’t want, or they are marrying the mom.
Intersting, Carin, that causality is traced throughout male behavior…in a system that overwhelmingly favors women. And that tracing the female mind’s motivation by that system’s very evidence — those very high ratios — is taboo.
Meaningless, I believe was the word?
That tends too close to a view of women as the passive, gently smiling, maternal vessels, and men as the active, sperm-wielding nuisances, scouring the countryside for opportunity. Good thing for nannyist legislation with all that going on. Good thing at least a few of us males prefer to see more integrity than that in the female mind (not to protest that stereotype they prefer about men or anything…)
Meaning not starting the pregnancy or not paying the cs freight when they do? If the latter, there’s a problem with that POV. Men don’t have that choice because child support is quite enforceable, including retroactively and without recourse. In the frequent cases of false paternity, it’s still not escapable, so what is this means you think men have to walk away from obligations?
This is a nationally enforceable policy. Further, deadbeats are poverty cases and/or behind bars, and men pay cs more reliably and responsibly than women.
Once again, back to the central problems, the ones always skirted: By what fundamental right are people harmed by their State violating their rights? What to do with the statistics on obligee/obligor ratios and single parenting per each sex?
Intersting, Carin, that causality is traced throughout male behavior…in a system that overwhelmingly favors women. And that tracing the female mind’s motivation by that system’s very evidence  those very high ratios  is taboo.
Meaningless, I believe was the word?
You work from the premise that all women are driven by the desire to get knocked up and live on easy street. I disagree. But, ok, start with that premise. Wouldn’t the FIRST line of defense be for men to find a way to protect their precious sperm from becoming an agent of the enemy? I mean, since at issue here is “men’s rights” – and looking at it from a total male perspective.
Carin, you know that correlation is not causation. Suggesting that out-of-wedlock births are where they are because we’re not collecting enough child support is asinine.
One program that has been shown to improve support payments is the one that insures a child’s relationship with the paying father. Guys that parent their kids pay for them. Guys that get shut out, less so.
Why is the state collecting on 80% of it’s child support orders? Are 80% of New Jersey’s non-custodial parents deadbeats? No, it’s because there’s a federal incentive for the state to involve itself in thgese matters whether it needs to be involved or not. It creates an incentive against joint parenting and for sole custody with the attendant orders, which the state can then collect on and get paid by the Fed for doing it. Your tax dollars at work.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? And how does child support collection keep unwed women from fucking?
Yeah, that’s why I got snipped at 30.
Carin, you know that correlation is not causation. Suggesting that out-of-wedlock births are where they are because we’re not collecting enough child support is asinine.
No, the suggestion is that strong child-support systems encourage one of two things 1)marriage to your baby-momma or 2) increased used of raincoats to insure they don’t have to pay for that child they didn’t want.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? And how does child support collection keep unwed women from fucking?
Nice … but the incentive is on the men who want to avoid the long-arm of the state.
Personally, I disagree with the motivations put forth. Women want children because they want children, not because they want money from men. Perhaps that comes later when they realize how expensive those little buggers are. As for women and casual sex – well, it’s been a while since I was a single, but I found most women (way back then) “put-out” because they thought the guy was gonna LOOOVE them. That one night stand? It was CHEMISTRY. Most guys just wanted to get laid.
The sexual revolution was a lie for women. They can’t have it all. And, apparently, neither can men. The “milk” may not be free (if it ends up in conception.)
Which is to say that child support systems impact out-of-wedlock births and that if the CS systems are stronger there will be less OOW birth. See my last.
I notice you avoided my question which you quoted. And why the incentive only on men? Why is there no equity in custody or support? Why aren’t both parties held equal before the long arm of the state?
And why is there so much birth control if women don’t just want to get laid?
I notice you avoided my question which you quoted. And why the incentive only on men? Why is there no equity in custody or support? Why aren’t both parties held equal before the long arm of the state?
Well, I think there is an inherent incentive for women to remain w/o child. The quickest way to poverty is to have a child out of wedlock (I can find the stats, but I believe it’s generally accepted). Not to mention, the whole 9 months rigamarole. Nine months, for a young person is a long-fucking time. Most women, additionally, would like to avoid abortions, even if they are pro-choice. It’s just not a nice experience.
Child support, for most (unless you got knocked up by an investment banker) just isn’t a winning situation. A knew a mom with custody (and child support) who had to live with her mom to make it work. She could occasionally afford an apartment, and they were about the size of a closet.
As for why there is no equity in custody (because the support merely follows the custody, right?) – I agree that there is a problem there. I AGREE. I think joint custody is best for the child. I was used as a pawn by my parents- and things didn’t end up for the best.
I don’t honestly know how you solve this. People who get divorced are usually pretty pissed at each other, and I don’t know how you find a resolution that is best for the child w/o involving courts and -ewww- lawyers. And, we see how well that’s all turned out. I say we just neatly divide all children in half …
And why is there so much birth control if women don’t just want to get laid?
It was just all a big lie bought and sold to us by Ms. magazine.
I do not, Carin, and I said as much, again, in #98: “Good thing at least a few of us males prefer to see more integrity than that in the female mind.” Yes, I cop to those wishful thoughts…
The irony of feminism “striving for equality” while chronically legislating against it is no less than that of demanding the opposite sex be more responsible while tacitly castigating them for advocating you be more responsible. You know, snip, snip. The problem is that cs invariably follows her conception and doesn’t precede it.
Well, typically. As far as we usually know. You know, excepting the reports of calculated five figure monthly payments for one night stands.
Oh, then there’s the conflict you point out whenever possible: Usually there’s no Easy Street. Fine (except for the entire upper-middle class and beyond, but whatever). So why do women seek single parenting in droves…and collect like bandits, no contest and thanks to the State? So much for either the presumption of innocence or a preference for equality.
So we have that gender tension, ad infinitum. Whatever as well.
But back to the fundamental, unanswered issues, Carin, because they avoid such parrying: By what damn right?
What say you?
Thank you. If stats on juvenile performance are any indicator, equal shared parenting, even post-divorce, is vastly more successful than forced, unilateral single parenting.
So why is the State so complicit in the latter? Might it be the federal funds? Special interest pressure from feminists? The Social State and all professional minions built into it?
Conversely, and speaking of the admirable goal of reducing single parenting, genuinely helping kids, and increasing personal responsibility, what would happen if equal shared parenting was the presumption? Because were it such a presumption, it’d also go light years to avoiding the at-fault litigation that completely steamrolls important rights…the aim of which is to score the spoils.
Know why that doesn’t happen? Hint: Special interest is involved. So what’s their motive?
o why do women seek single parenting in droves…and collect like bandits, no contest and thanks to the State? So much for either the presumption of innocence or a preference for equality.
The single parents that I know, do not collect like bandits. They do it with no support from the state or the long disappeared father – one didn’t even list him on the BC. In fact, a while ago I got one of those funny emails from one of the Detroit hospitals of women who went to rather extreme lengths to NOT identify the father.
In the case of a woman, abandoned by hubby (who left the state) and is refusing to pay support, what say you to her situation? Tough? Sorry, hope you like eating macaroni and cheese for the rest of your life (since in your version of how life should be, the man CAN do this and is only faced with social pressure to support a child he fathered.) Do you honestly think that will work?
As for father who want to be a part of their child’s life – I say do whatever it takes to get joint custody. Isn’t it on the rise?
Honestly, I guess we just gotta agree to disagree on this. You think that that state NEVER has any compelling reason to force a man to support (based on stats of unbalance) but would you change your mind if joint custody were the norm, and the situation were more balanced? Shouldn’t balance and parity be what you strive for, and not simply a fuck the children- that’s what the Salvation army is for attitude?
Sorry, but that’s nonresponsive to the question which concerns the role of the state.
Really? I was just talking to a UPS driver who’s paying $800 a week for 2 kids. I met him at his second job where he’s a cook…so he can afford to live. That’s $41.6K in tax free income for 2 kids. Which is like $60K earned. I’d take that deal tomorrow.
That’s good to hear. I have a daughter in the same boat. It needs to change, and that will require lots of voices who understand the problem. There’s too much money in perpetuating it.
Start with a presumption of shared custody and let the person who frustrates that lose. Take the money out of it and put the parenting back in. Put the children and all of their needs before the money.
Anecdotes don’t interest me, Carin, because I have a pile of dedicated fathers reduced to ruin by design and for no goddamn reason. Sorry.
As far as fathering rights being on the rise, again and again and again: Why were they on the decline to the degree they were? By right inherent right? Answer the question.
As to compelling interests, the State has as much compelling reason to enforce support as it does health care. The results are clearly similar, and they mimic welfare and pretty much everything else you care to name in the way of socialized federal policy. Like I said, the dissonance from worshiping cs while damning it’s parent the welfare state is deafening.
As far as your fuck-the-children canard, nice try. If you blatantly refuse to answer as to the State’s right, don’t expect me to bite on that garbage. (And I thought we were getting somewhere, you copping to a preference to joint parenting and my thanking you. You remind me of someone else who takes any attempt to build a bridge as affront…)
Carin. In a land where constitutional right is absolutely paramount and parenting is a long-standing SCOTUS precedent, why isn’t there a presumption of those rights in family court, and with them, a simple presumption of equal shared parenting?
Why is the State nanny? By what right?
Well, I think there is an inherent incentive for women to remain w/o child.
Sorry, but that’s nonresponsive to the question which concerns the role of the state.
It’s a response to the issue that women have an incentive to have babies in order to get child support. I don’t buy it. I do think, as far as incentives/disincentives go – a presumption of shared custody would cause many women to think twice before having that baby (or sleeping with a schleprock they wouldn’t leave a dog with, let alone a baby.) Now – don’t get all pissy about that, because I lived the majority of my life in Detroit, and the POS walking around impregnating women make me fear for our future.
I mean, what *do* you do with your child during the dogfights? oye.
We seem to be far afield of the question, so let me restate it:
Carin, do you realize what you just said? (#112)
What I said, in #112- was that if women realized the enormity of having children – as did men – perhaps fewer unwanted/unplanned babies would be born. If the reality that sex often leads to babies – just perhaps you’d think five or six times before you did it.
I’m pro-life, I want women to AVOID getting pregnant in the first place. In inner cities, such as Detroit, the dad is really a non-issue. They don’t necessarily plan on him being part of the baby’s life in any real sense (and chances are great he is un- or under-employed so he wouldn’t be able to pay much support anyway. ) The “plan” is to simply get welfare or whatever and live with your mom or your sister. I know this is true, because I lived in their hood. One woman – I had brief hope because occasionally the children would be gone and I mistakenly thought they were with the dad. Nope, they were with her MOM.
I worked with men who had babies by countless different women. They were PROUD of the fact.
Regarding Pablos attempt to get me on topic … I don’t support the current system, I’m just not completely on-board with everything you and JHowie say. In Michigan we had “Friend of the Court” who weren’t really that friendly at all. My dad got locked up AFTER he had gained joint custody. I don’t agree with arresting “deadbeats” – I don’t understand what purpose it serves. And, my father was supposed to get custody in the first place, but the recommendation came AFTER the court hearing, and the judge just made his/her own decision.
About #115, thanks again. You do realize that cs is welfare, right?
Cs passes the tests for Nanny Government, thereby running at least as much chance it’ll perpetuate and grow the problem as it will to actually solve it. That compelling interest thing turned on its head, as your second paragraph suggests.
As far as the real issue, we still haven’t answered by what right the State would behave this way. Doesn’t the State’s interest historically bow to the prior rights of the individual? Given that Baby Welfare’s “best interest” is debatable at best and fiction at worst, it seems a parent’s rights to remain unmolested by the State should still prevail.
Speaking of Detroit, are you aware of Cox’s efforts to, in effect, alienate kids from dads? The MI AG once established a cs program that put the State in likely violation of the language contained in its Court’s commonly-ordered custody boilerplate. So pervasive are the myths about American parenting…
I’ve seen that sort of thing time and time again. But I think you’re missing my point, and one which JHoward has been hammering: the state’s role and the accompanying financial incentives in perpetuating just that sort of situation. It’s completely money driven, it’s mindless and it’s damaging pretty much everyone but Mom and the bureaucrats employed in it. And it’s all done with your money, ostensibly For The Children™.