Help for Florida Dads Neil Leavitt, PA helps Florida dads defend their relationships with their children during divorce or separation. Leavitt specializes in family law and has practiced law for nearly three decades. The Law Office of Neil Leavitt can be contacted by phone at (954) 989-5858.

144 Responses to “Reader to Legislature--'I Do NOT Support Shared Parenting'”

Note: The views expressed by readers in the reader comments do NOT necessarily reflect those of Glenn Sacks. The fact that the comment is posted on this blog does NOT signify that Glenn Sacks agrees with it. Posters' views are those of the posters alone--Glenn's views can ONLY be found in the blog post itself, not the comments.  

While blog commenters are given great freedom on this blog, there are some rules of moderation. To read those, click here.

1. AnonymousPamphleteer Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 7:44 pm

   OK. So because "Sharon" married one of that miniscule percentage of men (like less than 1%) who is an actual drunk and abuser, ALL THE REST OF THE CHILDREN AND MEN IN AMERICA need to have their relationships severed to meet the needs of that less than 1% in Sharon's situation.

   OR, would Sharon prefer that everyone have to litigate their cases fulsomely in family court to prove that they are not a member of that less than 1%? Give the marital estate to lawyers to prove that you are a member of the 99%.

   How wonderful.

   It is this process of arguing from the most rare cases, and imposing horrible conditions on the vast majority, which brings so many government-induced ills to the American people.

   Sharon obviously only cares about Sharon's little world, and doesn't see any way to handle the vast majority of cases where there is no drunk or abuser, while also handling that tiny minority where there is.

   Nah. Let's screw everybody in family court so we can root out the bad 1% or less of men. (As if does even that -- which obviously it doesn't, and didn't in her case.)

   Duh!

2. Jay R Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 7:45 pm

   Excuse me while I choke down some bile. What part of "presumed" does this person not understand? If she was dumb enough to have married, and then procreated with, an abusive, drunken Attila the Hun, then she has every right and ability to rebut the presumption of shared custody. (And then go to a psychiatrist to work out her "issues.")

   This is just another "poor, poor, pitiful woman" story. She disgusts me. She is ready for the MAN to lose custody of his children at the drop of a hat. It never occurs to her that, if evenly enforced, the approach she argues for would likely result in fewer women having custody, not more.

   Truly revolting. I keep trying so hard not to let my anger get the best of me.

3. DanH Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 7:55 pm

   Sharon,
   The concrete foundation of shared parenting is that BOTH parents are fit. In your case, apparently at least one is not.

   Please stay engaged but please work towards language that supports ensuring the parents are fit, not the idea that shared parenting is a poor starting point for everyone, especially the kids. Please don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

   Thanks,
   DanH

4. Stephen M Weiss Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

   Ah, I am going to have to finish reading the blah blah later, but this one is easy. Sara thinks that the whole Family Law structure should be set up so that she can tell a tale of woe and win hands down with no evidence, by claiming that the whole system should be geared for the case where dad is completely out of control and is guilty of everything that mom can accuse him of.

   Well, bah, why don't you buy a car that is geared to drive at the bottom of the ocean. What you say? Very few people drive at the bottom of the ocean.

   Very few dads are a danger to their children. Don't hit me with draconian laws because some bad guy theoretically exists somewhere! My children are really suffering at the hands of these draconian laws and they ARE going to change.

   We, collectively, let corrupt feminist family law lobbies bring this situation into being by being complacent, and now our pain will drive us to correct the problem!

   So Sarah: list dad's legal convictions for any of the things you describe. Get a PI to show that he is drunk and not caring for the children. Use facts. We are ALL tired of creative reporting from moms who gain financially and get revenge for creative writing stories much like yours above. No body is saying that there should be no accomadation for real danger to children. We are saying NOT to take the word of mom or dad on the issue. People lie. Most people lie.

5. Dittohd Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

   It appears that Sharon misspoke. I am referring to her comment, "Make petty physical and emotional abuse punishable by losing custody of your children."

   What I'm sure she meant was, "Make petty physical and emotional abuse by the husband punishable by losing custody of his children." Even better, she could have said, "Make petty physical and emotional domestic violence punishable by losing custody of your children." This second one, of course, would have sounded like it was aimed at both sexes but in reality, just enforced on the husband since everyone knows that women never commit domestic violence.

   And I'm sure, my corrections equal what Sharon was really thinking in the creation of her suggestions.

6. Dittohd Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 8:33 pm

   I wonder what Sharon's thoughts are concerning Britney Spears still trying to get custody of her children back. Does she think that her custody attempts should have been cut off at the pass a long time ago?

   And by the way, how do the judges determine who is lying concerning "petty physical and emotional abuse"? Should we always trust the accuser so we are always, at the very least, erring on the side of the best interest of the children? And does that include accusations made by the husband against the wife?

7. Denise Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 8:34 pm

   Sharon's cases are always going to be out there. But we cannot continue to punish the children and the men and women who care about their children, in spite of their ill fated marriages. Laws have to start to protect the majority and not the minority. There are enough laws to protect the minority. Shared Parentlng is one of the best options for children, no matter how the family makeup is established. It is one of the fair resolutions which needs pushed by everyone. Even with Sharon's case, the child normally love their parents no matter what, and that should not be taken away. I have seen too many adult children trying to make sense of and come to terms with lost parents who are dying. It is often too late then, and healing processes do not have the chance of happening. Unless I read incorrectly, I did not see that the child was being abused per se. At least the child had contact with the grandparents and those grandparents have the right to provide love and care for their grandchild. It takes a village, a family, to raise a child, even if the family is screwed up. Whose family is not screwed up.

8. Marcy Ganz Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

   I feel sorry for your alleged abuse you claim. However, the situation is between you and your ex. You should not use your perception of your ex to deprive your son a relationship with his father or mother. In many cases mothers have alcohol and drug addictions and they still have custody of their children despite the fact that the non-custodial father did not abuse drugs or alcohol and they were not awarded custody.

   It seems you are approving the State to raise your children for you if there are any problems. You complain that shared parenting will violate your rights, but look at the non-custodial parents that don't have these civil rights that you have currently. It is creating despondent non-custodial parents that feel that paying money is a substitute for a child's upbringing and the child feels abandoned when they need both parents involved in their lives.

   There are many good non-custodial parents that seek to be involved in the lives of their children but can't because the system creates this unfair unequal balance. It is not that fathers are the only people getting screwed women as well just because they have a high paying career or women deployed to Iraq are losing custody to their children because this system treats children as a prize to be won because money is involved. The courts know people will fight and fight for time with their children until they have no money. This is no benefit to the children and hurts them in the future. The only winners are the courts and the lawyers and the system is subsidized with federal incentives that promote single parenthood over the child's right to have both parents involved in their lives.

   You need to set aside your anger issues against what your ex did to you in the past and focus on raising your child right. The state did not force you to marry your ex and have children with him. I believe that was your decision. Studies have found children having meaningful contact between both parents.

   Here are some studies that demonstrate the importance of equal shared parenting:

   “The emotional stability of children of divorced parents is directly related to the quality of their continuing relationships with both of their parents. We have repeatedly described the dissatisfaction of so many youngsters who felt they were not seeing their fathers often enough. If custody and visiting issues are to be within the realm of the 'best interest of the child’, then such widespread discontent must be taken very seriously,” said Dr. Kelly and Judith Wallerstein in In Surviving the Breakup.

   Warren Farrell, Ph.D., author of Father and Child Reunion said, "Children need both their mom and their dad because children are both their mom and their dad. When they are missing either, they are missing that half of themselves. The children who need most the stability of both halves of themselves are the children of divorce, especially those children whose parents are the most in conflict."

   "Mothers’ attitudes strongly determined the effectiveness of post-divorce father involvement, and quality of father contact was more important than quantity. Joint custody led to better child outcomes overall," wrote Kelly, J. B. in Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriage and divorce: A decade review of research. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 963-973.

   WASHINGTON - Children from divorced families who either live with both parents at different times or spend certain amounts of time with each parent are better adjusted in most cases than children who live and interact with just one parent, according to new research on custody arrangements and children's adjustment. more

   Once dismissed as a disruptive oddity, shared physical custody is increasingly common in divorce courts across the nation. A growing body of research indicates that children in joint custody arrangements have fewer behavioral and emotional problems, higher self-esteem, and better family relations and school performance than children in sole custody arrangements. "Children need both parents -- one is not more primary or important than the other," says Jerry Brodlie, Ph.D., a child psychologist specializing in custody issues. Here, some basic guidelines to make shared custody run smoothly. more
   original article in The Sydney Morning Herald
   Published: December 3, 2004

   Sharon, hopefully you can look at this information with an open mind for the sake of your child. I hope your child does not grow up being angry like you. I had many of these issues as well growing up that damaged many of my relationships when I discovered it was unresolved issues from my parents divorce.

   Marcy Ganz
   http://crispe.org

9. Dittohd Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

   Sorry, one more comment. I think that if a woman chooses a man who she describes as her husband as a man to marry and have children by, I think she should automatically be determined to be an unfit mother and lose custody of her children on that basis.

   I feel that women should be held totally responsible for the choices of men that they make. Then we could cut all this custody fighting off right at the beginning before all the problems start.

10. Kevin Merck Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    Yea, it’s pretty typical “poor little me” abused by the evil drunk stuff. I think many of us have experienced this type of nonsense in relationships before. I doubt if the father is what she claims. Every woman in America knows how to play the “defenseless victim card” to get what they want.

    I love the part where she laments the fact that dad has “shared parenting” and only gets the kid every other weekend. That’s why “shared parenting” should not even be used to describe custody arrangements unless 50/50 is used in the description.

    I think custody in this case should go to the father if the mother can’t come to grips with sharing custody. I think she is the real danger to the child, not the father. It needs to be made perfectly clear to manipulative females like her that the child needs their father, and that wild false allegations are not going to get them what they want.

    Kevin Merck

11. TS Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    As I understand it, HB 5267 does not force shared parenting. It simply mandates that unless there is a reason backed with evidence to grant sole custody, the default ruling should be joint custody because that it would the best means of maintaining the two-parent situation is in the best interest of children.

    Sharon's case would not default to joint custody unless she was to reasonably demonstrate that her ex-husband was a poor, abusive parent. The default ruling would be in her favor. While I am sorry that she experienced what she did, that experience is not a reason to object to HB 5267. There are abusive men and women who have children, but the majority of people are not. It would be both unfair and unwise to base a law that affects the majority of people on the actions of the small percentage of abusive parents.

12. Judge Rufus Peckham Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

    Contrary to the radical feminists' self-righteous blather, the norm for a father in a divorce is not the abuser, period. That they characterize the abuser as the norm is what is so vile, so immoral about their oppostion to the presumption of shared parenting.

13. Bart Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 8:58 pm

    This letter is so fraught with problems, hate, misandry, sexism among them. A few thoughts...

    "every weekend"
    *already problematic and not equitable

    "They do not thrive in situations where telephone calls are restricted and refused and tampered with to prevent the baby from talking to mommy when he is away from her."
    ahh the sexist bias revealed. an equality argument would have used "mommy or daddy".

    I am stripped of my right to pursue happiness, while my ex-husband has me close and easily accessible to continue to harass and abuse me.
    *same as above, "ex-husband or ex-wife". But as we see it all laid out in the opening, it is only about her as a she.

    But since he is forced to pay child support
    *why is he forced to pay... that does not sound like an equal shared arrangement. A glint of how the lack of shared parenting may be Sharon's problem.

    But it is not, and with his entire family encouraging his drinking and gambling and carousing as the nature of men
    *Blatant sexism and misandry- the nature of men???

    So many of these fathers that cry that the evil ex-wife stole their children away spent far more effort being hateful to the wife than they ever did to love their children.
    *same as above- the failure to include a gender neutral treatment in her prose exposes her bias.

    MANDATING MARITAL COUNSELING
    *the horrific feminized, experts convinced that the patriarchal model of gender feminism is an accurate explanation of the society- the very same people who have been infused in school with the same idea of the "nature of men"

    Her hostility, victimized rant probably is a good explanation as to why the father has taken to the Almighty Beer Can.
    Her display makes me feel bad for her son. I feel badly for all children subjected to jaded, hateful, sexist midandrists.
    After reading this, Sharon is probably the worst person to care for and take care of the son. An example that motivates me to write a letter ASAP in support of this bill-to raise the problems, issues and dangers parents like Sharon represent.

14. Stephen Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    This story is so full of holes. I just cannot support Sharon's views because there is so much wrong with it. I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with, if you want to see the world, fine. But leave the child. How's that for a law? When you entered into marriage and family you signed a contract so honor it. This letter truly makes me crazy. You would sabotage dads everywhere because you got one of the bad ones. Advice: stop voting with your emotions. More advice: stop listening to feminists. I state that because you seem to have a view that only men abuse. Sharon, there are enforceable laws that can deal with your ex. Use them. But remember that not all situations are the same as yours and that children belong to their fathers too.

15. Dan M Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    Sharon:

    I gotta ask....are you advocating that you should not have to go to court to cut off his access to the children? That the presumption should be that he's an ass? Or tangentially, are you arguing that there should be no restrictions on your movement - meaning you should be free to move "your child" wherever you want without need to get the court's permission first?

    Because, if your case is truly like that, I can't see it taking more than 20 minutes to get all you want, and likely more. Of course, if you're engaging in a little hyperbole things might not be so easy.

    And THAT, my dear, is the point of the shared parenting legislation idea. Namely, that you'd actually have to be able to back up these accusations before you are given carte blanche. How you could possibly expect anyone to support a call for unilateral right to do what you wish, because you say your husband is abusive, (which smacks of feminist female privilege) is totally beyond me. What an incredibly selfish viewpoint.

    Why shouldn't you have to prove these things? Why shouldn't he be given the benefit of the doubt (legally speaking) - especially since if what you say is true it won't take long for him to lose. For that matter, what's wrong with spending time with the grandparents? My parents get my "weekend" every once in a while if I can't visit with the kids often enough....is that something that makes me a bad father?

    Who (in short) died and made YOU God?

16. a2homefamily Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Sharron sounds like she has been in court often with her Ex to have mandated police station transfers. If her allocations are true, with even mild supporting evidence, I suspect her Ex would have restricted if not supervised parenting time. But from her letter she states he does get time with his son every other weekend.

    I believe her true motivation can be found in her statement that is she is stripped of her right to the pursue happiness. She is discouraging the passage of AB-571 not because it would be a benifit for children but because it would be restrictive on her. She seems to truely believe that she should be the only parent her son has, ironically being restrictive to the point of completely cutting off of her child and his father from prusueing happiness in thier relationship.

    I think her letter shows exactly why AB-571 SHOULD be passed, to protect children from being denied equal access to both of thier parents.

17. Robert1 Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Sharon,

    If your ex. is a drunk and abusive, how is stopping shared parenting for all those who aren't, helping you or your child?
    Your battle is with your family court judge, not with the laws that effect everyone who isn't a drunk and abusive.
    Your asking the family courts to assume that ALL fathers are drunks and abusive at the time of a divorce, does this sound fair to you?

18. Lance Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    AP: "OK. So because "Sharon" married one of that miniscule percentage of men (like less than 1%) who is an actual drunk and abuser, ALL THE REST OF THE CHILDREN AND MEN IN AMERICA need to have their relationships severed to meet the needs of that less than 1% in Sharon's situation."

    I couldn't have said it better myself.

    I think this is a more a problem with Sharon misunderstanding what "Assumption of Shared Parenting" laws are supposed to be about. This is a PR issue. We need to improve as a movement.

    "Assumption of Shared Parenting" laws do not strip the state of its power to remove incompetent parents in a divorce. It makes it so that state can't just assume that the mother is the best parent. Sharon, but for your example, I'm sure plenty of people here could point to any number of WOMEN who are incompetent mothers - and MEN who are fully competent fathers.

19. Help Me Daddi Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

    And she wonders why her ex drinks. She should mind her own business for one. Two if her ex is bad as she say's he is, then she should prove it, not just say it. Three sounds like she is trying to use her child to change the father into what she wants which will never work. Four, so what if the kids spend time with the in-laws. They are family aren't they. Five, let the child figure out who the father is because no matter how bad the other parent is, the child will still love them no matter what and it won't matter what the other parent say's about them. Six, she is in la la land thinking that the kids will be just fine growing up in a single family home. Most of our crime and societal issues can all be atrributed to single family homes as being the biggest common denominator and states spend large amounts of their budget having to deal with these issues. Those stats are real and as we know they are often overlooked for political purposes. Seven, unless the father is actually drunk in front of the child, she is is doing more damage to her child with her lies and abusive controling behaviour than she realizes and in my opinion if she doesn't stop it, she should lose custody of the child because that in and of itself is abuse.

    In other words Sharon if you read this, you need to look closely at what you are doing and quit worrying about what others are doing by focusing on what you can control and that is your relationship with your child. While you may disagree with your exes way of life it hardly gives you the right stand on a soap box and tell others how they should act or what they should or should not do. -HD

20. Kevin Merck Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    Just wanted to point this out ...

    --- "Every other weekend spent with a parent that is supposed to love and adore and cherish you, but that is spent ignored ...”

    Every other weekend is not shared parenting folks. In the past it was referred to as "visitation". Apparently she doesn’t want the father to see his child at all. No “good mother” wants their child to be without a father. The father should get total custody if she doesn’t change her ways.

    She is the threat, not the father.

    Kevin Merck

21. jerry Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

    No fault divorce was intended to reform the system, stop penalizing good people, and streamline divorce and people getting past their divorce.

    It had an unintended consequence and that was enormously expensive and painful custody battles that gave everyone an incentive to lie and abuse good people, exactly what no fault divorce was intended to prevent.

    No fault divorce needs a rebuttable presumption of shared custody.

22. Angel Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 9:51 pm

    Dear Wisconsin State Representatives,

    Assembly bill 571 is being presented on Jan 24th 2008. As a divorced Mother I would like to express my concerns and opinions for the shared placement that is being presented on Jan 24th 2008.
    I fully support this bill. Having shared placement with my daughter, has reinforced her family values. She knows that even if her parents are divorced, her family unity is not. By making this a law, children will be able to experience the nurturing of both Father and Mother.
    Fathers as well as Mothers are both very important roles in every child's life on a regular basis. Meaningful regular shared placement for the children is in "the best interest for the children". We also need to reinforce and educate this to all Court Commissioners, Social Workers and GAL's. Listen and read parenting plans, supporting equal fundamental rights of both parents.
    Listen to the parents that want their children more in their lives and the Court system should stop making decision based on their "laws" for that day.

    This is about our children, and our children are our future. Lets keep family values equal.

23. The Other Mike D Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    Sharon is an perfect example of the female need to control not only the reproductive process but the issue of that process.

    I agree with osme of the otehr posters that it is not so much the visitation and shared parenting they oppose but thier RIGHT to move the kids wherever THEY want regardless of how hard it is for the man to visit, Thier right to determine how much and when the man get access to the children according to THIER whims, and the loss of some of the free non accountable money the courts award them.

    The paragraph in her post:

    Along with forced shared parenting comes "the geographic restriction." I personally am not allowed to move more than one county from where I live now without a modification of the court order. I am basically stripped of my freedom to live anywhere within this country, I am stripped of my right to pursue happiness, while my ex-husband has me close and easily accessible to continue to harass and abuse me.

    says VOLUME about her true motivations. "I personally" and "I am stripped". We suddenly went from the best interests of the child to what 'I" want. I would ask Sharon if she is sympathetic to men who have had their very ability to subsist taken form tehm by the courts, they have had thier children ripped from them by courts who allow women just like her to exercise thier rights "to pursue happiness" with no thoughts to the mans rights to see his children. In addition if a man falls $2500 behind in child support (many times for reasons beyond thier control) they lose thier right to obtain a passport, thier names are put into a national database which could lien thier assets at any time, take thier tax returns even if they are up to date and cause all sorts of work, financial and personal issues.

    Sharon also goes on to say "Make petty physical and emotional abuse punishable by losing custody of your children."
    She better hope that this does not become law because I can assure you Sharon that many more women then men would lose custody of thier children over it.

    So in the end, because YOU screwed up, because YOU had a bad marriage, because YOU picked the wrong guy and because YOU do not want to take the responsibility for your mistakes ALL men should be made to suffer the injustices heaped upon them by the already biased family courts even if they are great fathers dealing with vindictive ex-wifes and girlfriends.

    Nice job Sharon....You just reinforce my opinions of people like you. Its not really about the children,its about YOU not having cart blanche to control access at your discreation and ignore the court orders should you find them inconveinent.

24. Joe Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    To me the main warning sign I see is: ok he could be a comlete jerk but she is also complaining that the child comes back talking about spending time with grandma, aunt and other relatives. What is wrong with these other relatives, or is that entire side of the family evil. Him being bad is one thing his entire family being bad is another, her not noticing any of this before marriage and child?
    The second is interference with phone calls? the kid is 2, why is the kid supposed to be on the phone with mom on the short time with Dad? At the age of 2?
    Only her rights are limited? she can't move anywhere she wants to? Don't all parents give up some of their rights/freedoms by being parents?

25. Jean Valjean Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    It's always the horror stories that come out about the worst possible situation. And sadly it's always those few stories told by women that result in the majority of good men losing their rights of equal protection under the law.

    I am against mandatory child support for either parent. I believe it is an unconstitutional taking of property and violates the 4th Amendment to Equal Protection, as well as the 13th Amendment prohibiting slavery and "involuntary servitude" .

    As for the writer of this letter and her story of her abusive husband I frankly don't care and I don't believe her. She married him and knew what she was getting into and if she didn't that is no one's fault but her own. It is highly unlikely that a drunk married a woman who also wasn't a drinker.

    Either way, her bad decisions is not a justification to deprive good men of equal rights under the law.

26. The Psycho Ex Wife Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    Such selfishness, nothing new here. It's all about the Mother and what she wants and needs. Nowhere does she say the Father abuses the child, only her. Sorry hun, you married him and had a kid, and now the marriage is over. The child is not your property, he is not an extension of you, he deserves a relationship with his Father and his extended family. It's amazing to me that women never take responsibility for marrying, sleeping with and procreating with these men that they claim are vile creatures. I'm sure like our PEW she has some sad story of how she only married him so no one thought she was a "slut" *rolleyes*.

27. Michael H Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    In all of these carefully crafted criticisms of shared parenting, the word "forced" is substituted for the word presumption.

28. Mike Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    I think my eldest son put it best in 2000 or 2001 when he was yelling for him to come into the house and stopping talking to myself and his stepmother. He truned back to her, and yelled, I'M NOT GETTING DIVORCED, YOU ARE!!!

    Mike

29. Mike Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    I think my eldest son put it best in 2000 or 2001 when he was yelling for him to come into the house and stopping talking to myself and his stepmother. He turned back to her, and yelled, I'M NOT GETTING DIVORCED, YOU ARE!!!

    Mike

30. Mike Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    I think my eldest son put it best in 2000 or 2001 when he was yelling for him to come into the house and stopping talking to myself and his stepmother. He turned back to her, and yelled, I'M NOT GETTING DIVORCED, YOU ARE!!!

    Mike

31. Michael H Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    "It becomes a license to take away the civil liberties of the custodial parent and put that parent on county arrest until the child turns 18."

    Did she use the force of government to limit the other parents' parenting time to every other weekend, and then claim that her civil liberties were infringed?

32. Joel Johnston Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 2:44 am

    Thank you Sharon for informing your legislature that because you are a victim of domestic violence that the rest of the world of non-custodial parents that are not abuse should be denied their rights.

    If you were sincere and told the legislature that you supported shared parenting only when both parents are fit parents, and not when one has been PROVEN to not be abuse, then I think your story would be credible.

    There is little doubt that domestic violence, alcoholism, drub abuse and much more is detrimental to a child. It is just as detrimental, or more, to keep a child from seeing a parent that is not abusive, and only has their best interest at heart.

    The majority of American's don't marry drunks, drug abusers, or wreckless people, yet your letter seems to think that because you did, the rest should be punished. Please say it isn't so!

    Fit parents need to remain a part of their children's lives so we don't breed more people like you describe in your story, rather than destroy children that have two loving parents and increase the odds that they will have the same emotional issues you and your former spouse suffer.

    If you live in WAshington, or your children live in Washington, or you have families in Washington, please ask them to sign the Washington State online petition for shared parenting - http://petition.WashingtonSharedParenting.com

    Regards,

    Joel Johnston

33. Malcolm Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 3:45 am

    Glenn

    It's probably stating the obvious, but I'll say it anyway. Anyone who criticise your moderation policy should ask themselve whether a feminist blog would agree to post a contrary view such as this.

34. callum Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 6:34 am

    Thing is, shared parenting has only ever been enacted when both parents are fit, this shouldn't have gone through.

    This is a judicial cock-up, NOT an argument against shared parenting.

    The geographic conscription is very reasonable in the context of a non-abusive parent. Why should one parent have the right to sever the relationship of the other with their child.

    'It will force mothers with abusive husbands...'

    Oh so only men are abusive to their kids. I suppose the current system in the UK where the mother gets SOLE custody could never have this effect, since the majority of child abusers are women.

    I'm not buying it. She's misrepresenting what shared parenting is. If she had an argument against shared parenting where both parents are fit (how it should work) then I might consider.

35. MichaelClaymore Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 6:53 am

    Im shocked and horrified. A woman using what is obvioulsy an exception to deny all fathers their rights? My god, what will happen if this becomes a commonplace attitude? Oh, wait...
    Go away quickly, Madam. The human race doesnt need your kind.

36. Rosemarie Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 7:46 am

    You know, even if everything this woman says is true, what right does she have to keep the child away from loving relatives, such as the grandmother? I'm a grandmother myself. Just the thought of being separated from my beautiful grandson and my newborn granddaughter makes me physically ill. My grandson is the light of my life. What crime did the grandmother commit, Sharon? She raised a "loser" son? She didn't take your side in an argument? Or are the grandmother and the aunt drunkards as well?

    Let me tell you, no one had ever EVER come between me and my grandchildren. Not some sorry-a$$ed, biased legislation, not some sob story, not my son-in-law (thought that's unlikely; not only because he's a wonderful man, but because it's my daughter who had the children, not a son) - NOTHING.

37. Rosemarie Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 7:47 am

    Jean Valjean wrote:

    It's always the horror stories that come out about the worst possible situation. And sadly it's always those few stories told by women that result in the majority of good men losing their rights of equal protection under the law.
    -----------------------
    So true. Unfortunately, the opposite is NOT true - the men can tell their horror stories 24/7 to anyone who will listen, and not one damned thing seems to ever be done about it.

38. DCR Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 8:44 am

    One phrase invalidates her whole argument to me:

    Laws that strip people of their civil rights and freedom won't force parents to share parenting, it will force mothers with abusive husbands to take their children and run and hide prior to divorce proceedings

    notice she says it will force MOTHERS with abusive HUSBANDS instead of perhaps using a more generic phrase such as parents with abusive spouses.

    While i don't discount her personal situation - makes you wonder when she is so venomous against her ex husband makes you wonder WHY he might be drinking too - could it be to escape a torturous marriage?

    And to further add to what many others are saying one particular case does NOT mean the entire premise is invalid alhough the NOW cows and others like this woman have been very successful with legislatures (esp NY) by using this very type of argument.

39. The Ex-Husband Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 8:47 am

    I feel bad for Sharon's alleged experiences. I really do. However, the sad reality is this - how many times have we heard some plan, law, restriction put in place under the guise that, "...if it saves just one person/child - it will have been worth it!" ???

    Many laws have been passed using just such a mantra. That one is almost as bad as shielding such lunacy with the oft-misused "...the best interests of the children."

    While it's no excuse, Sharon's mindset is human nature. React based solely on your own horrible experience because it's what you live and experience. Nothing outside of that matters. Only - yes, it does matter outside of your own individual experience.

    ~Mister-M

40. David M Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 10:00 am

    I'm not sure about Wisconsin but Iowa passed House File 22 a few years back. It presumes joint physical custody and if it is not granted the judge is required to cite why it was not granted in the court decree. Meaning someone is abusive, has mental or emotional issues, uses drugs etc. I have not talked to anyone in Iowa that has had a custody issue so I don't know if this is being followed by the judges or not. Sounds simple. Both people get joint physical custody unless proven otherwise. But it has to be proven, it is not supposed to be a he said she said.

41. JD Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 10:01 am

    "Equal parenting / shared parenting ONLY works when BOTH parents can cooperate for the best interest of the child."

    Whereas the sole-custody model encourages conflictive behavior on the part of the custodial parent because she holds all the cards. In other words, the sole-custody argument is strongly supported by those mothers who are most inclined to alienate the child's father and use that child as a weapon against him.

    "I can guarantee you that if I had known that it was standard policy for my county to impose geographic restriction on all divorces with children, I would have left everything I had, taken my son and hid to raise him at poverty level before I would have knowingly subjected him to what he has to deal with now."

    In other words, this woman is a potential child abductor.

    I predict this woman will develop into a full blown alienating parent as her child gets older. She is completely focussed on her own rights with no thought for her child's. She strikes me as a prime candidate for losing custody of her child and having to deal with the inverse side of the sole custody model.

42. Danny Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 10:10 am

    While I do agree that she has the right to be angry it sounds like her disagreement with shared parenting is being fueled by her anger. She thinks that just because she picked a bad husband all shared parenting situations are bad. I was cheated by a dealer on ebay about 5 years ago, does that mean ebay should be shut down? I confessed my feelings to woman I liked on college and she shot me down, does that mean that all women are bad? Its obvious that this father is not fit for shared parenting so why is she ranting about it?

    I get the feeling that this is just an angry woman disguising her rant as an informative post meant to put advocates for shared parenting in their place. My recommendation is that she take her venom to one of those feminist sites that advocate "equality" where she can get "You go girl!" responses until she is blue in the face.

43. Michael H Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 10:25 am

    Rosemarie: "You know, even if everything this woman says is true, what right does she have to keep the child away from loving relatives, such as the grandmother? "

    Good point.

    Is the author revealing a dark side of the maternal instinct, power and control issues with respect to her children?

    Chances are that she initiated the divorce and either (1) agreed to the visitation schedule or (2) used the force of government to limit the father's parenting time. Now she feels that her civil liberties are infringed because she enjoys the companionship and custody of her children over 85% of the time.

44. Miles Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 10:41 am

    Seems like the real problem is not that women such as this argue - irrationally - based on personal anecdotes, but that legislators actually base decisions on such views.

45. Limey07us Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 11:28 am

    This is so typical ... but I think AnonymousPamphleteer has this nailed:

    OK. So because "Sharon" married one of that miniscule percentage of men (like less than 1%) who is an actual drunk and abuser, ALL THE REST OF THE CHILDREN AND MEN IN AMERICA need to have their relationships severed to meet the needs of that less than 1% in Sharon's situation.

    I would just like to add .. before she got married was her boyfriend at the time a drunk. I would assume not. Then when they decided to have a child I would assume he was not a drunk either. so based upon those assumptions we can conclude something drove the man to drink ... how about the woman in his life or the family court system!

46. Lewis Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    I would really like to hear the Father's side of this woman's tale.

    I would also like to hear the story from a detached third party with knowledge of both parents.

47. Superstep Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    This woman's entire rant is pointless. If her ex is as horrible as she states, then shared custody wouldn't be an option, now would it? It is my understanding that shared parenting is not something that is "forced" upon everyone, but is something that should be the first option for divorcing couples who are equally fit to parent their children, yes???

    I live in NY, and I just sent a six page letter to my local assemblyman, and state representatives, the Attorney General, and several media outlets, detailing my husband's situation, which mirrors the situation of most non-custodial men. He gives his ex her "paycheck" of nearly $300/week for his two kids. I don't refer to it as child support, because that term implies that this money is being spent on his children. If there is no accountability on the part of the CP as to where exactly this money is being spent, then let's call it what it really is....ALIMONEY!!!

    All these feminist types whine and cry about equality this and equality that, but it's funny (and so very convenient) how they DON'T want to be considered equal when it comes to financially providing for their kids. If a couple are married and the husband decides to spend 100% of his paycheck on booze and drugs, the government doesn't step in and tell them he can't do it, so what makes them think they should have the right to basically STEAL this same man's money after he's divorced? Government should just stay the hell out of peoples personal lives, but they've figured out a way to make a TON of money off of my husband and people just like him, so they justify it by saying it's "for the children". The entire family court system is pathetic and disgusting.

48. Michael H Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    JD: "Whereas the sole-custody model encourages conflictive behavior on the part of the custodial parent because she holds all the cards. In other words, the sole-custody argument is strongly supported by those mothers who are most inclined to alienate the child's father and use that child as a weapon against him."

    Sharon: "I can guarantee you that if I had known that it was standard policy for my county to impose geographic restriction on all divorces with children, I would have left everything I had, taken my son and hid to raise him at poverty level before I would have knowingly subjected him to what he has to deal with now."

    JD: "In other words, this woman is a potential child abductor."

    Yes. The message is a carefully crafted threat to legislators deliberating about shared parenting.

    "In other words, this woman is a potential child abductor."

    I predict this woman will develop into a full blown alienating parent as her child gets older. She is completely focussed on her own rights with no thought for her child's. She strikes me as a prime candidate for losing custody of her child and having to deal with the inverse side of the sole custody model.

49. Tex Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    "...and even if he doesn't want to actually spend that time with his son, he sends someone to pick him up just to take him away from me. I know this because my son comes home and talks about NayNay and Ashley and Gam, and not Daddy."

    If Dad's not taking care of him then who's "torturing" him???

    Not that I'm particularly impressed with this "Daddy leaves him at Grandma's" business. How many mothers with sole custody leave their kids at Grandma's practically all day while they work, go to school, date, or whatever, and no one blinks an eye? How many mothers leave their kids at daycare when they could send them to Dad's instead, and no one blinks an eye?

    "Make infidelity a crime punishable by losing custody of your children. Make drug use, even "casual" drug use, a crime punishable by losing custody of your children. Make petty physical and emotional abuse punishable by losing custody of your children. Put those repercussions into effect and you might just see that parents who truly care about their children might step up and parent and save their marriage."

    Bring it on! And spare us the screams when women lose custody because of infidelity and "petty physical and emotional abuse." (Which brings us back to the bad old PAS, doncha know?)

    And yeah, Other Mike D, it's all about what SHE wants to do, and all the freedoms that SHE's been "stripped" of. As if family commitments and parenthood are about freedom. She's probably contemplating following some new guy across the country.

50. Michael H Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Sorry. I left in some extra words copied from JD's post.

51. Betsy Barton Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    So far, I think all the arguments against the Wisconsin bill have been extraordinarily weak, and easy to shoot down. The only one that worries me is one I do not understand, the one from the DV testimony that says, "Under current law, the courts are already directed by a presumption of joint custody (decision making) and are to enter court orders that maximize the time each parent has with each child. Under 2003 Act 130, the courts additionally must consider the impact of domestic violence on the safety of the children and must make attempts to protect children from further violence whenever possible. AB 571 creates yet another presumption that the courts must equalize placement unless it can be shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is not in the best interest of the children to do so."

    I am always confused as to what the actual existing laws say. If there is already a law in place that says courts must maximize the time each parent has with the child, why is it almost always ignored? If such a law exists in California, why did my husband's lawyer tell him the judge would only give him 25% if he went to court? (There was absolutely no evidence against him.) Under 2003 Act 130, are the courts directed to consider allegations of domestic violence, even if they are completely unsupported by evidence? Is that what AB 571 would change?

    Sorry to pose so many questions. If anyone has a clear understanding of the laws and how they are applied, I would sure appreciate some enlightenment.

52. David M Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Betsy,

    Sorry to pose so many questions. If anyone has a clear understanding of the laws and how they are applied, I would sure appreciate some enlightenment.

    I think that is the problem so many of us have, the law is not applied.

    Judges are allowed to legislate from the bench with out penalty.

    If a citizen could sue a Judge for malpractice they would start applying the law as it is written.

53. Ed Krampitz Jr Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    If I were married to someone like Sharon, I'd start drinking heavily too.

    Everything she says about her ex-husband must be taken with a lot of salt. Generally, the shriller the tone, the more lies in the screed.

54. Stephen M Weiss Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    AB571 was already much much better than California Law. California law basically says there is a presumption of shared custody IF both parties agree. That's all we get. No clause to maximise time with both parties, no clause to deal with what happens if mom wants to cut dad out of the deal.

    Note section 3087 says that the court can actually order anything it wants, but in practice the court almost always accepts stipulations from the parents.

    California Family Code Section 3080-3089 states,

    3080. There is a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint custody is in the best interest of a minor child, subject to Section 3011, where the parents have agreed to joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child.

    3081. On application of either parent, joint custody may be ordered in the discretion of the court in cases other than those described in Section 3080, subject to Section 3011. For the purpose of assisting the court in making a determination whether joint custody is appropriate under this section, the court may direct that an investigation be conducted pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3110).

    3087. An order for joint custody may be modified or terminated upon the petition of one or both parents or on the court's own motion if it is shown that the best interest of the child requires modification or termination of the order. If either parent opposes the modification or termination order, the court shall state in its decision the reasons for modification or termination of the joint custody order.

55. Michael H Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Hi Betsy:

    Joint custody has two meanings.

    Joint legal custody requires the parents to discuss major decisions affecting the children, (schooling, medical treatment), and has nothing to do with where the children live.

    When the author wrote "joint custody (decision making)", I infer without doubt that she refers to joint legal custody.

    A rebuttable presumption for shared parenting refers is a rebuttable presumpt that the children will live with both parents 50% of the time in the absence of some other agreement between the parents.

    When Iowa passed a rebuttable presumption of joint custody, the Iowa Supreme Court interpreted this as a rebuttable presumption of joint legal custody.

56. Tim O'Brien Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Dear Wisconsin Representative:

    I am against shared parenting because I'm a woman and shared parenting is less convenient and/or expedient for me, since I can get primary custody just by showing up. I married a drunk and everyone should feel sorry for me. As for the vast majority of caring and loving fathers, they can all go take a flying leap since I mostly only care about myself.

    Yours truly,

    Shrieking Harpy

57. Marauder Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Why is it that every time there's a dissenting opinion on this site, so many people have to claim that the person with that opinion is lying or mentally unstable? Doesn't that sound like what various feminists do when they disagree with men's rights activists - they say they're all lying or abusive/drunk/mentally unstable? Your arguments will come across as a lot more sensical if you deal with what Sharon said and don't start bringing in things you don't have any evidence for (that she's lying or nuts). Is that the best you can do, to make character smears?

    I give credit to the people who stick to arguments like "what's true for Sharon isn't true for the majority of people". They sound a lot more well-reasoned, rational, and thoughtful.

58. Betsy Barton Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    Well, at least some people (e.g., David M) suggest that judges do not bother to follow the law anyway. Is there any evidence to suggest that when laws like AB 571 are passed, people will actually get 50/50 custody (unless a crime has been proven)?

59. The Ex-Husband Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    The reason there is a presumption of joint LEGAL custody is because it doesn't impact the finances of the state negatively. The courts can give everyone in the country joint legal custody, just as long as they take away the majority of physical custody from the higher wage earner (typically the male/father) to ensure a maximum amount of child support.

    This is not rocket science. Most states have a vested interest in avoiding the implementation of joint physical custody presumption because of the signficant negative financial impact to the state coffers. If it didn't - I would imagine such bills would pass without a problem in most legislatures. Kudos to those states who have moved in the appropriate direction.

    Mister-M

60. Betsy Barton Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    Marauder: I agree with you, for the most part. I do think it makes sense to point out that some (possibly many?) women exaggerate the "incompetence" of their ex-husbands. Beyond that, however, we know nothing about the veracity of this particular woman's story or her motivations. It does not even matter. Even if she is describing her personal situation 100% accurately and has not exaggerated her story at all, her letter does nothing to weaken the argument for AB 571.

61. Betsy Barton Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    From the Ex-Husband: "Most states have a vested interest in avoiding the implementation of joint physical custody presumption because of the signficant negative financial impact to the state coffers."

    Has anyone seen an accurate accounting of the financial impact to the state of awarding 50/50 custody in most cases? In, say, Wisconsin or CA? Are we talking about millions? Hundreds of millions? Billions? (I guess an accurate accounting is not trivial to do.)

62. Stephen M Weiss Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Marauder, your point makes sense except where it doesn't.

    A huge part of this issue is that the Family Law courts do not follow the Constitution, and are not regulated by the Supreme Court of the land. A by product is that the normal assumptions in court, such as an innocent until proven guilty, are ignored. What we are saying is that accusors are wrong until proven right.

    Sharon is an accusor, one who has gained by making accusations, and one who has harmed others by making accusations. We are saying: we assume accusors are wrong unless they can cite some objective evidence. And yes, if we have to point out that the dominant reason that mothers are 'wrong' when accusing the father of abuse is because they are lying to gain advantage, then I am wasting my time explaining this to you.

    (The other part of the Constitution that is ignored is that the punishment should fit the crime. Sharon believes that the father should lose all rights of fatherhood for any, even casual, drug use. Now the penalty for casual drug use is normally anywhere from $400 to $4000 depending on the drug and state. A man losing custody of his kid stands to lose $300,000 for an average earner. Hmm, this is 100 to 1000 times more severe than constitutionally approved punishments.)

    If a letter wants to preface by saying that the evidence is a given in this thought experiement, then we will not question the evidence.

63. Tex Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    It doesn't matter whether Sharon is lying or nuts or not. Her own words make it plain that her main concern is her own freedom to do as she pleases.

    And Celia, here's the link to that 15% father custody figure: census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf. For some reason it wouldn't post on the other thread.

64. Michael H Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    "Well, at least some people (e.g., David M) suggest that judges do not bother to follow the law anyway. Is there any evidence to suggest that when laws like AB 571 are passed, people will actually get 50/50 custody (unless a crime has been proven)?"

    Judges who accept that a presumption is rebutted can be required to provide their reasons in writing. This was part of the Iowa law, which was interpreted as rebuttable presumption of joint legal custody by the Iowa Supreme Court.

65. The Ex-Husband Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Betsy...

    I imagine it would take years of actual implementation to actually tackle the financial impact on the changes to presumption of joint-custody starting from recent times.

    Remember, the Child Support Systems in most states have decades and hundreds of thousands of people already on the rolls... who are in the situation they are in, at least in part, by the adversarial systems' developments.

    I'm sure that's probably darn near impossible for most, if any, fathers in a current predicament who can now go back and fight for "presumption" of joint custody for any number of reasons (and any subsequent reduction in child support).

    Great question, though. One that would warrant further future monitoring.

    ~Mister-M

66. Dan M Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    Can anyone either provide me with or direct me to links regarding the current child support system, it's mechanism of enforcement (and how enforcement agencies came to be) and any and all financial incentives (in practice) connected with child support? As well, any links to stories/data on how the current system of child support and divorce law encourages the situation we have now?

    I want to keep this real, so as close to primary sources as possible would be best, editorials and opinions can't be used.....

    I know it's sort of lazy to ask, but I want to make sure I have all the bases covered.

    Also, any resident feminists are welcome to supply links to data/stories as well. I want to get both sides of this issue understood, so the plainer the language the better. :)

    If an email address would be more appropriate I would be willing to supply one....

67. Stephen Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Dan M, here's a link that may help:

    www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_States

68. Alex33 Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    Tex said: "How many mothers with sole custody leave their kids at Grandma's practically all day while they work, go to school, date, or whatever, and no one blinks an eye? How many mothers leave their kids at daycare when they could send them to Dad's instead, and no one blinks an eye?"

    They *should* blink an eye. And if no one does it for you, then you need to do it for yourself.

    Custody Orders theoretically are, and should be, written for 3 people first - mom, dad & child. It *should* be the right of first refusal. If mom has custody and can't be there, dad should have first right to care for the child, and vice versa. THEN grandparents can get involved, and the custodial parent makes the decision where the child goes from there if the other parent isn't available. At least this is how it *should* be.

    Is this written into the Shared Parenting Bill? I didn't read the whole thing ....

69. Alex33 Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    Stephen said: "Sharon is an accusor, one who has gained by making accusations, and one who has harmed others by making accusations. We are saying: we assume accusors are wrong unless they can cite some objective evidence. And yes, if we have to point out that the dominant reason that mothers are 'wrong' when accusing the father of abuse is because they are lying to gain advantage, then I am wasting my time explaining this to you."

    How is Sharon supposed to cite "objective" evidence in the form of a letter to a counsel person?

70. Marauder Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    "A huge part of this issue is that the Family Law courts do not follow the Constitution, and are not regulated by the Supreme Court of the land. A by product is that the normal assumptions in court, such as an innocent until proven guilty, are ignored. What we are saying is that accusors are wrong until proven right.

    Sharon is an accusor, one who has gained by making accusations, and one who has harmed others by making accusations. We are saying: we assume accusors are wrong unless they can cite some objective evidence. And yes, if we have to point out that the dominant reason that mothers are 'wrong' when accusing the father of abuse is because they are lying to gain advantage, then I am wasting my time explaining this to you."

    I've applied to law school and I had an internship at a law office this summer, and believe me, no one goes to court and claims the opposing side is flat-out lying unless they have some evidence. No one here has any evidence that she's lying or not lying, and despite this lack of evidence various people have concluded that she is. People here feel threatened that people in Sharon's situation will influence the laws about shared parenting, so instead of refuting her points, they blame her for her situation and make unsupported character accusations.

    If a man came on this site and wrote about how his ex-wife hit him over the head with a lamp and knocked him unconscious, would we assume that he was lying? Would we "choke down some bile" or say he should be deemed an unfit father for having married his ex-wife, or, if his wife was an alcoholic, "And he wonders why his wife drinks", or claim that his tone indicated that he was lying?

    I agree that the situation of one person shouldn't determine laws. However, just because Sharon disagrees doesn't make her a bad person or a liar.

71. Michael H Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    "Then let the marriage counselor who sees these parents every week for 6 months dictate who gets custody, instead of a judge who hasn't met either party prior to court, and who doesn't even have time to hear all of the evidence. "

    What if the "dictator" decided that Sharon gets custody every other weekend because of her gender?

72. Jay R Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    Marauder@ "I've applied to law school and I had an internship at a law office this summer, and believe me, no one goes to court and claims the opposing side is flat-out lying unless they have some evidence. No one here has any evidence that she's lying or not lying."

    I hope your appliction to law school is accepted, and I trust that your law office summer internship was interesting. Having said that, and having been a litigation attorney who has tried all sorts of cases for more than 25 years, I respectfully disagree with your assertion. Many people end up in court in "swearing contests," where there is no evidence except the story, and apparent credibility, of each party/witness. In fact, it is these cases which are the most likely to end up in trial. Moreover, once Sharon allows her letter to be posted for a discussion topic, then it is Sharon who has the "burden of proof" to establish the veracity and credibility of her story.

    Sharon, with her obviously one-sided diatribe and admitted felonious propensities, has not met her "burden" with respect to the facts and her own credibility -- at least in the view of many of the 'triers of fact" who posted in response to her letter. The more salient issues raised in response to her letter, however, are independent of whether she is being truthful, and in fact assume that she is being truthful. Accepting everything she said as true, there is still ample opportunity to criticize the arguments she made and the conclusions she draws, as well as her awful, selfish attitude.

    Again, good luck with your legal career.

73. Michael H Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    "The more salient issues raised in response to her letter, however, are independent of whether she is being truthful, and in fact assume that she is being truthful."

    Yes.

74. Stephen M Weiss Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

    Marauder: You are right, many people on this site say make claims for which there is no evidence, much as Sharon has done. In most cases, the citing of that evidence does not appear to be a rendition of what has occurred in court, and then caused the loss of fundamental rights of a parent.

    In this case, we assume that the Sharon's story worked to cut the father down to every other weekend with his kids, she wants it to work so that all fathers are subject to the same, and she wants it to be good enough to allow her to move far away and not have to coopertate with the father of her children at all.

    To answer questions about the kind of objective evidence would have been acceptable: She could have said that the father was given a drunken driving conviction for driving under the influence with the children in the car, she could have said that 2 witnesses testified in court that they saw him hit her and pull her hair on several occasions. She could have said that a private detective watched the father's house on six consecutive overnight stays and that the father was present for only 4 out of the 152 hours, and the detective testified in court. All of these would be matters of public record, and hold weight. All of these are the types of evidence I was able to provide in court, and if Sharon had that kind of evidence, she would have known to cite it.

75. WolfmanMac Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

    It is with regret that I take up this post, I have been so busy lately that I haven't had time to keep up and it may be only a tired rehash of the statements that have already been made.
    Sharon,
    I write this in the interest of establishing dialogue with one who is obviously passionately involved (or at least iterested) in this topic. I will begin (for purposes of discussion) with the presumption that everything you say is true, the description of your husband and your allegations against him entirely accurate. Here are the questions to which I would require answers before entertaining the idea that your experiences merit a change in my point of view. But before I ask it, I must say lead in with this -
    Approximately 10% of the population group is alcoholic. Contrary to myth, there are not "more" white alcoholics or "less" German alcoholics - alcoholism is a human condition that remains at a farily consistent percentage in the human race, although there may be greater concentrations in geographical/socioeconomic areas, thereby leading to cause and effect questions which I believe account for those "clusters" - i.e. being poor does not lead to alcoholism, but active, untreated alcoholism is a pretty good route to poverty. But I digress.
    Keeping that in mind, also keeping in mind that alcoholism does not discriminate (men and women both become alcoholics and no appreciable difference has been shown, to my knowledge), that means that only (roughly) 5% of the male population fit the description of "alcoholic." If we were to double those numbers, and say fully 10% of the male population is alcoholic (for a total of 20% alcoholism among the subject population), my question still stands - - A 10% subdiviision of the MALE population.
    A further subdivision of those will be of the category "abusive."
    An even further subcategory are "single."
    An even smaller category will be in your age group.
    An even smaller group will live near enough to you to ever even see you.
    An even smaller number of them will ever speak to you.
    An even smaller number will be people you find attractive.
    Even fewer of that group will ask you to see them again.
    Even fewer of them you will agree to see,
    and only one of them you will marry.
    Assuming you come to your present circumstances as a result of phenomenally bad luck, and bear no responsibility for your judgment (as I am willing to grant, for purposes of argument) -
    What makes you think your circumstances, which have occurred in circumstances so bizarre and random that they bring to mind the old adage about enough monkeys with typewriters eventually typing Shakespeare, justify a policy that will deprive millions of men contact with their children? Or justifies the conclusion that even an appreciable percentage of them fit the description you have given of the father of your children?

76. Masculist XY Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    "In all of these carefully crafted criticisms of shared parenting, the word "forced" is substituted for the word presumption."-michael

    Exactly! And that is one of the reasons the ND Shared Parenting Initiative was killed. And the public buys into all that nonsense. That is the saddest part of all.

    Masculist XY

77. Stephen M Weiss Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    Er, Wolfman, while the numbers drop in each of your subsets, the percentages remain roughly the same, 10%, according to the distributive law of multiplication. So the claim of phenomenally bad luck and monkeys and typewriters doesn't really work.

    But your overall point that if a woman agrees to marry and have children with an alcoholic, she should not be then given the prerogative of causing the loss of fathering to the children in the absense of really good evidence that the alcoholism is and will damage the children worse than the loss of fathering.

    Additionally, as Sharon clearly shows that she feels that the two weekends a month to the father is an unfair burden to her, then perforce the logic says that the burden to the father needs to be considered over and above to the damage to the children. Though she did not intend to make the point that fathers rights need to be protected, she effectively does show that when equal protection is applied.

78. Joel Johnston Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 2:09 am

    dan m @ Can anyone either provide me with or direct me to links regarding the current child support system, it's mechanism of enforcement (and how enforcement agencies came to be) and any and all financial incentives (in practice) connected with child support? As well, any links to stories/data on how the current system of child support and divorce law encourages the situation we have now?

    If you would like to see copies of documents received from the Washington State Division of Child Support that are actual copies of contracts they have with Judges in Superior Court to do their hearing with financial incentives, contracts with the Public Prosecutors that pays for their office 100% (also stated on their public website), and contracts with Sheriffs offices to deliver their civil warrants instead of looking at criminal activities then go to http://washingtonsharedparenting.com/web

    Click on the DCS docs link, and a new sub-menu will appear below the main menu. Select the documents you want to see, there are plenty there that were received from the agency as a public disclosure request. One contract is signed by the presiding judge, it states that in exchange for "in-kind" contributions, they will give priorticy services to the agency, and a copy of a timesheet provided by one of the court commissioners, with his signature is provided, demonstrating how their hours for child support collections are documented for re-imbursement.

    Regards.

    Joel Johnston

79. Joel Johnston Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 2:11 am

    Betsy Barton - with regards to accounting for dollars to the states

80. Bill C Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 5:34 am

    Being an alcoholic is not illegal, and not always immoral. She states that he abused her in their short marriage. Does she have a restraining order, and if so is the child listed on the order? Probably not. I like where she thinks that her "civil rights" would be violated if she couldn't move wherever she wants. My bet is that she is a control freak that has to have her way. An entitlement princess that was married to a guy that stuck up for himself.
    It also mentions that he was the one that left. Maybe he was the one that was abused. She says that he could have listened to "just one counsellor" but did she go to Al-Anon? Probably not. That program is for spouces of alcoholics, but a lot of the time the non-alcoholic finds out what their role is, and can't handle it.
    Shared parenting works. I think more legislation should be in place to punish those who make false allegations of abuse to keep the kids from Dad.

81. Sandy Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 9:34 am

    if i'm correct the child as two parents and the right to know both of them, and to spent time with them, this one is just a complete B!tch

82. Alex33 Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am

    Stephen M: "To answer questions about the kind of objective evidence would have been acceptable: She could have said that the father was given a drunken driving conviction for driving under the influence with the children in the car, she could have said that 2 witnesses testified in court that they saw him hit her and pull her hair on several occasions. She could have said that a private detective watched the father's house on six consecutive overnight stays and that the father was present for only 4 out of the 152 hours, and the detective testified in court."

    But those are still just stories. Yes, potentially verifiable, but stories nonetheless unless you know where she was in court and you could even get access to the records (they could be sealed). Also, if you remember, Sharon talked about how evidence was not fully presented because the judge "didn't have time." So even *if* she has that kind of evidence, it may not be in the record.

    You said: "All of these are the types of evidence I was able to provide in court, and if Sharon had that kind of evidence, she would have known to cite it."

    I disagree. Why should Sharon have known to present / cite such evidence? That's what lawyers are for. Sharon may very well have that kind of evidence, but she is clearly distraught. It could very well never have occurred to her to cite such specifics. I am quite savvy when it comes to the law, but I'm not sure I would have thought to do so if I were in her situation. Her situation is her truth. She could very well have been thinking that her truth would be believed because it IS the truth.

83. Alex33 Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 10:40 am

    Bill C: "I think more legislation should be in place to punish those who make false allegations of abuse to keep the kids from Dad."

    I would restate this to read (and I agree): I think more legislation should be in place to punish those who make false allegations of abuse to keep the kids from the other parent.

84. Bill C Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Alex33,
    Si.

85. Stephen M Weiss Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    I see evidence that Sharon has read: http://www.realfamilylaw.com/tutorial-for-women-on-effective-use-of-dv-allegations.php

    Reading this was lke a big deja vu for me, much like reading Sharon's story was. Enjoy.

    Real Domestic Violence Tactics: Tutorial for Women on Effective Use of DV Allegations
    In order to maximize the objectives of your case, whether that be custody of the children, possession of the house, getting a better deal on maintenance/child support, and/or just plain getting revenge, this tutorial will help you get the best results.

    The first thing you have to remember is that all women are assumed to be victims of domestic violence. Years of lobbying by the "domestic violence industry" for harsh laws and state and federal funding have paid off. Most states have draconian domestic violence laws that are there to protect women from abusive men. Mandatory arrest, primary aggressor laws, no-drop policies, monolithic protection/no-contact orders, and harsh penalties for DV crimes are there to punish men, whether guilty of DV or not. Once the system gets him in its tentacles, he will be so messed up you will have a veritable cake-walk to your ultimate goal: total victory.
    Here are some time-honored techniques on how to work the system:

    Get a Plan Ready at the First Sign of Impending Divorce.
    As soon as you sense trouble in the marriage, you must take action. This is especially true if you have been at fault (having an affair, mismanaging money, abusing him or the children, drug/alcohol abuse, etc). Even if there is the slightest possibility of your husband resisting your demands for everything, you need to play the DV card.

    Call the domestic violence hotline for advice. They will give you step-by-step instructions on how to get help with leaving, getting a protection order, filing for divorce. They have free counselors, will give you referrals to free or low-cost legal help, and will put you up in a nice hotel for at least a few days, if not more. (Don't worry if YOU are the domestic violence abuser. This is about helping women, period. Even if you are a CONVICTED DV ABUSER, the DV advocates will help you, not him).
    Throw the Bum Out.

    First step is to contrive a DV incident where your husband gets arrested. Provoke a fight, and hope he responds physically. You can even try asking him, directly or indirectly. "I bet you'd really like to slap me right now." Some men will oblige, although stupidly for sure. Anyway, you don't need to have been hit, pushed, slapped or punched to get him arrested. Call him into the bedroom to talk, and when he comes in the doorway, scream "stop harassing me and let me leave." When he says, "huh?" dart past him out the door, then call 911. Be sure to tell the dispatcher every detail of what happened, his past abuse, threats, and how afraid you are of him. They'll send two or three squad cars out to your house pronto.
    If you attack him first, lose your balance, fall back and bump your head, even better. Now you have "evidence" of his assault.

    When the officers arrive, tremble and cry, and say he lunged at you while threatening to kill you. No proof of this is available, of course, but that doesn't matter, only your word is needed.
    After they remove him in handcuffs, start packing up his things and leave them on the front porch. The court will let him come by with a police officer to get his personal property, and it will go much faster if you've already put his stuff in big garbage bags.

    Next day, go to your local district court and file for a domestic violence protection order. Be sure to ask for the works: no contact with you, the children, no coming back to the house, no going to the children's school, daycare, sports events, etc. If you're not sure what to say, just ask for a DV advocate and they'll help you with the script.
    Acting Tips for DV Victims.

    When you get to the court hearing on the full order for protection, be sure to follow these tips to maximize your effectiveness as a victim.
    When you see him come into the courtroom, dramatically flinch and shrink back.

    Cry, tremble and shake while you're giving your testimony (this is especially effective when you have papers in your hands that rattle loudly).
    Be sure to ask that an armed deputy come inside the courtroom during your hearing. Have him stand between you and the beast, along with a DV advocate or two.

    Maximizing Aggravation of Your Protection Order.
    When you apply for a DVPO, be sure to ask for outrageous restraints against him, such as prohibiting him from being "5000 yards" from your residence, workplace and the children's school. Go online and use a mapping program to draw a large circle around anywhere you'll be, and make sure he has to drive miles out of his way to avoid being in violation of the order. If he has established a separate residence not far from the children's school, so he can easily go to and from, you can even make sure he can't be at his own home without risking arrest.

    Increasing the Chances of Getting Him Arrested for Violation of the Order.
    First, make sure the order is written badly, and has confusing and contradictory provisions that even a lawyer can't decipher.

    Next, call him incessantly, and when he answers and says even a word or two to you, report him for violating the order.
    Even better, contrive an emergency so he will have to come back to the house. Tell him that your car won't start, and ask him sweetly if he could please come over and help? Promise not to turn him in for violating the order. (Remember, YOU are not prohibited from contacting him, so if he gets arrested and complains that you invited him over, he is still screwed and there are no adverse consequences to you).

    Playing with Fire and Not Getting Burned.
    The occasional falsely accused man will become violent solely due to the injustice perpetrated against him. Use your judgment about how far you want to push him. (Check with the NRA on firearms self-defense training).

    Having your husband arrested, charged, convicted and jailed can affect your standard of living. If he is the sole financial support of the family, be sure to have an alternate means of supporting yourself and the children during his incarceration. He will certainly have lost his job by the time he gets out. The stigma of being a convicted DV abuser will prevent him from obtaining a comparable position. Child support and maintenance arrearages will quickly rack up while he's in custody, but don't count on collecting them anytime soon

86. Alex33 Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    Stephen:

    Just because there are instructions out there for the taking doesn't mean Sharon used them. No one can make that assumption, and certainly not someone merely reading her story on the net.

87. Lance Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Excellent site Weiss. Technically the site is a satire, but it looks like she (the author) did a great job capturing the spirit of the law.

88. Stephen M Weiss Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Alex33: Ok, not to get the last shot, but rather because your points are persistent and I owe you a respectful response:

    Nothing I have said says that Sharon IS lying. Not one of my posts says that.

    I have said that the intellectual and political tone one must take is to screen out stories from facts. A fact should be listed as a fact or clearly indicated as such. Sharon's narrative was given as a story, with all the license to exageration that implies.

    You have very carefully gone out of your way to clearly say that you want to assume this woman's claims of abuse are accurate just for the point of discussion, and you think we all should.

    Many posters had no problem stating the generous assumption that Sharon's narrative was accurate. I had no problem with their method, it was clear and accurate.

    We either start changing the culture here by saying that we do not automatically believe claims of rape or abuse, or we promulgate it, including everything it has done. I cannot with good conscience promulgate it, so I move to change it, and all accusations are untrue until proven, and only as true as the proof indicates.

    I have written maybe 15 letters to politicians so far in my work for this issue. I have made a point to list things that were either true on the face or were provable by facts. And I am a man who will not lie to save my ass, but I do this because I hope and assume that the politicians are so used to 'stories' that they just discount letters like Sharon's above. I would hope that Sharon's letter would go in the pile of supporters of the status quo, without so much as a thought in favor of it's veracity.

89. Lance Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Weiss: "We either start changing the culture here by saying that we do not automatically believe claims of rape or abuse, or we promulgate it, including everything it has done. I cannot with good conscience promulgate it, so I move to change it, and all accusations are untrue until proven, and only as true as the proof indicates."

    Excellent point. Often when a letter such as Sharon's appears, the first instinct is to believe it. That is until you realize that - male or female - the alleged perpetrator is just as much a person as Sharon is. Therefore, why should she gain the benefit of the doubt while he does not? I too in good conscience can not support the ideologically-based assumption that she is telling the truth. Women have worked too hard to gain political equality and assuming that he is guilty would fly in the face of that equality. Not to mention the fact that the assumption of his guilt would fly in the face of a fundamental attribute of our justice system: that one is innocent until proven guilty.

90. Lance Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

    Weiss, here's another link from that site you referenced. Wow, kinda puts things in perspective!

    http://www.realfamilylaw.com/confessions-of-a-family-law-reform-activist.php

91. Stephen M Weiss Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

    Yes, my wife and I spent one evening giggling ourselves silly reading that site. It's old and has not been updated for quite a while. However, it is really well done.

    There is a link from Glenn's front page, way down, but it took my wifes thoroughness to dig it up. We both felt it should be rehashed here.

    I don't know where the author has gone, but I am inviting her to my next beach party! What a wit, and all for a good cause!

92. WolfmanMac Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    Stephen -

    You may be right about the statistics.
    I hope you realize that when I said I would accept her story for the sake of assumption, I was not at all assuming it had credence - I just think it is an excellent technique to demolish a tenous position (as hers surely is) by awarding the opposition the highest possible ground. This isn't always a good idea, but it is a pretty safe gambit in this case.

93. Stephen M Weiss Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    Y'up, I understood you implicitly Mac.

    I must admit that I felt the same was true, and so my first post on this topic 2-6-08 7:56pm gave 5 paragraphs, the first 4 did not even address the veracity of her story, only what was on the face correct: her feelings and wishes. Only the last paragraph said the entire veracity of the story needs some objective evidence to be of merit.

    She has not come back with any objective evidence, though it is quite reasonable to expect that she has read this.

94. Rik Little Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 2:07 am

    I don't believe Sharon. She should be the non custodial parent with liberal visitation.

95. Angel Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 8:48 am

    Does anyone know where AB 571 is at this point? If it was introduced on Jan 24th 2008, Where are we at? I am a Wisconsin resident hopeing and praying everyday to hear the words "passed". Thank you.

96. Faith Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 9:55 am

    Sharon and all you other women out there who keep children from their Fathers. Think about this! If you have a son, do you want him to grow up not wanting to have a family? Do you want them to believe that if a marrige fails with children they will not be able to see their own children? Do you support that!

    If you have a daughter, do you want them to grow up knowing that when a marriage fails they have "rights" to keep the children from the Fathers? Do you support that!

    When a marrige fails, it is exactly that, a failed marriage. You continue to raise your children together outside of the marrige. If one parent elects to walk out of those parental responsiblities, than it is up to the other parent to raise the child or children. It can be done. Yes, there are deadbeat parents out there, you can keep wasting your energy to make them become responsible, but who really wins here. No one!

    Don't raise your children in a life that could be theirs one day. If you do not like it, why would you want your children to live it. Support Shared Placement and stop allowing Child Support, Custody battles be part of our children lives.
    Make a difference and start it with teaching our children family values, educate them and raise them to become honorable human beings.

    Children need "both parents" in their lives. This is about the children and about their future. Help and guide them to make this a better world to live.

97. Alex33 Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 11:42 am

    Rik Little Says: February 9th, 2008 at 2:07 am - I don't believe Sharon. She should be the non custodial parent with liberal visitation.

    There's no evidence one way or another to say she should be the NCP, other than your bias against women who allege DV.

98. Rik Little Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    Alex33, you have no idea of all the evidence I have. And your assumption about my alleged bias against women who allege DV, or let us call it 'domestic violence' and understand that in reality 'domestic violence' means almost nothing because it means almost everything. I'm sure that to Sharon not getting a 'mommy call' constitutes a tiny bit of emotional discomfort and under the law IS 'domestic violence' the exact same as a lazy drunken batterrer husband taking a baseball bat and whacking her in the head. And while you raise the word 'evidence', that is also another loaded almost meaningless word. Courts pick and choose what they deem 'evidence' . Family courts especially exclude evidence which does not fit into their predetermined bolstering of the outcome. The Airforce has Radar. I have Nowdar and I know a whiny narciscistic entitled sexist manhating powergrabber child abuser when I come acoss anything they have even remotely touched. Sharon could rationalize forever and I'm sure could make up more excuses and allegations, but the jury is already IN here and she is NOT a good candidate for government shared parenting. Her husband should be the custodial parent and she should get a job to pay child support. The 'shareing' of parent time in this case must be left not to the government but to the better parent. A parent like Sharon who selfishly only wants her own little exclusive doll is perfect NCP material. Case closed. Now get out of my courtroom!

99. Stephen Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

    If you think this generation of teenagers are out of control, just wait for the next one. I've heard columnists and others, in the know, say that some terrible times are on the way. Numerous law-enforcement officers know that the justice system IS going to collapse. A few people came up with a name for the next generation. They call them "Super Predators." Feminists and mothers who are deceived by them have no moral compass and they instill this world-view into their children. Of course I don't look forward to anarchy but with disenfranchised boys being raised in single mother homes that's what you're going to get. The frustration that men and boys have against the system is going to come out somewhere along the line. We need to work now to stave off the backlash. As I've said before, women were foolish for picking this fight with men. For them to think that they could be our masters is just insane.

100. Justin Bowen Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 2:13 am

     I don't know if this thread is done or not, but I have to add my two cents. Where does Sharon get the idea that this bill will change how criminal actions are viewed in custody hearings?

     From the proposed bill:

     In determining the allocation of periods of physical placement,
     Pg3Ln3 the court shall consider each case on the basis of the factors in sub. (5) (am), subject
     Pg3Ln4 to sub. (5) (bm). The court shall set presume that a placement schedule that allows
     Pg3Ln5 the child to have regularly occurring, meaningful periods of physical placement with
     Pg3Ln6 each parent and that maximizes equalizes to the highest degree the amount of time
     Pg3Ln7 the child may spend with each parent, taking into account geographic separation and
     Pg3Ln8 accommodations for different households is in the best interest of the child. The
     Pg3Ln9 presumption under this subdivision is rebutted if the court finds by clear and
     Pg3Ln10 convincing evidence, after considering all of the factors in sub. (5) (am), subject to
     Pg3Ln11 sub. (5) (bm), that equalizing physical placement to the highest degree would not be
     Pg3Ln12 in the child's best interest.

     From existing law:

     767.41(5)
     (5) Factors in custody and physical placement determinations.

     767.41(5)(am)
     (am) Subject to pars. (bm) and (c), in determining legal custody and periods of physical placement, the court shall consider all facts relevant to the best interest of the child. The court may not prefer one parent or potential custodian over the other on the basis of the sex or race of the parent or potential custodian. Subject to pars. (bm) and (c), the court shall consider the following factors in making its determination:

     767.41(5)(am)13.
     13. Whether there is evidence of interspousal battery as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m) or domestic abuse as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am).

     767.41(5)(am)14.
     14. Whether either party has or had a significant problem with alcohol or drug abuse.

     767.41(5)(bm)
     (bm) If the court finds under sub. (2) (d) that a parent has engaged in a pattern or serious incident of interspousal battery, as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), the safety and well-being of the child and the safety of the parent who was the victim of the battery or abuse shall be the paramount concerns in determining legal custody and periods of physical placement.

     Now, I don't know if I have suddenly become illiterate, but it would seem to me as though the authors of this bill have already taken her case into account and have provided for her and the child's safety. Assuming that I have not come down with a case of sudden-illiteracy, it would seem to me that Sharon is totally ignorant of the law. I would suggest to her that she visit the Wisconsin government website and familiarize herself with the law. I'd also suggest to her that she read into the history of no-fault divorce laws (which some people here are familiar with).

101. Jacinta Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 6:40 am

     Most legal objection to shared parenting is really rooted in money...not anything else. The states get MILLIONS in federal grants they can use however they want based on how much money they collect for child support. If both parents support their child 100%, 50% of the time the states lose millions to spend as the wish although the child is better off. Of course the mother's are afraid to lose the extra income as well, the father will buy directly what the child needs instead of sending her a check she can use anyway she wishes. The state will use any excuse to avoid losing the millions of dollars they get each year. How about we start giving states grants for how few divorces they have instead, make the goal keeping families together instead of financial incentive to tear them apart.

102. Scott Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am

     I have been on both sides of this issue and it's very difficult for me. I was a father who was denied visitation or was regularly screwed with. It went so far that after a move away from the east coast to the west coast, I had to buy 3 tickets for each visitation (which were never reimbursed of course). I flew to pick up my then 3 year old son and his mother took him to the beach instead of bringing him to the airport. We barely made our flight back. Another time, I flew in to pick him up and she had flown him out of state to one of her relatives.

     After a long, hard battle I won custody because she is an alcoholic and drug abuser. It took several stints in rehab and drug overdoeses (with our son present) for the courts to give me custody and then it was basically becasue she agreed to it. She was clean for a little while but then I found out she had 2 seperate drunk driving arrests. I petitioned to restrict her visitation to supervised only while she complied with drugs tests and AA. The judge denied my request and said I needed to have my son ready to go spend the summer with his mother. She showed up with her boyfriend and his child to pick my son up. They were both drunk. I refused to send my son.I called the police and they were able to pull them over because the car had expired tags. He went to jail charged with drunk driving and child endangerment. She went to jail also because she assulated a police officer and was also charged with child endangerment. She's done things like this time after time. Our son is now a teen but I am still required to send him for vistation with his mother, despite her problems and the safety risk she poses to our son. It's unbelievable.

     If she were a normal and sane person, I would want my son to spend time with her too and shared parenting would be great but it does not work for all situations.

103. Alex33 Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am

     Stephen Weiss: We either start changing the culture here by saying that we do not automatically believe claims of rape or abuse, or we promulgate it, including everything it has done. I cannot with good conscience promulgate it, so I move to change it, and all accusations are untrue until proven, and only as true as the proof indicates.

     I have written maybe 15 letters to politicians so far in my work for this issue. I have made a point to list things that were either true on the face or were provable by facts. And I am a man who will not lie to save my ass, but I do this because I hope and assume that the politicians are so used to 'stories' that they just discount letters like Sharon's above. I would hope that Sharon's letter would go in the pile of supporters of the status quo, without so much as a thought in favor of it's veracity.

     Point taken. And I accept your position to take all accusations as untrue until proven otherwise, even if I don't agree.

     And I wish everyone took your position to make points that can be substantiated. Unfortunately, not everyone is as unemotional when they write in support or in opposition to legislature, nor does everyone see that their claims may be taken as untrue if more hard evidence is not included.

     But this is politics we're talking about ... heavy on fluff and whims and light on substance as I'm sure many of us here have experienced in a court room.

104. Bob Dobalita Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

     The root of this is about CONTROL. These mommy dearests cant STAND it when someone else has say over what happens to their little babies. Even within the confines of marriage, these things happen. Hell, my wife expressly forbade me to tell our 2.75 year old that it was not ok for him to not tell us he pooped in his diaper. I don't mind that he's not potty trained, but he needs to TELL US when he poops. So anyways, she tells me that we're NOT doing that, and she will NOT let me "punish" him like that. No discussion, no leeway, only her way. I believe that's the heart of the problem. These women think that the buck stops with them.

105. Mike Carolla Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

     There is a legal term "rebuttable presumtion". Basicly the court is to start out with a presumed preferance, in this case, shared parenting, that can be argued against with good cause. It is not a mandate, just an assumed starting place. The case noted here could easily be argued for supervised visitation if all she says is true. In California we have a rebuttable presumtion in custody cases where domestic violence has been alleged. The accused parent does have the right to challenge the allegations. Shared parenting legislation is just a starting place, much as the "every other weekend visitation" has been in the past.

106. Stephen M Weiss Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

     Yes! Scott, you have cited evidence that is verifiable! and it is relevant!

107. Lance Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

     Scott, you might want to read this comment (from above). I think it addresses the concern I believe you are implying: that it shared parenting is not always the best fix, and therefore you question this law. Simply put, if she (or he) is incompetent, then she (or he) is incompetent. There is nothing in this law that would change that. If anything, I think that a law such as this one would have made it easier for you to prove her incompetence since it would have built in the assumption that you (the father) are just as capable as her (the mother). As it stands, it is assumed that she (the mother) is by definition more competent then you (the father).

     http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1720#comment-149362

108. Stephen M Weiss Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

     Wow, Mike Carolla just pointed out that in California the 'rebuttable presumption' means that an accused is guilty unless proven innocent. I have to look this up.

     OUCH!

     Put those responsible for passing this unconstitutional draconian garbage in jail!

109. Rick Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

     Well for every case of the drunk father that neglects the child and the custodial parent is forced to live in the state; there are at least 10 fathers like me. I am the victim of a moveaway and have had to travel every month over 1400 miles to have custody(shared custody of my child). I am relocating to be close to my child when he starts school and continue to have 50/50 custody. But I should not be able to say to my ex who moved away, lied to me and to the court as well as her own attorney, that she will not be allowed to move away again?

110. Scott Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

     Lance...and whoever else...
     The idea of shared parenting in theory is wonderful...the problem lies with society's beliefs and actual practice of the law/court system. With my situation, I have always "shared joint custody" with my ex. It didn't stop her from doing anything that she wanted, any time she wanted, without even discussing it with me. I went to court over and over to enforce my rights and was laughed out- even with major issues on her part. Even when I received custody it was still "joint" despite her alcohol and drug issues. I asked for sole custody when things happened that seriously risked my sons safety and it remained joint. It remained joint because despite any laws that included a rebuttale presumption (she was charged with dv in CA but somehow it wasn't material in our case because it was her second husband she assaulted- not me). We also fought in IA, who has passed a law with the presumption that joint is better. It doesn't matter because society on a whole believes that children are better off with their mothers. It doesn't matter in a court of law because, despite a multitude of evidence as a rebuttal, the judges do whatever they want and generally look out for the mother, not the children or the father.

111. Dan M Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

     "It doesn't matter because society on a whole believes that children are better off with their mothers. It doesn't matter in a court of law because, despite a multitude of evidence as a rebuttal, the judges do whatever they want and generally look out for the mother, not the children or the father."

     And people think I'm an idiot because I think all the legal wrangling is a huge waste of time and resources. Win the hearts, or the minds won't matter.

112. Dan M Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

     More to the point, unless people generally agree men are put upon in many instances, they will seek out any "leeway" or "loopholes" they can find to avoid the intent of the law. If they support you and the law, loopholes become unnecessary. This is why we have an adversarial system in politics, because you NEED the other side to push back or imbalance occurs. We are just a little late to the table is all....nothing that can't be fixed.

     But PR is the first, most important step. And contrary to what others believe, I think this blog is about as relevant to most people's lives as, say, a Honda Fanboy site is to the general car buying public. Marc is doing stuff, Glenn is doing stuff, others are doing stuff.....nothing concerted, nothing focussed, nothing truly effective (yet)....although a couple things have started the ball rolling. I'll call something effective when there's legislation "called for" by the public, not by us.

     There's a few ways to view activism, one being as a legal protester, another being an advocate, and others. I personally think it would be a lot, strike that, a LOT easier and faster to effect change if we convinced the general public to think, and maybe even agree with us. I'm not alone in this although others disagree. My question is and always has been "What you got?" to those who disagree with me.

113. savagebongosacramento Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

     Dear Sharon....What chapter of NOW do you belong to ???

114. Stephen M Weiss Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

     Dan M: I am a professional engineer of the State of California.

     Believe me, your argument that rules mean nothing because the judges are cheaters and wont follow them anyway is only as true as there is no enforcement agency. The State Board of Professional Engineers goes after hundreds of engineers for making mistakes, cheating or not following code every year. The result is that the building codes are rules with teeth.

     Passing the laws is one thing, putting in place a body responsible for oversight that is not beholden to nor derived from the body of judges is another major task.

115. Alex33 Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

     Bob Dobalita: The root of this is about CONTROL. These mommy dearests cant STAND it when someone else has say over what happens to their little babies.

     I agree it is about control, but that is not a goal reserved exclusively for mommies. It's just that the majority of the time, with courts favoring moms, they're the ones who can exercise the control.

     I do have some concern that with presumed shared physical, it could actually make the control piece worse - I'm not sure. And no, I'm not saying that means I don't support shared physical, because I absolutely do.

     However, when there is control involved, and children are being used as a weapon in that means to an end, then I wish the courts would step in and ... I don't know ... maybe take away the shared for a period of time until the controlling parent calms down? But of course, this wouldn't work, because it's not like the courts actually do anything as it is ... and it's not like they actually give a crap about kids.

     But it is a nice thought.

116. Alex33 Says:
     February 12th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

     the judges do whatever they want and generally look out for the mother, not the children

     I would modify this slightly to read, "judges do whatever they want and generally don't look out for the children."

     And this, my friends, is it in a nutshell.

     This shouldn't be about mothers ... OR fathers.

117. Dan M Says:
     February 13th, 2008 at 12:29 am

     "This shouldn't be about mothers ... OR fathers."

     This sort of thinking has always bothered me. The whole idea of everything being done in the name of/for the sake of the children just doesn't jive with me. If something is in my kid's best interest, but is not in my best interest, should not be forced upon me. Ergo, my rights as a father should supercede those of my children. To use a small example, kid wants new jeans with the right label, which I would have to pay for. Benefit to child = peer group approval, detriment to me, cash. Now, why should I be FORCED to pay for the kids jeans? Either in or out of wedlock?

     The logic follows throughout.

118. Bart Says:
     February 13th, 2008 at 9:50 am

     I tend to agree with Sharon in some regards.

     I am a man who actually does have full custody of my child. I am extremely fortunate that I have what I do. After my ex-wife chose to abandon her 18 month old child and husband to pursue a relationship with an internet lover, I still had to fight the big business of family law to protect myself and protect my son. The big business of family law has always been historically anti-male and cost me a lot of time, money, and pain. Had my ex-wife ran off with my child to be with her lover, my relationship with my son may have been severed and the big business of family law would have allowed it. I truly can sympathize with men that this happens to. I have known many good men who only did the best for their family who were not as fortunate as me.

     I can also sympathize with Sharon's situation because of the heartache I see in my son from the pain caused by his mother. My son is innocent and deserved nothing less than a happy home with two loving parents loyal to the family. I believe that a child deserves to have a healthy relationship with both parents with an emphasis on "healthy". Fortunately, despite his mother's choices, we have still been able to maintain a good and healthy relationship with my child's maternal grandparents.

     Although I believe that the big business of family law needs to be thoroughly repaired, I still have not been convinced that presumed shared parenting is going to fix it. As I sympathize with the many, many men who have been treated unfairly, I just don't see how tossing a child back and forth like a rag doll is in the best interests of a child, even when both parents appear to be "fit". A child deserves to call a place home rather than being constantly on the move. Now, this may work for some older children who are more emotionally developed, but young children thrive on routine and consistency which would be difficult to achieve when being tossed to and fro every day.

     The problem with the big business of family law is that the mother has historically been the presumed caretaker and the father has been the presumed bad guy. Even in states that have laws now stating that there can be no gender bias in determining custody, this underlying presumption still exists. Historically, in our society, mothers have generally been the caretakers and fathers have generally been the breadwinners. What the big business of family law needs to understand is that when a marriage is dissolved, each parent must take on the dual role of both caretaker and breadwinner. It then must be determined who is best suited to fulfill both roles to better meet the needs of the children. I believe that many more men should truly have custody of their children, but they did not get treated as fairly as they should.

     Please understand that I don't intend to minimize or eliminate the non-custodial parent. When the non-custodial parent can have a good and healthy relationship with the child, that should be encouraged. I have seen situations where the forced relationship with the non-custodial parent isn't necessarily good for the child, but I have also seen situations where the non-custodial parent has a very positive relationship with the child and this relationship should not be limited. Every single situation is unique and individual and should be considered uniquely and individually. And to presume one arrangement will work for all situations is erroneous. The rights and needs of the children should always supersede the rights and wants of the parents.

119. Lance Says:
     February 13th, 2008 at 10:10 am

     Bart: "The rights and needs of the children should always supersede the rights and wants of the parents."

     I couldn't disagree more. When did we become such a kid-centric society? Sad really. Growing up used to be about surviving adversity and building character...now it is about getting everything handed to you on a silver platter. Then we have the growing number of people that want to make the internet kid-friendly because they are incapable of raising their own kids and they want all of us to do it for them. The fact is sometimes kids do need discipline and sometimes their rights/needs are best served by having them superseded by the rights/wants of the parents.

120. Bart Says:
     February 13th, 2008 at 10:43 am

     Lance,

     When I speak of the rights and NEEDS of a child, it is to be understood that a child needs to be guided and appropriately disciplined and parented by a parent who is capable of doing this. By no means should a child be spoiled and get their way with everything. This is not about giving the child whatever they want. This is about providing for their needs emotionally, physically, mentally, etc. so that the child has the best opportunity to survive adversity and build character.

     Why should a child's needs be sacrificed by the wants of a selfish parent? Why should a child be subjected to long-term emotional and psychological damage and in some cases developmental damage or some other endangerment due to the idea that the rights of the parents supersede the rights of the child?

     Scott,

     I read your comments and I can entirely understand and sympathize with what you have been through. I feel that if I were a women after everything my former spouse put my son and I through, I would have had the world handed to me on a silver platter by the courts. And it would have been at a small fraction of the cost, time, and pain that I had to go through not to mention that I wouldn't have had to have the mountains of evidence that I did just to get someone to hear me out. Shared parenting may work for some situations, but it should not be enforced on situations like yours and mine.

121. Alex33 Says:
     February 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

     Justin: Now, I don't know if I have suddenly become illiterate, but it would seem to me as though the authors of this bill have already taken her case into account and have provided for her and the child's safety. Assuming that I have not come down with a case of sudden-illiteracy, it would seem to me that Sharon is totally ignorant of the law. I would suggest to her that she visit the Wisconsin government website and familiarize herself with the law. I'd also suggest to her that she read into the history of no-fault divorce laws (which some people here are familiar with).

     No, you're not illiterate. Who knows - maybe Sharon simply took the bill at face value and didn't actually read it in it's totality.

122. Alex33 Says:
     February 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

     I said: "This shouldn't be about mothers ... OR fathers."

     Dan M saidL This sort of thinking has always bothered me. The whole idea of everything being done in the name of/for the sake of the children just doesn't jive with me. If something is in my kid's best interest, but is not in my best interest, should not be forced upon me. Ergo, my rights as a father should supercede those of my children. To use a small example, kid wants new jeans with the right label, which I would have to pay for. Benefit to child = peer group approval, detriment to me, cash. Now, why should I be FORCED to pay for the kids jeans? Either in or out of wedlock?

     My comment is related to the courts in their determinations. I can't imagine you would take up the issue with the "right label" jeans in a court of law.

     And so no, "The logic" does not "follow throughout."

     And I disagree that buying "the right label" jeans is necessarily viewed as "the best interests of the child." It could be viewed as materialism ... or indulgence.

     Looking at a more court-pertinent issue - cellphones. One of my children has been asking for one since she was 8. Three years later, many of her friends have them. Is it in her best interests to get her one just because her friends have them? I don't think so. She doesn't need one. When she does need one, then yes, it is in her best interests (although the "need" for a cellphone for anyone could easily be challenged ... but for the sake of argument I'm going with it).

     Right now it would simply be over-indulgence ... just so she can say, "See, look what I have!" Or, "Mine's better than yours!" Or, worse yet, (not that she would actually say this, but this would be the message), "I got one because you have one so I can be just like you."

     Definitely NOT in her best interests. Doesn't change the fact that she asks about it and wants one on at least a weekly basis.

123. Alex33 Says:
     February 13th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

     Bart: I just don't see how tossing a child back and forth like a rag doll is in the best interests of a child, even when both parents appear to be "fit". A child deserves to call a place home rather than being constantly on the move. Now, this may work for some older children who are more emotionally developed, but young children thrive on routine and consistency which would be difficult to achieve when being tossed to and fro every day.

     You are completely correct that children thrive on routine, especially young ones (and, depending on their personality, so do older ones).

     But who is defining routine? To my children, routine has always been (as far back as they can remember), going back and forth. Ask my children what they call home and they will tell you, "Mommy's house and Daddy's house." My children think they're special/lucky because they have two rooms, two beds, two sets of clothes, etc.

     It's all a matter of perspective.

     Does a child who goes to daycare because the parent/parents are working not have a routine? Do they have more instability than a child who is home with one parent as the full-time caretaker? There are benefits (and drawbacks) to both.

     Some people might argue that children who have a different routine (in that they spend their time in multiple places with multiple people around) are more flexible and resilient than those who spend their time in one place with one caretaker.

124. Alex33 Says:
     February 13th, 2008 at 1:18 pm

     Bart: Shared parenting may work for some situations, but it should not be enforced on situations like yours and mine.

     The Shared Parenting Bill is not intended to be forced on situations like yours. In the case of abandonment, I don't believe Shared Parenting would be waranted.

     The bill is intended (at least from my understanding), for parents to go into a court where the presumption is shared physical, and so long as there aren't issues like D&A or abandonment or abuse or whatever, shared is what will be presumed (and hopefully ordered). This is in contrast to many courts where the presumption is with the mother and father has his every other and one night ... the *typical* custodial arrangement.

125. Dan M Says:
     February 13th, 2008 at 10:40 pm

     "Dan M saidL This sort of thinking has always bothered me. The whole idea of everything being done in the name of/for the sake of the children just doesn't jive with me. If something is in my kid's best interest, but is not in my best interest, should not be forced upon me. Ergo, my rights as a father should supercede those of my children. To use a small example, kid wants new jeans with the right label, which I would have to pay for. Benefit to child = peer group approval, detriment to me, cash. Now, why should I be FORCED to pay for the kids jeans? Either in or out of wedlock?

     My comment is related to the courts in their determinations. I can't imagine you would take up the issue with the "right label" jeans in a court of law.

     And so no, "The logic" does not "follow throughout.""

     -------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sure it does...what if I lost my job while still married and had to move to a smaller house...that's OK, but if it happens after I divorce the child has the "right" to the standard of living they were used to? How about if Mom wants to move away because her new man has a great big house with a pool in another State, it's definitely better for the kid (more cash, nicer house, etc), does his/her right to better stuff supercede my "right" to see my children? What if he/she wants to move (say, because if they do they'll get a new car)? Would that be fair? If that were the case, why is it not legal to just show up at some house and steal the kids......and get away with it because you have more money, ergo better life for the kid?

     These are all extensions of the same kind of thinking....also, the parent is the only one not allowed to make this determination.

     As for the sole physical custody supporters out there....I'll believe you truly believe removing one parent to visitor status is a good thing....the day you give your children to your ex and allow him/her YOUR sole custody. Never met a sole custody supporter that didn't have it.

     I'm just sayin'

126. Alex33 Says:
     February 14th, 2008 at 10:59 am

     Dan: How about if Mom wants to move away because her new man has a great big house with a pool in another State, it's definitely better for the kid (more cash, nicer house, etc), does his/her right to better stuff supercede my "right" to see my children? What if he/she wants to move (say, because if they do they'll get a new car)? Would that be fair?

     My initial reaction is no, it's not necessarily fair. But that depends on how you look at it, and it depends on each unique situation. Why is it that more cash, a nicer house, etc. is "better" for a child? It is if those are the values you think are important, in which case you wouldn't be questioning whether it's fair.

     It's not fair that I am selling my house (in a crappy market no less) because I can't move my children into my (better) school district, but I'm doing it to be closer to them and to be in their school district so they have friends close by. It's not fair that where I have to move is more expensive than where I'm living now ... but I have to work it out because my belief is it's just what I have to do. It is a choice - stay here and deal with being far away, or work it out to be closer. I have chosen to make my life more difficult because my children are that important. No, it's not fair, but life isn't fair. We all have to make sacrifices, and I don't necessarily think it's a bad things for kids to have to see that sometimes you sacrifice things that you want because of things that are more difficult, but more important in the long run.

     If I wanted to do whatever I want, whenever I want, and wherever I want, I shouldn't have had kids.

     So to me, fair doesn't come into it as I deal with the stress of moving... or when I think about the hand I've been dealt in this custody b.s. It is what it is, and I can either throw myself a pity party because of how unfair it is, or I can move on and figure out how to live with it (and what I can do about it). I choose to move on.

127. Bart Says:
     February 14th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

     Dan M: "I'll believe you truly believe removing one parent to visitor status is a good thing....the day you give your children to your ex and allow him/her YOUR sole custody."

     If I ever allowed myself to seriously endanger my child and be extremely detrimental to his well-being and development, then perhaps I would need sole custody removed. I would hope that I could see clearly enough that I would be willing to do that if that were truly in the best interests of my child. Whether or not I could see it to be in the best interests of my child, I know that I would experience a tremendous amount of heartache as a result. It would hurt and I wouldn't like it, but my child's well-being is more important than me.

     And, yes, I have known good fathers who have allowed their ex to maintain primary physical custody of their children because they felt it would provide more stability and be in the best interests of their children. Every situation is unique and individual. There is not a one size fits all solution.

     Alex33: "We all have to make sacrifices, and I don't necessarily think it's a bad things for kids to have to see that sometimes you sacrifice things that you want because of things that are more difficult, but more important in the long run."

     Alex, you are a true example of what the fight should really be about. Your willingness to make sacrifices for the benefit of your children is commendable. Many men have been given a bad deal in custody disputes which many times is not in the best interest of the child. The focus of the cause should be on what the child is losing not on what the father is losing (even though the father many times is unfairly burdened). Society and the Family Law system will not listen to us if all we ever do is cry that we are victims. Once we are able to move on and do what we need to and show that this is not about us and that it is about the welfare of our children, then they may start listening. Hopefully, they will finally take notice that it is not in the best interests of the child to unfairly burden the father.

128. Dan M Says:
     February 15th, 2008 at 10:48 pm

     No Bart, I mean right now, for no reason, give the ex YOUR sole custody. Not only if he/she meets your standards or whether or not you think they would make a good parent or want the kids even. Barring an actual court finding of unfitness, hand over your kids and we'll talk. Otherwise, you're blowing a lot of hot air from up there on this issue. You have NO right to tell those without custody that the current practice is just fine.

     Of COURSE it's just fine, you still get to tuck your kids in at night, and make popcorn and watch movies with them, and make them do their homework....in short, time with your kids isn't time you want to pack everything in you can because you'll not see them again for a while. You don't have to feel like you're pumping your kids for information because you're curious as to how their life is going, and you don't really know.... You're not the one beginning to realize there's no point to it all when it can be so easily taken away....

     No, you have custody, and of the two situations, yours requires FAR less "adjustment". You have no moral ground to stand on telling us what is best for the kids, and that we need to make "sacrifices" for them. You truly believe that? Fine. YOU "sacrifice" for them while they live with your ex. How does that sound? The line forms to the left by the way....

129. Dan M Says:
     February 15th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

     OK Alex, explain to me how wanting my rights recognized is the same as doing "whatever I want, whenever I want".

     Some people think wanting something for yourself is (gasp, horror) ok. Seriously, it's people that go so far overboard in "the best interests of the children" that result in selfish, pampered children running the home, with the parents falling over themselves to be their kid's "best friend". If that's what you want to do, then fine, go ahead. But I am not of that mindset, and at this time anyway, there is no nationally mandated set of acceptable parenting practices published (like they are trying to do in the UK)....so I still get to decide how to parent.

     I do not share your view. Replace "children" with "family" and I think we might be able to talk. Kids don't have full responsibilities until they're 18, they shouldn't have full rights until then either. Fathers should definitely be on an equal footing with mothers, and BOTH parent's rights should supersede those of their children, since they are responsible for the children.

     I know, I know, that makes me a bastard.

     So be it.

130. None Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 8:52 am

     You all freak out about "control" - which is exactly what you want. If you'd stop woman hating for a LITTLE bit and relax, maybe the mom would OFFER shared parenting. You go around bad mouthing and calling mom's mommy dearest. You don't think that attitude reflects off this site (and possibly even to your children - think about this - VERY deeply)? Sharon claims abuse....oh....better give the abuser custody because I don't beleive her. Are you kidding me? I think you are jumping the gun a bit there. Sure...the kid would be better in the hands of a drunk then a loving mother who is scared and was seriously decieved. I've been there myself.

     The type of man is called a player and abuser. Most don't abuse or show true colors until after the first child is born. I won't even go into my issues...I do have facts (and witnesses) to back me up (though it's likely not enough but things are getting better - which makes me happy!!). Grow up...Stop whinning...put your chin up and BE NICE!!! Respect your childrens mothers (even if you aren't getting it) and they WILL respect you eventually. Someone has to be the better person! Let that person be you!

     And finally...don't assume everyone lies. There are still nice honest people out there. Getting "facts" of abuse are harder than you think. Most abusers don't do it in front of witnesses, recordings and videos are rarely allowed, police investigations come back "unsubstantiated" - can't be proven or disproven despite the 4yr old girl having a dislocated elbow....etc. PI's are expensive.

     I won't even touch on child support here...because these two issues aren't related in the law.

     My final statement....be the BIGGER person. This doesn't mean call women/mothers names, suggest custody switches for no reason etc. You may have been dealt a raw hand...but the bitterness you treat it with hurts you more than the law does - even if you don't think others see it. They likely do.

     Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

131. Bernie Misiura Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 9:04 am

     None, you seem to have no bitterness, none at all.

     b

132. Bernie Misiura Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 9:38 am

     Now for the meat and potatoes . . .

     None Says:

     March 26th, 2008 at 8:52 am
     You all freak out about "control" - which is exactly what you want. If you'd stop woman hating for a LITTLE bit and relax, maybe the mom would OFFER shared parenting.

     It is not her decision to offer or not. It is only right that the father have shared parenting and anything else like "offering" is nothing but arrogance and selfishness in my book after all he is thier parent too.

     You go around bad mouthing and calling mom's mommy dearest. You don't think that attitude reflects off this site (and possibly even to your children - think about this - VERY deeply)? Sharon claims abuse....oh....better give the abuser custody because I don't beleive her. Are you kidding me? I think you are jumping the gun a bit there. Sure...the kid would be better in the hands of a drunk then a loving mother who is scared and was seriously decieved. I've been there myself.

     Do you think that not allowing shared parenting does not affect the kids? Time, distance, creates a lack of connection, caring, and love, and this will reflect on the kids, think about that for a while, personally I DO NOT CARE about Sharon's pesonal experience, this may sound cruel but it is not because she is being unreasonable to everyone else out of seemingly a revenge move. YOU DO NOT PUNISH AL MEN FOR THE ACTIONS OF ONE! This would be like saying men and women drink and drive so cars are no longer legal. Seriously deal with logic.

     The type of man is called a player and abuser. Most don't abuse or show true colors until after the first child is born. I won't even go into my issues...I do have facts (and witnesses) to back me up (though it's likely not enough but things are getting better - which makes me happy!!).

     Again see above

     Grow up...Stop whinning...put your chin up and BE NICE!!! Respect your childrens mothers (even if you aren't getting it) and they WILL respect you eventually. Someone has to be the better person! Let that person be you!

     Grow up? Just because you are losing the ball game you want to take your bat and ball and go home, so I ask you who needs to grow up? There are several poorly behaving feminists out there so I think that all feminist groups like NOW should be illegal, how about that? Is this your example of how to be nice? Is those how you respect your children's fathers? (even if you are not getting money or what you want out of the relationship) and they will respect you eventually. Some one has to be the better person let it start with you.

     And finally...don't assume everyone lies. There are still nice honest people out there.

     Including or excluding men?

     Getting "facts" of abuse are harder than you think. Most abusers don't do it in front of witnesses, recordings and videos are rarely allowed, police investigations come back "unsubstantiated" - can't be proven or disproven despite the 4yr old girl having a dislocated elbow....etc. PI's are expensive.

     This is true even if women are the abusers

     I won't even touch on child support here...because these two issues aren't related in the law.

     Me neither because I have only known women who did not pay

     My final statement....be the BIGGER person. This doesn't mean call women/mothers names, suggest custody switches for no reason etc. You may have been dealt a raw hand...but the bitterness you treat it with hurts you more than the law does - even if you don't think others see it. They likely do.

     We have been the bigger person for many a year and it is not working so now we have learned a lesson the hard way and we are taking care of ourselves FIRST, because if we do not we have learned that no one else is going to. It seems that women are greatly threatened by this. So please for your sake to not call men/fathers names deny visitation, give us a raw deal because you can, because WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE and it will get out how women treat men and it will hurt you more than the law does and others will see how you have been treating the men/fathers in your life even if you think they do not see it.

     Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

     Yep, nice way to set an example.

     b

133. None Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 9:41 am

     I'll say thank you...as I assume you are a truthful person. :o) Though it does sound more like sarcasm....

     Have a good day! Off to work!

134. None Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 9:43 am

     Ooops. I guess you weren't being truthful in your last post. Sorry.

135. None Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 9:51 am

     No...it's really NOT up to the mom (or CP) to "Offer" shared parenting but wouldn't it be better if you both came to the table WANTING it? It'd make life a lot easier. By working together and respecting one another even if one has to put the chin up and be the bigger person in a tough spot....life and custody would be MUCH easier for all.

     I said nice honest people...that encompasses all....men and women.

     I did not argue for or against shared parenting....don't assume I did. And...I was also not gender specific. Women can be abusers. Women can be deadbeat parents. Women can be drunks. Women can be unfit.

     I'm sorry if you've had a tough time.

136. Bernie Misiura Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 9:53 am

     Ooops, you commented after you read the second post, boy how clever of you to try and twist what I have posted, really I could not see through that at all. Seems to me that you just implied that you are a player and dishonest especially since it took you 37 and 39 minutes respectively to post your ruse, WOW. Now bail, another clever move on your part . . .

     b

137. Bernie Misiura Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 9:56 am

     What happened to work? Honestly? Was that sarcasm?

     b

138. None Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 9:58 am

     I wrote it...held my daughter...gave her a kiss...packed her lunch....brushed her hair....then clicked submit. Sorry. Live and learn eh?

     Again...have a good day!

139. Bernie Misiura Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 10:22 am

     Hmmm None doing some backpedaling here?

     None Says:

     March 26th, 2008 at 9:51 am

     "No...it's really NOT up to the mom (or CP) to "Offer" shared parenting but wouldn't it be better if you both came to the table WANTING it?"

     Yes it would but you implied by your statement "You all freak out about "control" - which is exactly what you want. If you'd stop woman hating for a LITTLE bit and relax, maybe the mom would OFFER shared parenting." Is that men want it and women do not offer it because they are mad at the man in their life. . .

     "It'd make life a lot easier. By working together and respecting one another even if one has to put the chin up and be the bigger person in a tough spot....life and custody would be MUCH easier for all."

     Yep like the women not using the kids as a weapon to punish a father by denying 50-50 parenting

     "I said nice honest people...that encompasses all....men and women."

     OK just wanted to be sure because of the many implications you made about men

     "I did not argue for or against shared parenting....don't assume I did."

     Oh, I see then why did you post on this thread? I thought it was a blog about shared parenting. I believe it is a reasonable assumption that some one would post here about the way the felt about shared parenting one way or another, silly me, sorry.

     "And...I was also not gender specific. Women can be abusers. Women can be deadbeat parents. Women can be drunks. Women can be unfit.

     I'm sorry if you've had a tough time."

     I am sorry again I guess it was statemments you used like:

     "You all freak out about "control" - which is exactly what you want. If you'd stop woman hating for a LITTLE bit and relax, maybe the mom would OFFER shared parenting. You go around bad mouthing and calling mom's mommy dearest. You don't think that attitude reflects off this site (and possibly even to your children - think about this - VERY deeply)? Sharon claims abuse....oh....better give the abuser custody because I don't beleive her. Are you kidding me? I think you are jumping the gun a bit there. Sure...the kid would be better in the hands of a drunk then a loving mother who is scared and was seriously decieved. I've been there myself.

     The type of man is called a player and abuser. Most don't abuse or show true colors until after the first child is born. I won't even go into my issues...I do have facts (and witnesses) to back me up (though it's likely not enough but things are getting better - which makes me happy!!). Grow up...Stop whinning...put your chin up and BE NICE!!! Respect your childrens mothers (even if you aren't getting it) and they WILL respect you eventually. Someone has to be the better person! Let that person be you!

     This doesn't mean call women/mothers names, suggest custody switches for no reason etc. You may have been dealt a raw hand...but the bitterness you treat it with hurts you more than the law does - even if you don't think others see it. They likely do.

     Do onto others as you would have them do onto you."

     I guess I was confused by all your references to men and how they should treat women/mothers, sorry again.

     b

140. Bernie Misiura Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am

     None Says:

     March 26th, 2008 at 9:58 am

     I wrote it...held my daughter...gave her a kiss...packed her lunch....brushed her hair....then clicked submit. Sorry. Live and learn eh?

     Again...have a good day!

     = = =

     You must live in another part of the country, I did that for my 2 daughters and 1 son about 3 1/3 hours ago it is my oldest girls birthday today so I also sung her happy birthday. . .

     See you after and have a great day at work!

     b

141. None Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

     Cool! I love birthdays!

     I'm back briefly but then will be out again....

     Actually...I'm a self employeed consultant. So my hours vary. Today, I was supposed to leave at 9:30 but was running behind. I typically take Mondays off work and work late Wednesdays and some Fridays getting home early on Tues and Thurs. Now you know my schedule.

     Sure...there were a couple of references to father/mother. Meant in regards to this post is covered mostly by fathers and is a fathers rights post and the letter was by a mother. When I wrote in general terms...not specific to her or my issue...I attempted to be gender nuetral.

     Also....unless you changed posting names - you didn't even post here until AFTER I did. So this was not at all directed at you.

     No backpeddling. My daughter comes first...not refreshing in case I miss something being sure to copy my txt and paste it back in if I didn't. When she crawls in my lap...the rest of my world is put on hold.

     It is REALLY hard to "prove" abuse, so the presumption of shared parenting is something I find hard to support without knowing more about the specifics - there...I made a vague and undecided opinion. I hid my bruises...and didn't talk about my daughters until I finally succeeded in getting him to leave in a nice fashion without fear of retribution.

     Must run....two more calls to make then I got to try and get dinner!

142. Bernie Misiura Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

     None Says:

     March 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

     It is REALLY hard to "prove" abuse,

     No, I disagree

     so the presumption of shared parenting is something I find hard to support without knowing more about the specifics - there...I made a vague and undecided opinion.

     I agree but the right of shared parenting should not be taken away until there is discovery of abuse, otherwise if you were angry at . . . say a neighbor . . . you could report them for reckless driving and you could use the police to harass them and wright them a ticket . . . this does not happen an officer must witness the reckless driving or the ticket is not written . . . this is only fair

     I hid my bruises...and didn't talk about my daughters until I finally succeeded in getting him to leave in a nice fashion without fear of retribution.

     But accusations could be used as a preemptive retribution

     Must run....two more calls to make then I got to try and get dinner!

     Catch you later, we must eat, get the youngest daughter from play practice, and get stuff for the oldest daughters birthday, she wants to spend it at the fire hall with the firemen tonight . . .

     b

143. None Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 8:15 pm

     Well...you've pretty well made it clear that you will never see what it is like from the other side, so I won't press the issue.

     I'll just say I'm happy that I and my daughter have survived so far...and hope we continue to!

     I just hope some people (no names here) can remember to be nice and talk nice about others...even if the others are mean nasty and vicious (especially if we share children with said person). Just sometimes...those nasty people MAY be nice back then situations like this wouldn't be so hard. It doesn't always work of course...but it sure makes me sleep better not to sink to those levels.

     I just think it's an awful waste of energy to distrust everyone and be so hateful (as some people here were).

     I gotta finish work...LATE night. Helping my daughter with a home art project too. Everyone...enjoy your kids!!!

144. Factory Says:
     March 26th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

     None:

     I think you might want to recalibrate your "hateful" meter. Disagreement is not hateful. Saying un-PC things is not hateful, no matter what PC-thinkers want to define it as. Open discussion without differing "rules of engagement" is not hateful. Saying distasteful things isn't even hateful.

     Ever actually listen to a room full of single older women talk about men? Hell, even mixed company sitting around a table in a lounge or something... seriously, pay attention to what you hear women say, out loud, right in front of their husbands/SO's.

     But the key is, you have to view "Bobbitt" jokes as if men were talking about carving your clitoris out and throwing it out the window on the highway, as retribution for "cheating". Picture these men laughing, red faced hysterical, and then turning to you and seeing nothing at all wrong with saying "Behave yourself" and then bursting out laughing again. Picture watching television and watching comedians make jokes about carving clitorises for weeks after, then laughing at female discomfort at the thought.

     Picture a society where this is not at all out of the ordinary.

     Then come back, and call us hateful.

Leave a Comment