'California Lawyer' Magazine Covers Fathers' Rights Movement
March 4th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families"Being a divorced dad doesn't necessarily make David C. Stone an effective advocate for fathers. But it certainly doesn't hurt. 'I understand what they're going through,' says the 57-year-old sole practitioner, whose family law practice caters almost exclusively to men. 'I've been married three times; I've given away houses. I also had visitation rights with a son who had moved to Arizona. I realize how difficult and painful divorce can be. The only reason I pursue this line of work is that children need two actively engaged parents.'
"Such work puts Stone on the front lines of what both supporters and critics call the fathers' rights movement (FRM)-a movement with roots that go all the way back to the 1970s. However, it would be something of a stretch to think of it as a highly organized crusade. As Glenn Sacks, a proponent and frequent radio commentator, observes, for fathers' rights there's 'no dominant unifying organization like the NAACP in the civil rights context. It's more a loose confederation.'
"It's also a cause that has drawn an eclectic group of activists to its ranks. Take Sacks: A nonlawyer, he is perhaps the closest thing that the FRM has to a public tribune. Yet he's never been divorced, and is in fact happily married with two children. Other prominent figures include Anne Mitchell, a Stanford Law School graduate who was abandoned by her mother at age three, raised by her father until age eleven, then moved in with another family; Krystal R. Clemens, who 16 years ago started DadsLaw, Inc., a family law practice in Orange County that runs a nationwide network of affiliate lawyers; and Craig Candelore, an Army Reserve colonel and the founding attorney of the Men's Legal Center of San Diego.
"Despite their varied backgrounds, all share a strong belief that on such emotionally charged issues as child custody and visitation, the family-court system is stacked against men."
California Lawyer magazine covers the Fathers' Rights Movement in the #2 story in its March issue--The Dad-Vocates by Bill Blum. The article covers a variety of issues and mentions a couple of family law attorney David C. Stone's cases.
In one case, "a dying man, now living in Virginia, wants to have his kids with him this summer, but the children's mother agreed to send them for only a week, preferring after that to ship them off to Hawaii for a vacation with her parents." Nice lady.
Blum writes about Nathaniel S., who in 1997 had a son with his live-in girlfriend in Tustin:
"They never married but seemed to enjoy a conventional relationship-until it unraveled in 2003. The next year, says Stone, the boy's mother, without consulting Nathaniel, took the child to live in Jacksonville, Florida.
"Stone says Nathaniel didn't go straight to court because he believed he'd get to see his son the following summer under an informal agreement with the child's mother. Nathaniel also didn't believe he'd get much help from the legal system. But when, according to Stone, it became clear that the child's mother had no intention of sending the child to visit, Nathaniel called DadsLaw.
"Stone acted quickly, securing a presumptive finding of paternity and an order requiring that Nathaniel's son be sent back to Orange County to spend the summer with his father. Nathaniel also was ordered to pay child support (currently $930 per month). Although Nathaniel has continued to make the payments, Stone says, the visitation order was ignored and Nathaniel lost contact with his son, now ten.
"Increasingly desperate, Nathaniel tracked down Stone last spring at his solo practice. The pair then returned to court for what promised to be a battle royal. "It took two months and over $2,000 in costs," Stone says, "but we finally managed to serve the mother in Florida with a new order to show cause."
"The order sought monetary sanctions against the child's mother and, ultimately, an order awarding Nathaniel primary physical custody of his son. Stone says he was also prepared to put on a reverse "move-away" case, referring to a long line of appellate decisions delineating the rights of custodial parents to relocate with their children. (For example, In re Marriage of Burgess, 13 Cal. 4th 25 (1996); In re Marriage of LaMusga, 32 Cal. 4th 1072 (2004).) And he was ready to invoke a claim of parental alienation syndrome (PAS), a doctrine asserting that children may become alienated from one parent as a result of the hostile actions or words of the other parent. (The notion that PAS can be considered a full-blown psychological disorder, on par with, say, post-traumatic stress disorder, however, remains highly controversial.)
"'Nathaniel grew up without his father,' Stone says, 'and he wanted to break that cycle' with his own son. On January 7 the judge in the case ordered the boy to stay with his father this summer and go back to his mother in the fall, after which there would then be another review."
Read the full article here.
"));
19 queries. 0.384 seconds.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Glenn, children are maternal possessions after all, living trophies to be showed off like prize-winning dogs or ponys for all to see in order to be impressed by the mother concerned. I encouraged my own children yet again about the positive experience they had on their February school vacation spending a day with their maternal grandparents bowling yet again. Most of the rest of the time my children played 'the latchkey game' inside their mom's home 700 feet into the woods, supervised by their eldest brother, as they have been since my eldest son was 12 or 13. Surely better than spending any time being fathered by their biological, natural father.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Another aspect of this socialist-feminist-misandrist-child predatory genre is the awarding of 'trophies' to children who merely inhale oxygen on any soccer field, swimming pool, etc. To me, Youth Soccer is little different than 'The Soccer Youth', with its statist 'politically correct organized activities' over natural parenting, especially natural fathering. The PAS phenomenon and snitchery to me is remenecent of the manipulation of children against undesirable adults (as well as children) as displayed in the movie "Swing Kids". For all the faults of that movie, if you've had government fascistly confiscate or help 'turn your children against you', the movie succeeds to some extent in hitting home. My 17 year old son has had the movie since he was perhaps 13 years of age and has yet to view it within the realm of the maternal Death Star where lordess Vader presides.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Mike - Oh boy, did you ever hit the proverbial nail right on the head. The kids are mom's little extension of their narcissistic selfs. Look how perfect in every way my little Johnny is, they say to themselves. "That must mean I am the best mom in the world." Youth sports are completely out of hand with parents that can't get themselves (men and women) and their unfulfilled lives and egos out of the way for the child to have their own experience. As a coach, I got a good laugh at your Trophy point. My son had a room full of trophies by the age of 9. He even said after winning the league when he was 8 that all the other trophies don't make sense to him. He and I agreed that trophies should be for exceptional seasons and especially memorable team experiences and not something to be handed out for merely showing up and breathing. There is nothing special in that. He even said, "getting a trophy should mean that you worked really hard and had a good season." He liked the idea of having to win a tournament or division or league or no trophy. Boy, you should have see the fallout from the mom's who could not beleive that we were going to do nice laminated certificates instead of trophies at the team BBQ. The audacity of that coach. Hmmph. My ex-wife turned them all against me and used them to write nasty letters in her divorce. You should have seen the letters from the moms who sons played more than they should have. Since then, my son (and daughter) have been ripped out of my life for the last two years and needless to say, I have no interest in coaching any longer. I put years of effort, countless hours and dedication into Little League only to be railroaded by the mom's club who didn't appreciate the lesson's (like trophies) I was trying to teach kids of the entitlement generation.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:33 am
letters can be sent to the editor at letters_callaw@dailyjournal.com
Dear Editor,
In "The Dad-Vocates" (3/08), Judge Robert A. Schnider says family courts are not biased against men or women. It appears Judge Schnider never consulted his colleague, the well-known (former) family law Judge Richard E. Denner of Los Angeles, who recognized systematic anti-father bias in family courts by stating in the Daily Journal: "Judges of my generation are prone to looking suspiciously at men seeking child or spousal support.” (Judicial Profile, 4/30/04.) In a letter to the editor that printed on 5/7/04, I responded to Judge Denner by stating: "Thank you, your Honor. The men's movement rests. With admissions like that, who needs statistics?"
[name, address & phone]
March 4th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Nice to see the issue getting attention.
I want to see if anyone else is understanding an important trend -- an example of how the radical feminists justify anything they want to do: "'When I came to [California] NOW a decade ago,'" Grieco says, 'I was overwhelmed by letters and calls from women about such cases.' To address the concern, the state chapter of NOW set up a task force and sent out a 21-page questionnaire to concerned mothers who had been through the family-court process. Eighty-six percent of those who responded to both the questionnaire and a separate telephone survey reported domestic abuse by fathers. In 76 percent of those cases, according to Grieco, courts nonetheless awarded unsupervised visitation or some degree of unsupervised physical custody to fathers."
Notice how they did their survey? They don't include men among the persons they question. Did you catch that? Like the "rape" surveys they sanction, they only bother with approximately half the population. They presume men are pathological liars but women tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and the numbers that come from their surveys are skewed so that only women's voices are heard. Also note that diversity is crucial to these people in every other walk of life, but it has no place when they are trying to concoct a so-called scientific survey that justifies whatever the hell their position might be.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:08 am
"The fathers' rights movement is both dishonest and dangerous," charges Helen Grieco, executive director of the California chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW). She views the rise of fathers' rights organizations in the 1980s-and the accompanying increase in custody disputes as bargaining tools-as a direct response to "the demand of the women's movement for greater child support, which ended up costing fathers more money."
-----
They always claim that men are seeking more time with their children simply to reduce their child support orders. What they fail to realize is that they are reaping what they've sown.
For decades now, women have insisted that men need to take more active roles in rearing their children and men have done just that. Just as larger numbers of women have become the breadwinners, larger numbers of men have become the primary caretakers for their children.
Yet, when the marriage disolves, these same women insist that those same men can only be trusted with the care of the children four days a month; that the most important contribution these men can make is monetary.
They are the ones being dishonest here.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:37 am
brenda
"They always claim that men are seeking more time with their children simply to reduce their child support orders."
MCA. They sat this out of a phenomena known as "projection"
Children have evolved to become means for women support in the name of child support, as as their main interest is the money, they try to deflect their guilt by saying it's really the mans interest, when in realitty it's her main concern.
Wheres her womens support, in the name of child support??? Is her main concern.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:39 am
that post was hastilly horrible, with no edit at all...sorry guys
March 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I think to "Fathers Rights Movement" is a horse that has run too long and cannot win. We should take a lesson from C.R.I.S.P.E. (Children’s Rights Initiative for Sharing Parents Equally) www.crispe.org this issue is about the children, they suffer at the hands of this divorce industry for Money. Title 4.d of the Social Security Act provides states with matching funds based on the amount of child support assessed, not collected but assessed. This encourages courts to assess financially crippling obligations on Non custodial parents (NCP's). How do you make child support necessary? Separate one parent from the child. Many Dads are 4 day a month Fathers (every other weekend), how does it benefit a child to be deprived of a fit and loving parent 26 days out of 30? Especially during an emotionally devastating time such as a divorce.
www.myspace.com/lonelybeachblogger
March 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
This is not the first article that California Lawyer has run questioning the feminists' lock on policy and public discourse. Maybe some sanity is starting to creep in from the edges. Balance would appear to be a long time coming, however, as the NOW cows continue to be ready to block an progress or justice for men.
This fight is just beginning. The longer it has to go on, the worse it will be for everyone -- especially women. In the meantime, while they suffer, I have no sympathy. As Glenn has said, their wounds are self-inflicted.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:45 am
John said:
"I think to "Fathers Rights Movement" is a horse that has run too long and cannot win. We should take a lesson from C.R.I.S.P.E. (Children’s Rights Initiative for Sharing Parents Equally) www.crispe.org this issue is about the children, they suffer at the hands of this divorce industry for Money."
Society has a very hard time having sympathy or empathy for men or fathers. It is like how most people would donate to a charity to "save a panda" rather than to "save a scorpion." Pandas are cuter than scorpions, and women are cuter than men.
Sigh.
MXY
March 4th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I'd agree with you Jay R, except I have 2 daughters and I hope they have a better time of things than I have...not easier, better. The sooner things become equal in terms of application of the law, the sooner they don't have the impetus to act like idiots, the more likely they won't screw up their lives like most of the (single) women over 30 have today. It's too late for healthy relationships to be common, but it'd be nice if they were more possible.
As to the article in question, I think anytime this sort of thing happens it's positive, and I also think it's silly to hope one article will make a whole sector of society go "Gee, that's right, I'm going to change things right now!". But stack a hundred of these up? Then you're starting to talk. Make this point of view a topic of "sanctioned" conversation, you know "I was reading an article in X magazine that said Y, and it got me to thinking...". THAT'S where the real social change will happen, simply by making it OK to talk about these things in polite company.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Of course if any modern lawyer is going to legally challenge feminist doctrine, It would be a lawyer from California!!
"California is the greatest"
March 4th, 2008 at 11:59 am
What menscollegeactivist said.
They give themselves away every time they start that Dads-only-care-about-the-money chorus.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
One of the biggest contributing factors to this corruption is our dependence on lawyers to have “battle royals” for us to begin with. A large part of being able to rid ourselves of this unnecessary burden is to stop hiring lawyers altogether.
There is a wide variety of self-help out there for people to consider. Every lawyer will encourage you not to “represent yourself” because it means they will be without a job.
A favorite parable of theirs is the one that says, “A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client”. That may contain an element of truth as far as a lawyer representing himself, but it’s far from the truth for the average Joe.
The undeniable truth is that there’s a fortune to be made in separating children from one of their parents. One of the key elements in defeating this purpose is to stop hiring lawyers to put on a “dog and pony show” in court.
Anyone interested in self-help-legal should contact this non-profit civil rights organization. It’s staffed by people in the same boat most of us are in.
http://unitedcivilrights.org/UCRCoA_Board.html
March 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Dear Glenn,
It is great to see involved attorneys who defend fathers's rights. We need to find more of those!
Thanks!
Kenya
March 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Dear Editor,
Thank you for having the courage to finally call attention to the "elephant in the living room" of family law which few, in the interests of political correctness, wish to acknowledge. But, in light of the facts bespeaking a clear judicial bias in favor of mothers' custody (with many judges chivalrously but inappropriately adhering to the defunct and sexist "tender years doctrine"), and in favor of dads' resulting child support obligations (and the millions of federal dollars consequently paid into the system), I wonder how you could, in good faith, even include the question mark behind your headline, "Gender Bias In Family Court?"
Those arguing that fathers who wish to parent their kids over the mothers' objections are not at a severe disadvantage contort the facts to suit their view. For instance, they quote statistics indicating that fathers who fight for custody end up with "sole or joint" physical custody 70% of the time. What does this mean? "Sole or joint" means that the man gets only some custody, not 50-50, and most often not more than the standard two weekends per month. The same study showed that overall, men had some custody only 7% of the time, and, if they fought for primary custody, they were successful only 33% of the time. These statistics only serve to point out that, with the deck so obviously stacked against them from the outset, only men who had the strongest cases for custody would choose even to fight in court. And still they get nothing 30% of the time, and get primary custody only in 1 out of 3 cases. Without the mental straightjacket of political correctness, one cannot keep a straight face and point to this data as evidence of anything other than men are systematically disadvantaged in family court.
The overwhelming amount of available data shows that the more involved a father is in his children's lives, the safer they are, and the more likely they will turn out to be well-adjusted, productive members of society. It is also true that society has always depended on inducing maximum responsibility and productivity from men by giving them a family to provide for. When that family can be capriciously taken away, leaving nothing but a financial obligation, we induce men not to make an investment in marriage and procreation. The declining and alarming marriage and fertility rates in this country bear this out. We currently have a system that serves to separate children from their fathers, to separate fathers from their money, and to separate men from the idea that becoming a family man is worth the risk. The "anti-family" court system in place needs to be overhauled immediately, and rebuilt from something other than the sexist "woman = nurturer", "man = ATM machine" blueprints of yesteryear.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
'I understand what they're going through,' says the 57-year-old sole practitioner [David C. Stone, Esq.], whose family law practice caters almost exclusively to men. 'I've been married three times; I've given away houses. I also had visitation rights with a son who had moved to Arizona. I realize how difficult and painful divorce can be. The only reason I pursue this line of work is that children need two actively engaged parents.'
==================
IMO, being divorced should be a minimum requirement for family law attorneys ... and judges for that matter.
We need more David Stone's.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Kevin Merck: One of the biggest contributing factors to this corruption is our dependence on lawyers to have “battle royals” for us to begin with. A large part of being able to rid ourselves of this unnecessary burden is to stop hiring lawyers altogether.
Unfortunately, when one party forces the issue, the other has no choice.
In my case, it was both a bulldog lawyer who only wanted to scrape as much money out of my ex as she could, and a judge who was more than happy to make us live through 2 weeks of trial ... on a custody matter. Yeah, THAT'S in the best interests of the children. not.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
menscollectiveactivist: Wheres her womens support, in the name of child support???
That would be in lesbian broken relationships .....
It would be interesting to find out if biological moms go at social moms at the same rate hetero moms go at dads.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Title 4.d of the Social Security Act provides states with matching funds based on the amount of child support assessed
Thank you John. I have been looking for this reference.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Jay R, outstanding letter. I encourage everyone to read it. Very well thought out.
I wish I had written it.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Coincidentally, "California Lawyer" has an article in the same issue about the validity and increasing prevalence of postnuptial agreements. These can be used to alter the character of community property, and to waive spousal support (but never child support).
But, judges' anti-male bias is candidly acknowledged in the article: "Judges have been known to throw out those they find tainted by undue influence (such as when a spouse withholds intimacy until a postnup is signed)."
We all know that it is only considered "undue influence" if a man "withholds intimacy." It is a firmly established tenet of contract law that sex cannot legally serve as consideration for a contract. Thus, the withholding of sex cannot be legally relevant, and could never be viewed as a breach. This is turned on its head once it is the woman who feels an entitlement to "intimacy" no matter what. In effect, judges who would find "undue influence" are condoning a woman's spousal rape of her husband -- who is forced to have sex with her as she is considering whether or not to agree to the postnup, because he would otherwise be at risk of creating "undue influence" by withholding sex. Oh, and of course, when a man does this, he is abusive according to the Duluth Model. A woman? Never!
Crazy, huh?
March 4th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Tim Murray,
Thanks! : - )
March 4th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
My personal opinion is that the bar association realises that a very large number of men are really pissed at the Bar Association and at the Courts. We don't even blame our ex's as much as them.
In pondering their 'Who Moved The Cheeze" response, I decided that they would compromise in order to lower the level of pain to what fathers would put up with.
As a group, we must not stop at compromise, but must demolish and burn this entire corrupt establishment and re-enact Constitutional safeguards.
Really!
March 4th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
[...] 'California Lawyer' Magazine Covers Fathers' Rights Movement "Being a divorced dad doesn't necessarily make David C. Stone an effective advocate for fathers. But it certainly doesn't hurt. 'I understand what they're going through,' says the 57-year-old sole practitioner, whose family law practice caters almost exclusively to men. 'I've been married three times; I've given away houses. I also had visitation rights with a son who had moved to Arizona. I realize how difficult and painful divorce can be. The only reason I pursue this line of work is that chi [...]
March 4th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Jay R - great letter!
When you said:
" . . . we induce men not to make an investment in marriage and procreation."
I would have added:
"and in society more broadly."
Anger, alienation, dejection and disbelief at the manner in which men are often treated by the system does not serve our society nor our country well. In essence, I suspect it a social experiment that is asking for trouble - on a number of fronts - while the instigators are asking . . . problem, what problem?
March 5th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Celia,
Thanks. I agree with your points.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Damn Jay R, that is a great letter!@
March 5th, 2008 at 4:04 am
Alex33 - Here is a good link for you on the title iv welfare act and another on the child support matching funds
http://www.laryholland.com/ssacse/
http://washingtonsharedparenting.com/?p=308
March 5th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Our society's success depends on the proper raising of our children. The family courts play into a 1950's stereotype that women belong in the kitchen and must raise the children and men will be out working. This does not work. Both parents need to be actively involved in raising their children. The family courts have been raping families of their wealth and stealing in the name of the children for years because of greed incentive programs they lobbied for such as Title IV-D and VAWA. We need to put to an end and take our power away from the family courts by showing they have abused our trust and have destroyed our children by kicking one parent out and forcing the other parent with all the burden of raising the child. It has to be both parents responsibility to raise the children or we all fail just like what's happening now with the children becoming gang members, drug addicts, criminals, at such a young age. Society made it for thousands of years without family courts so why is it failing now in raising children. The family courts are not natural and it is not natural to break apart a family for greed like the family court are doing to children now.
We must support a child's right to both parents and band together and put a side these egoist attitudes and fight for the sake of our children. Men and women need to band together to end this exploitation of using the best interest of the child to say we are not worthy to raise our children when parents have been raising children successfully for millions of years without the family courts around. The only result they have done is create false gender wars and have willfully broken up families that would have eventually worked things out for the sake of their children. People are starting to realize that this family court greed racket is destroying America and there will be a large backlash when people finally wake up!
Marcy Ganz
San Diego, CA
http://crispe.org
March 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Alex33 Says …
---“Unfortunately, when one party forces the issue, the other has no choice.”
A 1991 American Bar Association study of self-represented litigants showed:
• Persons with incomes less than $50,000 are more likely to represent themselves.
• About 20% of self-represented litigants report they can afford an attorney but do not want one.
• Self-represented persons are more likely to be satisfied with the judicial process than those who are represented by attorneys.
• Almost 75% of those who represented themselves in court said they would do it again.
This information is for persons who choose to, or must, represent themselves.
If the Bar can admit this much I think it’s reasonable to conclude that “representing yourself” is a viable and wise decision most of the time.
http://www.jurisdictionary.com/Flash/Unlocking/Unlocking.html
Check out this video and learn about the options available before declaring that there is no choice.
Kevin Merck
March 6th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Jay R., I hate to say it but that's a good letter.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Thanks, Norman L.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Kevin Merck -
I wish I could have represented myself. However, there are far too many extenuating circumstances, which I can't go into on a public board (I am one who has had their posts used against them in a court of law - taken out of context, not allowed to explain the context, etc.), that would have made me a fool to do so. While I definitely lost in the battle, I know I would have lost far more had I represented myself.
I believe for most people, self-representation is the right choice. And I hope more people watch the video and utilize the resources. Unfortunately, in my case that would have been a really bad decision. And more unfortunately, it cost my children their college education.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Marcy: a 1950's stereotype that women belong in the kitchen
I would add "barefoot" to this description.
showing they have abused our trust
They don't care.
have destroyed our children
I wish they cared. Unfortunately, they don't.
We must support a child's right to both parents and band together and put a side these egoist attitudes and fight for the sake of our children. Men and women need to band together to end this exploitation of using the best interest of the child to say we are not worthy to raise our children
You hit the nail on the head.
The only result they have done is create false gender wars and have willfully broken up families that would have eventually worked things out for the sake of their children. People are starting to realize that this family court greed racket is destroying America and there will be a large backlash when people finally wake up!
A woman I know had a successful working relationship with her ex for 4 years without a custody agreement, and they both saw the children everyday ... until he got his back up because she wanted to talk about changing the kids' school. He hit her with custody papers and their relationship was destroyed. I think of her situation often when thinking about how the "family" court system destroys children. Those children were happy. Now they're smack-dab in the middle ... right where the court (and their scared father) put them. Pity. Worst interests of the kids at it's best.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Angler: Here is a good link for you on the title iv welfare act and another on the child support matching funds
Thank you, Angler. I haven't had time to do the research. I appreciate the links.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I need to know how to get some fathers rights attention in Idaho and I can't find anyone who will listen to me. My son had a child and was not married and so he has no real rights to this child. The mother only wants his money and not to let the child see the father. We finally got her to agree to a 50% custody and it was going good until we went to a lawyer to get it legal now she says HELL NO! The courts in Idaho favor the mother. No one wants to hear our crys for help any idea what to do? She is not the best person to even raise this child. But try to take the child away from the mother is even harder yet. They were going to get married and she decided to leave not the father of the child no he wanted a family, but yet she has the right to take the child. Please I am begging as a mother to my son for help. He wants to see his son and be in his life. HELP US
March 18th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I have let my children stay with their mother some of the time because I agree that children need both parents but thats not the main reason. I live in Canada, New Brunswick to be exact and it seems to be so sexist that I believe they think all children were artificially inseminated. What I mean is only females seem to get listened to and seem to get rights. There is no court order between I and their very vulgar mother and I used to see them everyday and on any holiday they are with me. She when deciding she wanted to sleep with everybody else, admited she wanted to collect a check for the children and still admits and when she does'nt, shows with actions she only LOVES the money from the government. My children both say they want to permanantely want to live with me, they are 10 and 8 for ages. Now the mother thinks she can illegally take away my rights to see them all the time, and she is ripping the government off with social service check, family allowance, and she works which means social services is cool with her breaking, from what I know, the law. She is very angry all the time, very vulgar in front of my children which I am not happy with, in other words swears like a drunken old man, has alcohol within sight and reach of my children, etc. There is much too much to list. She also lies to the schools I think saying they are her children and when I went many times to talk to the schools principle and teachers, they acted like they want nothing to do with what I have to say in concern for my children. My legal rights are being violated by vindictive people and I know not what to do because people here are sexist and don't check records, they just assume anybody who is female is correct. I have been putting up with it for too long. My parents even are willing to let my children and I live at their place. Everyone I talk to says they need to get away from her and the abuse they recieve at school from lazy teachers who refuse to do their job properly. Their schooling is blinding their decision making so they think they are always right and even the last statement which I said about peoples education blinding them, thats is truth and an accepted fact for some people unfortunately but they call everything they can't argue with an opinion. This tells me they don't even know the english language properly but they are teaching kids. This is so sad and it needs to change.
Please examine all I have wrote and give me your analysis on all parts of given interest and importance. Thank you for your time.
August 1st, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I'm just a simple and traditional type of guy. God, Family and Work. I have raised 2 children, it seems by myself', the last 6 years. I have been with their mother for 11 years until she decided last year to up and leave with some guy she meet on the internet. In a way it was a blessing. She left me with the kids and ran off with her new internet guy. The house was now full of laughter and no stress with her gone. Then one day she called and said she was going to pick up her son and to have him ready. I am not the bio-dad of my son. She did not even say anything about her daughter. The day she came to pick up my son he was crying and pleading he did not want to go with her. She called the police and they told me he had to go with her. So I complied. My daughter and son were huggying each other saying their goodbyes crying. While the mother was pulling my son away from his sister. This women showed no emotion to the kids emotional torment. She didn't sit the kids down and expain the situation to them. To ease the fear and confusion. My last memory of my son was his face pleading me to help him. I knew if I keep him I would make matters worse. July 22, 2009 is the day I last seen my son. My daughter I feel is confused why she only took her brother and not her. When she is old enough to understand I will explain this situation to her. I know "Arthur" is been watch over by God and I pray for him. For now all I can do is " Sit still and let the feelings pass".