Default joint legal and PHYSICAL custody for kids
Default joint legal and phyiscal custody
When we talk about the ever increasing number of biases that we are attempting to sweep away as a society, there is the most obvious one that we seldom address. This is the generalization that only mothers are fit caregivers and deserving of majority custody in divorce proceedings.
Default judgements for child care should start with the presumption of 50-50 among mother and father. They could be modified away from that if the court were given a compelling reason. This would lead to some good outcomes.
1) Fewer deadbeat dads - Studies have shown that when Dad's see their kids, they are willing to pay for their upbringing. Amazing though it may seem the largest number of deadbeats are those who the courts have given no physical custody.
2) Prevents moveaways - A common complaint among fathers with less custodial time is that the mother will move away to a different city or state and thereby denying a father his 20-25% of time. When parents have 50-50 custody one parent often has to petition the court to move.
3) It's just fair. Few would suggest a default judgement of 80-20% for say maritial assets, why would they do that for the most precious asset of all to a parent?
4) It gives men some fairness in a divorce often when they are blindsided by it. The majority of divorces are initiated by women, usually against a man with a blue collar job for reasons cited as emotional unfulfillment. Depending upon what study you use, a full 91% of divorces are initiated by women whereby a man often loses his home, part of his retirement, up to half his income and often most visitation rights to his children.
Nick
When we talk about the ever increasing number of biases that we are attempting to sweep away as a society, there is the most obvious one that we seldom address. This is the generalization that only mothers are fit caregivers and deserving of majority custody in divorce proceedings.
Default judgements for child care should start with the presumption of 50-50 among mother and father. They could be modified away from that if the court were given a compelling reason. This would lead to some good outcomes.
1) Fewer deadbeat dads - Studies have shown that when Dad's see their kids, they are willing to pay for their upbringing. Amazing though it may seem the largest number of deadbeats are those who the courts have given no physical custody.
2) Prevents moveaways - A common complaint among fathers with less custodial time is that the mother will move away to a different city or state and thereby denying a father his 20-25% of time. When parents have 50-50 custody one parent often has to petition the court to move.
3) It's just fair. Few would suggest a default judgement of 80-20% for say maritial assets, why would they do that for the most precious asset of all to a parent?
4) It gives men some fairness in a divorce often when they are blindsided by it. The majority of divorces are initiated by women, usually against a man with a blue collar job for reasons cited as emotional unfulfillment. Depending upon what study you use, a full 91% of divorces are initiated by women whereby a man often loses his home, part of his retirement, up to half his income and often most visitation rights to his children.
Nick
Comments
Initially I read up on it because being a male teacher I kept wondering why I was told that I am the only male influence in X number of kids lives. Likewise boys are so much more trouble prone in schools today. I almost never see a girl failing or retained. Where the heck were all the men and what was happening to them? That was about 5 years ago, now it is just an area of interest to read in that I happen to consider a current social injustice.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
4) It gives men some fairness in a divorce often when they are blindsided by it. The majority of divorces are initiated by women, usually against a man with a blue collar job for reasons cited as emotional unfulfillment. Depending upon what study you use, a full 91% of divorces are initiated by women whereby a man often loses his home, part of his retirement, up to half his income and often most visitation rights to his children.
Nick
That sounds like some crazy research but:
His home? His retirement? His income?
I'm sorry but if you're unaware of the 'small print' of getting married then I'm not going to cry any tears for you when you 'lose' half of your joint possessions, especially if that wife had given up career opportunities to raise your child.
Some divorced people have a hard time, and that's sad , but I don't see what blaming women achieves here.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
That sounds like some crazy research but:
His home? His retirement? His income?
I'm sorry but if you're unaware of the 'small print' of getting married then I'm not going to cry any tears for you when you 'lose' half of your joint possessions, especially if that wife had given up career opportunities to raise your child.
Some divorced people have a hard time, and that's sad , but I don't see what blaming women achieves here.
Did you read what I quoted? It sure seemed to me that he was making the men out to be the victims of the evil women who divorce them just for thrills.
I say his home because before it was jointly owned and how it is not his. I say his retirement because she can lay claim to it. I say his income because many women who divorce do not seek anything different in their lives than the husband being gone. They want the money and the standard of living, they just want the person who helped provide it to be gone.
I didn't say I was exclusively blaming women. The thread title made clear what should happen. Joint physical custody should be the norm. If you don't think that some women will use children as a level to achieve actions, you are operating from naivity though.
Now as for divorcing just for thrills, we don't really know because before with no fault divorce there doesn't have to be a reason. In the states that do track divorce statistics women file for divorce more than twice as often as men. The most common reason given is emotional unfulfillment. I don't say these are for "thrills" but you are welcome to explain the two for one disparity yourself. (66% is the conservative estimate, less conservate is the 91% I posted earlier)
Stupider, you can claim that that am declaring these divorces "for thrills" but the fact remains that women often have little to lose in a divorce under present law. You don't find it the least bit odd that men are considered empowered in situations where women often get 70-80%+ of the custody time as a default?
Explain to me why when a mother files divorce and the father is seen as fit (no abuse or things of that nature) the default judgement for physical custody should be anything less than 50% regardless of what the mother desires. This shouldn't be a controversial ideal.
Nick
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Did you read what I quoted? It sure seemed to me that he was making the men out to be the victims of the evil women who divorce them just for thrills.
Actually if you read what he said, he stated that the women get the custody more than the men do,(and that is true). and he even states taht it goes 50/50 with property but with child it is usually 80/20(or less) and that is true. Most fathers are automatically given the brush off and mother gets custody(even if she is a bad mother, and I have seen this a lot too) and NO, I am not divorced, nor do I even have children.
Originally posted by trumptman
I say his home because before it was jointly owned and how it is not his. I say his retirement because she can lay claim to it. I say his income because many women who divorce do not seek anything different in their lives than the husband being gone. They want the money and the standard of living, they just want the person who helped provide it to be gone.
So basically you said his because you believe that all of the married couple's properties, investments and incomes are the sole property of the man and the woman only has limited access as long as she puts up with the man that 'provides' them.
I see a problem here, but obviously you don't. Maybe you should consider the child as something the mother 'provides', and if the husband can't 'emotionally fulfill' that child's provider then they shouldn't try to 'lay claim' to the child.
I didn't say I was exclusively blaming women. The thread title made clear what should happen. Joint physical custody should be the norm. If you don't think that some women will use children as a level to achieve actions, you are operating from naivity though.
And men wouldn't?
The most common reason given is emotional unfulfillment. I don't say these are for "thrills" but you are welcome to explain the two for one disparity yourself. (66% is the conservative estimate, less conservate is the 91% I posted earlier)
How about the fact that the woman may need legal intervention in order to secure the 50% of the marital assets that she is entitled to, not to mention support for children? This is true partly beause there seems to be many men, yourself included, that think you merely rent a wife for the duration of a marraige rather than jointly share your possessions and income.
You don't find it the least bit odd that men are considered empowered in situations where women often get 70-80%+ of the custody time as a default?
Replace women with primary carers, and no it's not odd. If a high-flying businesswomen could take custody from a house-husband I'd think it unfair. 80/20 however seems closer to the average ratio of female to male input into childraising.
Fast Forward to 2003 Women are much more likely to be in the workforce as well meaning they have no more time than the typical Father. Kids are being raised in Daycare. Is there any wonder kids in America are doing poorly in school in many cases?
I advocate an Arbiter to hand EACH AND EVERY CASE to determine whether one parent should get over %50. Bad parents are the exception...not the norm. It should be easy to detect problems and correct them. The "Best Interests of the Child" is most likely to have two loving relationships with his/her parents. I've seen children used as bargaining chips time and time again and it's sickening. Policy for such an important decision should not be blindly imposed.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
So basically you said his because you believe that all of the married couple's properties, investments and incomes are the sole property of the man and the woman only has limited access as long as she puts up with the man that 'provides' them.
I see a problem here, but obviously you don't. Maybe you should consider the child as something the mother 'provides', and if the husband can't 'emotionally fulfill' that child's provider then they shouldn't try to 'lay claim' to the child.
Look if you want to discuss ideas fine. If you want to mentall masterbate by twisting my words for fun that as fine as well. Just don't expect more replies from me.
The house is obviously joint during the marriage but it isn't after the divorce. The woman gets the house and you want to argue that this is somehow a weak position for the woman.
Assets are divided during a divorce. The woman gets to lay claim to future earnings of the man while the man gets nothing in return. He obviously got something in return for this DURING the marriage. (and no I am not just eluding to sex Mr. Twist-o-rama boy) He has to forgo this benefit after the marriage but she does not. Perhaps she worked part time and had cooked dinner while he worked full time. He put more into retirement working full time but she also got the benefit of working less and staying home. After the divorce she will likely seek that retirement, but I doubt she will be cooking him dinner. It is not an equal return.
Obviously the first agreement worked because they were building a life together. However if she arbitrarily decides to rip it apart she shouldn't avoid all suffering since it will have been her actions that ripped the family apart. She will have less retirement, but he will have less INCOME since it is now supporting two households instead of just one. (Since he has to rent an apartment or buy a house since she gets the one the previously occupied together)
As for whether men would use child custody as a lever, we don't really know do we since they so seldom get it.
How about the fact that the woman may need legal intervention in order to secure the 50% of the marital assets that she is entitled to, not to mention support for children? This is true partly beause there seems to be many men, yourself included, that think you merely rent a wife for the duration of a marraige rather than jointly share your possessions and income.
If men thought they merely rented a wife and were trading them in later, (this is a stereotype btw, about as ignorant as saying someone who is black must love watermelon) why would they so seldom initiate divorce? I mean with conservative estimates women file by more than two to one.
Here I'll put it to you like I put it to my wife when she asked if I ever thought about other woman.
What p*ssy on this planet would feel so good that it is worth half of everything I own, 80% of my time with my kids, and a whole hell of a lot of misery?
Likewise with regard to legal representation, yeah right. The state treats her like a child and the men like a criminal. They will establish paternity, garnish his wages, take is license, file restraining orders and toss him in jail all pretty much on her word. Likewise when she DOES seek legal representation the man often ends up paying for it. You would know this if you read up on divorce at all. The man is a big wallet that ends up paying for BOTH lawyers so most just settle out as quick as possible.
Replace women with primary carers, and no it's not odd. If a high-flying businesswomen could take custody from a house-husband I'd think it unfair. 80/20 however seems closer to the average ratio of female to male input into childraising.
Well I would hate to see what kind of neanderthal households you participate in. However if she decides she doesn't want him to be her "hunter/gatherer" anymore, then she isn't entitled to the same amount of time with the children that he worked to enable her to have. He should be allowed to work less since he has one less adult to support, (Instead custody orders likely insure he works MORE) and she should have work more to support herself. She should turn over the additional time she no longer has to the father.
You still haven't made any argument as to why fathers should not have 50% physical custody. The best you can muster is, "well it was that way when they were married." Well if they are divorced it should change that aspect of their relationship as well.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Assets are divided during a divorce. The woman gets to lay claim to future earnings of the man while the man gets nothing in return. He obviously got something in return for this DURING the marriage. (and no I am not just eluding to sex Mr. Twist-o-rama boy) He has to forgo this benefit after the marriage but she does not. Perhaps she worked part time and had cooked dinner while he worked full time. He put more into retirement working full time but she also got the benefit of working less and staying home. After the divorce she will likely seek that retirement, but I doubt she will be cooking him dinner. It is not an equal return.
This is the fundamental mistake you are making. A man does not 'pay' his wife for services rendered during a marriage. They agree to share all their assets when they marry, not when they divorce. It doesn't matter if the paycheck says Bob Smith on it, half of it is his wife's, as is half his retirement, half his house, car, debts, etc. He is not 'giving' her anything except when they agree to marry, as that was when he agreed to share all his possesions. It doesn't matter that the man is no longer receiving these 'benefits' after a divorce, as the benefits the wife recieved were never in return for, or dependent on providing them.
If this doesn't suit you get a pre-nup and at least your wife will know she only gets access to your money as long as you get access to her. It's only fair to be upfront about these things and it will give her a chance to start saving for any future divorce (or skip the marriage entirely), rather than have to go through a acrimonious legal battle to get access to 'your' money.
Originally posted by trumptman
However if she decides she doesn't want him to be her "hunter/gatherer" anymore, then she isn't entitled to the same amount of time with the children that he worked to enable her to have. He should be allowed to work less since he has one less adult to support, (Instead custody orders likely insure he works MORE) and she should have work more to support herself. She should turn over the additional time she no longer has to the father.
So any divorce involving a full-time child carer and a full-time worker should result in the courts ordering both to work part-time? It's crazy, but you know what, it might just work.
Personally, I love the betrayals of language we sometimes find when people speak out, but sometimes we also make a little too much of a pronoun or an article.
Would you rather that Trumpetman said he loses access to his portion of their home? For the sake of efficiency we can say that when one person loses their stake in something, they have lost their own ... whatever, house, income, etc etc... Just for the sake of efficiency. You would say that a woman also loses her home. Notice that just a sentence before I had to use "their" for his/her, since English has no gender neutral singular pronoun besides "it" though that does not refer to people. We could put this down to the English language rather than bias you know.
As for divorce, rates have increased for the last 50 years with each increase in women's rights and/or legal protection. That could be interpreted in a couple of ways, have fun.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
This is the fundamental mistake you are making. A man does not 'pay' his wife for services rendered during a marriage. They agree to share all their assets when they marry, not when they divorce. It doesn't matter if the paycheck says Bob Smith on it, half of it is his wife's, as is half his retirement, half his house, car, debts, etc. He is not 'giving' her anything except when they agree to marry, as that was when he agreed to share all his possesions. It doesn't matter that the man is no longer receiving these 'benefits' after a divorce, as the benefits the wife recieved were never in return for, or dependent on providing them.
If this doesn't suit you get a pre-nup and at least your wife will know she only gets access to your money as long as you get access to her. It's only fair to be upfront about these things and it will give her a chance to start saving for any future divorce (or skip the marriage entirely), rather than have to go through a acrimonious legal battle to get access to 'your' money.
Again more word play, do you get off on this or something? Where is that other hand?
There is not a single person in this thread that has debated what the definition of half means dumbass. Nor has anyone declared that a woman is not entitled to HALF with a divorce.
Are we clear on that now, or should we start debating other commonsense words.
The point is AFTER the marriage. Women will petition to essentually not have their lifestyle change. It doesn't matter if she takes half your 401k. What matters is if she believes you should somehow continue to contribute to HER retirement AFTER you are divorced.
Just so we are absolutely clear on this, twist-o-rama boy. You and said mate are married. During the marriage you have accumulated a $50,000 401k that you are contributing $1000 to a month. You divorce. She takes $25k and you take $25k. She now complains though that no one will be contributing $1000 a month to HER $25k 401k a month now. So she petitions the court to have YOU contribute $500 a month to HER $25k 401k plan. Are you honestly saying that this would constitute fair in your mind?
If I sound mean about this it is because in multiple posts not only I, but others have mentioned that you are being intentionally OBTUSE about this issue. Half means half. After the divorce contributions and lifestyle are OBVIOUSLY what I have been discussing.
Again after the divorce the wife is entitled to child support and will likely get some alimony. Why? Because the man must suffer for decisions made during the marriage but not the woman. What does that mean? It means if the woman and man chose to have her stay home with children that when they divorce she might not earn as much because she has less experience for example.
So when she goes back she might earn less and the man is expected to make up for this less with alimony. However wasn't this a JOINT decision? Shouldn't the loss of income related to it and the pain associated with that be shared JOINTLY? Instead the man is expected to make up that loss with HIS income. (Yes it is his after the divorce) So he pays when she stays home during the marriage and AFTER the marriage as well.
So just so we are clear.
Man pays for child support for children (women don't)
Man pays for alimony for woman (So woman can live as she was use to)
Man loses 80% of time with children
Man loses access to household he JOINTLY owned and now must finance a second household.
Woman receives child support
Woman receives alimony to make up for lost wages. If her wages are not high enough the state will provide her with free day care while working
Woman retains 80% of time with children, even if they are sleeping, in day care, etc. She also receives support from the state for the day care AND receives child support from the husband based off the fact that she has them during the time they are in daycare.
Woman keeps household.
And through all this sand/dust you have tossed up you have explained why the default judgement for child physical custody should not be 50% for men how?
Keep arguing about the meaning of words because you REFUSE to show your CLEAR BIAS and address the thread title.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
Another divorce thread from the guy I accused of having a victim attitude in the other thread he started about poor-oppressed white men screwed over by greedy women.
Another post where you add nothing to the discussion.
Nick
Intellectually, I think any of us are smart enough to know this certainly isn't always the case. Intellectually, I think we'd all say that even if the above were true 90% of the time, the other 10% of the time the man shouldn't have to suffer for the sins of his fellow men.
The problem, and I don't understand it, is that the minute you say anything about a man getting a raw deal in a divorce, the emotional reaction is as if you're saying "Men always get shafted, they're never at fault, and women just cry and carry on about divorce in order to cheat you... blah, blah..."
You know you didn't say that. I know you didn't say that. But it seems a major uphill battle to get through the emotional reactions here. You have to "be a man" and laugh off any injustice. You have to acknowledge every bad thing that any man has every done as reflecting on all men, every bad thing that any woman ever done as an isolated aberration (that men deserve to suffer anyway), and you must accept any favoritism shown to women in divorce as fair in all cases because men in general do pretty well in life, and I guess it all just balances out somehow -- individual awful circumstances be damned -- so shut up and quit your bitching.
Originally posted by shetline
Oddly enough, a lot of men are predisposed to believe divorce is a man's fault. Even if a woman requests the divorce, she's only doing so to get save herself from a lying, cheating, drunken bastard.
Intellectually, I think any of us are smart enough to know this certainly isn't always the case. Intellectually, I think we'd all say that even if the above were true 90% of the time, the other 10% of the time the man shouldn't have to suffer for the sins of his fellow men.
The problem, and I don't understand it, is that the minute you say anything about a man getting a raw deal in a divorce, the emotional reaction is as if you're saying "Men always get shafted, they're never at fault, and women just cry and carry on about divorce in order to cheat you... blah, blah..."
You know you didn't say that. I know you didn't say that. But it seems a major uphill battle to get through the emotional reactions here. You have to "be a man" and laugh off any injustice. You have to acknowledge every bad thing that any man has every done as reflecting on all men, every bad thing that any woman ever done as an isolated aberration (that men deserve to suffer anyway), and you must accept any favoritism shown to women in divorce as fair in all cases because men in general do pretty well in life, and I guess it all just balances out somehow -- individual awful circumstances be damned -- so shut up and quit your bitching.
It isn't so much that men believe themselves or other men responsible for their own divorces, rather that society via feminism has taught multiple generations that EVERYTHING that is wrong is because of men.
Divorce, that is just one thing on the list of EVERYTHING.
How can men not be at fault? How can they be fit to be fathers 50% of the time. Don't you know all men are only potential rapists who go around oppressing and sexually harassing everyone with thier violent fits and rages?
The net effect of all of this is criminalizing both sex and love for the man. This is one of the reasons why in divorce, NOW advocates sole legal and physical custody be awarded to mothers immediately.
Here is a few other recommendations from NOW linked from the article.
Abolish the tendency to assume joint custody is always in the best interests of hte child. This is a false presumption with no support in reality. Joint custody should be voluntary, with sole custody default to the primary caregiver at seperation.
IE... the second a mom files for divorce, a father should never have the right to see his children again... ever.
Visitation time should be completely detached from child support calculations to reduce the incidence of fathers seeking half and sole joint custody to avoid child support payments. As other jurisdictions do, the primary caregiver at seperation is established, and then the non-custodial parent pays a specific percentage of earnings.
IE... the mother should be the sole determiner of spending regarding the child, visitation, legal decisions, etc. The amount of time and money a father spends with/on and child should NEVER be considered. In otherwords, just shut up and SHOW ME DA MONEY.
The use of false syndromes (such as PAS) should be made illegal under the Family Code.
The court shouldn't view it badly when a mother attempts to use her often disportionate custodial time to poison a child's relationship with their father. IE..."I told ya already that Roy is your new Daddy and to stop asking about your old Daddy. He never bought be an Explorer and this new one takes good care of us."... courts shouldn't be allowed to say this is bad.
Identify the parties responsible for the perpetuation of problems related to false syndromes, ?fluid? joint custody laws, evaluations and counsel for children. Establish the connection between those parties and fraudulent non-profit continuing education and support organizations (Fathers? Rights groups) and sue under statutes for RICO vis a vis conspiracy to violate the rights of women.
Identify the parties who don't do what we want... men, check... identify the link between them and education and support groups...men belong men's rights groups, check.... sue for RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, INTIMIDATION, etc. In otherwords men seeking their rights and joint custody is equivelent to the MAFIA.
Along with damages suit, sue for declaratory relief, making Parental Alienations Syndrome, mandatory joint custody, mandatory psychological evaluations and mandatory mediation unconstitutional. Challenge the constitutionality of the Family Law Act as amended in 1992 due to lack of procedural due process protections and other constitutional violations including that the false presumption that physical and/or legal joint custody is in the best interests of the child.
Sue to make any father rights unconstitutional. Sue to insure that the process that protects against abuse and allows fair discussion (mediation) is unconstitutions. Have any law that attempts to give men joint legal or physical custody declared unconstitutional.
A statewide audit of the judiciary for lack of compliance with the Elections and Government Codes in the ?election? and ?appointment? of judges, especially family law judges.
A statewide audit and investigation by the Attorney General of fraudulent non-profit continuing education and support organizations participating in family law processes.
Create judicial accountability by ensuring that the Commission of Judicial Performance actually begin to discipline incompetent and discriminatory judges. Do a comprehensive study of the nature of complaints to the CJP and the disposition thereof. Have the CJP crack down on judges who engage in ex parte communicatinos with evaluators and ?experts.?
Essentually... set up a police state where we can destroy or at minimum PURGE anyone who disagrees with our conclusion that women should have sole legal and physical custody and X% of a man's future income after the divorce.
Crazy....
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Another post where you add nothing to the discussion.
Nick
I have to agree here. Groverat is slowly turning into Scott.