Monday, April 11, 2005

Bridget Marks...Good for her Children...No Help for Others

Custody Ruling Addresses Reliance on Expert Opinions

"It seems apparent, in reviewing this record, that the ultimate decision as to the key issue in this case, i.e., whether to award custody to the father because of the mother's attempts to undermine his relationship with the children, was made on the basis of the experts' testimony. Courts should be ever mindful that, while the forensic expert may offer guidance and inform, the ultimate determination on any such issue is a judicial function, not one for the expert," Justice Joseph P. Sullivan wrote in a decision signed by Justice David B. Saxe, in John A. v. Bridget M., 4976.

"In this regard, it should be noted that there is an ongoing debate in both the legal community and the mental health profession as to the implications of expert psychological opinion in custody litigation, especially when the opinion is a conclusion as to the ultimate determination as to where to award custody so as to serve the child's best interest," Justice Sullivan added.

The decision marks the first time an appellate level court in New York has recognized the debate within the mental health community over whether "it is ethically proper" to give opinions on the best interests of the child "when there's no empirical base to support them," said matrimonial attorney and Albany Law School professor Timothy Tippins, who is also a Law Journal columnist.

Such opinions cannot be supported, he added, because psychologists and psychiatrists are unable to scientifically measure and predict the effects of different factors on the future well-being of a child. There is no way to ethically study, for example, the effect it would have on a child to place him in a home with schizophrenic parents.

Therefore, after a mental health expert offers opinions regarding the effects of, for instance, depression or spousal abuse, the judge should be the one to opine as to the child's best interest, Mr. Tippins said."

Information courtesy of Mark Fass, New York Law Journal, New York, New York, 2005..


Although I initially viewed this decision as a major victory for single mothers and their children, sadly, it appears to be far less. The court COULD have made a simple ruling to address and put a stop to these constant attempts by men, enabled by greedy lawyers and over-reaching Judges, to make an end-run around New York State custody laws. That’s what COULD have happened. Instead the court avoided the more fundamental issue and chose to make a more complicated ruling to wit: which “experts” should be allowed to make a custody decision. Should the expert come from the legal or the medical profession.

Sigh…

May I say, and I think I speak for many when I say it, that I am sick to death of these constant custody shenanigans, most instigated by men trying to change custody frequently to avoid paying child support. I am sick of them. The saddest part of the whole thing is that the appellate courts had an opportunity to make a strong statement AGAINST this constant flouting of New York State custody laws and instead chose to focus on which profession was better placed to make a custody decision, AFTER the laws are ignored.

The bottom line is that Bridget Marks had defacto custody of her children for three years while their father lived in California and visited them whenever he was in town. Their father John Aylsworth was perfectly content to leave the twins in the exclusive care, custody and control of their mother in New York for three years while he lived in California. Now, just because he changed his mind was NO reason for a Judge to entertain a change in custody that was not warranted by any substantial change in circumstances in the custodial mother’s household. PERIOD.

The key to settling the ‘problem’ of parents constantly using up the resources of our courts with these endless custody disputes is to enforce the laws we have on the books right now…To wit: a substantial change in circumstances is supposed to take place in the custodial parent’s house BEFORE custody can be changed…PERIOD.

The primary focus should NOT be whether a medical or legal expert is the proper person to decide on the change in custody. It misses the whole point of the Marks’ case, which is that the father here should NEVER have been allowed to bring this case to court to change custody. PERIOD…as no substantial change in circumstances had occurred in the custodial parent’s household.

Thus, the Marks ruling STILL does nothing about the bigger problem, which is NOT which experts should be deciding where our children will live. The real problem remains that basically anytime a ‘daddy come lately’ decides to, he can turn up even years after the fact, and turn upside down both a mother and her childrens’ lives by deciding he wants to change the custody arrangement that has been in place for years without any substantial change in circumstances taking place, as required by the New York State law…

That’s the real problem that needs to be addressed…as I guarantee you that this whole situation would NEVER have happened if the Judge involved had enforced the laws we ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS as soon as the competing parties entered the courtroom.

We don’t need new laws or court rulings designating which experts from what professions should be empowered to make custody decisions. We need to ensure that the laws we already have on the books are strictly enforced and that parents, mainly fathers, understand that they do NOT have the right to throw their kids’ lives into an uproar just because they have decided they want to change the rules all of a sudden.

31 comments:

Birdie said...

Test Post

NYMOM said...

Hi...

I saw your testing post and was glad you finally figured out how to post.

Let me know when you're ready to do a blog of your own btw, I'll help you...

Then I'll finally have someone to link to LOL...

Anyway have a good day...

Peace...

Anonymous said...

Thanks NYMOM, So sorry I haven't been in touch more lately. With this computer problem here at work I have been so overwhelmed.

Hopefully, things will get back to normal now. I am so glad that I finally figured out how to post here. Now I am just trying to catch up on all that I have missed.

Thanks a bunch and I will let you know when I am ready to blog.

NYMOM said...

Hey Birdie:

Why didn't you post with your name?

I figured out it was you anyway...

LOL...

I'm still looking for that box for the doll house...I'm having a little problem since the house is so big. Do you think if I called UPS they might provide one? I'm concerned since you might have told you little one about it already and she'll be looking for it now everytime she's over there...

Anonymous said...

NYMOM,

Your bias is showing. You are so biased you can't even form a valid opinion about any custody case. All you are doing is spreading hate. You shaould be ashamed.

Someone who is NOT biased.

NYMOM said...

Yes, I have to admit I have a strong bias for MOTHERS...

Thus you'll probably only aggravate yourself even more when you read my post this weekend...which will be about women in the front lines and how MOTHERS should be excluded and instead child-free feminist women should be sent in their place.

Actually my WHOLE blog will simply aggravate you so why bother even reading it and posting???

AND btw, it's not about spreading hate but about speaking truth or truth telling, something many appear to NOT want to do today...

Anonymous said...

As I remember, everything started because Marks wanted him to pay her more child support. So, it was her who wanted him back in their lives. She shouldn't complain if he went back into their lives, after all, she called him.

NYMOM said...

"As I remember, everything started because Marks wanted him to pay her more child support. So, it was her who wanted him back in their lives. She shouldn't complain if he went back into their lives, after all, she called him."


I see...so it's permissible in your opinion that if a parent goes to court to increase child support (which is legal in ALL states to do so every three years or so and if the custodial parent is on public assistance it happens automatically) then the other parent should be allowed to contest custody...

This is okay in your opinion...

Anonymous said...

"I see...so it's permissible in your opinion that if a parent goes to court to increase child support (which is legal in ALL states to do so every three years or so and if the custodial parent is on public assistance it happens automatically) then the other parent should be allowed to contest custody..."

Why not? After all, both of them are fully legal actions, and within the rights of each one.

After all, why should I want my child living on public assistance? He can live better with me. And about my ex-wife, she can get a job, I have no duty to support her at all.

NYMOM said...

"Why not? After all, both of them are fully legal actions, and within the rights of each one.

After all, why should I want my child living on public assistance? He can live better with me. And about my ex-wife, she can get a job, I have no duty to support her at all."



Because why should a mother and her childrens' lives be turned upside down because you don't want to pay child support? That's why custody and child support are supposedly separate issues. Because our society doesn't want the contents of a person' checkbook to decide a child's custody...

Otherwise why bother even having custody evaluations, just compare both parents tax returns and checking account balances...and save time by using that to decide...

Of course, men would LOVE that to be the sole criteria...That way MOST of the time custody would go to men, who still generally make more money and have more assets, and women who are the primary 'investors' in having children would be stuck with nothing...just a child support bill from their ex and lucky to see their kids once a year, if that...

Scenarios like that generally work for ONE generation...Sadly once your daughters grow up, they are NOT as easily fooled as their mothers were...which probably explains why so many women are opting to stay child-free now...because of men like you lurking in their subconscious...

They probably would never admit it openly even to themselves but these women probably plan their reproductive lives around 'risk avoidance' which generally means either one or few kids until they are well into their late 30s-early 40s and are financially secure...and in many cases NO CHILDREN since by the time these women feel 'safe enough' they are no longer able to have any children...

So that's today male legacy to our society...women having to plan their entire lives looking over their shoulder afraid that should she ever decide to have any kids, some stingy cheapskate will be trying to steal them from her, probably to avoid paying child support...

It's pretty disgusting if you ask me...

Anonymous said...

"They probably would never admit it openly even to themselves"
Then how do you know? Are you a medium?

"and in many cases NO CHILDREN since by the time these women feel 'safe enough' they are no longer able to have any children..."
Then, I'd say they were burned by their own stupidity. Didn't they know that their bioclocks have an expiry date?

"women who are the primary 'investors' in having children would be stuck with nothing...just a child support bill from their ex and lucky to see their kids once a year, if that..."

Why not? After all, that's what you want to give fathers.

"So that's today male legacy to our society...women having to plan their entire lives looking over their shoulder afraid that should she ever decide to have any kids, some stingy cheapskate will be trying to steal them from her, probably to avoid paying child support...

It's pretty disgusting if you ask me..."

Then, don't have children outside marriage, don't divorce, and problem solved.

The thing is, just as women look for their own benefit, we men do it, too.

And insulting, belittling and demeaning men is not a great way for you to convince us to sacrify ourselves so you can be a mother.

After all, what do you offer a man in exchange for his sperm, besides the chance of being insulted and bashed? And, if it is true that we are only pedophiles and perverts, why do you want to have anything to do with us?

NYMOM said...

"Then how do you know? Are you a medium?"

No...but I do talk to many women as I've been involved with non-cusodial mothers on another site for about 5 years now and many have said that if they knew then what they know now they would never have had children...

NOR have most of them had any more children since losing their first child...



"women who are the primary 'investors' in having children would be stuck with nothing...just a child support bill from their ex and lucky to see their kids once a year, if that..."

Why not? After all, that's what you want to give fathers."

But what do you invest in children???? Can you explain it to me why men should be treated exactly the same as mothers from the birth of a child when you invest NOTHING in the entire process...at least married men can make a case as they are responsible for all of the mother's medical/living expenses so should be assured of some legal rights to the children involved; but really that's because of the marriage not because of the pregnancy...but nevertheless, I could STILL see and agree with the logic of it.

BUT single men are responsible for NOTHING...yet can hop out of bed, throw on their pants and rush to the hospital 5 minutes after birth (having done NOTHING, contributed NOTHING, invested NOTHING) and have exactly the same rights as the mother, in some cases now a number of countries are even letting men have 'paternity leave'...like who wouldn't want a six months to one year vacation from work with 80% pay for sitting around DOING NOTHING...

It's ridiculous that this should even be considered...it's actually a human rights violation I think against the mother to allow countries to even offer this to men...as if there is extra time and money floating out there of course it should go to mohter...extend her leave, not give it to some non-entity who has done absolutely NOTHING and now gets a nice long vacation off her back...


"Then, don't have children outside marriage, don't divorce, and problem solved."

Oh of course...so women just give up some of the main rights we won in the west...the right to divorce and/or in the event we don't marry to have children anyway...

...just give it up...so you men can be fully protected from your worse fears having to pay child support...that sounds fair, NOT....

Of course, men wouldn't mind giving up those rights since most of you could care less if you ever marry or have kids.

Frankly, since feminisn has allowed women to freely chose their own sexual partners w/o any commitment expected on the part of men; a reasonably careful and responsible man can have a very full and pretty decent life by your own male standards...but I seriously doubt if most women could be happy being condemned to living a half-life with their cat as their best friend, multiple sex partners here and there and most of all no children just because the men in our society have no interest in these things YET refuse to allow women the freedom to pursue them w/o you all using the legal system to interfere with women's choices...

I mean just because men don't give a crap about marriage and/or children; I guess women shouldn't be allowed to give a crap either...

Anonymous said...

"when you invest NOTHING in the entire process..."

If we have nothing to do with that, why do you insist in having us there? You can do it alone, be my guest.

"I mean just because men don't give a crap about marriage and/or children; I guess women shouldn't be allowed to give a crap either..."
Ok, you can give a crap about children. I give you permission. Good luck with your cloning experiments.

"just because the men in our society have no interest in these things YET refuse to allow women the freedom to pursue them w/o you all using the legal system to interfere with women's choices..."

I'm not refusing you any freedom. I'm using my own freedom and choosing not giving you my bodily fluids, not marrying you. You can get them elsewhere. Oh, yes, I forgot. Since your attitude is alienating most men, that "elsewhere" is increasingly dwindling.

"Of course, men wouldn't mind giving up those rights since most of you could care less if you ever marry or have kids."

Oh, well. Haven't you thought that we're at advantage? You long children, we don't. So, it's your duty to convince us to give you our seed to have children. So tell me, WHY should we help you in your quest for children? What's in it for us?

NYMOM said...

"Of course, men wouldn't mind giving up those rights since most of you could care less if you ever marry or have kids."

Oh, well. Haven't you thought that we're at advantage? You long children, we don't. So, it's your duty to convince us to give you our seed to have children. So tell me, WHY should we help you in your quest for children? What's in it for us?"


Frankly, probably nothing today...

Years ago when birth control didn't exist and morality was far stricter, MOST men probably HAD to get married in order to have ANY SEX...and since marriage led to a steady sex-life and that generally led to pregnancy and children, everything in society proceeded in an orderly manner since marriage provided the outlet for both men and women to get what they wanted out of the institution...

Yet those conditions don't exist any longer and probably never will again...we have to face this...

So that's why the STATE which has SOME interest in continuing the species should probably start looking at ways to enable women (who are the more likely ones to want children either in or outside of marriage) to have children without too many legal barriers put in the way...

Unlike what they are doing now, which appears to be catering to men in the legal arena which is a complete waste of time (since men are the least likely persons to want kids anyway)...

It doesn't even make sense...even maternity leave should be expanded for mothers and maybe a maternity allowance JUST FOR MOTHERS started, which could be somewhere from $5,000 per child to a maximum of $15,000 annually (and get rid of the earned income credit) women are generally the ones who want children and we need to begin putting incentive programs in place to enable those women who want them to have them w/o all these legal and financial barriers men have erected.

Informal sperm donor agreements should be made legally recognized, single mothers should have sole legal rights to any children they bear and be able to terminate the rights of a never-married father after 6 months to a year of no contact...just like every other parent is subject to...

Married mens rights would remain the same as always, no changes in that area...

Anonymous said...

"So that's why the STATE which has SOME interest in continuing the species should probably start looking at ways to enable women (who are the more likely ones to want children either in or outside of marriage) to have children without too many legal barriers put in the way..."

You know, your faith in the State could be a bit misplaced. You see, the state may be many things, but it can't produce sperm. Only men can produce sperm. And if the state demands men allowing their sperm to be taken against their will (and pay for the children made with it), you will probably see a revolt. And guess what? Perhaps the State will choose the easier path... instead of slavering men (who will probably will give enough trouble to make this solution not viable), it will simply choose to make a mandatory return to the conditions that existed before and that you say "don't exist any longer and probably never will again..."

Think about it. No matter how much you cry and shout...you depend on MEN to enforce those laws you want. And what if the MEN that compose the State decide that your way is not the one they want?

NYMOM said...

"You know, your faith in the State could be a bit misplaced. You see, the state may be many things, but it can't produce sperm. Only men can produce sperm. And if the state demands men allowing their sperm to be taken against their will (and pay for the children made with it), you will probably see a revolt."



Who said that the state should demand men to allow this...quite obviously just like in sperm donor situations today men are paid for donating. OR if a woman get pregnant through error or careless use of contraceptive, same situation.

Are men forced right now to be sperm donors...no...of course not...it either happens through carelessness or men do it for money...many college students actually donate sperm for extra money...

AND obviously when a man's legal rights are terminated or never enacted to begin with, so too ends his financial obligations...as anonymous sperm donors are not obligated legally in any way to a child and are NOT liable for child support...

It's not that the state needs to enact new laws, it needs to step back and quit poking its nose into everything and start refusing to hear certain cases...that would solve about 50% of the problems...

I never said forced or mandated...most women and men would come to their own arrangements or decisions regarding these issues...and that would be it as there would be no court to challenge their decisions...

If a woman had a child and wasn't married she could NOT go to court to get child support...that would be the end of it...

But I'm assuming for most women the $5,000 annually maternity allowance would be in lieu of child support and that plus her own salary would be sufficient to raise her child...

If the woman decided she wanted to allow her child to visit the donor or never-married father, fine...that's between them but if she didn't, then he couldn't go to court either and force visitation...

Only married persons would have standing to take other parent into court to settle differences...

Anonymous said...

most women and men would come to their own arrangements or decisions regarding these issues...

An "arrangement" usually means an exchange of mutual benefits. What is the benefit in your "arrangement" for men?

"But I'm assuming for most women the $5,000 annually maternity allowance would be in lieu of child support and that plus her own salary would be sufficient to raise her child..."

If you ensure that those $5,000 will come only from women's taxes, I'm all for it. After all, why should a man pay for a stranger's children? Or better yet, she can save (remember, like in working and saving instead of spending in shoes) and get pregnant only when she has enough money to survive all those months when she can't work.

NYMOM said...

"An "arrangement" usually means an exchange of mutual benefits. What is the benefit in your "arrangement" for men?"

Well the same arrangements you have now...

Many men have relationships with women they have no intention of marrying yet don't mind having sex with them...NOW when these women get pregnant, you can all just be absolved of any legal or financial responsibility like you used to be before the federal government forced you to become involved through paying child support...

OR just a college kid making $500 or $1,000 dollars with no strings attached for just going to a doctor's office and reading Playboy...

What's the difference...


"But I'm assuming for most women the $5,000 annually maternity allowance would be in lieu of child support and that plus her own salary would be sufficient to raise her child..."

If you ensure that those $5,000 will come only from women's taxes, I'm all for it. After all, why should a man pay for a stranger's children? Or better yet, she can save (remember, like in working and saving instead of spending in shoes) and get pregnant only when she has enough money to survive all those months when she can't work."

No...because we don't want these women to spend so much time getting financial stabilized that their eggs are hard-boiled by the time that happens...

Remember women's fertility start declining around 26 or 27...and then continues that decline until they enter menopause...women would probably spend a lot of money in those years as well buying shoes, getting their hair done, etc., trying to attract some male idiot so we can't wait for her to realize that she's wasting her money today...after all I work with plenty of plain young women who are nice girls but will probably never have a boyfriend since their potential mates are chasing after girls who spend their money on hairdoes and shoes...

It's the nature of the beast, so to speak...

Thus ALL taxpayers have to provide that $5,000 ANNUALLY for mothers and maybe more because it's $15,000 in total if she has more then one child, probably up to three we should pay the benefit...and remember that mother having children benefits ALL OF US...those are the people who will be paying everyone's social security, being the nurses, soldiers and firemen in our future...so everyone must pay for them...

So that's the mutual benefit, no strings attached sex even if you get your girlfriend pregnant, or a goodly sum of money if you're in school, again no strings attached and/or other social benefits from a strangers' child...

Anonymous said...

"Well the same arrangements you have now..."
Then, there is no need to change them, isn't it?

"Remember women's fertility start declining around 26 or 27...and then continues that decline until they enter menopause..."

I remember it, dear. But most women have forgotten about it. Most girls in their twenties have many suitors, and it's their own choosiness (and "I'm young, I'll sow my wild oats and then settle for a nice guy" attitude) what prevents them from marrying, and when they wake up after the party and realize that there is another generation of young women behind them, and that men -those men that they scorned- are chasing younger women, and not them.

"Thus ALL taxpayers have to provide that $5,000 ANNUALLY for mothers and maybe more because it's $15,000 in total if she has more then one child, probably up to three we should pay the benefit..."
So, she's independent and free, given that somebody else pays for her lifestyle. It doesn't look too independent, nor too free.

NYMOM said...

"But most women have forgotten about it. Most girls in their twenties have many suitors, and it's their own choosiness (and "I'm young, I'll sow my wild oats and then settle for a nice guy" attitude) what prevents them from marrying, and when they wake up after the party and realize that there is another generation of young women behind them, and that men -those men that they scorned- are chasing younger women, and not them."

Which is WHY my plan is so important to ensure that IF this happens, 30ish women STILL have incentive to want to have children
even w/o the benefit of marriage...as women do AGE out of the marriage pool faster then men YET we don't want them to also AGE out of the reproduction pool as well since it's then a double loss for society...

So I'm glad you at least appear to understand this...that in their 30s women's changes of getting married are significantly lesser then men...and as they age into their 40s it becomes a virtual impossibility...and even if you do marry in your 40s, you'll probably produce no children anyway, thus society could care less at that point...



"Thus ALL taxpayers have to provide that $5,000 ANNUALLY for mothers and maybe more because it's $15,000 in total if she has more then one child, probably up to three we should pay the benefit..."
So, she's independent and free, given that somebody else pays for her lifestyle. It doesn't look too independent, nor too free."

We are NOT just paying for her lifestyle...she's probably working and paying for her own lifestyle as few people (unless they live in a cave) could live off $5,000 annually.

Basically that maternity allowance is paying child support for the child she's raising. Since remember, that child as an adult benefits ALL of us...

They are the future young people who will be paying your pension, the firemen who will be saving you from a burning building and the nurses who will be caring for you when sick...

You appear to be very fixiated on a very small sum of money when we spend far more on other things everyday...This approach could easily solve one of our major social problems as well which is allowing single men, who have no wish to be fathers and/or pay child support, to be freed from an onerous burden; while at the same time frees the single women who DO WISH to be mothers to NOT be harrassed into either an abortion or one of these ongoing custody fights instigated by men trying to avoid paying child support...

I mean I often hear MRAs sites talking about reproductive rights for men and the 'paper' abortion...NOW I've thrown some ideas out there that could give men the ability to do that and all I'm getting is flack from you about it...

It's called brain-storming... another idea thrown around, if you have a better one, then put it out there...

Anonymous said...

"Which is WHY my plan is so important to ensure that IF this happens, 30ish women STILL have incentive to want to have children
even w/o the benefit of marriage..."

So, they need to be PAID to have children. And we men are the selfish ones, right? What about incentives to men to want to have children?

"in their 30s women's changes of getting married are significantly lesser then men...and as they age into their 40s it becomes a virtual impossibility...and even if you do marry in your 40s, you'll probably produce no children anyway, thus society could care less at that point..."

So let me understand it: They CHOSE not to get married, they CHOSE to wait until it was too late, and everybody else must PAY for THEIR choices?

"This approach could easily solve one of our major social problems as well which is allowing single men, who have no wish to be fathers and/or pay child support, to be freed from an onerous burden; while at the same time frees the single women who DO WISH to be mothers to NOT be harrassed into either an abortion or one of these ongoing custody fights instigated by men trying to avoid paying child support..."

The problem with your approach, is that, for men to avoid the "onerous burden", they only need to use a rubber. Something a lot easier to do than your proposal. The same goes for women who don't want to be mothers. The only problem is for women who WISH to be mothers. So, if they will be the only group benefited by your plan, they should be the only group to pay for it.

"Basically that maternity allowance is paying child support for the child she's raising."

You mean, if we don't pay her, she could let her child die?

"It's called brain-storming... another idea thrown around, if you have a better one, then put it out there..."

Ok, I have a better idea. Since women in their late teens and early twenties are in their top fertility stage, let's make a law making mandatory for women within that age range to have at least one children and rearing him until he's 16 and ready to live alone. That way, women in their mid-thirties will be free to pursue their careers and goals, after having fulfilled their "duty" to the State.

NYMOM said...

"So, they need to be PAID to have children. And we men are the selfish ones, right? What about incentives to men to want to have children?"


It's not PAYING women to have children anymore then child support or the Earned Income Credit or any of those things we currently do equates paying women to have children...

AND giving incentives to men to have children frankly doesn't work as men DO NOT HAVE children...so we can give men ALL the incentives we want and it won't change the population numbers a bit...

Let's get real shall we...

Regarding your other proposals they are just too far off the bell-shaped curve to even entertain...we must do the LEAST intrusive things FIRST to influence people and a maternity allowance is the least intrusive and most used method in the world to impact the birth rate...not a paternity allowance as men do NOT BEAR children, so rewarding you brings NO change in our birth rate.

Although I know men like to believe the entire world revolves around them and nothing happens unless they initiate it in this case it's up to women to change their minds and act differently, not you...

Anonymous said...

"Although I know men like to believe the entire world revolves around them and nothing happens unless they initiate it in this case it's up to women to change their minds and act differently, not you..."

Ok, then women can change their minds and do... what? Complain louder?

Anonymous said...

" men do NOT BEAR children, so rewarding you brings NO change in our birth rate."

You are contradicting yourself, dear. You say birth rate is decreasing. Isn't it a change? And it is so because men are being increasingly reluctant to have children. So, I'd say punishing men indeed brought a change to our birth rate. So, if a punishment made the rate go down, it is logical that a reward will make the rate go up.

NYMOM said...

"Ok, then women can change their minds and do... what? Complain louder?"

No...

Then for more educated women to change their minds and have more children...

Also: 1) to work on getting laws changed where never-married men are not given any legal rights or obligations vis-a-vis children (unless BOTH parents agree). 2) to allow single women easier access to anonymous sperm donors and/or 3) allow legal recognition of private donor agreements between couples...

NYMOM said...

"Although I know men like to believe the entire world revolves around them and nothing happens unless they initiate it in this case it's up to women to change their minds and act differently, not you..."

Ok, then women can change their minds and do... what? Complain louder?"

No...

Educated, high income women can decide to have more children.

Also they can: 1) help get laws passed that never-married fathers are not either legally or financially responsible for children born out of wedlock (unless BOTH parents agree to it), 2) make it easier for single women to use anonymous sperm donors, 3) legally recognize private donor agreements between people...

NYMOM said...

"You are contradicting yourself, dear. You say birth rate is decreasing. Isn't it a change? And it is so because men are being increasingly reluctant to have children. So, I'd say punishing men indeed brought a change to our birth rate. So, if a punishment made the rate go down, it is logical that a reward will make the rate go up."


Birth rates are decreasing because of all these custody wars that men have instigated. It's caused women to have fewer children...

If it was up to men we would have went extinct years ago as men are NEVER ready to have kids...but now that you're managed to convince women to feel the same way by starting all this custody crap, it's finally having an negative impact on our birth rates.

Anonymous said...

"help get laws passed that never-married fathers are not either legally or financially responsible for children born out of wedlock (unless BOTH parents agree to it)"

I'd say that wanting that men pay a woman $15,000 for having children is making them financially responsible, don't you think?

"Birth rates are decreasing because of all these custody wars that men have instigated. It's caused women to have fewer children..."

And why do those custody wars exist? If it is cheaper (since you think guys don't pay because we're stingy) to have the child living with you than paying CS, perhaps it's because CS is too high, don't you think?

" make it easier for single women to use anonymous sperm donors"

Ok, so let's make those single women pay for the sperm. You don't expect we will pay for it too, do you?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.