Thursday, October 05, 2006

Presumptive Joint Physical Custody: Lesser of Many Many Evils Faced by Mothers and Children

Sadly every single thing that NOW and other feminists groups are saying in this article about presumptive Joint Custody is true.

Yes, it will turn custody of children into a club to be used against mothers, forcing them to stay in marriages for fear of not being able to leave with their children.

Yes, men are doing this mostly to avoid paying high child support.

Yes, it will ultimately wind up being a joint custody parenting plan on paper ONLY just as it has in California, where they already experienced it. That the least interested parent, which is generally the father (in spite of much propaganda trying to convince us otherwise) will not continue exercising his portion of the parenting plan. So it will have the ultimate result of mothers raising the kids for 80/90% of the time with no child support, since on paper it said the parents are sharing joint physical custody.

All of this is true.

What NOW fails to acknowledge however is the role feminists have played in family courts across the nation in making this the lesser of many many evils that mothers have to accept today. Because the alternative for mothers is to have to risk going into a court system, overrun with greedy men and gender neutralized feminists, where it is considered progressive and trendy to give a father custody today.

So mothers risk a heck of a LOT more going into court on these issues then we do accepting a faux Joint Custody plan.

It should be quite obvious to any thinking person today, looking at the numbers of fathers that have become custodial over the last decade or so, that going to court to decide custody has favored men. As opposed to the defacto custody to mother approach that has existed since life first crawled out of the primal ooze. Yet feminist organizations continue to advocate for women to not accept the so-called ‘cookie cutter’ approach of presumptive Joint Custody and for us to continue letting a Judge decide these issues for us on a case-by-case basis.

Hello feminists, but millions of mothers over the last decade or so have lost custody of their children by following your advice.

Not to mention that recently studies have shown us that having female Judges in courts has proven WORSE for women in sentencing for both lesser as well as major crimes. So carrying the implication of that study through to it’s logical conclusion shows us that: a) it is not only bad for women if men are acting as Judges; but b) it is also bad for us if other women are Judges as well.

Thus, there is nothing good for women in allowing ourselves to be forced into the court system, nothing.

So NOW and other feminist groups needs to shut the hell up and quit trying to shoot down every proposal that is put forth to keep mothers out of court.

Okay.

As these very feminists are the ‘slackers’ who used other women to propel themselves into educational opportunities in law schools and the like, with the subsequent cushy jobs throughout our system that resulted for them from this. Then they failed to come through for their sisters when they were needed during this whole custody war situation over the last decade or so.

That’s the bottom line here.

These feminists failed mothers when they were in crisis in this society and since most women become mothers, this means feminism ultimately failed women.

http://www.mlive.com/news/statewide/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1159387804110900.xml&coll=1

Mlive.com
Everything Michigan


Fathers demand joint custody
Thursday, September 28, 2006
By Sharon Emery

Lansing Bureau

LANSING -- Michigan fathers who believe they've been worked over by the courts on child custody are among backers of a bill that would mandate joint physical custody unless there is convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, unwilling or unable to hold up his end of the bargain.

Currently the starting point for determining custody is the child's best interest.

But some fathers say that puts them at a disadvantage because family courts are biased toward women and, as child-bearers, women usually already have the child under their care.

"So Dad has the burden of having to fight for any kind of parenting time or custody," said William Reisdorf, an attorney from Troy and a member of Dads of Michigan, a fathers' rights group.

He was among about 100 people, mostly men, rallying at the Capitol Wednesday to support HB 5267, sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer, R-Horton. Mortimer, who as a child saw her father only every other Sunday after her parents divorced, says she's been promised a public hearing on the bill this fall.

But advocates for women say mandating joint custody would put the father's interests above the child's and turn custody proceedings into mud-slinging affairs. Women might avoid divorce, even when the family is in a desperate situation.

"We have to make sure families are not pressured into joint custody," said Kathy Hagenian, of the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, who noted that batterers often use children to manipulate their partners in custody disputes.

"Joint custody could be used to further traumatize the child," she said, and make threats and manipulation "much more effective."

Other opponents of the bill include the Family Law Section of the State Bar and the Michigan Conference of the National Organization for Women. They pointed to California, which in 1994 repealed its mandatory joint custody law, and New York, which has failed to move a similar bill, as evidence of widespread misgivings about the move.

The legislation would affect only those cases where custody is disputed, about 5 percent of the cases, according to Kent Weichman, of the Family Law Section of the State Bar. Since 1980 Michigan judges have been required to consider joint custody when a parent requests it.

"Under this bill, one parent would have to be found unfit by the courts in order to have any kind of custody arrangement other than 50-50," Weichman said.

Ultimately, "the bill prohibits the court from considering what's best for children ... by imposing one solution on all families."

Supporters of the legislation, including Fathers-4-Justice, Moms of Michigan and the Children's Rights Council, argued in a statement that Michigan families are "being micromanaged by the family court system with disastrous consequences to our children, families and the state economy."

They say the bill would result in a presumption of joint custody for fit parents, adding that equal parenting is a civil rights issue "whose time has come."

Opponents disputed the notion of court bias in favor of women, noting that in 50 percent to 75 percent of custody disputes women lose.

Some see a financial motive in mandating 50-50 custody, noting that one parent, often the mother, usually ends up providing most of the care even when the court specifies otherwise.

"This will eliminate child support -- there won't be any support orders," said Renee Beeker, president of the Michigan Conference of the National Organization for Women.

19 comments:

Richard said...

It is really surprising that while women were very ardently and vigorously propagating gender neutrality for the last three decades, they themselves are getting rattled when the concepts of gender neutrality is not favouring them. NYMOM gives one the impression that women can do no harm or bad and it is men who are evil.Concepts and social realities are changing very rapidly and we should start accepting these realities which women themselves have ushered. They can not complain now.

richard said...

NYMOM says " Not to mention that recently studies have shown us that having female Judges in courts has proven WORSE for women in sentencing for both lesser as well as major crimes."
Statements like these reveal the utterly sexiest attitudes of the modern woman. They feel that if there is a female judge , she should favour women. The duty of a judge is to judge the case judiciously and to hand out a proper and balanced judgement and punishment.It is totally irrelevant whether the judge is a man or a woman and whether the person being judged is a male or female.
However women are hopelessly trapped in their sexual identities and are forever seeking sympathy from the system. Hence they claim that women judges should in principle favour women which is nothing but an abuse of the judicial system.
More over if it is seen that women judges are harsher towards women , it only means that being women they are aware of the psyche of women and know deep down that the modern woman is as bad as men and thus deserves no extra sympathy or favour.
So why are women now cribbing and whining and complaining. Why do they not just face the reality and accept it.

SANDY said...

This site gives a distorted and onesided view of things and that too in a sexiest manner favouring women. Why can not men have custody of their children? Why can not fathers have the right to parent?
While women have brought massive changes in our society some of which were unthinkable even a few decades back, it is wierd that they are unwilling to accept those changes which do not favour them.
Some how women have led themselves to believe that they are the perpetual victims and the social system exists only to favour them and to cater to their wishes. Today when men are also asserting themselves and challenging feminists viewpoints, the modern woman is fumbling and tottering and is refusing to accept the same. It is so ridiculous! While men have accepted the changes brought about by women, women are feeling threatened to accept the changes being sought by men.Then their attitude is totally female chauvinistic.

NYMOM said...

"They feel that if there is a female Judge, she should favor women."

Just like every other group of outsiders that finally gets some of their 'own' into the halls of power...then expects that all the historical/special circumstances that lead to them being kept out originally are finally going to be taken into consideration...

Let me ask you this: would the hispanic or african-american population stand for this bullcrap???

Heck no...and neither should women...

NYMOM said...

"Why can men not have custody of their children."

Because women invest, risk and simply contribute more to bringing children forth. They bond with them in utero, allow their bodies to be used and eventually disfigured through child-bearing and their emotions engaged in a way that no man would ever understand since they quite simply don't go through the same cycle of events to become a father that women go through to become a mother.

AND if we continue diluting the rights of mothers by handing the same rights to fathers, we quite simply will have women not very interested in risking having any kids.

Which is what is happening already...

Listening to you is the path to extinction for humanity especially as more and more women become aware of these new legal trends in mens rights...

Wake up.

NYMOM said...

"...it is weird that they are unwilling to accept those changes that do not favor them..."

The line in the sand for 'unwillingness to accept change' begins and ends for most mothers as soon as you being messing with our children...mothers don't have kids so they can be used for all kinds of weird social engineering experiments or to continuously fight with men to see who is the better 'mother'.

Having kids isn't gender neutral so neither can custody be...

We must be gender neutral on output when input is the same. In things such as jobs, professional training, education, housing mortgages, etc., we can be gender neutral as everyone's input is the same in those areas. However having children is NOT gender neutral so giving rights to someone else for womens' unique input quite simply is unacceptable.

God, nature, evolution, whatever has already designated the best, most natural guardian for the young and that happens to be women as mothers...not men...they are bit players in this area...

It's the selfishness and greed of men that has led to our current state regarding this issue. Mothers haven't changed so there is nothing weird about them.

bloggernoggin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
BloggerNoggin said...

I sure hope that House Bill passes.
It proves that children should have EQUAL access to BOTH parents.
Anyone who sees a father's positive role in a child's life as a threat, certainly has a agenda and children are not on it! And no one will ever be able to say that FRA's agenda is hidden or anything other than the need for children having equal access to both parents!

NYMOM said...

No the fathers' rights agenda certainly isn't hidden.

Particularly when you read the previous post regarding the brief a fathers' rights group sent to a court in Mass. supporting a lesbian having rights to custody just because she lived with a mother and child for 18 months...

It's quite obvious they'll support ANYONE if they think it will degrade the mother child bond...they don't even care if they hurt most other men by this. As more men are going to be hurt by a ruling assigning legal responsibilities/rights for children just because you lived with their mother for a short period.

BloggerNoggin said...

I see it different.
I know many men that want to leave their marriage because they are not happy, consequently, they can't. Why? It's not worth the cost. When a man leaves a marriage he will lose 75% of what they accrued together, and 55% of his salary to support or alimony. To me, it's a legal black mail. Why, why is it ok for women to get out of a marriage and successfully do it with a monetary reward? It's not fair that men have to stay married in a relaionship they don't want to stay in. If they leave, they will have nothing, it's a trap. If women can leave a marriage, men should be able to do it in the same manner. I believe that if this bill is passed, it will set precedence. I would hope that men have the same equality under family laws as women do. A close friend of mine wanted to leave his wife, and once he got to the lawyers office and saw what the costs are, the alimony, the support and such he changed his mind. Why doesn't he get the same equality under family laws as if he were a woman to want to leave the marriage?

NYMOM said...

This is a lie as you already know bloggernoggin because we discussed it in another post. Men do NOT lose 75% of anything when they divorce. Alimony is rarely awarded today since most women work. The only thing of value most of us have is our house and that usually is awarded (temporarily) to the person who gets custody. Which is why so many men like you have suddenly begun fighting for custody. It's an attempt to keep all the marital assets.

But you know this already as that's what you did.

The only thing you said truthfully could be regarding child support. It is too high, so that issue needs to be addressed.

The rest of your post is warmed over nonsense which I've already been over with you numerous times.

So probably if you post another lie on this issue again, I'll erase your comment.

BloggerNoggin said...

Ok nymom, seems like all of the posters here you delete them all, it's almost like your talking to yourself, all I see is that the vast majority of posts in here are all yours with a delete message in between. I know you have every right to delete whatever you want, and people have a right to post whatever they want too. But in essence, you've done a drive-by-type media by deleting other peoples comments and that makes this blog a one way street. I truly believe a blog should be governed, no doubt, but when it's steered in one direction only to benefit only your beliefs it then has become biased and not user friendly among people that have different beliefs than you.

NYMOM said...

As I told you before you idiot bloggernoggin you know damn well most of those deleted comments are yours...

BloggerNoggin said...

No they are not nymom...As long as I am logged in then they are mine.

byrdeye said...

It's true fellas...once you marry her, due to our outdated Draconian anti-male marriage/no-fault divorce laws..."it's cheaper to keep her."

It's been statistically proven that when a couple divorces, the woman gets richer and the man gets poorer. In fact, he often becomes an indentured servant paying for his ex's new boobs to fvck all her new bf's with!

THEREFORE, NEVER SAY "I DO!" Say "I DON'T!" That is the ONLY way we can fight back against the male onslaught by man-hating feminist legislators. Don't let some bitter lesbian byches dictate your love life! NO MEANS FREEDOM!!!

DAMN THE MA'AM! DAMN THE MA'AM! DAMN THE MA'AM! DAMN THE MA'AM!!!

NYMOM said...

So don't get married...

Nobody is holding a gun to your head to force you to marry anyone.

Live your life as you see fit.

The problem with most men is that they wish to have it both ways. They wish to do whatever they want, but then still feel they have the right to pass laws restricting women from doing what we wish...

For instance, on an issue such as emergency contraceptives or even ordinary contraceptives, what right do men have to tell women what to do? Or even open their big traps and have an opinion about it? Yet that doesn't stop any of you from ranting endlessly on about what form of birth control women use...or from passing laws restricting womens' access to contraceptives.

So for the record:

THAT IS NONE OF YOUR CONCERN.

SO MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

OKAY.

That's just one example but there are many others where men have no problem poking their nose in womens' business and trying to pass laws restricting our rights...

Which is quite different from how women handle marriage.

As no one forces men into that. You go into it voluntarily. If you don't wish to do it, there is no law that forces it upon you...

Anonymous said...

Presumptive joint custody protects both parents' right to parent by preventing a judge from violating our fundamental rights to the care and nurture of our children. It protects all parents from the worst government intrusion of our families. It protects us from having our children forcibly removed from a loving fit, willing, and able parents. Presumptive joint custody will go a long way towards the restoration of the virtues of trust and equal treatment under law.

Opponents often mislabel presumptive joint custody as mandated joint custody. HB5267 doesn't prohibit the parents from working out an amicable 60/40 or 70/30 or 80/20 agreement. If they can work out an agreement, the judge will typically accept it without question. Child support will be calculated, based on the level of involvement.

Judges forced to make decisions are often agitated by the hostility, pettiness of argument, and often sheer stupidity of divorcing couples. They too get frustrated and make rulings based on exhibited court behaviors, rather than facts. They wrongfully judge parenting skills on the basis of duressed courtroom behaviors. It is just plain wrong.

Judges also know that without time and extensive amounts of additional money to fund an appeal 98% of the public is bound to accept their decision. They know that unless negligence of fact was present the decision likely won't be overrulled in the Michigan courts.

People left out out in the cold feel the system is corrupt and know the system doesn't take the time to care about the welfare of their children. They may fight the decision. They may get depressed. They may lose their job. They often declare bankruptcy. They often fall behind or may become deadbeats, and be back in the system; this time seeing the bureaucracy of collection, something the government cares significantly about because the state and federal government both pay them to care about.

Do everything you can to support Michigan's HB5267, it is for the good of the parents.

Michigan Parent.

Rob19321 said...

Hi, I'm wondering if nymom would post (1) pro's and (2) con's of Joint Physical Custody.

I have my own thoughts, but really would like to hear/see your arguments both for and against. (I'm assuming, maybe falsely, that you see some prositive benefit(s) to children and fathers maintaining the same level of activity as they did before the married failed.)

Please, also excuse that I am new and have not been in the lengthy conversations you've all had.

NYMOM said...

Hi Rob,

One pro to Joint Custody is that it is usually negotiated between the parties involved so it doesn't require a lengthy court battle.

The cons to it are numerous:

. It can lead to continuous infighting over child support

. It can also be used as a 'stepping stone' to one parent being exiled from a child's life as joint custody is usually just the prelude to lengthy court proceedings as one parents tries to manipulate themselves into sole custody.

It's rarely a permanent custodial arrangement.