Sunday, November 26, 2006

A Waste of Valuable Resources...

Ummmm...

If we have an extra $500,000 lying around somewhere this is the LAST place that it should be used.

Clearly these two women weren't thinking about the best use of resources when they recommended this.

Let me spell it out plainly: Local police departments, county sheriffs, et al, are all part and parcel of the enforcement arm of a legal system which has been shown time and again to be biased and unfair to MOTHERS today...as millions of mothers have now been separated from their children due to unfair and biased custody rulings by Judges favoring fathers.

That's what all the studies have been showing, the Census figures, AARP statistics on grandparents' custody and, in fact, it was the entire point of the "Breaking the Silence" documentary that was recently shown on PBS.

Clearly Feinstein and Hutchinson haven't been paying attention.

If we have any extra money lying around, we should be looking at starting up an "Underground Railroad" sort of operation to assist children unfairly separated from their mothers due to men manipulating the court system...NOT giving the enforcement arm of a biased against mothers legal system extra funding.

Actually these very abusive and unfit parents mentioned in the article are the very ones most likely to start a custody battle in their ongoing attempts to continue abusing the mother via the kids...so many of them already have custody of their children. They don't need to abduct them. So you are basically giving these men another tool to continue their victimization of a child's non-custodial mother.

A totally objective look at some of the most high-profile media cases over the last few years have shown that frequently the fathers involved are the court-approved custodial parent. They have already been through a court-ordered evaluation and have legal and physical custody already: as in OJ Simpson, Christopher Rhodes, Darren Mack, three good examples. Say what you will about Susan Smith and Andrea Yates, neither of these mothers had ever been evaluated as parents and been given court-ordered custody.

So why in the name of God would we wish to give the enforcement arms of courts that made these ridiculous custody decisions in unfit fathers' favor (and millions more just like them) more money supposedly to 'help children'...

Isn't that the very definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting a different result?


http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=5698618&nav=menu118_3

11/17/06 - Washington DC

Anti-Family Kidnapping Bill
News Release


The Senate Thursday night unanimously passed a measure sponsored by U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) that would help prevent abductions of children by family members and authorizes $500,000 in matching grants for FY 2008 to help fund local law enforcement efforts to investigate and prosecute these cases.

"The kidnapping of a child by a family member is our nation's most common form of abduction. These kidnappings represent a growing epidemic that receives little or no attention from the media or law enforcement. In fact, approximately 70 percent of States lack the funding and the legal guidelines necessary to investigate and prosecute these tragic cases," Senator Feinstein said.

"The bill approved by the Senate provides matching grants to give State and local law enforcement the tools they need. It is an important first step towards helping to alleviate the trauma experienced by the thousands of children who are abducted by a family member each year."

"More than half of abducting parents have a history of violence and abuse, yet these abductions are often overlooked because they are viewed as domestic disputes," Senator Hutchison said.

"This legislation will help establish guidelines and provide new funding to law enforcement agencies to solve these cases. We must give family abduction the concern and attention needed to return missing children home safely."

Bill Summary

Specifically, the "Family Abduction Prevention Act" bill would authorize $500,000 in matching grants for FY2008 (and funds, as necessary, through FY 2009 and FY 2010), to states to assist with costs associated with family abduction prevention...

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the trouble is there is not enough research into why these abductions occur in the first place. For example, do they occur more where there is mandatory mediation? That would point to some interesting conclusions. Of course everything will have to be all gender neutral, so that for an example a mother who is afraid of the father, without what the court deems sufficient proof will not only lose custody, but go to jail and not see her children. Perhaps a new mother, facing losing custody of her new born to the father runs away, a quite natural response of a new mother, she will be treated the same as any parent abducting their child out of spite. And as I said before, there have been a couple cases where fathers, divorcing the pregnant wife were asking for custody from the court before the child was even born. One mother in a Settle case, I think it was, was chastised by the judge for leaving her husband when she was eight months pregnant, and going to stay with her mother,chaised as if she was abducting the unborn child. This is crazy stuff. It makes me afraid for new mothers. One case I know of in another country, the court gave custody to the father of the nursing baby because he was in the family home, the mother was too far away to see the baby more than twice a month, what would most new mothers do under such circumstances? Or contemplate doing? Of course, she ran away with the baby, there was no worry about her care, she was a perfectly ordinary mother. After a few months she turned herself in, as a result of the abduction she had supervised visitation, and her baby did not know his mother. What I thought was so awful, I could hardly read the case, was the lack of understanding of why a mother would freak out when separated from her baby. The world is going to be damned when new mothers learn how to not freak out when their babies are taken from them...that is the end of my rant.

NYMOM said...

Exactly.

I agree 100%.

There is no mystery to be why more mothers could be doing this. I don't think any research is needed. Clearly since men have forced more mothers into courts, more of us are losing our children and it's more likely to happen at a younger age, as an infant can't speak. They are helpless.

Thus, these unprincipled monsters, many for financial gain, trying to keep the house like you mentioned or not pay child support, are the cause of this.

silverside said...

While doing research for a novel, I started looking at a lot of missing person sites. It appears that quite often, a missing woman/child combo is labelled a parental kidnapping or a missing persons case, when actually a lot of the evidence points to a domestic homicide with a very well hidden body or bodies.

Take the case of Susan Zacharias. Though she disappeared something like 30 YEARS AGO, her husband still insists she took off with the kids. BS. There has been no sign of her for years. Her family hasn't seen her. There's no activity on her SS card. The kids would be well into adulthood. Why wouldn't she surface? It's because she is probably no longer living. And when the ex admits they had a volatile relationship (very often code for domestic violence), I really suspect he had something to do with the "disappearance" of Susan and the kids.

Anonymous said...

hi nymom i left a comment but i think it never reached u
i will send this and try and figure out this system
testing 123
pj

NYMOM said...

You know you are right Silverside.

I was actually thinking myself that this could be a good way to get rid of your wife and kids...claim she abducted them, no one will ever look for them even...

That comes from me reading and you writing too many crime stories...

Because there are somewhere between 250,000 and 350,000 parental abductions that take place annually...of course, there is probably some exaggeration in this figure but still it's a substantial enough number (even with exaggeration) that they couldn't ALL be murders...

Or at least I hope not...

NYMOM said...

pj:

It's just taking longer for comments to come up now as I had to enable the comment moderation feature due to some idiots who kept posting nonsense on here.

I hate using that feature but sometimes I don't check my blog for a few hours and some jerk will put some stupid or even filthy remark on it and it might stay up for a day or so until I see it and erase it...

I just got tired of doing it, so I enabled the comments moderation feature for a while...it slows down comments as I have to read them and okay them before they'll show up...

Eventually things will return to normal and I'll remove that moderation feature, but until then comments will come up slower.

Sorry.

Anonymous said...

nymom
aaah, i see, okay, (re mod enabling)..thats fine, a good nick nack then, u should keep it running.
ok i will give it some more time and see if my post shows up, if not shall rewrite..ta
pj

Anonymous said...

hi nymom

i just wanted to share my perspective of child abductions by parent(s)...and domestic violence in a possible? different view.

i come from a family of (extreme) domestic violence and abuse...i have seen and experienced what one person can do to another (including children)..i have seen people at their worst and i am talking about my siblings, my parents and associated famil(ies)

we ended up being abducted..(but this isn't the message)...and why do abductions happen? who knows, there are plays within plays and subplots and all kinds of factors influencing...seriously it is a maze

what i wanted to say is could there not be more effort into the pre marriage side, pre relationship beginnings and prior to children coming onto the scene...and then some! more relationship counselling....is not education and information a good thing?

teaching young people about effective communication, expectations of their partner, of their relationship/conflict management/parenting skills...when u guys talk here of the huge monies being poured into litigation/funding etc...would it be such a crime to also utilise funds toward relationship skill building (and parenting with that)...could we not work at the beginnings instead of picking our way through a demolition site at the finish..?

my experience within dysfunctional families (war zones)(as a child).. is that often, children's interests are not the priority, nor their safety, security or wellbeing...parents get so caught up (with or without legal intervention) in the he said/she said he did/she did..

my mother and father were not born evil and negligent self absorbed or with the burning desire to be "right"...they were no different to any person you may have known..however they ended up with poor skills in communication, (with each other), used alcohol until it became an addiction and ended up with a frightening propensity for violence and abuse

i ask any person who is a parent, or about to become a parent to safeguard any child(ren) they may bring into a relationship...and if that relationship should irretriveably fall apart, please do not let the kids be caught in the crossfire...crossfire being physical/verbal/attitudinal...i can assure u children can pick up on every vibe and feeling u may be in or have.
i ask this for every child who maybe caught up in any real or potential crossfire...we only get one chance at childhood, and usually no matter how bad the parenting skill each parent may have we love them unconditionally and wholeheartedly anyway...to see and hear one parent try to destroy or hate the other with absolute vehemence is soul destroying to that child, not to mention very distressing and fearful...i cannot emphasis that enough.
thats why i have written in ur blog site...i genuinely feel there is more room earlier on in relationships for learning and education...if we can send rocket ships into space we can as a society invest in the people and children of our world...i know efforts are already being made, but we could strive for a little excellence...and kids are the innocent collateral damage in some of these spousal wars.
am i barking up the wrong tree?
pj

NYMOM said...

pj:

There are no outstanding comments waiting to show up now, so if you don't see your comment at this point, either you or I made a mistake and it's not here.

You'll have to re-write it.

Hope it wasn't too long.

NYMOM said...

"...am I barking up the wrong tree."

In some sense yes.

As you assume that most of the people in these situations I discuss are chronic alcoholics, drug users or are abusive to children.

But I'm essentially talking about a different group here. I'm talking about ordinary mothers facing extraordinary circumstances.

Many of the women I hear from are ordinary women, stay-at-home mothers, for instance, whose husband's suddenly filed for divorce and custody of their kids, just like that...

So out of the blue, these very ordinary mothers were suddenly homeless and w/o their children. Some good number not having worked in years, suddenly expected to pay child support to someone who makes 4 or 5 times their income. Maybe only able to see their kids twice a month, if that...As their ex, after getting custody of their kids, might decide to do a moveaway thousands of miles away...so they might wind up rarely if ever seeing their kids again.

So yeah, when you have a society where extreme things like this can happen to ordinary women (and it happens to hundreds of thousands of them every year), you are going to see extreme reactions as a result...

So I think you are talking about a completely different population then I am...

BloggerNoggin said...

" suddenly expected to pay child support to someone who makes 4 or 5 times their income. Maybe only able to see their kids twice a month, if that...As their ex, after getting custody of their kids, might decide to do a moveaway thousands of miles away...so they might wind up rarely if ever seeing their kids again."

It's BOTH parents that have had to go through this. This isn't a one-sided post. I know allot, I mean allot of men that don't see their kids because they live 1k miles away and cannot afford to travel as much as they want because of the amount of support they pay out. Remember, this should be a two-sided story from both parents, not one. The thing we need to keep in mind is the kids, not the money, no the selfishness that I see right here. Seems like women are seeing and going through what men have been going through for years now, they really are, and it irks me that those are the same women that grandstanded the fathers loss and now the shoe is on the other foot, calling the kettle black?

silverside said...

I also saw a posting recently from a mother of Japanese origin who was labeled an international kidnapper when she returned home. At the time, she had full custody and an order of protection.

She also points out that merely fleeing to a dv shelter can get you labeled a kidnapper these days, even though leaving with your children is what is typically recommended by so-called dv experts. These men are actually calling the Center for Missing and Endangered children looking for "help" (i.e. assistance in tracking down "their" wife and kids for additional abuse). It really is out of control.

Japan used to be one of the few countries where Japanese women (many of whom are suckered into marrying American abusers, since many American abusers believe they can control a non-citizen wife especially a non-citizen Asian wife that they consider submissive) could go without being hassled. Now Japan is under pressure to honor these the custody rulings of other countries.

Meanwhile, all those Arab husbands to take their kids to the middle east won't feel any heat at all. Sad.

NYMOM said...

I'm not concerned with your gender-neutral interpretation of my post bloggernoggin.

This is a site for MOTHERS...so if you want to sprout that gender neutral crap, go somewhere else.

NYMOM said...

Yes, that's true about some other countries honoring our custody rulings where MEN win custody, but then suddenly reverting to their own time-honored male dominated legal traditions when WOMEN get custody orders through a US court...

AND once they abduct these kids and get 'home' with them even in some European countries, there is no hope of even seeing your kids until they are adults...

If then.

The only thing I disagree with you slightly about, is this implication that Islamic societies are so much worse about this then other places. They might be, but it's because of the tendency of the male everywhere (the more aggressive of every species as well as our own) to work whatever system they exist within, not because their society itself is inherently soooo much worse then ours regarding mothers and children...

Actually that is nothing but propaganda from the west about Islam...

As within Sharia law, mother (or her family) is automatically supposed to get custody of any children up to abut the age of 7 or 9 years old.

Then they go with the father (or his family) for schooling, educational purposes, etc.

So Islam does recognize the primacy of the mother/child bond...

This same principle does not exist in the west. As even newborns here are subject to gender neutral custody proceedings and many, many mothers here have lost custody of infants or very young children in this manner. Although most of the children mothers here have lost custody of are older, there is a sizable group (and growing) of infants...

So, yes, I understand men in these societies don't follow this Sharia laws of theirs always (they too, like our own, will try to work the system) but yet the law EXISTS in their society, unlike our own. Which has no such protections for mothers and children.

AND before you say it bloggernoggin, I don't CARE about what happens to men vis-a-vis infants.

I'm only concerned about MOTHERS AND CHILDREN HERE...

OK...

So don't bother commenting about whether or not this happens to men with infants as well...as I don't care.

Just heading you off before you start in that direction...

Anyway silverside: we have to be careful about NOT falling into the trap of painting what goes on today in the west as being comparable to what happens anywhere else or whatever happened anywhere else. As the millions of mothers and children being separated from each other today is unprecedented ANYWHERE in history.

It never happened on the scale that it's happened here today....

NEVER...

This is propaganda to act like this is business as usual in the west or anywhere else on earth...

It's not...it's an abomination, it's a monstrous evil...

Anonymous said...

hi again nymom
then we as a society are letting these people (children) down.
our legal system and networks are in sad need of a rework? remodelling? and loopholes exist where the children fall thru into an abyss...

from personal experience i can safely say..the situation is like you get screwed over by the parents...and then a system...

i am at loss to offer up any solution apart from isnt there something that can be done far earlier...i just thought u might have some brainstorming ideas on earlier interventions/education/skills....because the end results can be so devastating, for the kids.
meanwhile i will keep thinking too.
pj

Rob Fedders said...

NYMOM,

I suppose that since I don't edit out your posts on my blog, you will also extend the same courtesy? Or are you going to pull a female supremacist act on me?

Your discussion about "Breaking the Silence" is troublesome, as it has been proven to be a hateful piece of propaganda that cares neither for children nor equality between the genders?

Here are some links for readers who would like to keep themselves sane and not buy into the supremacist filth that BTS promoted:

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/NEWS/BTSResearchCritiqueWithComments.pdf

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/1207archived.html

http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-sara.php

http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2005/11/breaking-silence-sorting-out-facts.html

http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-sadia-dv.php

http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-codes.php

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177893,00.html

http://www.cpb.org/ombudsmen/051129bode.html

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/051213

http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-producers-warned.php

http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger.php

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/051108

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/051016

---

Now, NYMOM, in all seriousness, are you a member of the organization "Mothers Opposed to Men?" (M.O.M.) of Trash Wilson propaganda fame?

http://members.aol.com/asherah/internal_memo.html

Quite seiously, NYMOM, if you go about promoting ideals that women are superior to men and they should capitulate to women in all regards and acknowledge subservience... at what point do you think you are somewhat responsible for creating men like Darren Mack, et al.

BloggerNoggin said...

Okay, well did you know that the feds pay out incentives to the states for collecting support?

Do you know where the money comes from to pay those incentives?

It comes right out of yours and my Social Security.

NYMOM said...

Rob Fedders, just to let you know I stopped posting on External Bachelor because your friend Duncan Idaho began censoring my comments.

Clearly since I never use vile language in my comments, it was due to the ideas I expressed ONLY...

He began censoring them when I responded to you on that bit about African-American families being more stable in 1890, then they were today...

I said that we never had the tools to measure those situations until recently...that's why it only became apparent to us 100 years after Emancipation what shape the Afri. American family was really in...with D. Moyinan's report around 1965...

So this is clearly a bit of propaganda put out by the MRA movement claiming black families in 1890 were two-parent, married, and more stable then they are today...

They keep blaming the situation in Afri-American families on feminism when, in fact, it has NOTHING to do with feminism...

It is due to the history of slavery and institutional racism that has existed in western society for a very long time...

I even posted a link to a chart that showed US, UK, New Zealand and Hungary, Slovina with the highest rates of illegitimacy.

He censored that as well.

It clearly demonstrated that countries with a population that is not throughly integrated into the general society and benefitting from all the 'goods' of the surrounding society were more likely to have these sorts of fragmented family situations. I think with New Zealand is it probably aborigines, with Hungary and Slovina, gypsies...

These sorts of family structure situations with dienfranchised groups has NOTHING to do with feminism however, nothing...

I'm not a gender neutral feminist so I will not support what's been going on in the movement recently; but you can't blame it for everything bad that has been happening in this world since the year 1...

That's just ridiculous.

NYMOM said...

My referral to Breaking the Silence was useful in that it showed ONE SIDE of the issue...and that's what even the criticism of the piece said...it was one-sided.

Not that it was hateful piece of propaganda as you'd like to paint it as...

Trying to reach a conclusion objectively about anything in a very complicated situation requires review of EVERYTHING, ALL stats, reports, news articles, etc., the one-sided as well as supposedly the unbiased, and then based upon all the material making a conclusion.

Which is why I included census figures on custodial fathers, along with AARP figures on custodial grandparents...everything must be reviewed to reach a conclusion...

AND my conclusion was that your group is full of it...

Litigation FAVORS men, not women.

Courts are biased against mothers, not fathers.

AND that far more mothers are non-custodial then most people believe...(if you include the 5 million or so grandparents, some good number of them paternal grandparents, in the actual figures).

So yes, Breaking the Silence was one-sided, yet it still showed us something, which was why I included it in the post.

Just like OJ Simpson, Darren Mack and Christopher Rhodes, although not typical men, show us something as well...which is that courts today will frequently err on the side of men when making a custody decision.

Since those three are just the tip of the iceberg and ALL of the Judges in those cases COULD have ruled on the side of the childrens' mothers (or maternal grandparents) since none of the mothers or their families were abusive...

So if men such as those can get custody, just about any other ordinary man can (and does) get custody in court as well...

NYMOM said...

"...i just thought u might have some brainstorming ideas..."

Well actually I do have a few...

I think I might do a post this weekend about some public policy changes I'd like to see implemented that would cut down on litigation...

Kind of like my own private wish list for changes in law and public policies across the nation.

Changes in the US would have world wide implications actually, as a woman I met just recently was telling me that Egyptian courts are starting to implement many of the family court changes that we have witnessed taking place here in the west...

Obviously, Egypt has seen how gender neutral custody litigation favors the person with more resources (namely men)...

So they have begun to reform their own courts to resemble ours.

In other words: a fascade of justice for women and children with the more monied person (still men in most societies) will still hold all the aces...but on paper everything looks and sounds very good...

NYMOM said...

"...did you know that the feds pay out incentives to the states for collecting support?"

Yes I knew it...and again so what.

They had to do that in order to stop you stingy cheapskates from turning your backs on your families and allowing the taxpayers to be burdened with supporting your kids.

Otherwise the US would be MORE broke then we are today.

Those federal incentives to states are not the CAUSE of mens' negligence, it's the RESULTS of it...

They finally got fed up with you all and took drastic action to drag you back to the table to fulfill your responsibilities...

That's what has started all these custody wars...but again, that's the RESULTS of your irresponsibility, not the CAUSE...

You're mixing up cause and effect here.

NYMOM said...

"...This is crazy stuff. It makes me afraid for new mothers..."

Yes, we must be aware of where this COULD lead, if not promptly addressed by women.

I definitely see that it could lead to mothers in custody fights BEFORE their children are even born...

Or even being charged with unlawful abduction, shortly afterwards for moving in with parents or something...

Or eventually being forced into abortions, adoptions, or even giving birth...maybe even overruled by 'fathers' on medical life and death decisions for severely handicapped infants.

Remember severely handicapped infants remain a huge liability for the non-custodial parent, as it's a LIFETIME of support you are liable for...it doesn't end when these children are 18 or 21 even, but continues for their lifetime...

This is a huge incentive for men to vote for termination of an infant either inutero or shortly after birth...

On a lesser scale, this "we are pregnant" nonsense must be addressed that I've heard young mothers using recently.

It must be shown up for the propaganda ploy that it truly represents...

So there are many many issues women in their role as mothers must be prepared to address in the 21st century...

Our agitation on behalf of our children (and it was the efforts of women that had led to this, as it goes on nowhere else in the world but where women are in power) anyway it has made children automatically entitled to certain material goods just because they are children...however, the flip side of this is that it has brought them to the attention of greedy men and made custody of children something to fight over today. As children have become worth money and other benefits to the custodial parent...

So this must be addressed...

Anonymous said...

well nymom i will be very interested in hearing your ideas, shall stay tuned, thanks, and have a good weekend.
pj

BloggerNoggin said...

NYMOM said, "Those federal incentives to states are not the CAUSE of mens' negligence, it's the RESULTS of it..."

Oh that's comforting. Now I have to pay for my dad's actions or his dad's dad's actions?

I don't think so. Times are going to change real soon. The laws are stacked against fathers because of the men who did horrible things to their families in the 70's and early 80's and unfortunately fathers like myself are paying for it.

However NYMOM, it can be changed, and it soon will be. Women will soon notice that there are better fathers out there than there was 20 years ago, the courts are already noticing, it's out there and it's growing.

God would not have given me the ability to dream, without the possibility of making it come true. And I did it!

The gravvy train is coming to a halt soon. They'll be feminists like you flipping out because the train has stopped, being the conductor is the Family Courts of America.

I will not, and I am not, going to continue to pay for my fathers, or my grandfathers mistakes they did years ago, and neither will my son or his son.

There's a new generation of men and women here now, and some more on the way, they are the one's that grew up fatherless, and they are pissed.

You can ramble all you want NYMOM, you soon will be part of an elite and tired group, it's called feminism.

BN

NYMOM said...

"The laws are stacked against fathers because of the men who did horrible things to their families in the 70s and 80s..."

Boy, you really are suffering from delusions of grandeur.

YOU as a father are far WORSE then any fathers I knew in the 70s and 80s...who the worse you could say about them were that they were negligence and self-indulgent neglecting their families...

But, at least they didn't actively harm them either physically or emotionally for financial benefit to themselves...

You, on the other hand, took custody of a five year old little girl from her mother, so you wouldn't have to pay child support...

You, yourself, have admitted that to me.

Not only did you do that, but now you've stopped her mother from seeing her and her mother's family has to waste the court's time trying to get to see that kid...another waste of family court resources...

ALL of this, so that you don't have to pay child support.

I hate to tell you the truth (well, actually I don't) but here it comes.

YOU ARE A MONSTER.

YOU ARE NOT A GOOD FATHER OR A GOOD PERSON.

OKAY...

Just to let you know.

You and the entire generation of men following you are going to suffer from the horrible things that YOU ALL did. Not historic fathers, but the monsters you are that exist today.

Okay...

Just thought I'd let you know.

This entire two-decades long episode will go down in history as another atrocity committed by men against women and children. Another abomination. Another misuse of male power and another reason for women and children to hate and fear you.

Okay...

That's going to be your legacy...

Wake up...

You're not better fathers because you are taking children away from their mothers for financial benefit for yourselves, you are WORSE ONES...

BloggerNoggin said...

Well, by the time you see that, I guess you'll be 6 feet under.

My legacy would be a father that fought like hell to be one since crooked feminists like you screwed over perfectly good fathers. The only reason why people like you fight over the kids is the money and you know it. EVERY stinking last bit that ever came out of your mouth (keyboard) eventually boiled down to the money. You look at almost any blog about childrens rights the fights always break out when someone mentions money. I remember before I had custody I had a T-shirt made up for my daughter, she wore it back to her moms, no lie! It said "I'm my daddy's 401k plan". It set me back 18 dollars because it was custom made, but let me tell you what, her mother just about had a heart- attack when she saw it. I bought it because it was better than putting dollar signs on a 5 year olds forehead, plus, not many tatto artists would do it. Anyway, The reason why I did is was because the 1200 a month I paid in support was my 401k plan. I was so broke I couldn't barely contribute. As a matter of fact, my daughter still has the t-shirt. We laughed last time she got it out of her drawer. ;)

NYMOM said...

"Well, by the time you see that, I guess you'll be 6 feet under..."

You wish...

Actually in your home state the Colonna vs. Colonna decision ruled on 2 years ago, already had custodial parents forced to pay non-custodial parents child support if there are significant disparities in income between the households.

So it's not just me who see what men like you are about...you're lucky your daughter's mother doesn't realize this as she could get child support from you even if you have custody. Many mothers aren't aware of this ruling yet, as it happens only two years ago...

Even in NYS, if you have Joint Custody you STILL must pay child support no matter the visitation plan...

California is doing a similar thing and many other states.

Like Lincoln said: You can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool ALL the people ALL of the time.

So you type is very very predictable and many others (including other men) know what's going on.

Although you would like to paint it like I'm the ONLY person who thinks this.

I might be the only one to say it out loud but MANY OTHERS think it my friend.

Many, many others.

Also as I told you before over time your daughter is going to get older and realize what you are about...even this business of hiding money from your current family, while you're still married...

AND guess what: she's going to want nothing to do with you.

So prepare yourself for a lonely old age you stingy cheapskate you...

Anonymous said...

Blogger....why would you use your daughter like that?

I mean why, would you, as a father to your child/children use them to convey a statement/grievance/issue, that you have with their mother?
The mother of your children.

An innocent child.

I sincerely struggle to understand and comprehend why you as her parent would choose to use their child as a messenger in this situation/and /or have them "side" against one parent to the other....is not a child's welfare and wellbeing a priority in any relationship breakdown between parents?

Blogger, the vibe you give on this information about your daughter wearing the shirt and conveying (what on earth it is in your mind) you feel needs to be heard....it's my interpretation that you are proud of what you have done?

...And am I correct to say that this over money?!?

You have used your child, that you helped bring into this world, a wonderful child that you and your wife gave life to, to cherish and nuture and protect and raise, who is an innocent casualty to her parents separation, (and who would love both her parents dearly)....to convey a message on her clothing, (that you would prefer to be a tattoo?)...to her mother.

Blogger I believe you have absolutely nothing to be bragging about and nothing to be proud of, my heart, thoughts and prayers go out to this child...from someone ...who as a child was used as a pawn by parents undergoing divorce...may god help your daughter Blogger.

PJ

NYMOM said...

Well PJ now you see why I have no use for this bloggernoggin or any of his ilk...

BloggerNoggin said...

Well PJ. I am proud for what I have done and that's getting my daughter. Let me tell you, her mom was a deadbeat, no gooder, lazy person. I was the primary giver in my home for 5 years while she boozed it up with girls night out. I was the one that bathed her while her mom watched TV. I'm the one that changed the diapers while her mom fed her face with gallons of icecream. I'm the one that took her to and from daycare 5 days a week while her mother got busted for shoplifting. I'm the one that put all my change in her piggy bank while her mother pulled it out the next day to buy cigarettes. I'm the one that worked my ass off 24/7 to give a beautiful home that was structurally sound financially. Don't tell me I never did anything, because you are wrong! Why the hell would'nt I fight tooth and nail to get custody of my daughter? Why, give me a good fu**ing reason? Is it because I'm a male? Is it because you're jealous because I got something you can't have? What? What? What? I have had many run in with nymom and that's fine, we get along some of the time. My veiws and her views always clash, but it's still nice to get a refresher course in all this madness in the world. People (especially women) don't like me. When I take my daughter to cheerleading or competitions, I'm the ONLY FATHER with a child there. There's tons of mothers there and no dad's, are they working, are they at home, or are they the multitude of being the 4 day a month dads because of a court order? I won custody not because I'm rich, not because I know people, I won custody of my daughter because that is where my heart is, my heart was there for 5 years, and it will continue to be there for the next 50.

BloggerNoggin said...

Shall I go on?

I still have every tooth she lost in my underwear drawer too. I have every drawing she gave me, every card she made. She'll be nine this Saturday. Here's the greatest part, when she gets older she isn't going to hate me. She's a complete 100% daddy's girl. See, she's not like the prissy girl moms make their daughter out to be. She's very rough around the edges, she will tell you where to go if you cross the line with her. She rides horses, climbs trees, she even has a Honda 4 wheeler that she puts around the farm to feed the horses and sheep. SHe cheerlads and that's it. She doesn't play dolls, she DOES NOT dream of that big house with some man like many girls do. She dreams of that big house by herself and she did it by herself with no help. That girl is so independant it would knock your socks off. I have a fund set up for her in AMEX accounts for when she turns 25 that will have plenty of money in it when she reaches that age. She's been on the honor roll twice too. Now, I wonder in the back of my mind what she would be like if her mom had her? Since you both know all the answers nymom and PJ.

NYMOM said...

Sure...

Of course you could afford to have an account for her as you are hiding money from your current wife now...

You're a sneak with your second family, just like you were with your first.

I don't believe one word you say anyway about that child's mother. She was the primary caretaker of that child; as you told me yourself you took custody because you couldn't afford child support.

You have no more right to that child then the man in the moon.

YOU are a monster, not a good father at all...

You worked the legal system to get out of paying child support and you're still doing it.

People like you are the reason our system is so screwed up...

NYMOM said...

Bloggernoggin:

Why do you keep commenting here? I told you already what I think of you so why do you keep coming back????

I think on some level you know you are worthless and keep coming here looking for absolution from me. Well sorry, but you're not going to get it here.

You are still a monster no matter how many times you try to change your story around...

Look to other places to quiet your conscious.

Anonymous said...

Blogger, I know well of deadbeat mothers and fathers, I know they are very human and make very poor choices at times and not in the best interests of their children....I do know of this crazy old human race and its foibles....

that does not answer my question why you would involve your dear little girl who has so much character and spirit and love for the world ...against her own mother to make your point of 401k plan....your grievance, your daughter is not your messenger, or a tool to pay back somebody with....I get the feeling Blogger, you just want to be "right"...sadly.

Blogger, my parents had fault after fault, weakness and addictions, but the thing that I treasure is I was able to choose to know them both....both in my life, warts and all....but I had access to them both, eventually I had other more responsible carers at times, but I knew both my parents, sure I do not approve violence, abuse, irresponsibility, addictions and all that falls in with that...but I got to know the people that make up my genetic dna, gave me life and loved me in their own crazy way...they used to play the messenger card and it is quite soul destroying, every time one parent runs down the other to the child is like a searing scorch mark against the heart....as kids we do not want to be involved in your disputes/grievances/paybacks/money issues...we just want our parents, no matter how imperfect they may be.
Sincerest best wishes to your daughter and may life be grand for her.

PJ

NYMOM said...

Very well-stated PJ.

Now bloggernoggin find another site to comment on...

You're bringing me down with all this nonsense from you right about the holidays.

BloggerNoggin said...

Yeah, Merry Christmas to you too...... Scrooge.

NYMOM said...

You're the Scrooge.

At least I never kept my children away from their father just so I could hide a few dollars in the bank.

You stingy cheapskate.

Anonymous said...

dead children do not get child support!!!

NYMOM said...

Which is why so many men wish the power to decide whether or not a woman should have an abortion.

You stingy cheapskates.