Sunday, November 12, 2006

Another Defeat for Common Sense

Well I was sorry to see this measure defeated.

As I have stated many times litigating custody through the court system helps men. It plays to their strength in these situations: which is manipulation of the legal system through men’s control of greater financial resources. It should be pretty obvious by now to everyone that this presumptive Joint Custody measure, although not ideal by any means, was the lesser of many, many, many, evils that mothers and children could face if forced into court. Many evils.

I guess it also points out that this ‘custody war’ situation which has been going on for the last decade or so probably has to be addressed by attacking the root of the problem, which is money. It’s not custody or parenting or 50/50 visitation, etc., it is money. The system that currently has made custody of children worth money to people must be dismantled. Then people will have nothing to fight over and I guarantee you that this whole custody litigation business will become moot as few parents will bother contesting it anymore.

I was just listening to a woman talking on an early morning news show today and she was estimating that for the parent of ONE CHILD with the Earned Income Credit (EIC), child care credit and numerous other tax deductions, that custody of ONE child directs about $10,000 annually (not even counting child support) to a custodial parent. That $10,000 is just the EIC and tax credits/deduction a custodial parent is eligible for. It doesn’t even address the non-money benefits, btw, such as food stamps, Medicaid, Section 8 housing subsidiary, even some citizenship benefits…

This is the root of the problem.

Solve this and the whole custody issue will end as quickly as it began. Parents will be back to settling this between themselves and the more interested parent (which is generally the mothers in spite of the endless propaganda to the contrary) will voluntarily assume custody with no argument from the other…there will be no more incentive to fight over visitation/parenting time as there will be no money issues related to who spends more time with the kids...

Child custody measure, loses, eminent domain comes up big

By DAVE KOLPACK Associated Press Writer

Voters have rejected a proposal to revamp North Dakota's child custody laws, but approved constitutional measures to limit the government's right to acquire private property and adjust the way the state manages trust funds.

With 97 percent of the state's precinct's reporting, the child custody measure trailed 57 percent to 43 percent.

The proposal to restrict eminent domain was leading 68 percent to 32 percent, and a measure changing trust fund management was leading 67 percent to 33 percent.

The child custody measure drew the most emotional debate of the three, and several voters on Tuesday said it was the one issue that brought them to the polls.

Ashley Helbling, 25, of Bismarck, called the measure "just asinine."

Carrie McKay, 35, of Bismarck, said she voted against it because it "doesn't seem right" for the children."

There are a lot of fathers who need help, too," McKay said. "But they needed to word that differently."

Mitchell Sanderson, of Grand Forks, a sponsor of the child custody measure, said the initiative was hurt by "fear-mongering from attorneys who were protecting their Lexus payment and lake home payment."

He said he would attempt to work with the Legislature on a new bill.

"If that doesn't work, I will come back with another initiative that is plain and clear: joint physical custody unless you're found unfit," he said.

I thought it would be interesting to post some comments from the Bismarck Herald on the feelings of a non-custodial mother when the Presumptive Joint Custody measure failed there last week. She mentions how her children are punished if their father finds out they even say hello to her…

“T wrote on November 10, 2006 8:45 PM:"In response to the one that said it would be good to the father that is the non-custodial parent. Live with reality, non-custodial parents are mothers as well as fathers, and the measure should be looked at again, revised and passed. Free up the civil courts, let the children be children of BOTH parents, and yes, have the parents co-parent and quit putting the kids in the middle... after all at one time, the both were good enough to procreate with, were they not? Besides, the judges do not always know what is in the best interests of the children, they are limited in their time, and are so busy, that it's a wonder they even keep the cases straight anymore."

“T wrote on November 10, 2006 8:54 PM:"In addition to my last post before anyone berates my comments, yes, I am the mother of my children, and they mean the world to me. My ex-husband and his wife make four times than what I do, yet I pay child support and alot of their expenses i.e. clothing, personal hygiene supplies, any of their extra curricular activities... The divorce papers say we have joint legal and joint custody with open visitation for me, yet when my children contact me, or try to see me, they get punished. They are not even allowed by my ex-spouse to say hi to me if we happen to run into each other.... hmmm..."

“T wrote on November 12, 2006 4:16 AM:"to advocate4mykids... have taken my ex to court twice for contempt, the judge just tells him not to do it anymore, as for the child support, it doesn't matter what he makes, they don't take that into consideration, with the expenses being paid, he tells the kids I'm not paying for it, if your mom doesn't pay, then you go without... yes, it is parent alienation by far, and maybe divorced lawyer will go pro bono for me haha... attorneys cost money, and my ex has pretty much made a point of draining it from me so I can't afford an attorney to take him back to court"
The above was for the benefit of those self-described advocates for women from NOW and such who continue fighting these presumptive Joint Custody measures. These pompous assholes can’t seem to get it through their heads that non-custodial parents being alienated from their children are not just fathers, but many mothers as well.

I don’t know how many times I have to say this but litigating custody through the courts FAVORS fathers. It favors them. Studies have demonstrated this time and again in different states including NOW’s own studies, which have shown that 70% of fathers win custody when they litigate, NOW's own studies. Yet these same nitwits continue saying women shouldn’t settle for the ‘cookie cutter’ approach of presumptive Joint Custody and every case should be individually litigated.

It’s like dealing with a brick wall, I swear to God.

They can’t seem to get it through their thick heads that when fathers litigate, they win. NOW’s own studies have shown this. It is obviously considered trendy and progressive today to give fathers custody and millions of mothers have lost custody of their children today due to this trendiness. BTW many of these mothers never see their children again, due to these unprincipled monsters, who take custody of children to avoid paying child support.

I don’t know…it appears hopeless when you are dealing with a bunch of gender neutralized feminists who continue to disregard the studies they, themselves, funded on this very issue and insist on mothers being required to litigate custody…

All I can say is wake up.


NYMOM said...

For my two anonymous commenters, what I do on my own time is my own business.

I suggest you focus more on your own blogs and lives instead of worrying about mine.


BloggerNoggin said...

I'm not in favor if presumptive joint custody beause of the damaging affects it can have on some children and mothers who were abused in the marriage, and it might even enable it to happen even after the relationship has ended. Here it comes. However, when the norm of the "mother getting custody" it's also sending a message to fathers that they are practically guilty before they've even done anything. It's like a double edged sword. I don't think that there's any right way to fix it, really. Just because 5 out of 100 men abuse a spouse, doesn't mean the 95 other great fathers need to suffer. The 95 that get the boot in their childs life isn't really worth the sacrafice of the other 5 men that abused.

Anonymous said...

Margaret Said:
> You are only going to make a
> heroine of me when people see
> the comments you've all made
> about me here and on other
> you've shot yourselves
> in the foot.

No, Margaret. The will just escort you out of the building. You are no-one's hero. You are (flagrantly) wasting the funds and resources of the university.

NYMOM said...

So do what you have to do then.

AND we'll see.

NYMOM said...

Bloggernoggin you really are totally useless. As the ONLY reason you are against this presumptive Joint Custody is because I'm for it...

Do you even know what the issues are here?

I bet if you were on an MRA site you'd be taking the exact opposite position...and don't bother with this baloney that you are concerned about 'abused women'...actually you fit the profile of an abuser yourself in taking custody of a child from its mother just to avoid paying child support (your words, not mine)...

Presumptive joint custody would stop men like you in their tracks and for that reason ONLY I'm 100% for it...

silverside said...

That is blatantly untrue. Good fathers don't get the boot anymore. You're at least 20 years behind the times. Shoot, even abuser deadbeat dads can get custody anymore. My ex hasn't held a job since 1991, and he does just fine. He lives off me (child support) and his mom. And his gf some, who unfortunately for him doesn't care for full-time work either. Around here, they bend over backwards to accommodate any dad who shows up and is breathing. And that's the case in a lot of places now, especially in generally conservative areas.

NYMOM said...

Since 1991...that's outrageous. Almost 15 years since he's had a job. PLUS he's had no other kids with anyone else so there is no excuse for his lazy butt not working...not to mention the money he's costing our taxpayers to finance this life of a gentlemen farmer that he leads.

Generally at least if a woman was home for that number of years she would have had a 'quiverful' of kids already. So down the road society would have something to show for their investment in this situation. Some future soldiers, nurses, taxpayers of some kind to keep social security going at least...

But with this parasite nothing.

I was actually reading that court order of Genia Shockome (I downloaded it from Liz Kates' site) and the Judge mentioned that her ex makes ONLY $26,000 annually. She makes $60,000.

Now this is a couple where the guy is a computer programmer who speaks, reads and writes Russian and English. Genia Shockome is a relatively recent immigrant, relatively recent college graduate, who I assume had to learn our language from scratch. YET she's making more then twice what he is...supposedly. In a region btw, upstate NY which is economically depressed?

So how does that happen?

Let me say it before you do: lazy layabout pretending to be a stay-at-home dad so he can lounge around the house all day like a sack of crap...It's interesting the Judge quoted witnesses who were saying how unkempt the kids looked once their father got custody of them...yet the Judge didn't think that was a very important point in his ruling.


I wonder if Texas was glad to have him and his children back there? I bet he's collecting some public benefits down there now and being a vast burden on those poor taxpayers in the county where he moved to...

All I can say is good riddance. I'm glad he left NY. We have enough freeloadering men in this state, we don't need anymore. Get freakin jobs already...