Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Best of Luck Silverside with your new Blog....

One of my old posters started her own blog called Dastardy Dads. It's a little gory but I thought I'd post a comment on it when I read this story...however, I couldn't so I put the comment on my blog instead.

Anyway, best of luck with your blog Silverside.


Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Custodial dad murders 3 children (Taif, Saudi Arabia)
UNNAMED DAD had custody of the children, as is the legal custom in Saudi Arabia. His wife had left him and returned to her father's home. She had wanted, somehow, to get the children back. But that won't happen now that Dad has stabbed two of the children to death, and beheaded the third.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=124700&d=20&m=7&y=2009&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom

Monday 20 July 2009 (27 Rajab 1430)

Soaked in blood, killer dad called cops
Arab News

TAIF: More details have come out in the cold-blooded murder of three children by their father in Al-Qumriyah district of this highland city in the Western Region. According to Sunday’s edition of the local daily Shams, the father is a former military police officer in his 50s who was crippled last year in a car accident that ended his career. His wife left him some time after the accident and went back to live with her family.

After murdering his three children, the man — whose name is not being made public — called police to inform them of his crime and waited at his home, drenched in blood, for the authorities to arrive and arrest him.

Shams described the crime in detail, presumably citing official reports. After his brothers left the house, the man began with his six-year-old daughter, Siham, stabbing her more than 10 times in the chest and abdomen. Five-year-old Raid came next; the father beheaded him. Then the man went after seven-month-old Lamis, stabbing the baby girl to death.

Some neighbors say the father committed the crime after receiving a telephone call from his wife who threatened that she would take the three children from him.
Posted by silverside at 8:10 AM
Labels: child death, custodial dad, murder

Response by NYMOM
I don't know if you are aware of it but under strict Islamic Law a child under the age of 7 or 9 years old is supposed to be in the custody of their mother and her family (in the event or divorce)...

So as usual men want to have it both ways...they want to claim they are strictly religious and go by Sharia law but then they also want to follow the western secular law code to give themselves custody when Sharia law and custom would deny it...

What else is new.

Actually Sharia law codes can be better for mothers of young children then our secular western ones.

Fancy that now!!!!!

89 comments:

silverside said...

Thanks for the plug!

Val said...

The latest 'round here is a dad who apparently drowned the baby in the bathtub, then tossed her body into Lake Lewisville (body was never recovered)...
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-kidnap_17met.ART.State.Edition1.5107688.html

PolishKnight said...

I'm honestly puzzled NYMOM. What "western secular law"?!?! You're talking about Saudi Arabia! In addition, the article states that the neighbors believe the father was worried he would lose custody. Finally, you've poo-pooed Richard and I for supposedly using deviant/rare cases to make generalizations yet here you are making a generalization about "men" based upon a psychopath in Saudi Arabia?

I chuckled when you said men were trying to have it both ways. Yeah, right, it's men who want to have "equal" rights and mo' money in the workplace and then expect men and the taxpayers to foot the bills for them and their kids if they wind up single mothers because they can't marry up. Yeah, it's "men" who are the ones who want it both ways.

virago said...

"Actually Sharia law codes can be better for mothers of young children then our secular western ones."

Sharia Law really doesn't mean much when it comes to mothers having custody. Supposedly, a mother is suppose to have PHYSICAL custody of small children, but all LEGAL custody is given to the father. She can't make a decision concerning her kid unless she asks dad's permission for EVERYTHING. OTOH, she can be declared an "unfit mother" just by AN ACCUSATION of so-called mpropiety, i.e., she's a bad mother because the father claims he heard rumours that the mother didn't cover herself properly with her veil or something, and once dad gets custody, it's up to HIM if the mother gets visitation. No court will go against a father's wishes. In the meantime, a saudi dad can do WHATEVER he likes, and no court is going to rules against him. Molests his own daughter? Too bad. Marry a 6 year old girl younger than his daughter? Too bad. This idea that Sharia Law gives custody of young children to mothers is not as cut and dry as it seems. It's very easy for the father to circumvent, and extremely hard for the mother to do the same because the CHILDREN ARE SEEN AS BELONGING TO THE FATHER IN SAUDI CULTURE. And that's just for saudi women. A Saudi man can marry a christain woman, have kids with her, and get custody of those same kids because the mother is considered an infidel unfit to have custody. In the meantime, a Saudi father can marry another christain woman and dump those kids on her to raise, and no one will bat an eye at the hypocrisy of the situation. No, Sharia Law is not better than western secular law, but western secular law is geting to be pretty bad on it's own concerning a mother's right to custody.

NYMOM said...

Well Val, I know people commit horrible crimes against children but these are nor 'in the mainstream' which is generally what I like to talk about here.

Remember there are far more men who want custody of children because of the child support situation then men who want custody to abuse children...

That's my main point...although I know many men (and women) can and do abuse children...

Thanks for your comment anyway.

NYMOM said...

Virago, I understand that men in the middle east abuse Shari law...BUT if you actually follow it to the letter (the way they wish to do in everything regarding women) THEN it's actually more realistic and considerate about mothers and children then western law...which renders no consideration or mention of the mother/child bond whatsoever...

Everything is gender neutral today in western law and now the mid-east is beginning to pick that up too...

Actually I have an interesting article to post about that issue which shows that many middle-eastern countries are starting to adopt our family legal code and it's actually becoming WORSE for mothers and children under their court system.

Another little known factoid that many women are not aware of...

Actually a woman legislator in Iraq was mentioning that in Foreign Affair publication, how mothers fared BETTER under Islamic law then under secular Western laws...and she was concerned that women were not being made aware of it in Iraq, as they rush to adopt our legal code.

These issues are a little more complicated then women first realized...

NYMOM said...

Polish Knight:

Western women MUST be made aware of what is going on in Islam as the muslin population world wide is larger then the west and many of them are immigrating to the west...

These are not rare situations like people drowning a child in a lake...these are vast numbers of people in competition with the western political system and the marketplace of IDEAS...and that's what this blog is supposed to be about: discussion of ideas on the evolution of policies and new laws to assist ordinary women in their role as mothers...

Thus: womenasmothers...not women in pissing contest with men to see who can be the better mother...

Get it now...

virago said...

"Virago, I understand that men in the middle east abuse Shari law...BUT if you actually follow it to the letter (the way they wish to do in everything regarding women) THEN it's actually more realistic and considerate about mothers and children then western law...which renders no consideration or mention of the mother/child bond whatsoever..."

NYMOM, first of all most of Sharia Law is based on the Hadith (traditons) which is a collection of sayings that the prophet Mohammed supposedly said or didn to his followers a thousand years ago. A lot of these sayings were not actually wrote down until about 250 years AFTER Mohammed died, and before that, his sayings were passed down for generations by "memory". Unfortunately, there was so much schism in early Islam, that people were saying that Mohammed said this or Mohammed said that, and there was a lot of doubt ABOUT WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID. Islamic scholars to this day have opinions about what is considered a "weak" hadith or a "strong" hadith. Unfortunately, there isn't all around agreement on exactly what Muhammed actually said among islamic scholars tody. What is certain is the verse of the Koran that talks about the custody of children after a divorce. Al-Baqarah 2:233:

The mothers shall give suck to their children for two whole years, (that is) for those (parents) who desire to complete the term of suckling, but the father of the child shall bear the cost of the mother's food and clothing on a reasonable basis. No person shall have a burden laid on him greater than he can bear. No mother shall be treated unfairly on account of her child, nor father on account of his child. And on the (father's) heir is incumbent the like of that (which was incumbent on the father). If they both decide on weaning, by mutual consent, and after due consultation, there is no sin on them. And if you decide on a foster suckling-mother for your children, there is no sin on you, provided you pay (the mother) what you agreed (to give her) on reasonable basis. And fear Allâh and know that Allâh is All-Seer of what you do.

It says that mothers will nurse their children for two whole years, and the father has to pay for her support. It says absolutely nothing about mothers geting custody beyond two years, and if she nor the father don't have some sort of agreement about weaning or nursing in those two years, THE FATHER IS FREE TO GET A WET NURSE. Basically, the Koran itself only supports mother custody for two years, but this is tenuous. In the end, mothers are only seen as a wet nurse that can be replaced by any other wet nurse,
but ultimately, the child belongs to THE FATHER. Sharia Law may be based on some "traditions" of the prophet Mohammed, but giving ultimate custody to the father IS NOT AN ABUSE OF SHARIA LAW. The Koran is seen as more authoritative than the Hadiths, and in the end, the Koran is what they fall back on if there is a disagreement between mother and father.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, first, you say this is not a pissing contest to determine whose the better mother. I agree. For the record, I don't believe Richard or I want such a contest. I'm not even advocating a pissing contest to establish whose a better PARENT. I favor shared custody when possible.

Your wording is interesting because it demeans fatherhood by excluding it entirely or assuming the mother deserves custody. This would be like men saying that women trying to get equal employment opportunities are trying to act like they're men. We're not trying to push women out of their children's lives while at the same time trying to get them to do all the cooking and cleaning.

This brings us to "child" support. Your wording there implies that men are greedy for seeking custody to avoid paying support (which can be easily debated since many men pay more in court costs then they do in support) but ignore women's own motivation to get custody/have children out of wedlock and collect welfare and support.

Finally, you're argument, and I'll quote you directly: "western law...which renders no consideration or mention of the mother/child bond whatsoever..."

What a friggin' joke. Women still get primary custody most of the time and shared custody the rest. Even if the law is stated in a gender neutral fashion, it was clearly crafted around giving preference to women via rewarding the person who stays at home with the kids over the breadwinner (guess who is who?) And most judges openly express a maternal bias anyway and the numbers don't lie.

If men and MRA's are making progress in getting more respect for men in custody it is because the men are held to higher standards AND living up to them more often while the opposite for mothers. That's not the men's fault. I find Kimberly/Virago's assertion that Saudi Arabian men might make up false allegations to get custody since that's a common tactic WOMEN use to get more alimony and child-support in the states.

But yes... you do have a point that more men from these cultures are immigrants and bringing that attitude here. You can thank the feminists and PC leftists who have hopped into bed with them out of knee-jerk hatred of GW Bush. Tee hee. Yeah, us white males are SOOOO bad. Wait until they find out what the alternative is!

virago said...

"You can thank the feminists and PC leftists who have hopped into bed with them out of knee-jerk hatred of GW Bush."

George W. Bush was always kissing saudis ass when it came to oil, and also considered Saudi Arabia an "ally" in the war on terror. He was in bed with them the whole time.

NYMOM said...

Mothers should not have to have their children held hostage in these phony shared custody arrangements just so men can pay less child support. Unless abuse or neglect can be proven a mother should always be the one with custody of her children...

Sorry.

This point is not negotiable...

NYMOM said...

Sorry Virago, but your interpretation of Sharia law regarding custody of young children is incorrect...

virago said...

"Sorry Virago, but your interpretation of Sharia law regarding custody of young children is incorrect..."

Well, NYMOM, I have to disagree because the verse that I quoted is from the Koran directly. Whereas any other information comes from the islamic traditions (Hadith). The koran is considered a revelation. The Hadith is not. The Koran makes it clear-the children belong ultimately to the FATHER. This provides a loophole for the father to get custody of the child at any age.

NYMOM said...

I know men can work every system but it's generally (or it was before western influence) considered appropriate for a young child (up to the age of 7 or 9 years old) to reside with the mother and her family...

Later the child will revert to the custody of it's father for education and preparation for life...

But yes, I understand that men can work any system to their advantage...and do.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, what is "phony" about shared custody arrangements and if it is, what's wrong with that? If it's "phony", I would guess you're implying in the sense the mother is raising the kids on her own anyway so the man gets out of child-support, doesn't that mean she's still effectively the primary parent anyway? Or are you saying the father is getting primary custody under "phony" shared custody arrangements?

And I would appreciate it if you could address the fact that women are just as motivated to demand primary custody to get "child" support as men are to fight for shared and/or primary custody. Your argument is pregnant with the presumption that if men are actually motivated by child-support payments, then women have these problems because they refuse to relinquish it. It's really that simple: When women stop needing men for money, then they won't need to put up with our crap anymore. Note: Affirmative action jobs and welfare via Patriarchal patronage don't count.

PolishKnight said...

I have a compromise proposal:

If you want custody of children to go to the mother unless abuse or neglect can be proven, fine. I'm ok with that PROVIDED that the father doesn't have to pay child-support unless abuse or neglect can be proven on his part BY THE SAME STANDARDS.

Fair enough?

NYMOM said...

I already told you that I support unmarried men not being forced to pay child support nor should they have any legal rights to child. I do think married men have made a legal commitment and that might include child and/or spousal support. But I think my compromise is fair and I predict they'll be less custody fights if it was enacted.

PolishKnight said...

I see you have made a compromise, but it still clearly assigns men (even if only divorced men) disproportionate responsibilities compared to rights: You state they made a "legal commitment" yet at the same time they shouldn't have equal rights to their children? That's like your bank taking away your home or car at their discretion and demanding you continue to make the payments!

It's quite simple NYMOM: If you want the women to have all the rights then they should foot the bills. That's what being an ADULT is all about and it also sets a good example for children as well.

This is a perfect example of how feminist equality or women's rights translates into a ntion of feminine entitlement: Goodies that men have to earn (money and independence) but without the responsibilities. Then you're shocked that us men don't seem to like that paradigm.

I think you're being selfish as hell but that's really not the point. The POINT, NYMOM, is for you to understand WHY us men don't think this is such a great deal AND why we are increasingly fighting it and, as you can no doubt surmise, will increasingly become successful since we hold most of the guns, politicians, and even earnings and can vote with our feet.

It's the old barroom/playground challenge of a person acting in an obnoxious way, another person complaining, and the response: "make me". OK, see what happens when enough men get pissed off.

PolishKnight said...

I have a philosophical question, NYMOM. Your argument that married men have a 'legal commitment' got me to thinking to ask: Just what commitments do you think married women make?

Do you think they make a commitment, a LEGAL commitment, to have regular sex with their husbands? To provide them with children? To cook and clean for them? Do they make ANY commitments? Did I miss anything?

And most importantly, as a "legal commitment" implies, what penalties should she get if she fails to meet them? Should her husband be able to divorce her and relinquish his commitments? Should the state be able to force her to live up to them?

NYMOM said...

I accept that the 'legal commitment' of marriage should allow men a chance to fight for custody...didn't I say that a dozen times already...

PolishKnight said...

Then you should be happy to know that women have a "chance" to fight to custody now. So you can close down this blog. Right?

Somehow, I don't think it's that easy. You just said above that it's non-negotiable for you that women get custody unless it's proven that she was abusive or neglectful. So maybe what you mean is that men would have a right to provide that. Is that it? (please clarify)

But... why should men need to have a "right" to fight to prove something that the state shouldn't be allowing in the first place? Shouldn't the state discourage women abusing and neglecting children on it's own merit? I mean, I know this is a silly notion, but maybe the courts should make it a priority to protect children rather than women's custody and support benefits.

Just a thought.

virago said...

"I mean, I know this is a silly notion, but maybe the courts should make it a priority to protect children rather than women's custody and support benefits."

And men will still gripe because protecting children goes hand-in-hand with protecting women's custody and support benefits. Children have the right to the same CONTINUITY OF CARE they always received while their parents were together. And in most cases, mom is the primary caregiver while most of dad's contribution is FINANCIAL. And children have the right to receive this post divorce, and that means MOTHER CUSTODY AND PATERNAL CHILD SUPPORT. All these fathers griping about paying child support and fighting for custody of a child THEY WERE NEVER THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER OF while claiming mom is unfit when she isn't are denying their children their rights. That said, if men only fought custody cases in situations where THE MOTHER WAS ACTUALLY UNFIT, the NUMBER OF CUSTODY CASES CLOGGING OUR FAMILY COURTS WOULD BE WAY DOWN. However, the majority of mothers ARE NOT UNFIT, and the majority of mothers WERE THE PRIMARY CAREGIVERS DURING THE RELATIONSHIP. And the majority of children BELONG WITH THEIR MOTHERS. It's as simple as that!

Anonymous said...

"Children have the right to the same CONTINUITY OF CARE they always received while their parents were together."

What V once again fails to understand is that children of divorce DO NOT receive the same continuity of care they always received while their parents were together. They don't receive it from their fathers OR their mothers.

Most children of divorce will readily tell you this. Intact-family parenting and broken-family parenting are completely different animals. But of course, as most of them will also testify, they're not much listened to.

If parents were as concerned about kids' "rights" to some kind of "continuity of care" as they are about doing what they want to do, they'd put a lot more work into their families.

No form of custody significantly improves outcomes for kids of broken homes. But presumed shared parenting demonstrably reduces the number of broken homes.

It's as simple as that. "End of story."

;-)

Richard

virago said...

Richard,
I was a child of divorce. You weren't. Your the one who doesn't understand.

"But presumed shared parenting demonstrably reduces the number of broken homes."

This is a bunch of father's rights rhetoric. First of all, there isn't a state that has a presumption of EQUAL PHYSICAL CUSTODY. Only 8 states have a presumption of JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY. And the majority of divorces in these 8 states have children living in the FULL PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THEIR MOTHERS. Of these 8 states, 5 have some of the highest divorce rates in the nation. In fact, I live in one of the 3 states that have the lower divorce rates. However, my state has only had presumed joint legal custody for 10 years. My state's divorce rate has been low for the LAST 80 YEARS, and it isn't significantly any lower now than it was over 10 years ago WHEN MOTHERS HAD SOLE LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY. The idea that presumed shared parenting reduces the number of broken homes is a load of crap. It's as simple as that. THE REAL END OF THE STORY.

NYMOM said...

Well Richard the only problem with that 'presumed shared parenting' is that it hold women hostage in unhappy (maybe unsafe, I don't know neither do you) marriages or they risk losing custody of their children to some idiot trying to pay less child support...

Although to be honest I do support 'presumed shared parenting' as the lesser of many many many evils that can happen to women and children if we don't support it.

The states that have enacted it have seen a drop in the divorce rates but I don't know if what that translates into 'on the ground' and, again, neither do you.

Anonymous said...

V, I'm not talking about joint legal which isn't much more than same old same old.

I'm talking about the findings of the National Center for Health Statistics that states with high numbers of joint physical custody awards (defined as each parent having a minimum of 30% of the child's time) have an 8% decline in divorce rates four years later, as opposed to low joint physical custody states which experienced almost no drop in divorce rates (about .04%).

Not only that, low joint custody states also have lower marriage rates to begin with.

NY, presumed shared parenting doesn't constitute "losing custody" of anything except maybe exclusive ownership and control.

What it does is help ensure that nobody can remove your child from your life on a whim. I'm glad you can at least see that much.

C'mon, you morally superior females aren't all about nasty "patriarchal" stuff like control and money, right? That's what us male brutes are supposed to be about, right?

As far as being "held hostage" goes, under shared parenting women would be no more held hostage in marriage because of children than we would be (and are), and your freedoms to do as you please are no more or less important than ours.

It's the damndest thing how liberals can take normal family commitments and obligations and turn them into being "held hostage." Which I guess explains why liberals have fewer kids, as well they should. Few things are as inconsistent with personal freedom as parenting.

Richard

virago said...

V, I'm not talking about joint legal which isn't much more than same old same old.

Fair enough, I guess. However, I don't consider each parent having a minimum of 30% of the child's time as "joint physical custody" either. All this means is that each parent is required to have their child overnight a minimum of 30% a year. However, the most common form of so-called "joint physical custody" is a schedule of 30/70 with the father usually having overnights 30% of the time and mothers having overnights 70% of the time. Fathers that have their kids overnight 30% of the year comes out to 109.5 overnights. Spread these 109.5 overnights, and it comes out to about 9 overnights a month. This is roughly the same amount of overnights a month that is seen in the standard visitation schedule of every other weekend/ one night a week that is seen in SOLE MOTHER CUSTODY. Taking what is essentially MOTHER CUSTODY and slapping a joint physical custody label on it doesn't make it so. It's isn't much more than the same old same. As for the rest of your comments, I'm with NYMOM. Your the one who can see the trees for the forest. However, I've argued this topic to death on other posts, and NYMOM can take this one.

virago said...

"I'm with NYMOM. Your the one who can see the trees for the forest"

Correction: I meant to say you can't see the forest for the trees.

NYMOM said...

BTW, it can be a lot worse then 30% of your child's time being spent away from you. For instance, they can decide to have an infant traveling back and forth every three or four days to spent blocks of overnight time with a recreational sperm donor. AND you can be blocked from even calling to check what's going on...

Additionally most men just dump these babies off on a girl-friend, their mother or another female relative...so basically your infant is in an extended baby-sitting arrangement sometimes with a total stranger (women they picked up in a bar or something who morphed into their 'fiance')...

So it can be far worse then just 30% of the time...far worse...

virago said...

"Additionally most men just dump these babies off on a girl-friend, their mother or another female relative...so basically your infant is in an extended baby-sitting arrangement sometimes with a total stranger (women they picked up in a bar or something who morphed into heir 'fiance')... "

Perfect example: Haileigh Cummings. Her custodial dad, Ronald Cummings, left her in the care of drugged up, underage girlfriend Misty Croslin. Just days before Haileigh disappeared, Misty Croslin used a neighbor's phone to call her mother, and the neighbor heard Misty say," I'm so sick of taking care of someone else's kids ALL the time." While I don't think Ronald Cummings had anything to do with Haileigh's actual disappearance, a custodial mom, who left her kids with a drugged out, underage boyfriend, would've been charged with "failure to protect" and stripped of custody of her kids. But hey, Ronald Cummings is the FATHER-got to give him the benefit of the doubt while he marries Misty Croslin within days of Haileigh's disappearance! Meanwhile, Crystal Sheffield, Haileigh's biological, non-custodial mother, was criticized for being a bad mom because she couldn't give an exact answer when asked what time Haileigh got off school (something a lot of non-custodial dads wouldn't be able to tell you either). No matter what NYMOM, they always manage to blame the mom!

NYMOM said...

Exactly what I was thinking as I listen to Nancy Grace hammer away at Crystal Sheffield every time she comes on...

Ronald Cummings should be charged with something just like a mother would have been for bringing this idiot Misty around his kid...

virago said...

Yeah, he should have been charged. In fact, he shouldn't have had custody to begin with. The mother and maternal grandmother made allegations that he abused the mother. The court found that there was "insufficient evidence" to prove the allegations. Insufficient evidence does not mean he didn't abuse the mother, it just means they couldn't prove it, but the court took the kids away from her for making the allegations. There isn't any doubt in my mind that Misty Croslin knows what happened to Haileigh and won't fess up. I don't know if she actually did something to Haileigh, or if she neglected Haileigh at some drug party she was alleged to have taken her to and something happened there that makes her scared to come forward. However, there are things about Misty that bothers me. She was on drugs, underage living with a 25 year old man. She had around the clock care of his kids. She came from a dysfunctional family background where she lived in a car at one point, and she was learning disabled. She didn't seem to have any place to go, nor stay. She was taken advantage of by a 25 year old man so he would have a babysitter in exchange for sex and and a place to stay. There were reports that he had physically abused Misty, and she was afraid of him before Haileigh's disappearance. And if Misty was doing drugs, you can bet Ronald Cummings was too. In fact, Misty is known to be one of three underage girlfriends that Ronald Cummings has had, and CRYSTAL SHEFFIELD was one of them. There were issues brought up that Crystal Sheffield may not have been taking care of her kids, but in light of these facts about Ronald Cummings, I wonder how much of that was true. Crystal Sheffield has tried to regain custody of her other child and of Haileigh if they ever find her. She was denied. Whatever issues Crystal may have had with parenting(if there was any to begin with), she seems to have gotten herself together. She looks a lot better than Ronald Cummings at this point. And I believe her when she said Ronald Cummings abused her. OTOH, if she's denied custody after all this, Ronald Cummings should be too. Haileigh, if they ever find her, and her brother would probably be better off with one of the grandmothers (I'm sure these kids spent A LOT of time with Ronald Cumming's mother in between underage girlfriends). However, Ronald Cumming's mother having custody may be questionable as well because she and her family believe and support Misty. I can't fathom that one when this girl has failed 3 lie detector tests, changes her stories, disappears to avoid talking to police, and is found at Disneyland. And Grandma Cummings believes her. And the biggest shocker of all-RONALD CUMMINGS MARRIES THIS TWIT DAYS AFTER HAILEIGH DISAPPEARS. Crystal is looking better and better.

NYMOM said...

Again, I agree 100%...

Just listening to the 911 tapes of Cummings talking to Misty you can hear the abusive language and names he was calling her, as he talked with the 911 operator...

Personally, I think that Cummings has no choice BUT to support Misty Croslin now, since I think if he drops her too quick the authorities might suspect they weren't in a real relationship at all. That Cummings was just using Misty Croslin for free babysitting, sex, maid service, etc.,...she probably wasn't fit to be minding anybody's kids.

So he protects himself with this loyalty.

However, I just heard this week he's getting divorced from her. I think the marriage was a sham to begin with. Probably his attorney told him to marry her or face investigation himself...

BTW, many of these cases in the news are custodial dads who have already been vetted by the system. Like that other Florida dad whose daughter (Jessica Lundsford) was kidnapped from her bedroom while her grandparents were asleep down the hall. Those grandparents were so old they looked like they should have been in a nursing home, not babysitting an 11 year old...meanwhile her custodial father was overnight at a friend's house...

Say what you want about Susan Smith or Andrea Yates, neither of them had legal custody of their children and I assume neither would have gotten it after their psychology evaluations...But the worse sorts of men appear to pass these court order evaluations and get assigned custody????

I just can't figure it out...

Anonymous said...

"Fathers that have their kids overnight 30% of the year comes out to 109.5 overnights. Spread these 109.5 overnights, and it comes out to about 9 overnights a month. This is roughly the same amount of overnights a month that is seen in the standard visitation schedule of every other weekend/ one night a week that is seen in SOLE MOTHER CUSTODY."

Fair enough, V, but it's important to remember that a joint physical custody arrangement will usually include safeguards that sole custody arrangements do not, mainly protection from moveaways.

It would be nice if the state had as great an interest in protecting visitation rights as it does in collecting child support.

But as far as this Sheffield/Cummings situation goes, you people are sitting around picking apart all the players and deciding who's better than who, and I just look at the whole picture and see nothing but a bunch of irresponsible, partner-hopping losers, none of whom should be raising ANY kid.

Neither parent has a damned thing on the ball, and the parents tell you everything you need to know about the grandparents too. Good solid families generally don't produce sons who screw underage girls and produce one illegitimate kid after another with them.

Nor do they allow their daughters to become involved with men like that, even if the daughters wanted to, which they mostly don't because they have better plans for the future than birthing illegitimate kids in trailers.

For every kid that goes missing or dead in dad's care, you can find one or more who suffers the same fate in mom's care. And look into the background of these kids and you're almost never surprised at what you find. Most never had a snowball's chance in life to begin with.

This has jack to do with dad custody or mom custody. It's just one more case for adopting every conceivable policy to discourage society's losers from procreating until they can provide proper married and self-sufficient homes for their offspring.

Richard

virago said...

"Fair enough, V, but it's important to remember that a joint physical custody arrangement will usually include safeguards that sole custody arrangements do not, mainly protection from moveaways."

Sole custody doesn't automatically give the parent the right to move away. The parent with sole custody still has to the other parent 30 days notice of intent to move. That parent than has the right to go to court and prevent it. And a lot of the time they do. A guy I work with did just that.

virago said...

"It would be nice if the state had as great an interest in protecting visitation rights as it does in collecting child support."

Well, Richard, the purpose of visitation is to give FATHERS regular access to their children. You've heard the rhetoric "all kids have a right to both parents". Well, regular access DOES NOT mean "whenever dad feels like it". For every father who gripes about that "alienating bitch won't let me see kids", there's more than likely a mother who has a damn good reason why she's refusing the father visitation. Maybe she's sick and tired of consoling disappointed kids YET AGAIN when dad doesn't show up when he's suppose to, or she's sick and tired of hearing her kids complain because they were stuck with the girlfriend all weekend while dad went to the bar, or hung out with the guys. Maybe she's sick and tired of her kids coming home on Sunday night wearing the same clothes they wore when they went to their dad's house on Friday while the clothes she packed for the weekend are still unpacked in their suitcases, and her kids haven't seen a hairbrush, toothbrush, or anything more than junkfood (if they were lucky)all weekend. Or maybe dad is just an abusive asshole all around. Whatever the case, the kids end up not wanting to see their dad DUE TO HIS OWN BEHAVIOR. And why should mom force them? The hell with that I say. And the above situations are all too common.
And these are the guys who usually go whining to the courts about PAS, and they get their way. Than there's the flipside of the coin-mothers who do everything they can to encourage their kid's father's involvement, and kids who really want to see their father, but DAD DOESN'T WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH HIS OWN KIDS. Why aren't these guys being forced to visit their kids WHEN THE KIDS WANT TO SEE THEM? Where's all that rhetoric crap that it's "in the best interest of the child" to "have access to both parents"? No man is ever forced to visit his own kid, yet, this guys are free to negotiate for joint legal custody to get the lowest child support possible, and than they have absolutely no intentions of ever seeing their kids. Why is that allowed? And why should the mom be forced into a joint custody arrangement with a father who doesn't care just to benefit him? And if this mom wants to move or leave the state for a vacation, she has to track down this fool to get his permission even though he probably couldn't pick his own kid out of a line-up. Yet, these guys can suddenly get a pain of guilt 10 years later and go to court to try to enforce visitation on a mother who has given up trying to get the dad involved and a resentful teenager who lost interest in any kind of relationship with dad long ago. And mom is still blamed with PAS. I read somewhere that Richard Gardner said that 90% of divorces involve some kind of PAS from the mother. Well, I say bullshit. I firmly believe that 90% of divorces involve some kind of bad behavior FROM THE FATHER that makes kids not want to see him, or gives the mother good reason not to want him to see the kids either temporarily or permanently.

virago said...

"It's just one more case for adopting every conceivable policy to discourage society's losers from procreating until they can provide proper married and self-sufficient homes for their offspring."

And even if these so-called policies work (which they don't from what I've read), there's still always going to be "losers" as you put it procreating outside of marriage. In the meantime, that still doesn't excuse giving Ronald Cummings custody of a kid like Haileigh due to an unproven (and more than likely true) abuse allegation while not being charged with the "failure to protect"his child when his own bad parenting skills led up to the circumstances of her disappearance, nor does it excuse criticizing Crystal Sheffield for being a bad mom because she lost custody to an a guy who was most likely abusing her, or because she couldn't say, as a non-custodial parent, what time Haileigh got off school. I know damn well if their positions were reversed, Crystal would probably be charged with "failure to protect" Haileigh, lose custody of her other kid to Ronald while people wouldn't blink an eye that a non-custodial dad couldn't say what time his kid got off school. That's it in a nutshell.

virago said...

"But the worse sorts of men appear to pass these court order evaluations and get assigned custody???? I just can't figure it out..."

NYMOM, for some reason this reminds me of another high profile case-the Savoie case. I lived in Japan because my ex-husband was in the military, so this interests me on a personal level. Savoie's story: him and Noriko were seperated for 3 years in Japan, he met his current wife Amy while he was seperated. He refused to give Noriko a divorce in Japan because he knew he wouldn't be able to get visitation, and he didn't want to lose his kids. He said Noriko agreed to come to the states for a huge divorce settlement in exchange for living here with the kids so he could have visitation. I tend to believe him rather than the popular version that Noriko was lured here under false pretenses of a reconciliation and than blind-sided by an affair and divorce. In fact, Noriko made out quite well for herself because she got $800,000 to buy a house, $3500 a month alimony/childsupport, and money for an education fund as well as primary physical custody of the kids (30/70 schedule)with yearly visits to Japan. However, I don't think Noriko freely made a choice to come to the states. She had been a stay at home wife for years. In Japan, childrearing is so important, a married woman is EXPECTED to stay home with the kids, and women who work are considered bad mothers. That's changing somewhat, but it's still the cultural tradition. Also, divorce in Japan is easy to get ONLY if you can agree-divorce by mutual consent in other words. If you don't agree, it ain't happening unless you can meet strict grounds for divorce like adultery (many japanese women get their husbands on that one), insanity, abandonment, or unbearable circumstances that are subject to a judge's interpretation. Savoie's affair would have been difficult to prove because it happened in the states, and they were seperated. A lot of people just seperate rather than divorce.

virago said...

However, Savoie refused to agree to a divorce because he couldn't enforce his visitation, but there isn't any enforcement of child support either. Most divoced women get the kids, but they have a hard time supporting themselves when they haven't worked in years and no child support enforcement plus Japan's horribly expensive. It's easy to see why Noriko was compelled to come to the states plus there may have been some hope for a reconciliation. Anyway, I can see why both Savoie and Noriko may have felt they had no choice, and Savoie's new wife Amy was divorced in Tennessee, had custody of her kids, and probably can't just go live in Japan. This is my take on things, but from all the different information I've pieced together plus what I know about Japanese customs and laws. This makes sense to me.

virago said...

There's no doubt in my mind that Savoie may have felt this is the only way to be able to visit his kids, and he paid a heavy price financially. However, he gets to visit his kids, marry Amy, and live in the country of his birth (despite the fact that he acclimated quite well to Japan having learned the language, being employed with a good job, and getting Japanese citizenship). However, Noriko gives up her country, her entire culture, and friends and family to come to the U. S. to live in the South that is the most racist part of the United States. She has no family, or friends here. She spoke fairly good English, but still had some language difficulties. She was totally financially dependant on Savoie via alimony, child support, and it would probably take her a while to get herself the education she needed to be able to get herself a good job. She was homesick and made some comments that made Savoie think that she was thinking about going back to Japan. He had her court ordered to give up the kids passports so she couldn't flee back to Japan, but a judge gave her permission to travel home for a visit later on despite Savoie trying to fight it. Well, she didn't come back, and that's why Savoie there's the current situation with Savoie in a Japanese jail for trying to reabduct his kids.

virago said...

Of course, after Noriko left, a Tennessee court gave Savoie full-custody (something he was trying to get when he tried to prevent her from leaving). I read the court transcripts for the hearing to lift the restraining order that kept her from going back to Japan. People posted the last 70 pages of these transcripts to show what a liar Noriko was, etc, and how she knew she was coming here for a divorce not reconciliation. Well, I also found the first several pages of that contained Savoie's own testimony.

virago said...

No matter what people think of Noriko's testimony (clearly she lied about not wanting to return to japan to live), Savoie's own testimony sure gives a lot of insight into this guy. He's an absolute asshole! He's rude, and he's arrogant! He interrupted the lawyers and the judge several times until the had to threaten him with jail if he didn't shut up. He accused Noriko of not cooperating with the joint custody agreement in their parenting plan. Yet, the guy signed a parenting plan that said if he and Noriko could not make a decision about activities concerning the children, they would talk to the parenting coordinators, BUT NORIKO WOULD HAVE THE FINAL DECISION MAKING POWER.

virago said...

Of course, he claims that he originally objected to that language used in the parenting plan, but somehow it got in there anyway even though he, the mediator, and his lawyer missed it. Translation: the guy signed the damn thing without fully reading it. He assumed it was taken out when he complained about it, but HE NEVER VERIFIED IT.

virago said...

Of course, he whines it was "under duress" and "it's not joint custody, wah!", blah, blah, blah. He complains Noriko wouldn't cooperate, but SHE HAD THE FINAL SAY. Yet, she wanted their daughter to do chearleading, he didn't. They talked to the parental coordinators, and (GASP) NORIKO AGREED NOT TO PUT THE KID IN CHEARLEADING. He objected to gymnastics for his son because he felt that it would "hurt his body if he started too young", but he really wanted him to "play team sports".i.e. baseball.

virago said...

Noriko still put him in gymnastics AND baseball. OTOH, Savoie agreed to take the kid to Cub Scouts, but he didn't continue with it because he said his son, Isaac, "didn't STATE he wanted to continue with it". However, it clearly stated in the parenting plan "Father would take kid to Cub Scouts" and when asked why he didn't he said, "Noriko didn't continue with it either!", but it wasn't Noriko's activity, it was Savoie's! However, he kept stating that he would continue with it if "Isaac wanted to". However, Savoie whines that Noriko wouldn't let him take the kid to BASEBALL. But when Savoie went to pick up the kid from Japanese Supplementary Classes on Saturday, Isaac cried that he didn't want to go because he wanted to play video games at home! Well, he didn't want to go to baseball, and NORIKO USED THE SAME EXCUSE THAT SAVOIE USED WHEN HE DIDN'T TAKE ISAAC TO CUB SCOUTS "Isaac didn't want to go. It's okay for him, but not Noriko? WTF? He later complained that Noriko shouldn't have been at the school. Hello! It was Japanese Supplementary School! She was there for a party at the kid's school! God forbid, if she's an involved parent at a school that promotes her cultural heritage.

virago said...

And guess what? He and Noriko talked to the parenting coordinators, and SHE ALLOWED ISAAC TO GO TO BASEBALL. This guy bitched and whines about Noriko not cooperating, but still said she cooperated with it "more or
less". And the parenting coordinators said the cooperated most of the time as well except when she had vetoe power which the parenting plan allowed. Savoie also sent Noriko verbally abusive emails basically saying," You can't understand Japanese very well, you idiot! I'm not an idiot! I attended really hard medical school and studied Japanese at the same time by the time I was 21! I'm so smart, blah, blah,! He goes on to complain about the money he has to pay her, and she's a lazy person who doesn't "Work, or move!"

virago said...

Well, obviously this stupid ass who thinks he's so smart couldn't understand English enough to know that he signed a parenting plan that gives Noriko final decision making power about the children! The parenting coordinators also testified that Noriko was upset because this fucker threatened to have her father jailed over the sale of a car in Japan. The very same father-in-law who co-signed an educational loan for this asshole so he could go to school in Japan and brag about how smart he is and how dumb his ex-wife is. It goes on with some other accusations about how Noriko didn't buy a house with the money he gave her because he was afraid she would use the money to support herself in Japan if she was allowed to go back, blah, blah, blah! Obviously, Noriko was not totally innocent, but THIS GUY IS AN ABUSER! He whined because she made comments that he interpreted as "do as I say, or I'll take the kids back to Japan", and she was "upset because the kids were losing their japanese identity". Well, maybe she was upset the kids were losing their cultural identity, but she also said she was concerned that the kids were having trouble fitting adjusting to life in Tennessee because they are half Asian. Her so-called threats to take the kids back to Japan via email sure looked like appeals to him to stop making life harder for her to live here. She said basically said," stop bothering me.", "please cooperate with me so that I can stay healthy in order to live here." I think this woman was to make a life here, that Savoie bastard just made life unbearable for her. That said, her choice: stay here in a bigoted place like Tennessee without family, friends, stuck in a long term joint custody agreement with a verbally abusive ex-husband who wants to drag her to the parenting coordinator over every damn little thing while he calls her names, threatens her father with jail after helping Savoie get school loans for his education, and making it harder for her AND the kids to adjust to life here OR should she give up her alimony/child support, education fund (that he never actually established like he was suppose to), and take the $800,000 for the house and hot foot it back to Japan where she has her family, friends, AND SOLE CUSTODY WHERE SHE CAN RAISE HER KIDS WITHOUT HAVING TO PUT UP WITH SAVOIE'S ABUSE? Well, I'll tell you what choice I would make, and it's the same one as Noriko. I'd tell Savoie, Sayonara asshole so fast, his head would spin, and that's just what she did. Plus, their American divorce isn't recognized in Japan, and his remarriage in the states would be considered bigamy. Bigamy isn't allowed in Japan. She's got grounds for a divorce now that the proof is splashed all over the news. The bad thing about this is that Savoie may actually really care about his kids enough to be apart of their lives, but he screwed himself royally when he treated Noriko like shit. And I think Noriko was well within her rights to get out of that situation even it meant breaking the law to do it. OTOH, Savoie's second wife, Amy is crying all over the news and the internet about her poor husband, and how his kids are being taken from their daddy. Funny, when you look at the pictures she posted of Savoie, his kids, and 3 step-kids as proof of his love for his children, the picture has him holding HIS 3 STEP-KIDS IN HIS ARMS AND SITTING ON HIS LAP WHILE HIS OWN CHILDREN ARE STANDING OFF TO THE SIDE AT THE EDGE OF THE PICTURE. That's pretty disturbing. Anyway, Sorry to go on so long about this NYMOM, BUT THIS CASE REALLY PISSES ME OFF!

Anonymous said...

"I firmly believe that 90% of divorces involve some kind of bad behavior FROM THE FATHER that makes kids not want to see him,"

Who told you all this nonsense, V?

90% of divorces do NOT involve kids not wanting to see their fathers. The vast majority of children post-divorce want MORE time with their dads, not less. Every study that asks the kids themselves (and not the mothers) bears this out. While half of custodial mothers admittedly place NO value at all on the kids' relationship with dad.

BTW, I'm not talking about teenagers here because it's generally the nature of teenagers to prefer the company of friends to that of either parent and divorcing parents must expect this well in advance.

"...or gives the mother good reason not to want him to see the kids either temporarily or permanently."

Ha! So say you, in your TERRIBLY objective opinion. But 40% of custodial mothers freely admit to having interfered with visitation in order to "punish" the ex. And that's just women who are honest enough to admit their true actions and motivations. As good as women-firsters are at rationalizing their own selfish acts and those of other females as somehow "protecting the children," I suspect 40% is a conservative figure.

There are custodial dads out there who also think they have good reasons to not want their kids to see mom, and kids in father-custody who profess to not want to see their mothers. But we won't allow that, now will we? I know NY for one would scream alienation. You know, that thing that doesn't exist.

The point is that the time to decide if you want a man to actually parent your kids or not is before you drop your pants for him. Not after there is a child who loves both dad and mom whatever their imperfections may be and has a right to both of them.

The time to decide if you want your kids to spend time with dad's new girlfriend or not is before you decide to split. Dads aren't crazy (for good reason) about their kids hanging with whatever dude is lighting Mom's fire at the moment but they usually have no choice but to deal and so can Mom.

Upper and middle class women are quite good at weighing all these contingencies in making their decisions about marriage, divorce and reproduction. Why can't the rest of you?

Richard

virago said...

"Who told you all this nonsense, V?
90% of divorces do NOT involve kids not wanting to see their fathers."

And 90% of divorces don't involve PAS from the mother either.

"The vast majority of children post-divorce want MORE time with their dads, not less."

And that's exactly why PAS is bullshit! The theory is that mothers are "brainwashing" their kids against the fathers so that the kids don't want to see them. Yet, the majority of children post-divorce STILL want more time with their dads? bitches" turning their kids against dad, the kids STILL WANT TO SEE DAD. That's an oxymoron!

Every study that asks the kids themselves (and not the mothers) bears this out."

virago said...

And what's your point? In studies of kids in INTACT HOMES, kids say that they want to spend more time with their fathers. At the same time, these same kids say that they spend LOTS OF TIME WITH THEIR MOTHERS. And employment of the fathers isn't an excuse either because they found the same results in intact homes where the parents work the same amount of hours.

"While half of custodial mothers admittedly place NO value at all on the kids' relationship with dad."

If fathers in INTACT HOMES aren't spending enough time with their kids, these are most likely the same guys who aren't spending enough time with their kids POST-DIVORCE. Why should a custodial mother place value on the kid's relationship with his or her dad WHEN THE FATHER DOESN'T? When dad doesn't show up for HIS VISITATION half the time, or his kids spend all weekend WITH SOMEONE OTHER THAN THEIR DAD, or dad just plain doesn't care enough to visit AT ALL? Why should these custodial mothers care? THEY are the ones who have to console disappointed kids, or listen to complaints that dad doesn't spend any time with them at dad's house. And over time, these kids AREN'T GOING TO WANT TO GO WITH DAD. Do they still want to spend time with their dad? Yeah, WITH THEIR DAD, not girlfriend/step-mom/grandma, or if they knew dad was actually going to show up. These kids don't want to cancel extracurricular activities, or time with friends to spend time with dad IF THEY CAN'T BE SURE HE'S GOING TO SHOW UP. A lot of mom's refusal to let the kids go with their dad is because the kids DON'T WANT TO GO BECAUSE DAD ISN'T SPENDING ANY TIME WITH THEM, and the mother is sick and tired of making them go. The so-called PAS is actually caused by DAD'S OWN BEHAVIOR.

virago said...

"Ha! So say you, in your TERRIBLY objective opinion. But 40% of custodial mothers freely admit to having interfered with visitation in order to "punish" the ex."

Yeah, and what's the REASON for their "punishment"? Maybe, a mother is withholding visitation to a dad that doesn't show up half the time anyway? Maybe she's trying to show him how that feels when the shoes on the other foot. Let dad be worried why his kid would rather go to a friend's house than cancel another activity YET AGAIN for a dad that doesn't even bother to show up. Or what about the dad who dumps said kid on everyone else. Maybe he needs to get it through his thickskull WHY HIS KID DOESN'T WANT TO VISIT HIM. Maybe these guys will GET THE MESSAGE rather than go whining to the courts about PAS.

"There are custodial dads out there who also think they have good reasons to not want their kids to see mom, and kids in father-custody who profess to not want to see their mothers."

And if these non-custodial mothers play the same games with visitation that non-custodial fathers do, than those custodial fathers have good reason I say.

"But we won't allow that, now will we? I know NY for one would scream alienation. You know, that thing that doesn't exist."

Ha! It doesn't matter if NYMOM screams alienation or not. It's THE COURTS who will allow it because it's a FATHER WITHHOLDING VISITATION. If it's a MOTHER, than they'll just slap her with the PAS label and take her kids away.

"The point is that the time to decide if you want a man to actually parent your kids or not is before you drop your pants for him. Not after there is a child who loves both dad and mom whatever their imperfections may be and has a right to both of them."

Yeah, and a kid has a RIGHT to NOT visit dad when DAD'S IMPERFECTIONS clearly show THAT DAD DOESN'T WANT TO SPEND ANY TIME WITH HIM.

"The time to decide if you want your kids to spend time with dad's new girlfriend or not is before you decide to split. Dads aren't crazy (for good reason) about their kids hanging with whatever dude is lighting Mom's fire at the moment but they usually have no choice but to deal and so can Mom."

Again Richard, YOU DELIBERATELY miss the point as usual. It has NOTHING to do with the kid "hanging around dad and his girlfriend". IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE KID HANGING AROUND THE GIRLFRIEND INSTEAD OF DAD. The kid isn't there to spend time with her. He's there to spend time with DAD. No matter what guy his mom has, THE KID IS STILL PRIMARILY CARED FOR BY HIS MOTHER. In fact, his mother is probably spending time caring for the BOYFRIEND'S KIDS ALONG WITH HER OWN KID.

"Upper and middle class women are quite good at weighing all these contingencies in making their decisions about marriage, divorce and reproduction. Why can't the rest of you?"

Well, YOUR WIFE sure didn't show very good judgement in the husband department. Spare me any crap about how great you are, or treat her, blah, blah, blah. With the nonsense you spout, your wife has to have blinders on her eyes.

NYMOM said...

As usual you totally missed the point of my response Richard...

Yes, many children living with their mothers wind up in the same or worse situation then the ones we were referring to...but I think the point is that those mothers generally do not have any form of legal custody...They have a default form of custody just from being the child's mother. They, unlike these custodial fathers we were discussing, never went through the court process and deemed to be a more stable parent.

I think it saids something about the court process.

That was my point.

Sometimes adoption is the better option...

NYMOM said...

BTW, that "40% of custodial mothers" is a very very old stat...I've been hearing it for about 12 years now...

You have to date these statistics before using them...

NYMOM said...

Yes, I agree Virago with your interpretation of that case with the mother returning to Japan and 'abducting' her own children...

It would have been a non-stop assault on her financially and emotionally if she had stayed here with this guy back and forth to court every few months over every little thing since remember you have to pay an attorney to respond to these complaints...let's see him try that crap in Japan...

Anonymous said...

"And employment of the fathers isn't an excuse either because they found the same results in intact homes where the parents work the same amount of hours."

Yeah, V, a whole .8 hour difference per day. This ain't 1965, dear.

http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/Times_Are_Changing.pdf

"Yeah, and what's the REASON for their "punishment"? Maybe, a mother is withholding visitation to a dad that doesn't show up half the time anyway? Maybe she's trying to show him how that feels when the shoes on the other foot."

What did I just say about woman-firsters' talent for rationalizing the selfish actions of other women?

Well believe as you like, V, but I seriously doubt it. Any mom that "concerned" about her kids' "disappointment" and lack of time with dad probably wouldn't put them through a divorce in the first place.

"It's THE COURTS who will allow it because it's a FATHER WITHHOLDING VISITATION. If it's a MOTHER, than they'll just slap her with the PAS label and take her kids away."

Uh, no, V. 40% of custodial mothers admit to visitation interference but 85% of mothers are custodial.

"No matter what guy his mom has, THE KID IS STILL PRIMARILY CARED FOR BY HIS MOTHER."

Oh please, V, give it a rest. This howling about dad's girlfriends is hypocrisy at its best while single mothers everywhere are screaming for free daycare and making shameless use of grandma for childcare. Not that they have a choice. It's the nature of work and family today but family break-up makes it all far worse.

Not to mention the distraction from parenting that a new social life and new romantic relationships cause. Wallerstein made special note of all this in her 25-year study. Children of divorce suffer from a maternal loss just like a paternal one, even when their residence is with mom.

"Well, YOUR WIFE sure didn't show very good judgement in the husband department."

Why's that, V? It's always good judgment when people choose mates with similar attitudes, viewpoints, education, background, personalities, and so on.

Of course, we got to know each other for three years before we married and took on the job of childrearing and so we had almost no surprises at all. No "Hi/How are you/Let's have a baby" nonsense that probably accounts for most of the cases that you and NY rant about around here.

Richard

Anonymous said...

NY said: "BTW, that "40% of custodial mothers" is a very very old stat...I've been hearing it for about 12 years now...You have to date these statistics before using them..."

Why? Have custodial mothers gotten more virtuous in 12 years?

Richard

NYMOM said...

Richard, you are using very old stats...Wallerstein, 25 years ago????

Please.

The problem appears to be that courts are not effectively screening out dangerous recreational sperm donors and too many of them are becoming custodial fathers, probably for the benefits they can derive from the states...

I have few arguments with good fathers, nor I suspect do most mothers...these are not good fathers we are talking about here...

You need to quit becoming an advocate for these screwups...

NYMOM said...

No, but courts have begun strictly enforcing child support so men have begun fighting for rights they never cared about previously...

Thus, the change.

virago said...

Richard, there report didn't prove anything if you would've bothered to read past the statistic you quoted. And really Richard, you can dance around the subject all you want, but you can't refute the fact that mothers don't dump their kids on significant others/grandma nearly as much as dads DURING NON-WORKING HOURS. You keep skipping around this, or pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, but you know it's true. Either that, or your a big idiot which despite our disagreement I don't think you are. That said, it isn't worth discussing anymore because it gets old.

virago said...

"Yes, I agree Virago with your interpretation of that case with the mother returning to Japan and 'abducting' her own children...

It would have been a non-stop assault on her financially and emotionally if she had stayed here with this guy back and forth to court every few months over every little thing since remember you have to pay an attorney to respond to these complaints...let's see him try that crap in Japan..."

Well, NYMOM, Savoie and his wife were physically seperated in Japan for 3 years before he talked her into moving to the states. He was living primarily in Tokyo, and she was living in Fukuoka with the kids during this time. Fukuoka is way the hell across Japan, and it's on a different island. She wasn't stopping him from seeing his kids while they were seperated, and he would've had to travel all the way across Japan to do that. You can't tell me he couldn't have come up with a better solution than what he did.
Besides this guy is a JAPANESE CITIZEN. He became one about 4 years ago. Japan doesn't recognize dual citizenship, and he would've been required to give up his u.s. citizenship to get japanese citizenship. The u.s. shouldn't waste their time with Savoie. Let Japan deal with him.

Anonymous said...

"Richard, you are using very old stats...Wallerstein, 25 years ago????"

I didn't say 25 years ago. Wallerstein followed a large sample of children of divorce over a 25 year period to find out exactly what were their experiences at the time AND the fall-out in their adult lives.

I like Wallerstein's study because the children themselves were actually consulted. None of this "Oh, the children have adjusted just fine" baloney from parents who see what they want to see because don't want to feel bad about their own selfish choices.

"No, but courts have begun strictly enforcing child support so men have begun fighting for rights they never cared about previously...Thus, the change."

Thanks, but that doesn't imply any change. If anything it would imply the opposite. More visitation being awarded = more visitation interference, which even now the state seldom does anything about except as a last resort because it has no financial stake in it.

"The problem appears to be that courts are not effectively screening out dangerous recreational sperm donors and too many of them are becoming custodial fathers, probably for the benefits they can derive from the states..."

Congratulations NY, you have just put your finger on the crux of the whole problem.

The courts are not "effectively screening out" recreational sperm donors, if you want to call them that, because it is not the job of the courts to screen out any such thing.

It is the responsibility of the MOTHER to screen out the undesirables and choose a suitable father for any children she wishes to have. BEFORE the fact.

The converse is true too, but most of us guys realize and accept that already.

I'm telling you, NY, eventually you girls are going to regret inviting the state into your families. Some already do.

A court that can screen out dad can just as easily screen out mom too.

Only an idiot these days would bring their family into court and pay strangers to hack it up for anything but the most dire circumstances.

Richard

NYMOM said...

Well men invite the courts in all the time and work the system...they invented it and now benefit from using it...Courts benefit the persons who have no physical bond with children by giving them phony legal bonds...

This is what women are up against...

NYMOM said...

BTW, I think Wallerstein's study is about 25 years old now...remember we're in 2009

Anonymous said...

NY, Wallerstein completed and published the findings of her long-term study in 2000.

Now I'm realize it's much less demanding to attack the date of a study rather than its substance, but I'm afraid the experiences suffered by of children of divorce haven't changed in nine years. Or any other number of years. Paternal loss, maternal loss, and the effective end of childhood. The words of the kids themselves, not their parents.

"Courts benefit the persons who have no physical bond with children by giving them phony legal bonds..."

An extremely dubious claim, at best.

But even if it weren't, you women could be up against much worse things than the courts that "we invented" which have spent the last generation or so overlooking your misdeeds and mining the pockets of men for you.

You could be up against exactly what "nature" affords unattached and unprotected females and their offspring.

No need to thank us, now.

Richard

virago said...

"You could be up against exactly what "nature" affords unattached and unprotected females and their offspring."

Well, gee, Richard, let's look at people who are a lot closer to "nature" than we are:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/08/AR2005070801775.html

" Ten years ago, a group of women established the village of Umoja, which means unity in Swahili, on an unwanted field of dry grasslands. The women said they had been raped and, as a result, abandoned by their husbands, who claimed they had shamed their community.Stung by the treatment, Lolosoli, a charismatic and self-assured woman with a crown of puffy dark hair, decided no men would be allowed to live in their circular village of mud-and-dung huts."

How did these women fare?

"What started as a group of homeless women looking for a place of their own became a successful and happy village. About three dozen women live here and run a cultural center and camping site for tourists visiting the adjacent Samburu National Reserve. Umoja has flourished, eventually attracting so many women seeking help that they even hired men to haul firewood, traditionally women's work"

How did their children fare?

" But the women felt empowered with the revenue from the camping site and their cultural center, where they sell crafts. They were able to send their children to school for the first time, eat well and reject male demands for their daughters' circumcision and marriage. "

"No need to thank us, now."

Don't worry we won't, and I don't think the women of Umoja are thanking their men either.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a real paradise, V. When are you moving?

Maybe we need to clear off some wilderness here too so all the single moms who need a man like a fish needs a bicycle can take their kids out to the boonies and do the exact same thing.

That would free up a lot of tax money for Obama's healthcare plans which I know you all wouldn't want any part of because it's all so patriarchal in nature and origin, ya know?

R

NYMOM said...

You said it was a 25 year study and she released the results in 2000, so it's already almost ten years old...Many of the changes that I talk about here have happened over the last ten years or so...they were a reaction to Clinton making changes to public policy in the late 90s that goaded men into fighting for custody.

I'm not saying divorce isn't bad for children, but this blog isn't about divorce. Many of the issues I discuss are relevant to women who never married.

BTW, the courts didn't get involved just to help women. They got involved to help the state, since so many men were walking away from their responsibilities that states were going broke having to take care of the kids men were voluntarily abandoning...

It was the state's draconian child support demands and strict enforcement that dragged ordinary men back to the table (which they had previously voluntarily relinguished when changes in our society no longer made children profitable for them)...no more beneficial marriages that men could arrange and force children into against their will, no longer able to keep kids working for free in your households as unpaid labor, or sent outside to work and give you their wages, etc.,

Western male interest in children ended as soon as laws and public policies changed and Children gradually went from being a plus in their pockets to a minus. You all switched back again over the last 10 years or so when the equation switched up.

That's why I say let's work on changing the child support laws and all these vicious custody fights, parental abductions and alienation crap will end...Trying to claim mothers are not the best natural guardian for any children they bear is a lost cause which I don't think even you believe...

Once child support is under control men and women will be able to arrive at custody arrangement between themselves again (and I guarantee you that most children will still wind up with their mothers)...this period in our history is an aberration which has never and never will again be repeated. Unless societies are looking to become extinct that is...

virago said...

Well, Richard, you know damn well if these women and their kids all withered away and died, you'd be seeing it as proof of "nature" doing them in because of the lack of men. That said, your sour grapes just make me laugh LOL.

Anonymous said...

Well, glad I made you laugh, V, but no sour grapes here. I actually think you've hit upon a very good idea.

Of course it's pretty close to what PK suggested a while back but NY protested that we can't allow it.

To which I would pose a big fat Why Not. It's been the way of nature ever since life first crawled out of the primal mist, or whatever our kind hostess likes to say.

That's one reason why woman-firsters arguing about nature are so entertaining. They want to dip one dainty little toe into the "nature" paradigm by demanding full ownership of children but that's ALL they want out of it. The rest they want no part of.

R

Anonymous said...

"Trying to claim mothers are not the best natural guardian for any children they bear is a lost cause which I don't think even you believe..."

I'm not claiming that they aren't. I'm not claiming that fathers aren't. I'm claiming that either one alone is generally inadequate, and that either one being alone is a misfortune and should be recognized as such. Not encouraged either directly by outdated feminist/woman-firster propaganda or indirectly by incentivizing family breakup or non-formation.

"BTW, the courts didn't get involved just to help women. They got involved to help the state, since so many men were walking away from their responsibilities that states were going broke having to take care of the kids men were voluntarily abandoning..."

So let me get this straight. We men invented courts that benefit us, and use them to help the state (which we also instituted) to keep from going broke taking care of abandoned kids (for which we had no natural responsibility AT ALL until we assumed them by passing welfare laws).

Seems to me if we were only interested in helping ourselves and not women, we would have done better to never have granted poor women and children welfare at all. We certainly went against nature by doing that and now are getting flak for "going against natural law."

Well, no good deed goes unpunished.

"Western male interest in children ended as soon as laws and public policies changed and Children gradually went from being a plus in their pockets to a minus."

This is absurd. The vast majority of western men marry and have children and support those children. You think we're not interested in our children? When it's mostly you women who liquidate the whole undertaking?

"...no more beneficial marriages that men could arrange and force children into against their will,"

Mothers exercised as much influence as fathers in arrangement of marriages. These were largely family alliances, even among the poor. Until just a century ago marriage was universally viewed as too important a matter to be left to the whimsy of youngsters. Probably true, in view of where "romantic" marriage has led us.

"no longer able to keep kids working for free in your households as unpaid labor"

Ha! I'd like to hear your ideas on what would have been a better way to feed one's family and maintain them in relative security in a world that ran almost exclusively on agriculture.

Liberals really DO think money sprouts up out of the ground.

"I'm not saying divorce isn't bad for children, but this blog isn't about divorce."

Granted, but you can't separate it out, as children of divorce and of illegitimacy suffer many of the same issues.

BTW, NY, I'm still not understanding your point in trying to attack Wallerstein's study.

Are you trying to argue that the experiences of children of divorce have IMPROVED since the time of her study?

Now I KNOW you don't want to say that. Because that would imply that these public policy changes that supposedly "goaded" men into fighting for custody (which I believe you're grossly exaggerating) were a GOOD thing.

You don't want to say that, do you?

So tell me again why it matters WHEN Wallerstein studied the long-lasting negative effects of divorce on children?

Richard

virago said...

"Well, glad I made you laugh, V, but no sour grapes here. I actually think you've hit upon a very good idea"

It's not my idea, and it's already happening:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1002240,00.html

Anonymous said...

Interesting link, and I'm all for conservation of resources of course.

But we were talking about self-sufficiency in the style of "nature." There's no indication in the article that these women are living independently of men (although they might be).

Inner city women and kids, for example, have been denning up together for years but they're anything but independent.

But this was too priceless to not comment on:

"I try harder for Audrey than I ever tried for any guy," says Johnson, explaining that she talks to Ellis more respectfully and is more apt to compromise."

Voila the misplaced priorities that place moms' and children's interests at odds.

At least she's honest about it.

The speaker assures us that the kids have adjusted (they ALWAYS assure us of that) but chances are that if you asked the kids they would much prefer that she had "tried harder" and showed more "respect and compassion" with their DAD. You know, so they could have a real family instead of roommates and "buddies."

But let's not let details like children's best interests get in the way.

Gotta hand it to you, V, your links are always enjoyable and revealing. Thanks.

Richard

NYMOM said...

Richard, children living communally with mothers is probably more natural then living with a male and female in a nuclear family...

Sorry to have to inform you of this.

This nuclear family business is wholly an invention of human beings, rarely practiced in animal societies (which again I must remind you, humans are linked by an evolutionary chain to other beings on the planet)...

AND again, I'm not trying to attack Wallerstein's research, I'm just trying to get a handle on the timeliness of it since custody issues are changing so rapidly 10 or 11 years can make a great difference.

Actually my two children are 11 years apart and their custodial status due to that timeline) were wholly different...although both lived with me their entire lives.

So 10 years can make a difference.

NYMOM said...

Just to reiterate my situation: my oldest daughter was NEVER in any sort of legal custody, as was the situation with all of her friends and I think I can safety say most american children, unless they became wards of the state for some reason. My oldest was born in 1973.

Now my youngest from the time she was a year old was placed in my custody (due to my ex-husband filing divorce papers and assigning custody to me). She was born in 1984.

I believe if this had been 1994 or 2004 he would have had himself put down as temporary custodian and it would have been a hard-fought fight for me to have it changed.

This is due to the changes in child support guidelines and stricter state and federal enforcement.

So you can see the rough ten year timeline I'm outlining here and how a decade can make a vast difference. That's why I was trying to figure out Wallerstein's timeline for collecting her research...

But to be honest, as I told you already, this is not a blog about divorce...you keep trying to change the focus of every discussion and bring it back to that...

BTW, I'm not a liberal, but I do recognize that the changes in our society (including these ongoing custody fights men keep inciting) mean that women have to look at new ways to live. Unfortunately the old ways of living just aren't valid for most women anymore due to changes in the behavior of men, not women...and it doesn't even matter what incited those changes, they exist and women have to learn to deal with them. Unless they want to continue this cycle of having their children stolen out from under them. Either through illegal abductions or court-sanctioned abductions...as far as I'm concerned that's all these custody switching schemes are court-sanctioned abductions by men or women (mothers, grandmothers) acting on their behalf.

Anonymous said...

"This nuclear family business is wholly an invention of human beings, rarely practiced in animal societies"

And this is supposed to be a problem?

Every aspect of civilization, every law, every comfort, every benefit, every luxury, every medical/scientific/technological advance, and the list goes on, is wholly an invention of human beings and not practiced in animal societies AT ALL.

Arguments based on "nature" sound weak to me because I have no interest in returning to the animal kingdom and its ways. I've never met a woman who did either. If some do and need a new way of living, well, Umoja sounds like a great plan. It's very natural.

"That's why I was trying to figure out Wallerstein's timeline for collecting her research..."

Don't bother. She began her research in the early 70's and followed the kids through the 80s and 90s.

Which means they were from the era you think was so great when the maternal custody was largely presumed. And lo and behold those kids didn't adjust so great after all. They overwhelmingly stated that divorce was the end of their childhoods and their needs were not considered.

"I believe if this had been 1994 or 2004 he would have had himself put down as temporary custodian"

You don't "get yourself put down" as temporary custodian. You get a temporary hearing scheduled and you present some evidence and get a ruling.

If the other parent doesn't bother to show up (like this Crystal Sheffield V was talking about who supposedly "didn't have a ride to the courthouse" in which case I would have borrowed a bicycle and pedaled my way anywhere I had to but then again I care about my kids and understand what a summons is) then maybe the judge will enter a default judgment for the filer that will be hard to change later, but that's all.

"Unless they want to continue this cycle of having their children stolen out from under them."

Look, NY, the last time the Gov collected data on this subject (which was 2006) 5 out of 6 custodial parents were mothers.

The one out of six who were fathers mostly had custody by agreement, either because the mothers couldn't support the kids, couldn't handle the kids, had mental or physical problems or the kids chose dad's house.

And nobody "acted on their behalf" because nobody but a parent has legal standing to challenge another parent for custody in the absence of abandonment or abuse serious enough for CPS to step in.

You've created a boogerbear, NY.

Richard

NYMOM said...

I'll respond to most of your comments later, but at least you admitted default custody judgments are a reality, although previously you denied it could EVER happen...

Anonymous said...

No, NY, I didn't deny it could ever happen. I said it requires a proper showing of notice to all concerned parties before it could happen.

You were trying to claim that you can just stroll down to the courthouse and get a ruling against someone with no notice, hearing or evidence at all and it just doesn't work that way. Except with TRO's of course. :-p

NYMOM said...

I pointed out to you that many people manipulate the system ie., moving to another county for six months and then filing there...many mothers are not aware of this tactic so miss court dates and lose custody.

OR sending the notice to an outdated address so the mother never receives it.

Last, but not least, temporary custody generally morphs into permanent (unless the other parent has some serious flaws) so I seriously doubt it would have made any difference if Crystal Sheffield had appeared in court or not.

Judges rarely change custody (even temporary custody) once it is established.

NYMOM said...

Mothers giving birth to babies is NOT an invention of man...nor is it a technological achievement of man.

NYMOM said...

Sorry for the break...

You keep trying to link all these achievements of man (which are great) to the bond between mother and child and act like that's replaceable by men like you change a used toner cartridge in a printer.

Sorry it's not the same thing as much as men would like it to be...

NYMOM said...

If it's such a non-issue (a boogerbear as you call it) how come the fastest growing crime on the FBI list is the so-called 'parental abductions'.

We never had this sort of crime before...this is all related to men working the legal system...

NYMOM said...

I don't put any faith in those 2006 statistics as many women I hear from who rarely see their kids are in these Joint Legal custody arrangements (which mean nothing)...those stats are created by men working the system...

NYMOM said...

Sorry for the manner of my reply but I can't cut and past on my computer so it's difficult to reply to it's point...

Anonymous said...

"I pointed out to you that many people manipulate the system ie., moving to another county for six months and then filing there...many mothers are not aware of this tactic so miss court dates and lose custody."

It doesn't matter where you move and file unless you have the child with you. Jurisdiction is where the child is.

"Mothers giving birth to babies is NOT an invention of man...nor is it a technological achievement of man."

True, but it is an achievement of man that over half of those children do not die in infancy of disease or starvation.

And that 20-25% of pregnant females do not die in childbirth.

And that we have social systems that obligate males to provide resources for the care of their offspring, and legal systems which punish rival males for killing someone else's offspring in order to free up females to produce (involuntarily) their own offspring (which is SOP in the animal world).

Tell me again what's so idyllic about the animal world?

None of this has anything to do with "replacing a mother-child bond." It has to do with recognizing the importance of the nuclear family in the development and advancement of our species.

None of us has suggested that the mother-child bond is "replaceable." But neither are fathers replaceable. A whole generation of social experimentation with fatherlessness tells us that. Most kids will tell you that.

It may not seem fair to you. Maybe it isn't fair. But it's how we've developed, and smart women who want successful kids generally go with it instead of fruitlessly fighting it to prove some point.

Richard

Anonymous said...

"I don't put any faith in those 2006 statistics as many women I hear from who rarely see their kids are in these Joint Legal custody arrangements (which mean nothing)...those stats are created by men working the system..."

I think we must be cross-posting here...

NY, I don't know if you have a mental block here or dyslexia. I've repeatedly explained to you that the census bureau does not deal in legal definitions of custody. "Custodial," within the meaning of the census, means whoever has the child the greater part of the time.

In other words, at least 5 out of 6 custodial parents are mothers who possess the children over half the time.

The stats are not created by men working the system but are calculated by government to aid them in collecting child support mostly from men and tailoring social service programs so that WOMEN can work the system.

Get it now?

Anonymous said...

"If it's such a non-issue (a boogerbear as you call it) how come the fastest growing crime on the FBI list is the so-called 'parental abductions'."

Probably because the last decade or so has seen a tremendous increase in international mobility and immigration, including international marriage and divorce.

The economy doesn't help either, as foreign born workers often lose jobs and return to their homelands taking their children with them.

Not to mention that a parental abductor is not necessarily a parent without custody. Visitation denial can count as "custodial interference" within the meaning of parental kidnapping laws. What did we just say the other day about more visitation awards logically leading to more visitation interference?

Richard

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM says: "You keep trying to link all these achievements of man (which are great) to the bond between mother and child and act like that's replaceable by men like you change a used toner cartridge in a printer."

This invites cognative dissonance when NYMOM has to reconcile how men breaking up the mother-child bond is reckless, yet a mother giving away her child to adoption for her own reasons, including petty ones, is okey dokey.

PolishKnight said...

Richard says: "Not to mention that a parental abductor is not necessarily a parent without custody. Visitation denial can count as "custodial interference" within the meaning of parental kidnapping laws."

I soooo wish you were right, Richard. Sadly, visitation interference is common and usually ignored by the family courts with the main priority being on payment of child-support.

This makes it rather ironic of NYMOM's paranoia about men breaking the mother-child bond when this commonly occurs, illegally, by women and is unenforced. If parental bonds were so valuable, why do women and the state put so much emphasis on the commodity men produce (money?)

Anonymous said...

PK, I didn't say visitation interference was a high-priority item for the state or that a lot of resources get committed to it, or even that it has to carry significant consequences.

I just said that simply being on the FBI roster for "custodial interference" doesn't mean you're not a custodial parent. It can simply mean you're a custodial parent who took a child and split in violation of someone's visitation rights.

The Savoie case that V was just foaming about is such a case.

For some reason NY seems to be grasping at straws to find evidence of an "epidemic" of mothers "losing custody," and it's nowhere to be found.

Approximately the same percentage of mothers have the majority of their kids' time as twenty years ago and no data has yet demonstrated anything to the contrary.

You'd think NY would be pleased. Instead, she appears betrayed.

Go figure.

Richard