I love the way these idiots always try to compare themselves to the civil rights movement in this country...by using the names of Martin Luther King or Malcolm X. Those men were fighting for a group of people who had NO POWER historically or at the time of the movement...as opposed to these MRA idiots who've hoarded power since civilization began and are just mad now because they see it slipping away from them.
Gag me with a spoon already...
http://www.doublex.com/print/9316
Published on Double X (http://www.doublex.com)
"Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective
They’re changing custody rights and domestic violence laws.
By: Kathryn Joyce
Posted: November 5, 2009 at 7:45 AM
At the end of October, National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, members of the men’s movement group RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting [2]) gathered on the steps of Congress to lobby against what they say are the suppressed truths about domestic violence: that false allegations are rampant, that a feminist-run court system fraudulently separates innocent fathers from children, that battered women’s shelters are running a racket that funnels federal dollars to feminists, that domestic-violence laws give cover to cagey mail-order brides seeking Green Cards, and finally, that men are victims of an unrecognized epidemic of violence at the hands of abusive wives.
“It’s now reached the point,” reads a statement from RADAR, “that domestic violence laws represent the largest roll-back in Americans’ civil rights since the Jim Crow era!”
RADAR’s rhetoric may seem overblown, but lately the group and its many partners have been racking up very real accomplishments. In 2008, the organization claimed to have blocked passage of four federal domestic-violence bills, among them an expansion of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to international scope and a grant to support lawyers in pro bono domestic-violence work. Members of this coalition have gotten themselves onto drafting committees for VAWA’s 2011 reauthorization. Local groups in West Virginia and California have also had important successes, criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases, and winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory.
Groups like RADAR fall under the broader umbrella of the men’s rights movement, a loose coalition of anti-feminist groups. These men’s rights activists, or MRAs, have long been written off by domestic-violence advocates as a bombastic and fringe group of angry white men, and for good reason. Bernard Chapin, a popular men’s rights blogger, told me over e-mail that he will refer to me as “Feminist E,” since he never uses real names for feminists, who are wicked and who men “must verbally oppose … until our flesh oxidizes into dust.” In the United Kingdom, a father’s rights group scaled Buckingham Palace in superhero costumes. In Australia, they wore paramilitary uniforms and demonstrated outside the houses of female divorcees.
But lately they’ve become far more polished and savvy about advancing their views. In their early days of lobbying, “these guys would show up and have this looming body language that was very off-putting,” says Ben Atherton-Zeman, author of Voices of Men, a one-man play about domestic violence and sexual assault. “But that’s all changed. A lot of the leaders are still convicted batterers, but they’re well-organized, they speak in complete sentences, they sound much more reasonable: All we want is equal custody, for fathers not to be ignored.”
One of the respectable new faces of the movement is Glenn Sacks, a fathers' rights columnist and radio host with 50,000 e-mail followers, and a pragmatist in a world of angry dreamers. Sacks is a former feminist and abortion-clinic defender who disavows what he calls “the not-insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers’ rights movement.” He recently merged his successful media group with the shared-parenting organization Fathers and Families in a bid to build a mainstream fathers' rights organ on par with the National Organization for Women. Many of Sacks’ arguments—for a court assumption of shared parenting in the case of divorce, or against child-support rigidity in the midst of recession—can sound reasonable.
But do any of their arguments hold up? Many of the men for whom Sacks advocates are involved in extreme cases, says Joanie Dawson, a writer and domestic-violence advocate who has covered the fathers’ rights movement. The great majority of custody cases, in which shared parenting is a legitimate option, are settled or resolved privately. But of the 15 percent that go to family court—the cases that fathers’ rights groups target—at least half include alleged domestic abuse.
Unsurprisingly, this argument is missing from MRA discussions of custody inequality and recruitment ads, which cast all men as potentially innocent victims “just one 911 call away” from losing everything they have earned and loved. These rallying calls, and the divorce attorneys hawking men’s rights expertise on MRA sites, promising to “teach her a lesson,” serve as what Dawson sees as a powerful draw for men in the midst of painful divorces.
While MRA groups continue to expand their base of embittered fathers and ex-husbands, they’ve cleaned up their image to court more powerful allies. RADAR board member Ron Grignal, the former president of Fathers for Virginia and a former state delegate candidate, organizes the group’s Washington lobbying activities. In 2008, RADAR partnered with Eagle Forum for a conference at the Heritage Foundation about the threat that VAWA poses to the family. Grignal argues that state interpretations of VAWA are so broad they could cast couples’ money disputes as domestic violence, enabling unwarranted restraining orders that then win women’s divorce cases for them. Politicians, Grignal says, are increasingly on board with men’s rights movement concerns.
“On domestic violence, I’ve had both state and federal legislators tell me they know that this process is out of control,” says Grignal. “They’re afraid if they support [reforms] they’ll be tagged as ‘for domestic violence.’ But I’ve had Democrats on Capitol Hill tell me they agree with everything I say. A member of the Congressional Black Caucus told me that his brother can’t see his kids, and his wife threatened to throw herself down the stairs to ruin his political career.”
Some domestic-violence protections do seem to have unintended effects, such as mandatory-arrest policies that compel police to take someone into custody in response to any domestic-violence call—a policy that has been criticized by RADAR as well as by some domestic-violence advocates, who say it imposes an absurd equivalence between largely nonviolent family spats or insubstantial female violence and serious abuse. But groups like RADAR are criticizing the law for the wrong reasons. In fact, the effect of mandatory arrest in conflating women’s low-level violence with battery, seems very close to RADAR’s campaign for viewing women as equal domestic abusers.
One potent idea advanced by MRAs is the claim that men are equal victims of domestic violence. Mark Rosenthal, president and co-founder of RADAR, makes a very personal argument for the phenomenon. Rosenthal, who doesn’t call himself an MRA, grew up with a mother who he says terrorized the entire family and hit her husband frequently. The true impact of the violence, he says, was more than physical and eclipsed his petite mother’s ability to inflict serious injuries. Rosenthal wants to see an appreciation for women’s nonphysical abuse incorporated into domestic-violence policy. “It’s not about size,” he told an audience at a law enforcement domestic-violence training. “It’s not exclusively about physical attacks. However, it is about a pathological need to control others, and women are as prone to this as men.”
RADAR and other MRA groups base their battered men arguments largely on the research of a small group of social scientists who claim that domestic violence between couples is equally divided, just unequally reported. Most notable are the studies conducted by sociologist Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, who has written extensively on female violence (and who Dawson saw distributing RADAR flyers at an APA conference). Straus’ research is starting to move public opinion. A Los Angeles conference this July dedicated to discussing male victims of domestic violence, “From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention,” received positive mainstream press for its “inclusive” efforts.
While some men certainly are victims of female domestic violence, advocates say the number is closer to 3 percent to 4 percent, rather than the 45 percent to 50 percent RADAR claims. Jack Straton, a Portland State University professor and member of Oregon’s Attorney General's Sexual Assault Task Force, argues that Straus critically fails to distinguish between the intent and effect of violence, equating “a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs,” or a single act of female violence with years of male abuse; that Straus only interviewed one partner, when couples’ accounts of violence commonly diverge; and that he excludes from his study post-separation violence, which accounts for more than 75 percent of spouse-on-spouse violence, 93 percent of which is committed by men.
All in all, advocates say that cherry-picked studies from researchers like Straus, touted by the MRAs, amount to what Edward Gondolf, director of research for the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Research and Training Institute, calls“bad science.” Statistics suggesting gender parity in abuse are taken out of necessary context, they say, ignoring distinctions between the equally divided “common couple violence” and the sort of escalated, continuing violence known as battery—which is 85 percent male-perpetrated—as well as the disparate injuries inflicted by men and women.
“The biggest concern, though, is not the wasted effort on a false issue,” writes Straton, but the encouragement given to batterers to consider themselves the victimized party. “Arming these men with warped statistics to fuel their already warped worldview is unethical, irresponsible, and quite simply lethal.”
In this, critics like Australian sociologist Michael Flood say that men’s rights movements reflect the tactics of domestic abusers themselves, minimizing existing violence, calling it mutual, and discrediting victims. MRA groups downplay national abuse rates, just as abusers downplay their personal battery; they wage campaigns dismissing most allegations as false, as abusers claim partners are lying about being hit; and they depict the violence as mutual—part of an epidemic of wife-on-husband abuse—as individual batterers rationalize their behavior by saying that the violence was reciprocal. Additionally, MRA groups’ predictions of future violence by fed-up men wronged by the family-law system seem an obvious additional correlation, with the threat of violence seemingly intended to intimidate a community, like a fearful spouse, into compliance.
MRA critics say the organizational recapitulation of abusive tactics should be no surprise, considering the wealth of movement leaders with records or accusations of violence, abuse, harassment, or failure to pay child support. Some advocates call MRA groups “the abuser’s lobby,” because of members like Jason Hutch, the Buckingham Palace fathers’ rights “Batman,” who has been estranged from three mothers of his children and was taken to court for threatening one of his ex-wives.
Contrary to RADAR’s claims, domestic-violence advocates say that not only do abuse accusations not automatically win custody cases for women; there are a rising number of custody decisions awarded to abusive fathers, as judges see wives eager to protect their children as less cooperative regarding custody. More than half the time, studies have found, wives’ accusations of domestic violence are met with counter-accusations from husbands of “Parental Alienation Syndrome”—a medically unrecognized diagnosis that suggests mothers have poisoned their children into making false accusations against their fathers.
In one recent case, Genia Shockome, a Russian immigrant, was fighting for custody of her two children with her ex-husband, whom she charged had beaten her so severely that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and who had told her she “had no right to leave” since he’d brought her to the United States. The judge in the case sided with her husband’s counter-claims of Parental Alienation Syndrome and awarded him full custody (and later sentenced Shockome to 30 days in jail while she was seven months pregnant). When her attorney, Barry Goldstein, co-author of the forthcoming book Domestic Violence, Abuse and Custody, criticized the judge in an online article, the judge retaliated with a complaint, and Goldstein was given a five-year suspension. Goldstein says the sanction represents a chilling pressure on attorneys, who may now fear penalties for criticizing a court’s gender bias that will interfere with their duties to their clients and that could result in women deciding not to leave abusers out of fear they won’t get a fair trial.
If cases such as Genia Shockome’s are the fodder of mainstream fathers’ rights advocates like Glenn Sacks—who ridiculed her claims and loss of custody as an uncredible “cause célèbre” for feminist family-law reformers—what Sacks calls the movement’s “lunatic fringe” is more vitriolic yet.
Within the ranks of the men’s rights movement, vigilante “resisters” are regularly nominated and lionized for acts of violence perceived to be in opposition to a feminist status quo [3]. In a few quarters of the movement, this even included George Sodini, the Pittsburgh man who opened fire on a gym full of exercising women this August, killing three and leaving behind an online diatribe journaling his sense of rejection by millions of desirable women.
Sodini’s diary was republished widely, including on the website of a popular men’s rights blogger, “Angry Harry,” who added his assessment of the case [4]. “MRAs should also take note of the fact that there are probably many millions of men across the western world who feel similar in many ways, and one can expect to see much more destruction emanating from them in the future,” he wrote. “One of the main reasons that I decided to post this diary on this website was because the western world must wake up to the fact that it cannot continue to treat men so appallingly and get away with it.” In a phone interview, Angry Harry said, “Of course there will be more Sodinis—there will be many more,” likening him to Marc Lépine, a Canadian man who killed or wounded 28, claiming feminists had ruined his life, or Nevada father Darren Mack, who murdered his estranged wife and attempted to kill the judge in their custody battle. (Also among this number is John Muhammad, the “D.C. Beltway Sniper,” whose involvement in a Washington father’s rights group and history of abuse is described in his ex-wife Mildred’s newly-released memoir, Scared Silent [5].) Perhaps, Angry Harry mused, that as the ranks of online MRAs grow, “the threat” of their violence “may be enough” to bring about the changes they desire.
Glenn Sacks dismissed Angry Harry as an "idiot" without real power in the movement, and yet he cautiously agrees that what Sacks calls "family court injustices" could lead to future violence.* “I want to be careful in wording this,” he says, “but the cataclysmic things I’m seeing done to men, it’s always my fear that one of these guys is going to do something terrible. I don’t want to say that like I condone it or that it’s OK, but it’s just the reality.” The movement seems eager to supply more martyrs. After Sacks wrote about a San Diego father who shot himself on the city’s courthouse steps over late child-support payments, numerous men wrote Sacks, telling him, “They’re taking everything from me, and I want to go out in a big way, and if I do, will you write about me?”
I asked RADAR’s Mark Rosenthal about the ties between groups like RADAR—claiming, however cynically, to have egalitarian motives—and the blunt anti-feminist positions of men’s movement allies like Chapin or Angry Harry. “I’d like to suggest that what you’ve just done is interview Martin Luther King and Malcolm X,” he told me. “In any movement, there is going to be a reasonable voice and people who are so hurt, who are so injured by the injustices, that they can’t afford to step back and try to take their emotions under control. But no movement is going to get anywhere without extremists.”
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
It Still Puzzles me Why Deployed Parents Refuse to See the Logic of my Argument????
Well as usual I went back to find the old post about the study I mentioned earlier and found another interesting post and discussion with some of the principals involved, so here it is...
I realize after finding this post that my blog is FIVE YEARS OLD this month...
I think of it as quite an accomplishment, all things considered.
I'll continue looking for that other study but keep in mind I have five years worth of posts to dig through...
But never fear I will find it...
BTW, hope everyone (including everyone I disagree with) has a lovely Thanksgiving.
Enjoy!!!
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2004
AND They Wonder Why Women Do NOT want to Have Children Anymore...
This sort of ruling (which by the way goes on continuously) is clearly discriminatory against women...
I've been reading a lot lately about how women are having so few children that western societies are facing many serious problems in the future due to our current low reproductive ratio...WELL here's another good example of why women DO NOT wish to take the 'leap of faith' involved in having children...
First of all this father should NEVER have been given physical custody to begin with as it's clear that an active duty member of the military can be deployed AT ANY TIME...ANYTIME...and countless women in the military, countless, LOSE custody for this very reason CONSTANTLY... with Judges claiming that the military lifestyle is too unstable to support single parenting.
Actually threats of losing custody appears to NOW be commonly used as a weapon against women in the military as a way to drive single mothers out of the services...
Perhaps single mothers SHOULD NOT be in the service, but that's a different issue and should be openly discussed and addressed w/o dragging these bias issues into it...
However this nonsense of a DOUBLE standard for men who deploy should be addressed and STOPPED immediately as when men deploy, children should be sent immediately to go live with their non-custodial mothers and NOT be dumped off on grandparents and certainly NOT a female step-person EVER...JUST THE SAME AS COURT RULE WHEN CUSTODIAL MOTHERS IN THE MILITARY ARE DEPLOYED...THE SAME WAY...
Clearly this is NOTHING but an attempt by men in the military to avoid paying child support while they are deployed and certainly NOT in childrens' best interest...
It's simply outrageous that these Judges should be helping them get away with this, simply outrageous...
I couldn't fit the entire decision here but just enough to show the sheer outrageousness of the ruling; and another reason WHY women must begin to get involved in politics, particularly the election and/or appointments of Judges to Federal courts...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 4-468 / 03-2100
Filed November 15, 2004
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MICHAEL GRANTHAM and TAMMARA SUE GRANTHAM
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for ButlerCounty, Paul W. Riffel, Judge.
Michael Grantham appeals the judgment of the district court modifying the decree dissolving his marriage to Tammara Sue Grantham.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel, Zimmer, Hecht, and Eisenhauer,
JJ.VOGEL, J.In this appeal, we consider the implication of the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA), 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 501-591, when a parent, enjoying physical care of his minor children under a decree of dissolution, is called to active military duty. We conclude the district court erred in not granting a stay of the modification proceedings pursuant to this Act and further erred in entering a temporary change of physical care on a petition to modify.
Additionally, upon our de novo review, we find no permanent and substantial change of circumstances warranting a change of physical care.
Therefore, we reverse and remand.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Michael Grantham’s and Tammara Sue Grantham’s marriage was dissolved on July 11, 2000. The stipulated decree provided for joint custody of their two minor children, then ages ten and six,
...with physical care to Michael...
In mid-August 2002, Tammara was informed by one of the children that Michael,
a National Guard member for over eighteen years,
had been called to active duty and that the children would be residing
with Michael’s mother, Irmgard Grantham. Michael was officially called to active duty on August 21, 2002, and reported to his unit’s armory on August 24. He returned home on a short leave on August 27. While home on leave, Michael reviewed his existing “Family Care Plan” with his lawyer and mother and executed the documents necessary to allow Irmgard, who had been a frequent care giver of the children, to care for the children in his absence[1].
A Family Care Plan is prepared as a part of a soldier’s regular duties and is meant to provide for the care of a soldier’s family.[2] A Family Care Plan is required by military regulation and reviewed when a soldier is called up for active duty.[3] An existing Family Care Plan may be changed; it is not set in stone.[4] A soldier is not deployable until a Family Care Plan is validated and approved, and only the soldier’s commander may approve a Family Care Plan.[5]
Also on August 27, 2002, Michael and his attorney met with Tammara and her attorney at her attorney’s office in Waverly, Iowa. Discussed at this meeting was the possibility of Tammara caring for the children in Michael’s absence instead of Irmgard. Tammara’s lawyer subsequently drafted a proposed stipulated agreement providing for this arrangement, which was provided to Michael later that day.
The following day, Michael returned to National Guard duty at Camp Dodge in Des Moines. After reviewing the proposed agreement with his JAG (Judge Advocate General’s Corps) officer, Michael decided not to enter into the agreement. On August 29, Michael was counseled by his commander on his responsibilities to the military and to his family and Michael filled out a new DA Form 5305-R (Family Care Plan) which provided that Irmgard would care for the children in his absence. Later that same day, Michael’s commander reviewed and approved the Plan.
On September 4, Tammara filed a petition seeking physical care of the children, temporary and permanent support, and suspension of her child support obligations. On the same day, Tammara obtained an ex parte order from the district court setting a hearing on her requests for temporary relief for September 20. Michael was served with the Petition on September 5 while at his unit’s armory in Estherville, Iowa. On September 7, Michael left with his unit for Fort Knox, Kentucky. On September 10, Michael filed a motion requesting a stay of the proceedings pursuant to the SSCRA. No hearing was set on Michael’s motion. On September 20, in his absence, a hearing on temporary placement and child support was held. Although not scheduled, the Court also took up the issue of Michael’s request for a stay at this hearing. Michael’s counsel made a professional statement indicating that Michael was not able to attend the hearing due to his military duties and offered to call his commander to verify this statement.
In a ruling filed October 3, the district court denied Michael’s request for a stay and set a scheduling conference for October 10. The district court based its decision on its finding that [t]he record herein fails to reflect that [Michael] made any showing for a stay other than to state in his unverified filing on September 10, 2002 that he had been placed on active duty and could not appear in court. The record does not reflect by affidavit or otherwise that the Petitioner made any effort to obtain a leave of absence to enable him to be present at the hearing or made any effort to participate telephonically in the scheduled hearing.
Additionally, the record reflects that the Petitioner
acted in bad faith in attempting to exercise his rights under the act by deceiving the Respondent into believing that he was making a good faith effort to reach an agreement when in fact he had no intention of doing so and was merely delaying matter until he had to report for active duty.
The October 10 scheduling conference was held without Michael present and reset the hearing on temporary matters for October 29. Michael, although he was represented by counsel, was unable to participate in the October 29 hearing because of his continuing military duties. At that hearing, Michael’s attorney again sought a stay under the SSCRA and in support thereof filed an affidavit and a letter from Michael’s commander stating that Michael could not attend the proceedings. Michael also moved to continue to a time when he could participate in the hearing. He further moved to dismiss on the grounds that there is no temporary custody remedy available in Iowa Code chapter 598 (2001) for modification proceedings.
On October 30, the district court entered an order denying these motions, temporarily placing the children with Tammara, terminating her support obligation, and requiring Michael to pay child support.
In so doing, the district court did not rule on the merits of Michael’s reapplication for a stay, instead stating that it would not “take issue with [the October 3] ruling” on this matter.Michael sought discretionary review from the Iowa Supreme Court and requested a temporary stay. A stay was granted on November 1. However, on November 8, the court denied discretionary review and vacated the stay. Although Michael was technically on active duty until September 2, 2003, he had returned home early in August 2003 and trial on the merits of the petition for modification was held shortly thereafter, on August 27.
In its subsequent ruling, filed on November 19, the district court granted the relief requested in Tammara’s petition changing physical care of the children to her and entering related orders of visitation and child support.
Michael appeals this ruling and each and every other order therein, contending: First, the district court erred in not staying the proceedings leading up to the November 19, 2003, judgment as required by the SSCRA. Second, the district court erred in entering a temporary change of physical care order on Tammara’s petition for modification. Third, no permanent change in circumstances existed justifying the district court’s change of physical care of the children to Tammara.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by NYMOM | Friday, November 19, 2004
28 Comments:
Anonymous said...
I think there had to be a reason to have the children placed with the father in the first place and also I think that the mother used the activation of the father to her advantage to gain the children. While having the father at a disadvantage it was the best time for her to get what she wanted. If she would have done this any other time she would not have has any grounds to get the children in her placement.
She has stated in the court records that the father was a good father to the children and never denied her any of her visitations. Maybe this is all about her and not the children.
11:15 PM
NYMOM said...
"the mother used the activation of the father to gain the children..."
AND...
What's wrong with that?
I mean are you a mother? Would you want your children with you???
I mean you are saying this she wanted to 'gain' her children like there is something wrong with her wanting her children to be with her...whereas it's perfectly NORMAL for mothers to want their children with them...and the day they STOP wanting that, is when we need to worry because then we just go extinct...
Okay...
So quit talking such nonsense.
9:43 AM
Anonymous said...
Your are right and that is what the problem is.
She never wanted both of the childred in the first place and now she does. The courts thru out the letter that stated that The Children are better off with Mike and not with her. She wanted to be single again and play around and the children would be in her way. So the father had to take care of the children at there younger stage of their lives and now that they are old enough to take care of themselves in when she wants them. To me that is not a good mother and she still don't take them to places they need to go. She has others take the kids every where or hands them off to people because they will be in the way of what she wants to do
10:36 AM
NYMOM said...
Well if you know the people personally then I'll defer to your opinion in this case...HOWEVER, it doesn't change my mind about the basic premise here which is that when a custodial parent is deployed, unless there is a darn good reason, the children should THEN be sent to live with the non-custodial parent...
This decision ruled that being deployed, even for years, did NOT constitute a change in circumstancs which is ridiculous as it means that children could be dumped all over the place as the custodial parent deploys, but refuses to send the children back to live with the non-custodial parents...
Probably trying to avoid paying child support during deployment... and THIS is wrong and should NOT be encouraged by the courts...
This was a BAD ruling...
10:44 AM
JB Opheim said...
Apparently you know nothing about the Military or the soldiers and sailors releif act. I have been deployed with many soldiers who have their wages garnished so that that the child support is paid. I am one of those soldiers. getting deployed is not going to stop your child support and the ssra has nothing to do with protecting the soldier from paying his child support. The Military frowns on deadbeat parents and totally supports the rights of the children.Its not the point that there is something wrong with her wanting her children , but using his deployment as a crutch to get them back after they were obviously given to him for good reason is wrong. I pay my child support every month in good faith and spend plenty of time with them. It sounds to me that you feel Mothers are far more important in a childs life than the Father it that kind of thinking that is destoying our youth
5:01 PM
NYMOM said...
Well yes, I do happen to think that mothers are more significant vis-a-vis children and should be as they invest more in just giving them life...
Why should a father who invests NOTHING in bringing children forth be given the exact same standing as mother...it's just male jealousy and selfishness that is leading to this...
If it continues women won't be wanting to have children anymore and then what...Western civilization is already heading into extinction due to male selfishness...and you're a perfect example of it...
5:08 PM
NYMOM said...
BTW, this selfish man was dumping his children off on his mother anyway which the court papers stated he did very frequently...So why should a mother be w/o her children so he could dump them off with his mother again...
Why, to avoid paying child support obviously...it's simply disgraceful that you men in uniform are allowed to play these games with childrens' lives anyway...simply disgraceful...
5:10 PM
Anonymous said...
I think that you are getting this all twisted. It is the mother that dumps the kids off to who ever will watch them not the father. When the father has the kids he does not dump them off to anyone. If the father has things to do he does it with the kids.
and also the fathers in todays world are just as important in the kids life as the mother.
5:59 PM
NYMOM said...
No...you are getting it all twisted...
1. This is a site for mothers ONLY...get it...not for fathers deployed or otherwise...
Okay...
2. The court papers clearly stated that the father left the children with his mother ALL THE TIME...that was the basis for them saying deployment did NOT constitute a change in circumstances...a twisted interpretation if I ever heard one...
3. Did you even read the actual decision? Since I posted JUST a part of it here...so you need to go back and read the whole thing so you know what you are talking about...
4. NO...I do NOT agree that fathers are as important as mothers thus the creation of this blog...if you don't like it, start your own...
Okay...
Thanks.
6:09 PM
Anonymous said...
I do know what I am talking about and that is right you only have a small portion of the story and I have about 8,000 sheets of paper to that I have read. So I have the whole story.
and If this is for woman only then I would suggest taking this story off your web site
because this story is all about me and I want it off here is you are going to use that tone.
6:16 PM
NYMOM said...
No...
I'm not taking it off this website...
That ruling was public record and I'm leaving it right here so mothers can see exactly what goes on with fathers like this pulling all kinds of stunts to get out of paying child support probably...even the Judge who originally awarded the mother custody said the father acted in bad faith, pretending he was going to review her request for the children to be with her while he was deployed and then disappearing until he actually was deployed so he could then say no change in custody was allowed under that Soldiers and Sailors act you just quoted...
It was an extremely devious act of trickery which lucky the first Judge saw right through...
Unfortunately for this poor mother and her children however the higher court reversed the decision and allowed the deceitfulness of a father to be rewarded...
Again, simply disgracefull....
NOW GET OFF MY BLOG...
7:19 PM
Anonymous said...
so you are telling me that I did not pay? I suppose that is why she owes me money yet from the time I had the kids with me. Now that is not paying Child support.
and by the way if my name is public then your sight is too and I can be on here all I want
12:36 AM
NYMOM said...
Sorry, yes you can stay to discuss this further if you wish...
You just caught me on a bad day and this post was so old I wasn't ever expecting any responses to it after all this time, so you caught me by surprise.
Anyway, I'm sorry that I was so harsh...
Look, I really know neither one of you obviously but my central POINT was that the ruling by the Judge was NOT a good one for other parents in your situation... that was my point...whether or not she paid or you paid was not really an issue, so I shouldn't have brought it up...
You won your appeal so I assume the children are with your mother and your ex has visitation or did the first Judge find another reason during the remand to award the mother custody anyway????
Are you still deployed btw?
You see my basic problem with the ruling (over and above the fact that I consider myself to be an advocate for mothers and considered the ruling very anti-mother) is that it would make it virtually impossible for any non-custodial parent to have custody of their own kids if the custodial parent is deployed...even if the deployment lasted for years.
I mean the appeals court claimed that because you left the children frequently with your mother that no substantial change of circumstances would occur if you decided to let them live with your mother while you were being deployed...thus, what's to stop ANY court from using that logic for any deployment situation...and I can see where kids could be left with girlfriends, boyfriends, friendly neighbors, steppersons, etc., for very long periods of time under that ruling...and it would clearly be an erosion of parental rights by the states to allow that to happen...
The non-custodial parent in ANY deployment situation should AUTOMATICALLY be the default custodial parent unless extraordinary circumstances exist and that should be a burden that the deployed custodial parent should be forced to prove...not the other way around...
People need to think about these things when they take these cases to court and how a ruling like yours could impact future situations involving children and deployed parents. Why didn't you just offer your ex Joint Custody with your mother? That might have satisfed her and saved everyone a lot of trouble which this new ruling, if not overturned by a higher court and I assumed it wasn't, could cause people...
2:50 AM
Mike said...
Thanks for being more understanding,
I have had Joint Custody with her and before my deployment I had placement. After being Deployed the courts gave her placement and I have not had anything since and now I will not have placement again. Unless my kids elect to live with me. That is what my boy is talking about now.
The only reason I was willing to have my mother take the kids during my deployment was to make it easy on them and everyone. I had a gut feeling what she would do if I left the kids with the ex. After the court gave her the kid it all came true. I had a very hard time talking with the kids and seeing them on my time off. The kids had a calling card and when It ran out she wanted me to buy them new ones and everything else was at my expence and she was getting about $800 a month support for the kids and did not spend it on them. and I still have problems with her.
The thing that bugs me is that people like her can ly in court and get away with it and don't feel bad about it. I could not live with my self if I did that.
Now that the supreme court ruled like this, it just opened it up to other to do the same whether it is male or female.
I hope that it don't happen to others.
6:18 PM
NYMOM said...
"Now that the supreme court ruled like this, it just opened it up to other to do the same whether it is male or female.
I hope that it don't happen to others."
I don't understand however the ruling I posted overturned the first Judge's change of custody to her and placed the kids back with you...it claimed that you putting the kids with your mother while you deployed was NOT a significant change of circumstances that warranted a change in custody...
So did she appeal it and to what court...as wasn't your appeal the final state appeal allowed????
12:23 AM
Anonymous said...
She had the Iowa Supreme Court Review the Iowa Court of Appeals outcome and the Iowa Supreme Court reversed it and gave her the kids
4:55 PM
NYMOM said...
Okay now I understand...
I do feel that this was the correct decision and I think if you stop for a moment and think about it, you'd agree...however, I don't understand why you pay such high child support to her; $800 monthly on a soldier's wages is a LOT...
Can't you get that modified downward until you are back?
Also isn't this temporary custody ONLY...since as I understood the intial ruling was temporary custody with her until you got home and then it was open for review at that time...
Which is fair...
I mean even if you don't get primary placement back, doesn't your state have the designation of Joint Legal and Physical Custody where BOTH parents have the children for equal parenting time...
Frankly I don't know why you didn't go for this sort of compromise to begin with, where her and your mother SHARED Joint Physical...At that time she probably would have accepted that and then you could have just sent your mother money for the parenting times the children were with her and your ex would have paid the childrens' expenses during her parenting times...
So neither one of you would have been paying child support to the other...just supporting your kids via the parenting agreement when they were in the different households...
I think this could still be a possibility when you get back as few courts would punish a veteran for being deployed; by making him totally uncustodial once he was back home...
Think about it anyway...sometimes people are more reasonable then you think and everything does NOT have to go through the courts...sometimes you can negotiate...
Just because your ex was irresponsible when the children were young, doesn't mean that NO redemption is possible for her NOW...People change as they age and she might be a loving mother, and more responsible person NOW then she was at the time of your divorce...thus there remains the possibility that BOTH of you can work together when you get home to raise your children...
After all you want your children to see an example of adults working things out, not having to enter court to settle things ALL the time...remember 50% of first marriages end in divorce today so when your children get married (and hopefully they will) you'll want to have set an example for them that no matter what happens, adults can always discuss these issues and come to logical decisions...everything does NOT have to be court ordered for people to do the right thing does it?
Anyway, last point...although I disagreed with the President's decision to go to war in Iraq I support all military persons involved in this 100% and just want to personally thank you for taking on the burdens imposed by this war upon you...
I will continue to hope that you return safely home and that you are able to convince your ex that custody should be shared between you and her...as it would be unfair for you to be relegated to being a visitor in your child's life just because you were called to serve your country.
Anyway, good luck...stay safe...
9:33 PM
mike said...
I have been home since sept 2003 and that is when the courts gave her full physical custody and Nov.15 2004 the Iowa Appeals Court reverted and remended which was good for me and other soldiers like me, but the Iowa Supreme court sided with the District Courts which was not good for me.
My mother only was going to take care of the kids when I was gone for that year. I gave my mother full legal rights to all my income, so she could support the kids when I was gone and nothing change for the ex. I was like my mother was me for a year. The ex had all her rights for the kids just like I was home. She had every Wed. and every other weekend and 4 weeks when ever it worked out for her. Nothing would change but the house and who was in the house. It was supposed to be a disruptive as posible. Well as you can tell that did not work for her and that is when it all started. She went to court for this.
7:11 AM
NYMOM said...
Well I hate to say it but yes, I can see it...
Women don't have children to see them EOW weekend and on Wednesday and once women realize this is what could happen, they'll stop having children...it's that simple...Just as women have abortions rather then carry a child to term to give up for adoption...
It's the same principle...
We CANNOT continue doing this to women as few will have kids and then what happens?
Then we're heading into extinction.
Sorry, it's just the way it is...
9:14 AM
Anonymous said...
"Women don't have children to see them EOW weekend and on Wednesday and once women realize this is what could happen, they'll stop having children...it's that simple..."
Yes, it's that simple. And it's the same reason by which men will stop having children.
"Just as women have abortions rather then carry a child to term to give up for adoption..."
"Mine or nobody else's". Great justification for a murder.
9:03 PM
NYMOM said...
"Yes, it's that simple. And it's the same reason by which men will stop having children."
Men don't have children...or must I conduct a simple biology class for you too now...
11:44 PM
Anonymous said...
"Men don't have children...or must I conduct a simple biology class for you too now..."
Ok, then leave men alone and go and have children all by yourself.
9:14 AM
Anonymous said...
I am in the military presently and after reading this ruling of Mike losing sole conservatorship over his children after being activated to service his country, I am making plans to get out. I am sole conservator of my two boys and there is no way in hell I will leave custody to their father. I have been divorsed for 5 years and he has not paid a single cent of child support for his children. he doesnot even offer any help. He is always unemployeed. I feel that Mike had all rights to give his mother TEMP CUSTODY. I personally now his ex and she would either leave the kids with who ever. These kids at a very young age were seen several time running around town unsupervised. This was when she had them for the weekend. Then she would go out whoring around. Plus she hardly ever paid her portion (little) support she was suppose to pay. Now that she is living with a man that is abusive to the boy she wants custody and Mike to pay support. I think this is all wrong. It is suppose to be in the well being of the children. She disrupted the kids living environment, pulling them out of school where they have gone to for a long time and moved them to a schoool where they do not like. t is all wrong.
7:48 PM
mike said...
This is interesting for another to say stuff like that. Now the boy wants to live with me but the ex will not allow him to and all she does it drags this out so he can't play sports or live with me.
I would really like for you to contact my lawyer and tell him what you see. Maybe things will work out
1:22 PM
NYMOM said...
Well this is a totally different story as neglect or abuse should ALWAYS be grounds for losing custody.
Unfortunately that wasn't the original issue that this post was about and the father in this case, 'Mike' as you call him NEVER mentioned abuse. This was strictly a case about deployment and whether or not it constituted a change in circumstance which warranted a switch in custody to the other parent. I still say it does and so does the court.
AND no, I do not agree with you that the custodial parent has the right to decide that they can just hand their kids off to someone other then the other parent when they deploy. Sorry but that should NOT be allowed.
So in your case, if you do NOT wish to be deployed and have to hand your kids over to what you paint as an uncaring father, then yes, you should leave the military. Actually I'm surprised this did NOT occur to you before now; as why would you risk your children winding up in a situation where they would have to live with an uncaring person??? You should have taken EXTRA care with your occupation knowing their father didn't care about them to ensure they would never face the situation Mike's children are currently in.
What were you thinking???
I have to be honest I consider it somewhat irresponsible for PARENTS to be in the military; as you can be deployed at ANY time and these are the sorts of situations that your children face when this deployment business happens.
Actually you might not even be able to get out of the military right away now because we are at war. So you have placed your children at risk. Same with Mike. According to you his son is running unsupervised all over the place now because he didn't properly plan his life and factor in what COULD happen to his children in the event of deployment.
When you are responsible for children there are MANY things you can no longer do. Dangerous professions, jobs that require a lot of travel or staying out late and probably the military because of the threat of deployment at ANYTIME...ANYTIME...
This is why traditionally the best parent was probably the most boring parent, who was at home with no life or interests of their own, just hanging around the house, cooking, cleaning and planning their lives around their kids' schedule.
Sorry, but I find that people who have fantastically interesting and busy lives generally don't make very good mothers and that's what children ultimately NEED. That boring person, with nothing very interesting going on in her own life so she fixiates on her childrens' lives and makes their life better at the cost of her own.
Our children suffer when we get away from this model.
All I can say to you two now is good luck with straightening out your situations. Hopefully your children won't suffer too much until that happens. Sorry.
12:02 PM
Anonymous said...
You seem to forget that we are divorced and do not have the option to stay home and be a boring parent. Do not tell me that i am not a good parent because I am out in the real world by myself with 2 kids to support. I make good decision in the best interest of my children. You are completely out of line. You must have been that boring parent that stays home and sits infront of the TV while your kids are out running the neighborhood unsupervised. My life revolves around my children. If you asked them they will tell you that I attend every school event, feed them, cloth them, bath them, entertain them. And for me to do all this I do have to sacrafice a lot of time with them to have 3 jobs to support them. Once again I am doing this all on my own w/o support and family help. Yes the military is my decision but I made that decision before kids. It is a job just like any other, but we are fighting for YOUR freedom.
8:08 AM
Anonymous said...
First off let me say that I am a single father and parent to a 15 year old boy.
I have been in and out of Court for the last 12 years for various custody arrangements. Mother and I disagree on parenting styles.
As I read both Mothers rights and Fathers rights oriented material frequently and I find it curious that throughout history the legalities of custody are always pitting Mothers and Fathers. There are periods in history where Mothers get custody 9 out of 10 times and there are times when the opposite is true.
We as parents need to ask ourselves why the Courts cannot or will not allow both parents to have equal rights to their children as the standard.
Perhaps if Mothers and Fathers could agree instead of fighting over custody we would need less Courtrooms.
12:39 PM
NYMOM said...
EVERY period of history has given all mothers defacto custody of any and all young. How could it be otherwise???? We would have died out long ago as a people if this were not the case as men would probably have eaten any young produced by women like bears do...
Recently men have given themselves legal custody of children to control their estates and property but that's relatively recent in human history.
Anyway, we are not making the same contribution, taking the same risk, making the same investment in children, so why in the world would men think they should have the same rights as mothers do?
This is what I don't understand????
You've given yourself these rights through these phony legal concepts men have created to benefit themselves, but they have no basis in natural law.
You've rigged the jury in other words and only get away with this because women don't have the power to stop you. But if you were doing this to each other, there would have been war over it already as men kill each other every day over far less infringement on their rights, far less. You kill each other over who can plant an olive tree on a piece of land yet think it's okay to lay claim to some mother's baby??? You're lucky women have no power, just lucky...
As the system you have rigged is by no means, natural or fair.
8:21 PM
Post a Comment
I realize after finding this post that my blog is FIVE YEARS OLD this month...
I think of it as quite an accomplishment, all things considered.
I'll continue looking for that other study but keep in mind I have five years worth of posts to dig through...
But never fear I will find it...
BTW, hope everyone (including everyone I disagree with) has a lovely Thanksgiving.
Enjoy!!!
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2004
AND They Wonder Why Women Do NOT want to Have Children Anymore...
This sort of ruling (which by the way goes on continuously) is clearly discriminatory against women...
I've been reading a lot lately about how women are having so few children that western societies are facing many serious problems in the future due to our current low reproductive ratio...WELL here's another good example of why women DO NOT wish to take the 'leap of faith' involved in having children...
First of all this father should NEVER have been given physical custody to begin with as it's clear that an active duty member of the military can be deployed AT ANY TIME...ANYTIME...and countless women in the military, countless, LOSE custody for this very reason CONSTANTLY... with Judges claiming that the military lifestyle is too unstable to support single parenting.
Actually threats of losing custody appears to NOW be commonly used as a weapon against women in the military as a way to drive single mothers out of the services...
Perhaps single mothers SHOULD NOT be in the service, but that's a different issue and should be openly discussed and addressed w/o dragging these bias issues into it...
However this nonsense of a DOUBLE standard for men who deploy should be addressed and STOPPED immediately as when men deploy, children should be sent immediately to go live with their non-custodial mothers and NOT be dumped off on grandparents and certainly NOT a female step-person EVER...JUST THE SAME AS COURT RULE WHEN CUSTODIAL MOTHERS IN THE MILITARY ARE DEPLOYED...THE SAME WAY...
Clearly this is NOTHING but an attempt by men in the military to avoid paying child support while they are deployed and certainly NOT in childrens' best interest...
It's simply outrageous that these Judges should be helping them get away with this, simply outrageous...
I couldn't fit the entire decision here but just enough to show the sheer outrageousness of the ruling; and another reason WHY women must begin to get involved in politics, particularly the election and/or appointments of Judges to Federal courts...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 4-468 / 03-2100
Filed November 15, 2004
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MICHAEL GRANTHAM and TAMMARA SUE GRANTHAM
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for ButlerCounty, Paul W. Riffel, Judge.
Michael Grantham appeals the judgment of the district court modifying the decree dissolving his marriage to Tammara Sue Grantham.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel, Zimmer, Hecht, and Eisenhauer,
JJ.VOGEL, J.In this appeal, we consider the implication of the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA), 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 501-591, when a parent, enjoying physical care of his minor children under a decree of dissolution, is called to active military duty. We conclude the district court erred in not granting a stay of the modification proceedings pursuant to this Act and further erred in entering a temporary change of physical care on a petition to modify.
Additionally, upon our de novo review, we find no permanent and substantial change of circumstances warranting a change of physical care.
Therefore, we reverse and remand.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Michael Grantham’s and Tammara Sue Grantham’s marriage was dissolved on July 11, 2000. The stipulated decree provided for joint custody of their two minor children, then ages ten and six,
...with physical care to Michael...
In mid-August 2002, Tammara was informed by one of the children that Michael,
a National Guard member for over eighteen years,
had been called to active duty and that the children would be residing
with Michael’s mother, Irmgard Grantham. Michael was officially called to active duty on August 21, 2002, and reported to his unit’s armory on August 24. He returned home on a short leave on August 27. While home on leave, Michael reviewed his existing “Family Care Plan” with his lawyer and mother and executed the documents necessary to allow Irmgard, who had been a frequent care giver of the children, to care for the children in his absence[1].
A Family Care Plan is prepared as a part of a soldier’s regular duties and is meant to provide for the care of a soldier’s family.[2] A Family Care Plan is required by military regulation and reviewed when a soldier is called up for active duty.[3] An existing Family Care Plan may be changed; it is not set in stone.[4] A soldier is not deployable until a Family Care Plan is validated and approved, and only the soldier’s commander may approve a Family Care Plan.[5]
Also on August 27, 2002, Michael and his attorney met with Tammara and her attorney at her attorney’s office in Waverly, Iowa. Discussed at this meeting was the possibility of Tammara caring for the children in Michael’s absence instead of Irmgard. Tammara’s lawyer subsequently drafted a proposed stipulated agreement providing for this arrangement, which was provided to Michael later that day.
The following day, Michael returned to National Guard duty at Camp Dodge in Des Moines. After reviewing the proposed agreement with his JAG (Judge Advocate General’s Corps) officer, Michael decided not to enter into the agreement. On August 29, Michael was counseled by his commander on his responsibilities to the military and to his family and Michael filled out a new DA Form 5305-R (Family Care Plan) which provided that Irmgard would care for the children in his absence. Later that same day, Michael’s commander reviewed and approved the Plan.
On September 4, Tammara filed a petition seeking physical care of the children, temporary and permanent support, and suspension of her child support obligations. On the same day, Tammara obtained an ex parte order from the district court setting a hearing on her requests for temporary relief for September 20. Michael was served with the Petition on September 5 while at his unit’s armory in Estherville, Iowa. On September 7, Michael left with his unit for Fort Knox, Kentucky. On September 10, Michael filed a motion requesting a stay of the proceedings pursuant to the SSCRA. No hearing was set on Michael’s motion. On September 20, in his absence, a hearing on temporary placement and child support was held. Although not scheduled, the Court also took up the issue of Michael’s request for a stay at this hearing. Michael’s counsel made a professional statement indicating that Michael was not able to attend the hearing due to his military duties and offered to call his commander to verify this statement.
In a ruling filed October 3, the district court denied Michael’s request for a stay and set a scheduling conference for October 10. The district court based its decision on its finding that [t]he record herein fails to reflect that [Michael] made any showing for a stay other than to state in his unverified filing on September 10, 2002 that he had been placed on active duty and could not appear in court. The record does not reflect by affidavit or otherwise that the Petitioner made any effort to obtain a leave of absence to enable him to be present at the hearing or made any effort to participate telephonically in the scheduled hearing.
Additionally, the record reflects that the Petitioner
acted in bad faith in attempting to exercise his rights under the act by deceiving the Respondent into believing that he was making a good faith effort to reach an agreement when in fact he had no intention of doing so and was merely delaying matter until he had to report for active duty.
The October 10 scheduling conference was held without Michael present and reset the hearing on temporary matters for October 29. Michael, although he was represented by counsel, was unable to participate in the October 29 hearing because of his continuing military duties. At that hearing, Michael’s attorney again sought a stay under the SSCRA and in support thereof filed an affidavit and a letter from Michael’s commander stating that Michael could not attend the proceedings. Michael also moved to continue to a time when he could participate in the hearing. He further moved to dismiss on the grounds that there is no temporary custody remedy available in Iowa Code chapter 598 (2001) for modification proceedings.
On October 30, the district court entered an order denying these motions, temporarily placing the children with Tammara, terminating her support obligation, and requiring Michael to pay child support.
In so doing, the district court did not rule on the merits of Michael’s reapplication for a stay, instead stating that it would not “take issue with [the October 3] ruling” on this matter.Michael sought discretionary review from the Iowa Supreme Court and requested a temporary stay. A stay was granted on November 1. However, on November 8, the court denied discretionary review and vacated the stay. Although Michael was technically on active duty until September 2, 2003, he had returned home early in August 2003 and trial on the merits of the petition for modification was held shortly thereafter, on August 27.
In its subsequent ruling, filed on November 19, the district court granted the relief requested in Tammara’s petition changing physical care of the children to her and entering related orders of visitation and child support.
Michael appeals this ruling and each and every other order therein, contending: First, the district court erred in not staying the proceedings leading up to the November 19, 2003, judgment as required by the SSCRA. Second, the district court erred in entering a temporary change of physical care order on Tammara’s petition for modification. Third, no permanent change in circumstances existed justifying the district court’s change of physical care of the children to Tammara.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by NYMOM | Friday, November 19, 2004
28 Comments:
Anonymous said...
I think there had to be a reason to have the children placed with the father in the first place and also I think that the mother used the activation of the father to her advantage to gain the children. While having the father at a disadvantage it was the best time for her to get what she wanted. If she would have done this any other time she would not have has any grounds to get the children in her placement.
She has stated in the court records that the father was a good father to the children and never denied her any of her visitations. Maybe this is all about her and not the children.
11:15 PM
NYMOM said...
"the mother used the activation of the father to gain the children..."
AND...
What's wrong with that?
I mean are you a mother? Would you want your children with you???
I mean you are saying this she wanted to 'gain' her children like there is something wrong with her wanting her children to be with her...whereas it's perfectly NORMAL for mothers to want their children with them...and the day they STOP wanting that, is when we need to worry because then we just go extinct...
Okay...
So quit talking such nonsense.
9:43 AM
Anonymous said...
Your are right and that is what the problem is.
She never wanted both of the childred in the first place and now she does. The courts thru out the letter that stated that The Children are better off with Mike and not with her. She wanted to be single again and play around and the children would be in her way. So the father had to take care of the children at there younger stage of their lives and now that they are old enough to take care of themselves in when she wants them. To me that is not a good mother and she still don't take them to places they need to go. She has others take the kids every where or hands them off to people because they will be in the way of what she wants to do
10:36 AM
NYMOM said...
Well if you know the people personally then I'll defer to your opinion in this case...HOWEVER, it doesn't change my mind about the basic premise here which is that when a custodial parent is deployed, unless there is a darn good reason, the children should THEN be sent to live with the non-custodial parent...
This decision ruled that being deployed, even for years, did NOT constitute a change in circumstancs which is ridiculous as it means that children could be dumped all over the place as the custodial parent deploys, but refuses to send the children back to live with the non-custodial parents...
Probably trying to avoid paying child support during deployment... and THIS is wrong and should NOT be encouraged by the courts...
This was a BAD ruling...
10:44 AM
JB Opheim said...
Apparently you know nothing about the Military or the soldiers and sailors releif act. I have been deployed with many soldiers who have their wages garnished so that that the child support is paid. I am one of those soldiers. getting deployed is not going to stop your child support and the ssra has nothing to do with protecting the soldier from paying his child support. The Military frowns on deadbeat parents and totally supports the rights of the children.Its not the point that there is something wrong with her wanting her children , but using his deployment as a crutch to get them back after they were obviously given to him for good reason is wrong. I pay my child support every month in good faith and spend plenty of time with them. It sounds to me that you feel Mothers are far more important in a childs life than the Father it that kind of thinking that is destoying our youth
5:01 PM
NYMOM said...
Well yes, I do happen to think that mothers are more significant vis-a-vis children and should be as they invest more in just giving them life...
Why should a father who invests NOTHING in bringing children forth be given the exact same standing as mother...it's just male jealousy and selfishness that is leading to this...
If it continues women won't be wanting to have children anymore and then what...Western civilization is already heading into extinction due to male selfishness...and you're a perfect example of it...
5:08 PM
NYMOM said...
BTW, this selfish man was dumping his children off on his mother anyway which the court papers stated he did very frequently...So why should a mother be w/o her children so he could dump them off with his mother again...
Why, to avoid paying child support obviously...it's simply disgraceful that you men in uniform are allowed to play these games with childrens' lives anyway...simply disgraceful...
5:10 PM
Anonymous said...
I think that you are getting this all twisted. It is the mother that dumps the kids off to who ever will watch them not the father. When the father has the kids he does not dump them off to anyone. If the father has things to do he does it with the kids.
and also the fathers in todays world are just as important in the kids life as the mother.
5:59 PM
NYMOM said...
No...you are getting it all twisted...
1. This is a site for mothers ONLY...get it...not for fathers deployed or otherwise...
Okay...
2. The court papers clearly stated that the father left the children with his mother ALL THE TIME...that was the basis for them saying deployment did NOT constitute a change in circumstances...a twisted interpretation if I ever heard one...
3. Did you even read the actual decision? Since I posted JUST a part of it here...so you need to go back and read the whole thing so you know what you are talking about...
4. NO...I do NOT agree that fathers are as important as mothers thus the creation of this blog...if you don't like it, start your own...
Okay...
Thanks.
6:09 PM
Anonymous said...
I do know what I am talking about and that is right you only have a small portion of the story and I have about 8,000 sheets of paper to that I have read. So I have the whole story.
and If this is for woman only then I would suggest taking this story off your web site
because this story is all about me and I want it off here is you are going to use that tone.
6:16 PM
NYMOM said...
No...
I'm not taking it off this website...
That ruling was public record and I'm leaving it right here so mothers can see exactly what goes on with fathers like this pulling all kinds of stunts to get out of paying child support probably...even the Judge who originally awarded the mother custody said the father acted in bad faith, pretending he was going to review her request for the children to be with her while he was deployed and then disappearing until he actually was deployed so he could then say no change in custody was allowed under that Soldiers and Sailors act you just quoted...
It was an extremely devious act of trickery which lucky the first Judge saw right through...
Unfortunately for this poor mother and her children however the higher court reversed the decision and allowed the deceitfulness of a father to be rewarded...
Again, simply disgracefull....
NOW GET OFF MY BLOG...
7:19 PM
Anonymous said...
so you are telling me that I did not pay? I suppose that is why she owes me money yet from the time I had the kids with me. Now that is not paying Child support.
and by the way if my name is public then your sight is too and I can be on here all I want
12:36 AM
NYMOM said...
Sorry, yes you can stay to discuss this further if you wish...
You just caught me on a bad day and this post was so old I wasn't ever expecting any responses to it after all this time, so you caught me by surprise.
Anyway, I'm sorry that I was so harsh...
Look, I really know neither one of you obviously but my central POINT was that the ruling by the Judge was NOT a good one for other parents in your situation... that was my point...whether or not she paid or you paid was not really an issue, so I shouldn't have brought it up...
You won your appeal so I assume the children are with your mother and your ex has visitation or did the first Judge find another reason during the remand to award the mother custody anyway????
Are you still deployed btw?
You see my basic problem with the ruling (over and above the fact that I consider myself to be an advocate for mothers and considered the ruling very anti-mother) is that it would make it virtually impossible for any non-custodial parent to have custody of their own kids if the custodial parent is deployed...even if the deployment lasted for years.
I mean the appeals court claimed that because you left the children frequently with your mother that no substantial change of circumstances would occur if you decided to let them live with your mother while you were being deployed...thus, what's to stop ANY court from using that logic for any deployment situation...and I can see where kids could be left with girlfriends, boyfriends, friendly neighbors, steppersons, etc., for very long periods of time under that ruling...and it would clearly be an erosion of parental rights by the states to allow that to happen...
The non-custodial parent in ANY deployment situation should AUTOMATICALLY be the default custodial parent unless extraordinary circumstances exist and that should be a burden that the deployed custodial parent should be forced to prove...not the other way around...
People need to think about these things when they take these cases to court and how a ruling like yours could impact future situations involving children and deployed parents. Why didn't you just offer your ex Joint Custody with your mother? That might have satisfed her and saved everyone a lot of trouble which this new ruling, if not overturned by a higher court and I assumed it wasn't, could cause people...
2:50 AM
Mike said...
Thanks for being more understanding,
I have had Joint Custody with her and before my deployment I had placement. After being Deployed the courts gave her placement and I have not had anything since and now I will not have placement again. Unless my kids elect to live with me. That is what my boy is talking about now.
The only reason I was willing to have my mother take the kids during my deployment was to make it easy on them and everyone. I had a gut feeling what she would do if I left the kids with the ex. After the court gave her the kid it all came true. I had a very hard time talking with the kids and seeing them on my time off. The kids had a calling card and when It ran out she wanted me to buy them new ones and everything else was at my expence and she was getting about $800 a month support for the kids and did not spend it on them. and I still have problems with her.
The thing that bugs me is that people like her can ly in court and get away with it and don't feel bad about it. I could not live with my self if I did that.
Now that the supreme court ruled like this, it just opened it up to other to do the same whether it is male or female.
I hope that it don't happen to others.
6:18 PM
NYMOM said...
"Now that the supreme court ruled like this, it just opened it up to other to do the same whether it is male or female.
I hope that it don't happen to others."
I don't understand however the ruling I posted overturned the first Judge's change of custody to her and placed the kids back with you...it claimed that you putting the kids with your mother while you deployed was NOT a significant change of circumstances that warranted a change in custody...
So did she appeal it and to what court...as wasn't your appeal the final state appeal allowed????
12:23 AM
Anonymous said...
She had the Iowa Supreme Court Review the Iowa Court of Appeals outcome and the Iowa Supreme Court reversed it and gave her the kids
4:55 PM
NYMOM said...
Okay now I understand...
I do feel that this was the correct decision and I think if you stop for a moment and think about it, you'd agree...however, I don't understand why you pay such high child support to her; $800 monthly on a soldier's wages is a LOT...
Can't you get that modified downward until you are back?
Also isn't this temporary custody ONLY...since as I understood the intial ruling was temporary custody with her until you got home and then it was open for review at that time...
Which is fair...
I mean even if you don't get primary placement back, doesn't your state have the designation of Joint Legal and Physical Custody where BOTH parents have the children for equal parenting time...
Frankly I don't know why you didn't go for this sort of compromise to begin with, where her and your mother SHARED Joint Physical...At that time she probably would have accepted that and then you could have just sent your mother money for the parenting times the children were with her and your ex would have paid the childrens' expenses during her parenting times...
So neither one of you would have been paying child support to the other...just supporting your kids via the parenting agreement when they were in the different households...
I think this could still be a possibility when you get back as few courts would punish a veteran for being deployed; by making him totally uncustodial once he was back home...
Think about it anyway...sometimes people are more reasonable then you think and everything does NOT have to go through the courts...sometimes you can negotiate...
Just because your ex was irresponsible when the children were young, doesn't mean that NO redemption is possible for her NOW...People change as they age and she might be a loving mother, and more responsible person NOW then she was at the time of your divorce...thus there remains the possibility that BOTH of you can work together when you get home to raise your children...
After all you want your children to see an example of adults working things out, not having to enter court to settle things ALL the time...remember 50% of first marriages end in divorce today so when your children get married (and hopefully they will) you'll want to have set an example for them that no matter what happens, adults can always discuss these issues and come to logical decisions...everything does NOT have to be court ordered for people to do the right thing does it?
Anyway, last point...although I disagreed with the President's decision to go to war in Iraq I support all military persons involved in this 100% and just want to personally thank you for taking on the burdens imposed by this war upon you...
I will continue to hope that you return safely home and that you are able to convince your ex that custody should be shared between you and her...as it would be unfair for you to be relegated to being a visitor in your child's life just because you were called to serve your country.
Anyway, good luck...stay safe...
9:33 PM
mike said...
I have been home since sept 2003 and that is when the courts gave her full physical custody and Nov.15 2004 the Iowa Appeals Court reverted and remended which was good for me and other soldiers like me, but the Iowa Supreme court sided with the District Courts which was not good for me.
My mother only was going to take care of the kids when I was gone for that year. I gave my mother full legal rights to all my income, so she could support the kids when I was gone and nothing change for the ex. I was like my mother was me for a year. The ex had all her rights for the kids just like I was home. She had every Wed. and every other weekend and 4 weeks when ever it worked out for her. Nothing would change but the house and who was in the house. It was supposed to be a disruptive as posible. Well as you can tell that did not work for her and that is when it all started. She went to court for this.
7:11 AM
NYMOM said...
Well I hate to say it but yes, I can see it...
Women don't have children to see them EOW weekend and on Wednesday and once women realize this is what could happen, they'll stop having children...it's that simple...Just as women have abortions rather then carry a child to term to give up for adoption...
It's the same principle...
We CANNOT continue doing this to women as few will have kids and then what happens?
Then we're heading into extinction.
Sorry, it's just the way it is...
9:14 AM
Anonymous said...
"Women don't have children to see them EOW weekend and on Wednesday and once women realize this is what could happen, they'll stop having children...it's that simple..."
Yes, it's that simple. And it's the same reason by which men will stop having children.
"Just as women have abortions rather then carry a child to term to give up for adoption..."
"Mine or nobody else's". Great justification for a murder.
9:03 PM
NYMOM said...
"Yes, it's that simple. And it's the same reason by which men will stop having children."
Men don't have children...or must I conduct a simple biology class for you too now...
11:44 PM
Anonymous said...
"Men don't have children...or must I conduct a simple biology class for you too now..."
Ok, then leave men alone and go and have children all by yourself.
9:14 AM
Anonymous said...
I am in the military presently and after reading this ruling of Mike losing sole conservatorship over his children after being activated to service his country, I am making plans to get out. I am sole conservator of my two boys and there is no way in hell I will leave custody to their father. I have been divorsed for 5 years and he has not paid a single cent of child support for his children. he doesnot even offer any help. He is always unemployeed. I feel that Mike had all rights to give his mother TEMP CUSTODY. I personally now his ex and she would either leave the kids with who ever. These kids at a very young age were seen several time running around town unsupervised. This was when she had them for the weekend. Then she would go out whoring around. Plus she hardly ever paid her portion (little) support she was suppose to pay. Now that she is living with a man that is abusive to the boy she wants custody and Mike to pay support. I think this is all wrong. It is suppose to be in the well being of the children. She disrupted the kids living environment, pulling them out of school where they have gone to for a long time and moved them to a schoool where they do not like. t is all wrong.
7:48 PM
mike said...
This is interesting for another to say stuff like that. Now the boy wants to live with me but the ex will not allow him to and all she does it drags this out so he can't play sports or live with me.
I would really like for you to contact my lawyer and tell him what you see. Maybe things will work out
1:22 PM
NYMOM said...
Well this is a totally different story as neglect or abuse should ALWAYS be grounds for losing custody.
Unfortunately that wasn't the original issue that this post was about and the father in this case, 'Mike' as you call him NEVER mentioned abuse. This was strictly a case about deployment and whether or not it constituted a change in circumstance which warranted a switch in custody to the other parent. I still say it does and so does the court.
AND no, I do not agree with you that the custodial parent has the right to decide that they can just hand their kids off to someone other then the other parent when they deploy. Sorry but that should NOT be allowed.
So in your case, if you do NOT wish to be deployed and have to hand your kids over to what you paint as an uncaring father, then yes, you should leave the military. Actually I'm surprised this did NOT occur to you before now; as why would you risk your children winding up in a situation where they would have to live with an uncaring person??? You should have taken EXTRA care with your occupation knowing their father didn't care about them to ensure they would never face the situation Mike's children are currently in.
What were you thinking???
I have to be honest I consider it somewhat irresponsible for PARENTS to be in the military; as you can be deployed at ANY time and these are the sorts of situations that your children face when this deployment business happens.
Actually you might not even be able to get out of the military right away now because we are at war. So you have placed your children at risk. Same with Mike. According to you his son is running unsupervised all over the place now because he didn't properly plan his life and factor in what COULD happen to his children in the event of deployment.
When you are responsible for children there are MANY things you can no longer do. Dangerous professions, jobs that require a lot of travel or staying out late and probably the military because of the threat of deployment at ANYTIME...ANYTIME...
This is why traditionally the best parent was probably the most boring parent, who was at home with no life or interests of their own, just hanging around the house, cooking, cleaning and planning their lives around their kids' schedule.
Sorry, but I find that people who have fantastically interesting and busy lives generally don't make very good mothers and that's what children ultimately NEED. That boring person, with nothing very interesting going on in her own life so she fixiates on her childrens' lives and makes their life better at the cost of her own.
Our children suffer when we get away from this model.
All I can say to you two now is good luck with straightening out your situations. Hopefully your children won't suffer too much until that happens. Sorry.
12:02 PM
Anonymous said...
You seem to forget that we are divorced and do not have the option to stay home and be a boring parent. Do not tell me that i am not a good parent because I am out in the real world by myself with 2 kids to support. I make good decision in the best interest of my children. You are completely out of line. You must have been that boring parent that stays home and sits infront of the TV while your kids are out running the neighborhood unsupervised. My life revolves around my children. If you asked them they will tell you that I attend every school event, feed them, cloth them, bath them, entertain them. And for me to do all this I do have to sacrafice a lot of time with them to have 3 jobs to support them. Once again I am doing this all on my own w/o support and family help. Yes the military is my decision but I made that decision before kids. It is a job just like any other, but we are fighting for YOUR freedom.
8:08 AM
Anonymous said...
First off let me say that I am a single father and parent to a 15 year old boy.
I have been in and out of Court for the last 12 years for various custody arrangements. Mother and I disagree on parenting styles.
As I read both Mothers rights and Fathers rights oriented material frequently and I find it curious that throughout history the legalities of custody are always pitting Mothers and Fathers. There are periods in history where Mothers get custody 9 out of 10 times and there are times when the opposite is true.
We as parents need to ask ourselves why the Courts cannot or will not allow both parents to have equal rights to their children as the standard.
Perhaps if Mothers and Fathers could agree instead of fighting over custody we would need less Courtrooms.
12:39 PM
NYMOM said...
EVERY period of history has given all mothers defacto custody of any and all young. How could it be otherwise???? We would have died out long ago as a people if this were not the case as men would probably have eaten any young produced by women like bears do...
Recently men have given themselves legal custody of children to control their estates and property but that's relatively recent in human history.
Anyway, we are not making the same contribution, taking the same risk, making the same investment in children, so why in the world would men think they should have the same rights as mothers do?
This is what I don't understand????
You've given yourself these rights through these phony legal concepts men have created to benefit themselves, but they have no basis in natural law.
You've rigged the jury in other words and only get away with this because women don't have the power to stop you. But if you were doing this to each other, there would have been war over it already as men kill each other every day over far less infringement on their rights, far less. You kill each other over who can plant an olive tree on a piece of land yet think it's okay to lay claim to some mother's baby??? You're lucky women have no power, just lucky...
As the system you have rigged is by no means, natural or fair.
8:21 PM
Post a Comment
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
More Creepy Gender Neutral Theories
“The Making of a Modern Dad"
It takes a lot more than testosterone to make a father out of a man by PsychologyToday.com
"Part of a new generation of men who are redefining fatherhood and masculinity, Hudnut, who is 33, is unwilling to accept the role of absentee provider that his father's generation assumed. With mothers often being the breadwinners of the family, many young fathers are deciding that a man's place can also be in the home—part-time or even full-time.
According to census figures, one in four dads takes care of his preschooler during the time the mother is working. The number of children who are raised by a primary-care father is now more than 2 million and counting. By all measures, fathers, even those who work full-time, are more involved in their children's lives than ever before. According to the Families and Work Institute in New York City, fathers now provide three-fourths of the child care mothers do, up from one-half 30 years ago.
Is father nurture natural?
Many men and women wonder if all of this father care is really natural. According to popular perceptions, men are supposedly driven by their hormones (primarily testosterone) to compete for status, to seek out sex and even to be violent—conditions hardly conducive to raising kids. A recent article in Reader's Digest, "Why Men Act As They Do," is subtitled "It's the Testosterone, Stupid." Calling the hormone "a metaphor for masculinity," the article concludes, "...testosterone correlates with risk: physical, criminal, and personal." Don't men's testosterone-induced chest-beating and risk-taking limit their ability to cradle and comfort their children?
Two studies, which was recently published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, suggests that fathers have higher levels of estrogen the well-known female sex hormone -- than other men. The research shows that men go through significant hormonal changes alongside their pregnant partners changes most likely initiated by their partner's pregnancy and ones that even cause some men to experience pregnancylike symptoms such as nausea and weight gain. It seems increasingly clear that just as nature prepares women to be committed moms, it prepares men to be devoted dads.
"I have always suspected that fatherhood has biological effects in some, perhaps all, men," says biologist Sue Carter, distinguished professor at the University of Maryland. "Now here is the first hard evidence that men are biologically prepared for fatherhood."
The studies have the potential to profoundly change our understanding of families, of fatherhood and of masculinity itself. Being a devoted parent is not only important but also natural for men. Indeed, there is evidence that men are biologically involved in their children's lives from the beginning.
Is biology destiny for dads?
It's well known that hormonal changes caused by pregnancy encourage a mother to love and nurture her child. But it has long been assumed that a father's attachment to his child is the result of a more uncertain process, a purely optional emotional bonding that develops over time, often years. Male animals in some species undergo hormonal changes that prime them for parenting. But do human dads? The two studies, conducted at Memorial University and Queens University in Canada, suggest that human dads do.
In the original study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, psychologist Anne Storey and her colleagues took blood samples from 34 couples at different times during pregnancy and shortly after birth. The researchers chose to monitor three specific hormones because of their links to nurturing behavior in human mothers and in animal fathers.
Parke believes that the research suggests something even more radical: "Men are much more androgynous than we think. We have the capability to be aggressive and nurturing. The traditional view of men as predominantly aggressive really sells men short and denies their capability to experience the range of human emotions.
The research suggests that a man's hormones may play an important role in helping him experience this full range of emotions especially in becoming a loving and devoted dad. In fact, it offers the first evidence that to nurture is part of man's nature.
content by:
By Douglas Carlton Abrams
Last Reviewed: 24 May 2005
Psychology Today © Copyright 1991 – 2005”
People can read the article in its entirety following the link, as I just posted excerpts but it’s pretty clear where this is going.
One, it’s another of the continuing attempts to usurp women from the unique role that God, Evolution, nature etc., has designated as ours, which is as the mother of our children, the ONLY MOTHER. Allowing this re-definition of bonding to pass unchallenged can result in unrelated men or anybody really who is just hanging around a mother a lot during a pregnancy to suddenly claim they ‘bonded’ with a child and thus gain standing for a custody challenge as soon as child is born.
Even the clever wording in the article making no mention whatsoever of bonding vis-a-vis the mother carrying her child but only referring to 'hormonal changes' in the bloodstream has the potential to wreck havoc on the proper definition of bonding as a process that goes on inutero between mother and child ONLY. Like following the logic of this article, let's just give someone a shot and then just anybody can be your kid's mother.
Two, it has the potential to disenfranchise biological fathers as well who are not around during a child’s pregnancy, maybe don’t even know about it. So because they didn’t bond and maybe some other guy did, now’s he’s designated as the ‘bonded’ father. Actually biological fathers are at even more risk of losing legal rights through this nonsense, as they cannot even file for paternity UNTIL the child is is born. Meanwhile Mr. Bonding through Osmosis is there every day slowing absorbing a biological father’s legal rights.
It’s like something out of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine really with the Borg or some such assimilating your kid before you even know you have one, actually before you do have one.
Hey everybody, I'm 3 of 5 in the family tree now.
Frankly, I find it positively creepy.
Three, allowing unrelated persons to gain legal standing for a custody challenge through this sort of psychobabble nonsense puts many children at risk. I’m sorry to say it but children have become very valuable commodities today, used by many people to gain all sorts of advantage from child support payments, a shot at citizenship or even tax benefits of one kind or another. Barring abuse or neglect, biological parents should be the only guardians, custodians, caretakers, whatever of children that can legally exist. Not some self-proclaimed, quasi-bonded individual entering out of left field. Based upon some new gender-neutralized feminist definition of bonding through osmosis that has suddenly taken place, I can see a whole new category of parent emerging from this.
Again, creepy as all getout.
Last, but not least, this is just more of the campaign by these gender-neutralized feminists to continue building the androgynous society that is so dear to their hearts.
Men and women who go on to support this nonsense risk having new definitions of legal parenthood passed that could ultimately mean a room mate or boyfriend having standing to go to court and seek custody based upon this new creepy definition of bonding, if it’s accepted by the courts.
Frankly, why wouldn’t it be as our courts have accepted every other nutty idea that has come down the pike to them so far.
I can accept a unrelated person who invests time in raising a child being designated a psychological parent. But we already have this legal definition that Judges can use to designate a person as a parent because they have spent the requisite time with a child (usually around two years or so). But this is a totally different animal they’ve dredged up now. Trying to designate someone as a parent even BEFORE they put the time in based upon the fact that they hung around the mother during her pregnancy?
Please.
This is total creepy nonsense.
As Nancy Reagan often said, let’s just say no.
It takes a lot more than testosterone to make a father out of a man by PsychologyToday.com
"Part of a new generation of men who are redefining fatherhood and masculinity, Hudnut, who is 33, is unwilling to accept the role of absentee provider that his father's generation assumed. With mothers often being the breadwinners of the family, many young fathers are deciding that a man's place can also be in the home—part-time or even full-time.
According to census figures, one in four dads takes care of his preschooler during the time the mother is working. The number of children who are raised by a primary-care father is now more than 2 million and counting. By all measures, fathers, even those who work full-time, are more involved in their children's lives than ever before. According to the Families and Work Institute in New York City, fathers now provide three-fourths of the child care mothers do, up from one-half 30 years ago.
Is father nurture natural?
Many men and women wonder if all of this father care is really natural. According to popular perceptions, men are supposedly driven by their hormones (primarily testosterone) to compete for status, to seek out sex and even to be violent—conditions hardly conducive to raising kids. A recent article in Reader's Digest, "Why Men Act As They Do," is subtitled "It's the Testosterone, Stupid." Calling the hormone "a metaphor for masculinity," the article concludes, "...testosterone correlates with risk: physical, criminal, and personal." Don't men's testosterone-induced chest-beating and risk-taking limit their ability to cradle and comfort their children?
Two studies, which was recently published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, suggests that fathers have higher levels of estrogen the well-known female sex hormone -- than other men. The research shows that men go through significant hormonal changes alongside their pregnant partners changes most likely initiated by their partner's pregnancy and ones that even cause some men to experience pregnancylike symptoms such as nausea and weight gain. It seems increasingly clear that just as nature prepares women to be committed moms, it prepares men to be devoted dads.
"I have always suspected that fatherhood has biological effects in some, perhaps all, men," says biologist Sue Carter, distinguished professor at the University of Maryland. "Now here is the first hard evidence that men are biologically prepared for fatherhood."
The studies have the potential to profoundly change our understanding of families, of fatherhood and of masculinity itself. Being a devoted parent is not only important but also natural for men. Indeed, there is evidence that men are biologically involved in their children's lives from the beginning.
Is biology destiny for dads?
It's well known that hormonal changes caused by pregnancy encourage a mother to love and nurture her child. But it has long been assumed that a father's attachment to his child is the result of a more uncertain process, a purely optional emotional bonding that develops over time, often years. Male animals in some species undergo hormonal changes that prime them for parenting. But do human dads? The two studies, conducted at Memorial University and Queens University in Canada, suggest that human dads do.
In the original study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, psychologist Anne Storey and her colleagues took blood samples from 34 couples at different times during pregnancy and shortly after birth. The researchers chose to monitor three specific hormones because of their links to nurturing behavior in human mothers and in animal fathers.
Parke believes that the research suggests something even more radical: "Men are much more androgynous than we think. We have the capability to be aggressive and nurturing. The traditional view of men as predominantly aggressive really sells men short and denies their capability to experience the range of human emotions.
The research suggests that a man's hormones may play an important role in helping him experience this full range of emotions especially in becoming a loving and devoted dad. In fact, it offers the first evidence that to nurture is part of man's nature.
content by:
By Douglas Carlton Abrams
Last Reviewed: 24 May 2005
Psychology Today © Copyright 1991 – 2005”
People can read the article in its entirety following the link, as I just posted excerpts but it’s pretty clear where this is going.
One, it’s another of the continuing attempts to usurp women from the unique role that God, Evolution, nature etc., has designated as ours, which is as the mother of our children, the ONLY MOTHER. Allowing this re-definition of bonding to pass unchallenged can result in unrelated men or anybody really who is just hanging around a mother a lot during a pregnancy to suddenly claim they ‘bonded’ with a child and thus gain standing for a custody challenge as soon as child is born.
Even the clever wording in the article making no mention whatsoever of bonding vis-a-vis the mother carrying her child but only referring to 'hormonal changes' in the bloodstream has the potential to wreck havoc on the proper definition of bonding as a process that goes on inutero between mother and child ONLY. Like following the logic of this article, let's just give someone a shot and then just anybody can be your kid's mother.
Two, it has the potential to disenfranchise biological fathers as well who are not around during a child’s pregnancy, maybe don’t even know about it. So because they didn’t bond and maybe some other guy did, now’s he’s designated as the ‘bonded’ father. Actually biological fathers are at even more risk of losing legal rights through this nonsense, as they cannot even file for paternity UNTIL the child is is born. Meanwhile Mr. Bonding through Osmosis is there every day slowing absorbing a biological father’s legal rights.
It’s like something out of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine really with the Borg or some such assimilating your kid before you even know you have one, actually before you do have one.
Hey everybody, I'm 3 of 5 in the family tree now.
Frankly, I find it positively creepy.
Three, allowing unrelated persons to gain legal standing for a custody challenge through this sort of psychobabble nonsense puts many children at risk. I’m sorry to say it but children have become very valuable commodities today, used by many people to gain all sorts of advantage from child support payments, a shot at citizenship or even tax benefits of one kind or another. Barring abuse or neglect, biological parents should be the only guardians, custodians, caretakers, whatever of children that can legally exist. Not some self-proclaimed, quasi-bonded individual entering out of left field. Based upon some new gender-neutralized feminist definition of bonding through osmosis that has suddenly taken place, I can see a whole new category of parent emerging from this.
Again, creepy as all getout.
Last, but not least, this is just more of the campaign by these gender-neutralized feminists to continue building the androgynous society that is so dear to their hearts.
Men and women who go on to support this nonsense risk having new definitions of legal parenthood passed that could ultimately mean a room mate or boyfriend having standing to go to court and seek custody based upon this new creepy definition of bonding, if it’s accepted by the courts.
Frankly, why wouldn’t it be as our courts have accepted every other nutty idea that has come down the pike to them so far.
I can accept a unrelated person who invests time in raising a child being designated a psychological parent. But we already have this legal definition that Judges can use to designate a person as a parent because they have spent the requisite time with a child (usually around two years or so). But this is a totally different animal they’ve dredged up now. Trying to designate someone as a parent even BEFORE they put the time in based upon the fact that they hung around the mother during her pregnancy?
Please.
This is total creepy nonsense.
As Nancy Reagan often said, let’s just say no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)