Parental Rights Questions: why does the mom seemingly always win.

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay.. this is a personal question. I have a friend, who I'll refer to as D. and his ex as B., who just recently after YEARS of in and out of court shenagins got full custody of his daughter. Here is why I'm frustrated:

B., his ex, has committed (and gone to jail) for MASSIVE credit card fraud. She admitted in open court she did it. Got a couple years and change (then only did a few months with parole).  She kept custody.
-got caught trying to leave the area without notifying her parole officer or the courts (her other kids father notified him, yeah..she had a kid out of wedlock while getting a divorce from D. my buddy)  She kept custody.
-Repeatedly got reported to child social services for not taking care of her daughter (lice, unclean house (WAY too many cats))
-Repeatedly denied D. his visitation (or tried to).  She kept custody.
-Has not bothered to use her child support money to keep the girl up in clothing, medical care (she got put out of school for not having required vacinations)  She kept custody.
-Lied to the family court judge about the payments she got, claimed she hadn't gotten them. D. proved he was playing by the rules.  She kept custody.
-Finally after YEARS of in and out of family/children's court, he's awarded primary custody and she is given contempt of court. She threatened him right there in court. I told D that if I was him, I'd be very careful around her. (Bluntly I told him 'That bitch is crazy enough to try and kill you')

Only this month was he awarded sole custody (she's got very limited visitation) after claiming he wasn't the girls father and putting forth a petition. Why? She made a claim and didn't SHOW UP for the hearing. He didn't win because of an argument or logic but because she didn't show up for a petition hearing she set up.

The difference in outcome from what I can tell? She finally got things moved out of children's/family court and into an actual criminal proceedings court..then pissed off the judge.

I don't get this.. it has been proven.. REPEATEDLY.. that she is a sad excuse for a human and dangerous mother. She lost her other kid to the man she was cheating on D with.. and the guy submitted statements in my friend's behalf.. repeatedly.

Word is, from D's lawyer, is that her other claim of him not paying child support and alimony will be reviewed by the same judge who she just didn't show up to put the paternity claim into play. He's, bluntly put, not amused with her.

My question is.. while I support parental rights being an issue that deserves consideration.. why are the mother's so clearly more favored in the courts. She's been proven to lie (IN COURT), committed fraud, planned on fleeing the jurisdiction, risked the daughter's health, stolen money for her daughter's needs to do who knows what..threatened my friend (IN COURT.. in FRONT and in the hearing of his attorney AND the judge. ) And continually refuted rulings, and been in with child services and the school several times and..

only after she personally pissed off a CRIMINAL court judge did she lose custody and had her visitation down to court supervised visits in D's state of residence.. IE.. she has to travel to HIM.

My friend, by the way, is a retired vet (with disabilities like me) who has a good job (she mooches off her exes (husbands/boyfriends/ect)), with a good paying job and a loving wife and a healthy home. He's been responsible, his family backs him up and yet.. till things got bumped from Family court..he was the 'unsuitable' parent.

Why is the system in some areas so skewed? (His issues were in the virginia courts)

[Beguile's Mistress]

I'm not sure why she was initially given custody but quite often family court judges refuse to reverse their decisions or the decisions of other family court judges because reversals are looked at badly in reviews of the judges' performance. 

This isn't always the case and there are many judges more that capable of making the best decision for the child regardless of the way it looks on their record. 

The unfortunate aspect of this is that you are at the mercy of the way cases are assigned in the first place.  Sometimes you get a good judge and sometimes you get one that just seems to go through the motions.  Then there is the fact that if you petition for a new judge when the ruling goes against you you can prejudice your own case by looking like a troublemaker.  It's hardly fair and never works out for the best interest of the child. 

I am glad your friend's child had things go her way in the end and hope and pray she comes out of this with very few scars.

[Callie Del Noire]

It just confuses me... B. (the ex) has done so many things that were admitted into court and is so chronically STUPID.. yet she got custody.

She was shown to commit fraud. She ran up nearly six figures of credit card debt. D, he was on deployment at the time, got off with the normal limit of the card.. which he paid off.

When he got pulled from the officer program (because of her actions) she cleaned out his savings and retirement accounts.

She tried to use the navy against him.. claimed that he had left her to have a homosexual affair with his supervisor, despite paperwork showing that she'd kicked him out of the base housing they were in.. the list of shenanigans she's done goes on and on.

It just confuses me that a judge doesn't have the stones to say 'No, you're not a healthy person for a child to be around' when it is clearly (and repeatedly) been proven she's a danger.

The other kid was born in another state and that is the only reason the father got custody after the kid was a special needs child. (Respiratory issues) Otherwise her other daughter would have died by now.

[Shjade]

I'm not sure one example of the courts going awry constitutes grounds for "moms seemingly always win."

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm not sure one example of the courts going awry constitutes grounds for "moms seemingly always win."

I know from talks with my brother, the lawyer, that his advice to any man going for custody is to settle out of court. He told me that something like only 1 in 5 custody settlements come out in the father's favor. (He typically lets his partner the 'divorce shark' handle them). I know from my experience in seeing divorces go through in the miltary.. the guys don't get custody nearly as often as the mothers.

I'm not talking about moms vs. servicemen.. I'm talking in cases of two sailors going against each other, a service woman vs at home dad. Any damn combination it seems that moms win over dads. Sitting here chatting with a buddy of mine.. we did a survey of the guys we know who got divorced.

Let's see.. 12 guys..
2 didn't want custody.. (1 proved the kid wasn't his.. and is currently trying to get his name from the birth certificate)
1 got sole custody (I think mom literally dropping off the kid and vanishing for 12 weeks had something to do with that)
the rest got limited/restricted/partial custody.

Granted my personal experience is just military families.. but it seems from what I read through the newspapers that it is typically the mom who gets majority custody.

[Torch]

Custody issues are complicated. Not to mention there are two types of custody: legal and physical, and each parent may have one, both or neither. So when you say "custody", it's important to make the distinction between each type, and whether it is sole or joint.

Laws differ from state to state, and since family court issues are decided by a judge and not a jury, the whims of the judge could factor in any decision.

Up until recently the courts followed the "tender years" doctrine, in that minor children were generally better off in the custody of the mother because a mother was considered better suited to provide for a young child's needs.

Currently, most courts make their decisions using a "best interest" doctrine in determining custody matters, which is supposed to be gender-neutral. But just as in a divorce, hearing one side of things (from the viewpoint of your friends) is rarely going to be the absolute truth. Unless you are privy to the same court documentation and testimony the judge hears, you really don't know the whole story.

[Callie Del Noire]

Custody issues are complicated. Not to mention there are two types of custody: legal and physical, and each parent may have one, both or neither. So when you say "custody", it's important to make the distinction between each type, and whether it is sole or joint.

Laws differ from state to state, and since family court issues are decided by a judge and not a jury, the whims of the judge could factor in any decision.

Up until recently the courts followed the "tender years" doctrine, in that minor children were generally better off in the custody of the mother because a mother was considered better suited to provide for a young child's needs.

Currently, most courts make their decisions using a "best interest" doctrine in determining custody matters, which is supposed to be gender-neutral. But just as in a divorce, hearing one side of things (from the viewpoint of your friends) is rarely going to be the absolute truth. Unless you are privy to the same court documentation and testimony the judge hears, you really don't know the whole story.

Thank you.. that makes quite a bit of sense for how things in the past came out like they have for my friends.

[Torch]

Here's the latest Census data on child custody and support:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf

Currently, about 1 in 6 custodial parents are fathers, so some Dads are getting custody of their kids. I have heard anecdotal data that suggests one of the reasons there are so few fathers with custody is because they are advised (or they decide) not to challenge the court for it.

[AndyZ]

It's really just sexism.  Not everyone is sexist, but there are always those out there who believe that one gender is simply better at stuff than another, without looking at other factors.

[ExisD]

I haven't actually found any major studies about this, but these are the feelings I have based on what I see in the news along with what I see with people I know going to court. If anyone has good sources for this I'd be very interested in seeing them.

Right now America on average sees women as being better care providers than men unless there's a large amount of evidence to the contrary. There's also a large amount of sexism in favor of women in the criminal court system, mainly in the number of years in jail sentenced, and family court system, the mother is very much favored. Though from what I understand civil courts are sexist against women most of the time, requiring a higher standard of proof than they do men.

[Caitlin]

It's horrible to read about this. Unfortunately in my country similar things happen, though not as badly as here.

Rather than looking at the well-being of the children they look at the rights of their parents, with the children ending up as a playball. At least it's finally changing a little bit with judges finally giving fathers slightly more rights, but there is still a really long way to go.

To me this also proves one point very much; fathers simply aren't seen as full parents by the judge. Apparently contributing half of the genes isn't enough to earn half of the rights as well. I understand that women do the majority of the work for the 1st 9 months and generally take care of the children after giving birth as well, but it's not like fathers can afford to sit on their lazy ass and do nothing. Good fathers take care of their wife while she's pregnant and after she gave birth. There are plenty of cases (like the example above) where they contribute more to the well-being of their children than the childrens' mothers do.

Sorry about the rant, but it's just frustrating to see things like this happen.

[Kate]

its extremely simple.

There is always a pendulum effect in the law before it reflects common sense.

Before women / moms etc had no rights, and to satisfy strong views otherwise the laws changed to be very mom/women bias during divorces and custody.

The lawyers and judges themselves are aware of this but its hard to change the laws when there isnt marches on the street of men demanding these laws be reformed.

Which would likely make the pendulum move the other way ...

Politicians can order "overhauls" of some legal systems but doing so is effectively political suciside as it takes so much longer for that to be shown to be working than it does to prove you did the right thing next election poll.

In short its how people are elected and the election process, if you are only in for 3  yrs and HAVE to prove your changing things for the better before that term expires (so they vote you in again), you can't have many 4 plus years policies at all (its not in your best interest - even if there is NO resistance to it.

Something like this that is controversial, and passionate to many would be well isnt an easy road, and will not give returns to that position in the time they are elected.

If you were Kennedy or someone super charismatic, ie PM or presidents, different story but they have other things that effect more on their plate to deal with (economy, defense, education, health etc)

[Serephino]

Some days, it boggles my mind too.  My neighbor, who I will call psycho bitch, because it fits  her so accurately, has no business having custody of her kids.  I know more about her than I want to because the duplex walls are thin, and she pays no mind to that fact. 

I've heard her scream at the kids.  At least once a week she tells them she doesn't want them anymore, to pack their shit and get out.  She loves sex, and apparently loves being heard we think, since she got even louder after we said something.  If we can hear her, her kids can hear her.  One morning my boyfriend actually called child services on her because she was keeping him awake, and I guess her kids decided to keep barging in on her.  She wanted her man friend to just keep going, figuring they wouldn't want to watch their mom having sex, and seeing that they couldn't stop her, would just give up.  He wouldn't do it.  So the next time they barged in he heard a door slam, and the kid started screaming about his hand.  Put two and two together, she slammed his hand in the door.  Then he heard what sounded very much like the kid getting shoved down the stairs.

Someone from child services came, but the kids weren't taken.  She told my mom that her own mother had called child services on her, and she lost the kids for a month.  We're pretty sure she leaves them alone a lot (don't know the ages, but I don't think the eldest is any older than 11 or 12 and the youngest maybe 5 or 6).  Sometimes we see a babysitter, sometimes the only sign of life is the kids.  She'll be gone for days at a time. 

She tells the kids their dad doesn't care about them.  From what I've seen and heard when he's over there, he cares a fuck of a lot more than her.  He was pissed because she wouldn't let him have them for Christmas; and they spent the day with a babysitter.  The kids listen to him.  He doesn't yell when he's there watching them.  When they manage to call him, for any reason, and don't have the phone wrestled away from them and told not to bother because he doesn't care, he always comes if he can.  He works.  She sponges off welfare and boyfriends.

Their father really should have them.  He wants them, but she keeps threatening to cry rape if he takes them.  Because, you know, she's on welfare for single mothers, and no kids = no welfare.

[Chris Brady]

Custody issues are complicated. Not to mention there are two types of custody: legal and physical, and each parent may have one, both or neither. So when you say "custody", it's important to make the distinction between each type, and whether it is sole or joint.

Not really.  Sadly, the woman is regarded as the most important for raising kids.  Men are usually seen as mostly deadbeats.  I mean, the first image a lot of people get when you think of a 'family', is mom doing everything, with dad in the living room watching TV.  It's not right, and it's probably even remotely accurate, but it's perception, and that counts a lot more than we realize.

There are also legal wrangling that allows the woman to move away without having to legally notifying the man.  Which makes him into a 'deadbeat' by default, because he can often no longer pay his wife.  Not to mention that his visitation rights are now gone, despite being legally allowed to see his child.

And this is accepted as normal.

Some of the men deserve to have their visitation rights removed, even if they were given them.  And frankly some women shouldn't be allowed to breed, but they do.  The law sides with the woman 90% of the time in a custody battle.  It has nothing to do with law in the end.

[Torch]

Not really.  Sadly, the woman is regarded as the most important for raising kids.  Men are usually seen as mostly deadbeats.  I mean, the first image a lot of people get when you think of a 'family', is mom doing everything, with dad in the living room watching TV.  It's not right, and it's probably even remotely accurate, but it's perception, and that counts a lot more than we realize.

There are also legal wrangling that allows the woman to move away without having to legally notifying the man.  Which makes him into a 'deadbeat' by default, because he can often no longer pay his wife.  Not to mention that his visitation rights are now gone, despite being legally allowed to see his child.

And this is accepted as normal.

Some of the men deserve to have their visitation rights removed, even if they were given them.  And frankly some women shouldn't be allowed to breed, but they do.  The law sides with the woman 90% of the time in a custody battle.  It has nothing to do with law in the end.

There are so many inaccuracies in your post I wouldn't know where to start. Of course I realize all of the above is merely your opinion and has no basis in fact whatsoever, but honestly, would it pain you to provide some statistics to back up your specious claims?

[Chris Brady]

I'm speaking from experience, which is purely anecdotal.  But I'm finding that what Callie's friend is going through to be amazingly common.  Also, I know several family lawyers (I had to work with a couple to get my Disability) and they all say the same thing.  The laws are SUPPOSED to help, and keep both sides of the equation fair, but there's some older perceptions that prevent it from doing so.  And one of these perceptions is that the woman is more important in the child's life than the male is.  And apparently a lot of the current judges (At least in North America) work off that perception.

It's not right, I wish it didn't happen, but you'll find Callie's story to be very, very common.  In fact, it's been the 'norm' for at least 20 years.

Wish it would change, though.  Some men should never be fathers, but at the same time, there are probably an equal amount of women who shouldn't be mothers.

But this is all anecdotal.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I wouldn't be so quick to label that the norm.  This link does indicate a study or at least a researcher taking note and making a publication.  The review of the book was done in Psychology Today.

http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/464/mothers-on-trial

[Chris Brady]

Self-promotion sites are a bit sketchy to me.

[Callie Del Noire]

I wiki'ed her. She's a women's right advocate and has some chops in the area. She also has some serious experience in dealing with the issue of women's rights in the middle east, as she was left with her in-laws back in the 70's Afganistan.. she does have a feminist leaning but she's also a professor emerita of psychology and women's studies.. so she knows how to research her material.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The review posted on the site, which is a self-promotion site, is from a review posted in Psychology Today.  So the review is not written by the author and is posted in a fairly reputable magazine in regard to issues affecting psychology, a scientific field.  The author is a psychotherapist, professor of psychology and feminism.  She would be at least a more reputable source on the subject at hand than someone simply referencing unsupported, personal opinions.

[Callie Del Noire]

The review posted on the site, which is a self-promotion site, is from a review posted in Psychology Today.  So the review is not written by the author and is posted in a fairly reputable magazine in regard to issues affecting psychology, a scientific field.  The author is a psychotherapist, professor of psychology and feminism.  She would be at least a more reputable source on the subject at hand than someone simply referencing unsupported, personal opinions.

It could also be argued her writing has a definite skew in outlook and approach. (Personally I don't think she lets her experiences skew her research but they have definitely given her focus.. of course if I had in-laws like she had.. I wouldn't forget it either.)

All I can go with is my personal experience, second hand, of watching friends go through divorce and most of the guys getting slammed in the courts. My buddy D, the guy above, spent THOUSANDS defending his rights against a woman who was a criminal, conspiring to flee her parole, and didn't give two damns about anyone other than herself. The only reason she kept custody of D's daughter was that it kept him on a leash and allowed her to screw more cash out of him.

I've seen a mother in a performance critical rating who KNEW she weren't going to be in country for YEARS (and going places that were in the 'please don't go there' list such as Columbia, Afghanistan and places elsewhere who got custody..who then put the kids in with her sister while the father was there in state, staying there with a home, an a rating that basically promised he'd stay there and when he got out he'd stay there still just make more money. And the kids ASKED to stay with dad.

Instead of staying in an area where they had family they get shipped off to a hell hole ranked as one of the worse places to live in in the US (a lovely little hell hole in East St. Louis).

I've only seen one father of a mutual military family get custody without the mother waiving custody. I've seen only ONE non-military mother NOT get custody..and that was because she was arrested for trying to contract the murder of her soon to be ex.

I haven't seen a lot of amicable divorces and custody tends to make them nastier.

[kylie]

     Claims about biological parenthood are very serious in many places.  Some states will honor only the parents listed on the birth certificate, which are not always accurate either... 

If she could convince a court that he wasn't the genetic father (or maybe just the certified father), and he has no other established legal tie...  I could see a court dropping him on those grounds.  Not approving of the criteria prioritizing there, just saying it's out there from what I understand. 

[Sabre]

I wouldn't be so quick to label that the norm.  This link does indicate a study or at least a researcher taking note and making a publication.  The review of the book was done in Psychology Today.

http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/464/mothers-on-trial

Getting my hand on a copy, I find myself taking issue with the way this book is written.  It's no less anecdotal than any of the above stories from other posters.  The book is a collection of interviews with women who approached the author or whom the author contacted while forming a narrative of a judicial war on mothers and slipping in her personal opinions on why this or that study is heinous, false or malicious. 

It also focuses on high profile cases a lot with some false comparisons - an Illinois state court deciding murder of the mother by a father does not automatically give them grounds to strip him of custody without a separate custody trial is contrasted with another case where a father and mother are in dispute over custody and the mother loses on the grounds that she has a live-in boyfriend.  She makes no attempt to tell us why these two cases should be compared, they just are without explanation.

The rest of that chapter is a Q&A list of specific court cases, not trends or averages, which asks "Can a mother lose custody if she ____?" but never once offers a comparison with a case that shows if a father is in the same situation he is treated different by the court.

I don't think this is a study at all, or at least doesn't resemble anything like the psychology and drug test studies I've known.  It reads more like an ideological attack against an opposing political party (which by the end is singled out to be what she terms 'father supremacist' groups).  Indeed, the book pulls on other statistical studies for percentage numbers and focuses entirely on constructing a historical and anecdotal narrative about the state of motherhood in family court cases.  Specifically it points to a "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Gender Bias Committee" study which, after some searching seems to be a convoluted statistical study that advocates for both sides seem to claim as favoring their side.  The very study which the author says shows 70% of fathers win custody battles is claimed by other people to have said that mothers win 65% of the time while fathers win 48% of the time.

Messy, partisan politics at its worse, it seems.


I can't help but find how partisan and almost petty this subject is after trawling through the net just hoping to find government statistics and nothing else.  Thankfully I did find one though it's from Canada (are they vastly different from the U.S.?) and see that half of all their custody hearings are settled out of court, but those that aren't award mothers ~80% exclusive custody while the fathers receive ~6%.

[Chris Brady]

Getting my hand on a copy, I find myself taking issue with the way this book is written.  It's no less anecdotal than any of the above stories from other posters.  The book is a collection of interviews with women who approached the author or whom the author contacted while forming a narrative of a judicial war on mothers and slipping in her personal opinions on why this or that study is heinous, false or malicious. 

It also focuses on high profile cases a lot with some false comparisons - an Illinois state court deciding murder of the mother by a father does not automatically give them grounds to strip him of custody without a separate custody trial is contrasted with another case where a father and mother are in dispute over custody and the mother loses on the grounds that she has a live-in boyfriend.  She makes no attempt to tell us why these two cases should be compared, they just are without explanation.

The rest of that chapter is a Q&A list of specific court cases, not trends or averages, which asks "Can a mother lose custody if she ____?" but never once offers a comparison with a case that shows if a father is in the same situation he is treated different by the court.

I don't think this is a study at all, or at least doesn't resemble anything like the psychology and drug test studies I've known.  It reads more like an ideological attack against an opposing political party (which by the end is singled out to be what she terms 'father supremacist' groups).  Indeed, the book pulls on other statistical studies for percentage numbers and focuses entirely on constructing a historical and anecdotal narrative about the state of motherhood in family court cases.  Specifically it points to a "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Gender Bias Committee" study which, after some searching seems to be a convoluted statistical study that advocates for both sides seem to claim as favoring their side.  The very study which the author says shows 70% of fathers win custody battles is claimed by other people to have said that mothers win 65% of the time while fathers win 48% of the time.

Messy, partisan politics at its worse, it seems.


I can't help but find how partisan and almost petty this subject is after trawling through the net just hoping to find government statistics and nothing else.  Thankfully I did find one though it's from Canada (are they vastly different from the U.S.?) and see that half of all their custody hearings are settled out of court, but those that aren't award mothers ~80% exclusive custody while the fathers receive ~6%.

So, in the end, that book was as I thought it would be, a political essay masquerading as 'facts'.  *Sigh*  I had hoped to be wrong.

And yes, that site is where I got my information from, being Canadian.  It is, however, at last 13 years out of date.  Although looking around me, I am wondering if things have really changed.  From my perspective, it doesn't seem to have.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, the fact that a noted researcher performed the interviews does actually make them better than a bunch of people sharing stories.  That is a form of research called subjective.  Still, I suppose people are wanting more rescources.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/more-fathers-getting-custody-in-divorce/

http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Jan/59218.html


Q: How well do fathers do in custody cases?
A: In contested custody trials, while there are no statistics on point, I believe the percentage is tipped in favor of fathers.
Q: Why ?
A: Probably because fathers and their lawyers do not go to trial in a custody case unless the odds of winning are in favor of the father.
Q: But, are not mothers usually awarded custody?
A: Yes, but these are cases which are settled and not tried. Lawyers should advise their clients that custody is usually determined on the basis of who has been the primary caretaking parent. In our society it is usually the mother who has been the primary caretaking parent.

http://www.gitlin.com/pages/questions/qa_custody.html

[Moraline]

I have to agree with the original poster on this.  It's the same in Canada as well.

Two examples from my friends.

1) The father and mother split and most of the time the child was with him. He cared for the child and took him to school. The child even went to his parents house every day afterschool until one or the other parent got off work.  There was no legal agreements in this case the two parents shared equal custody (everything was split.)

Later the mother moved to a new city.  They went to court over custody now because of the move.  It was clear in court that the father had spent the majority of time taking care of the child (about a 70/30 ratio in his favor.)  Neither are bad people but the Father was the only one with a stable job and life and his family were the child's main support system. 

They awarded her custody and she moved away with the child.  Thankfully she still lives close enough that he gets to see his child frequently on weekends and stuff but the relationship between them is now forever altered.


2) Father and mother have a messy divorce and custody battle over the children.  While in court it comes to light that she has been convicted on drug possession charges in the recent past (nothing major but still convicted and spent a brief time in jail as well as forced treatement.)

The judge awards the mother the child despite the father having no criminal record and the only one of the two with a full time steady job. It actually seemed to go against him in this case as they determined that he wouldn't be home to look after the child (this was actually stated in the court on reading the decision.)

The mother ends up being put in jail again on drug possession charges and the father is given temporary custody.  She gets out and they go to court again and the mother wins again.


I went to the lawyers office with both of them for moral support and in both cases the lawyers told us outright that the decision would depend heavily on the judge.  Some judges take a more equal stance while others refer back to older case law from times when the mothers were always awarded the custody and it was a given to the mother.

My heart absolutely breaks for each of these men and in the second example I fear for the child's safety.  I've known a few men that have won custody but only after the judges determined the mother's to be unfit.  In a world full of equality, who they determine for custody for the sake of the child's best interests seems to still be heavily favored for the mother in North America.

In my opinion, 100% of the time, all child custody should be 50/50 shared custody automatically for the sake of the children unless one parent is proven unfit or gives up a part/or all of the custody. 

There should be no child support unless that 50/50 shared custody is changed.  And no change in that 50/50 split unless one parent decides for any reason to move away from a location where 50/50 shared custody is possible and then that should mean that they default and give up custody unless the other parent relinquishes custody or is proven unfit.

Acceptations to the general should only be made in extreme cases where the child has special needs or another outstanding circumstance case can be made.

In my opinion, having the love and support of both of your parents as much as is possible is far more important to a growing/developing child.  Just because someone dislikes their previous partner should not prevent either one of them from being able to raise their children or cause the child to be denied the love and support of that other parent.  You might not like the other parent but your child loves them.

[Serephino]

My boyfriend works with a guy who is getting royally screwed.  He was with this girl, and everything seemed fine.  She gets pregnant and has the baby.  Sometime after the baby is born she bolts on him.  She asks for child support, and gets it.  And still, she felt the need to go to this agency that goes after deadbeat dads.  He ended up getting 75% of his paycheck garnished!  If he loses his job he has a week to find another, and then a warrant gets issued to toss him in jail.  He even tried signing away his parental rights.  All that did was make it so he can't have visitation.

Apparently a year or so later she did the same thing to another man.  She's living like a queen while these men are barely surviving in the projects, and actually working their asses off instead of getting child support checks in the mail.  How the court doesn't see a pattern here I'll never understand. 

[Torch]

He even tried signing away his parental rights.  All that did was make it so he can't have visitation.

In the state of PA, a parent can only voluntarily terminate parental rights if another adult is willing to adopt the child in question.

Apparently a year or so later she did the same thing to another man.  She's living like a queen while these men are barely surviving in the projects, and actually working their asses off instead of getting child support checks in the mail.  How the court doesn't see a pattern here I'll never understand. 
[/color]

"Living like a queen" is unlikely. I highly doubt anyone trying to provide for two children on what amounts to a percentage of a minimum wage support amount every month is "living like a queen".

A poverty-level standard of living would be a better description.

[Callie Del Noire]

In the state of PA, a parent can only voluntarily terminate parental rights if another adult is willing to adopt the child in question.

"Living like a queen" is unlikely. I highly doubt anyone trying to provide for two children on what amounts to a percentage of a minimum wage support amount every month is "living like a queen".

A poverty-level standard of living would be a better description.

I dunno.. my friend's ex was milking him for half his wage.. and he was making a fair amount of cash, and working the disability/unemployment gig. He was making something better than 100 grand though.

[Torch]

In my opinion, 100% of the time, all child custody should be 50/50 shared custody automatically for the sake of the children unless one parent is proven unfit or gives up a part/or all of the custody. 

A good thought, but completely and wholly impractical in real life, and in most cases almost impossible to implement. Exactly which 50% of the time would you require? 12 hours out of every day? 3 days and 12 hours out of every week? Six months out of every year?

Parenting, like every other relationship, is never exactly and equally 50/50. Sometimes it's 70/30, sometimes it's 90/70, sometimes it's 100/100, sometimes it's 20/55, etc, etc, you get the general idea.

Children thrive best on continuity and stability, and the courts realize this. Splitting a child's time with each parent exactly in half like a biblical edict without any concern for the child's educational welfare, extra-curricular activities, other familial relationships, and all the other things that go along with raising a child is hardly what I would call best interest for anyone.

[Torch]

I dunno.. my friend's ex was milking him for half his wage.. and he was making a fair amount of cash, and working the disability/unemployment gig. He was making something better than 100 grand though.

Can we please not refer to child support as being "milked"?

Yes, I realize you have a biased point of view, but child support is exactly that - money that goes to the health and welfare of a child, not a parent.

And if the wage being garnished is a percentage of a minimum wage salary, no one is living high on the hog on that, especially the child.

[Chris Brady]

"Living like a queen" is unlikely. I highly doubt anyone trying to provide for two children on what amounts to a percentage of a minimum wage support amount every month is "living like a queen".

A poverty-level standard of living would be a better description.

Not likely.  If this woman has done it to two men, and they are losing 75% of their paychecks each?  She's loving well above the poverty line.  She might not be rich, but definitely upper middle.  Especially if she's 'smart' enough to target the right type of men for her tricks.

[Callie Del Noire]

Can we please not refer to child support as being "milked"?

Yes, I realize you have a biased point of view, but child support is exactly that - money that goes to the health and welfare of a child, not a parent.

And if the wage being garnished is a percentage of a minimum wage salary, no one is living high on the hog on that, especially the child.

of course.. Sorry Torch..

I meant was that he was paying (quite happily) for everything for his daughter, and very little of it went to her. If he hadn't paid for her medical coverage so fully I'm sure she'd be would have been very very sick by the time she was six. (that and the fact that she had access to a navy hospital that mommy dearest didn't have to pay for anything in).

I know when she came out to visit him in the backside of beyond (my buddies words..) she was sent out in shorts and tshirt with a book bag of clothing totally unsuited for Idaho in October. When he picked her up from her mom's home, he was able to put ALL her clothing and belongings in 2 duffle bags.. a LOT of her presents from him and his family were mysteriously missing.

[Torch]

Not likely.  If this woman has done it to two men, and they are losing 75% of their paychecks each?  She's loving well above the poverty line.  She might not be rich, but definitely upper middle.  Especially if she's 'smart' enough to target the right type of men for her tricks.

*sighs*

Again, if the wage being garnished is a percentage of a minimum wage salary, no one is living high on the hog on that, especially the child.

Do you have any idea what constitutes "upper middle class"? Sociologists usually classify upper middle class as 15% of the total population, with a personal income in excess of $62,500, and a household income in excess of $100,000.

[Torch]

of course.. Sorry Torch..

I meant was that he was paying (quite happily) for everything for his daughter, and very little of it went to her. If he hadn't paid for her medical coverage so fully I'm sure she'd be would have been very very sick by the time she was six. (that and the fact that she had access to a navy hospital that mommy dearest didn't have to pay for anything in).

I know when she came out to visit him in the backside of beyond (my buddies words..) she was sent out in shorts and tshirt with a book bag of clothing totally unsuited for Idaho in October. When he picked her up from her mom's home, he was able to put ALL her clothing and belongings in 2 duffle bags.. a LOT of her presents from him and his family were mysteriously missing.

I'm sure that in some individual cases, a parent may take advantage of what is allowed within the law. But in general, child support is calculated based on income using a standard formula. For example, this is the formula for New York State:

The gross income of each parent is determined and the incomes are combined. The combined parental income is multiplied by the appropriate child support percentage—17 percent for one child, 25 percent for two children, 29 percent for three children, 31 percent for four children, and not less than 35 percent for five or more children.

This figure represents the basic child support obligation, which is then divided between the parents on a pro-rata basis, according to the amount of their respective incomes. Additional amounts to be paid for childcare, medical care not covered by health insurance, and educational expenses are determined by the court and added to the basic child support obligation; and the noncustodial parent is ordered to pay his/her share to the custodial parent—sometimes called the 'parent of primary residence.'

Every state uses some variant of the above formula. And when you read it and do the calculations, you see why I'm skeptical of claims that one parent is being fleeced for every penny in their bank account. Using the above calculation, it would be impossible for a parent to pay more than 20 percent of his/her income for just one child, even if that figure included health insurance and childcare.

[Oniya]

Looking at it from a ratio standpoint, for every dollar that Sere's acquaintance brings home, the ex is getting three.  Ergo, she is 'making' three times as much as he is, to cover herself and one of the children.  Doing the same thing with the other man, (I'm assuming a similar proportion of garnishment) and again, she's 'making' three times as much as he is to cover herself, and the other child.  Assuming that she divides the funds evenly between herself and each man's child, Child A is getting 1.5 times as much as what Daddy A brings home, Child B is getting 1.5 times as much as what Daddy B brings home, and she's getting 1.5(Daddy A) + 1.5(Daddy B).

Compared to the men, even with children, she's probably doing OK.

[Torch]

Looking at it from a ratio standpoint, for every dollar that Sere's acquaintance brings home, the ex is getting three.  Ergo, she is 'making' three times as much as he is, to cover herself and one of the children.  Doing the same thing with the other man, (I'm assuming a similar proportion of garnishment) and again, she's 'making' three times as much as he is to cover herself, and the other child.  Assuming that she divides the funds evenly between herself and each man's child, Child A is getting 1.5 times as much as what Daddy A brings home, Child B is getting 1.5 times as much as what Daddy B brings home, and she's getting 1.5(Daddy A) + 1.5(Daddy B).

Compared to the men, even with children, she's probably doing OK.

Your ratios are correct.

But a percentage of a minimum wage income is still poverty level for a family of three. That's not really OK, in my opinion.

It's possible "Daddy B" has a higher gross income, and therefore the child support award will be adjusted upwards accordingly. All of this is speculation, of course.

[Shjade]

I don't recall seeing anything that says the mother lacks a job herself. If she does, that's her wage + 150% of minimum wage (Where did that get started, anyway? I don't see Serephino saying anything about how much the men in question are getting paid.). Far from "living like a queen," but substantial compared to the two sources providing that 150%.

[Serephino]

*sighs*

Again, if the wage being garnished is a percentage of a minimum wage salary, no one is living high on the hog on that, especially the child.

Do you have any idea what constitutes "upper middle class"? Sociologists usually classify upper middle class as 15% of the total population, with a personal income in excess of $62,500, and a household income in excess of $100,000.

He doesn't make minimum wage though; well above.  He earns about $900 every 2 weeks.  He gets to take home about $200.  That's $1400 a month she's getting just from him.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Something else is at play in that situation Serephino. 

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2006/01/18/mens-rights-myth-typical-child-support-payments-are-insanely-high/

"According to a recent U.S. Census Bureau report (pdf link), the median child support payment in the U.S. is $280 a month. The average child support payment is a little higher – $350 a month. That’s a noticeable amount – similar in scope to payments on a new car – but it’s hardly the crushing, slavery-like burden some MRAs seem to describe child support as."

According to your source the monthly payment is 1400 dollars a month. 

[Torch]

He doesn't make minimum wage though; well above.  He earns about $900 every 2 weeks.  He gets to take home about $200.  That's $1400 a month she's getting just from him.

Then someone's math is wrong, and I'm betting it isn't the state.

This is the PA Code for Child Support Guidelines, the formula the state uses when garnishing wages. If this man is grossing 1800 a month, then his support payment should be $436 a month. He's lying about what he gets to take home, unless he went into arrears.

If he was in arrears, then he wasn't paying anything at all and the state can garnish his wages to make up for it.

Either way, NO ONE pays 75% of their gross salary in child support. It's impossible.

[Serephino]

That's just it....  My boyfriend didn't believe it either at first.  The guy brought in the court papers to show him, and showed his pay stub.  This didn't go through with normal lawyers and such.  The woman went to some advocate program.  They're supposed to go go after deadbeat fathers.  I still can't remember the name, but they started advertising when I was in high school.  One of my friends' mothers had to use them.  But their add says when the family court system fails you and you can't get the father to pay they will make him pay.

We don't understand it either.  Just because something is suppose to be x doesn't mean sometimes it doesn't end up y.     

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Which means he wasn't paying court ordered child support then.  So essentially he wasn't paying for the child he had with her and now they are recouping the lost payments most likely. 

[Serephino]

There wasn't a court order.  They had a verbal agreement and he was giving her cash.  Of course, we don't know what she claimed....  That's the point, and the trouble...  Everyone always believes the mother, is on her side, no matter what.  I'm not saying there aren't deadbeat dads and every woman is just being greedy, but there are always some exceptions to every rule. 

It seems to be very common around here.  For whatever the hell reason I've met women who found it easier to get knocked up and live on child support and welfare.  This particular woman, I've been informed actually has 3 kids by 3 different men.  She always only stays long enough to have a baby.  Then they go to work and come home and she's gone.  That seems fishy to me, and it always upsets me to think a child is being used as a meal ticket.  Child support isn't always spent on the child either.   

[Oniya]

Verbal agreements are rarely worth the paper they're written on.  Something like that (with the potential of blowing up into a court order), I'd be damned sure to get a receipt, even if it's hand-written.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, he says that he was making cash payments to her.  He also attempted to sign away his parental rights so that he wouldn’t have to pay or pay as much, essentially selling off his rights as a father.  This does not sound like someone that was taking his role as a parent seriously.  Willing to give up his child so he wouldn’t have to make payments and leave the child in the sole custody of someone that you are describing as a horrible person.  Not a loving parent by my measure.  The man is not going to admit to being a “dead beat dad.”  No man is going to say, “yeah I don’t give her shit for my kid.”  As you sated, she had to ask for the child support from him even though he knew she was pregnant with his child.  Meaning she had to seek him out for help with his child.

I am not saying the woman is a saint or an angel, but more than likely the larger amount is due to him not making payments or not making adequate payments.  Also, birth control goes both ways.  Nothing is preventing men from putting a condom on before sex to prevent this from happening.  Believing her or not, I am looking at the census data and court laws.  Far easier to believe that he wasn’t making the payments required of him and she took him to the cleaners, rather than he has a court order against him that violates the data provided by the census bureau and legal firms. 

If x is supposed to equal y, then when it doesn’t there more than likely another variable.

[Oniya]

The absence of any paper trail makes it impossible to prove either party's story.  He could have been making payments, and she could be a schemer who decided to take advantage of him - or, he could have been dodging payments and is now trying to make himself out as a victim.  A simple $5 receipt pad would have gone a long way to keep both of them on the level.

[Torch]

There wasn't a court order.  They had a verbal agreement and he was giving her cash. 

Then in the eyes of the court, it is as if he paid her nothing. If he can't prove payments, the court has no choice but to garnish his wages. Remember, this money is for the benefit of the child, not the parent.

He should have known better, to be honest. It was a stupid mistake on his part, and now he's paying for it.

Of course, we don't know what she claimed....  That's the point, and the trouble...  Everyone always believes the mother, is on her side, no matter what.

No, everyone believes what can be proven.

Cash payments under the table can't be proven in a court of law. If he retained an attorney and went through the court in the first place, none of this would be happening. 

[Chris Brady]

No, everyone believes what can be proven.

No, no. no, no.  This is totally and completely false.  Dear God, how I WISH it was true.  No one wants facts, or proof.  If they did, we wouldn't have half the idiocy we see today.  Seriously, people will believe anything if a close source tells them.  Like a friend, a family member, or someone that 'seems' important.  Like someone dressed in a police uniform, looking VAGUELY like a Wal-Mart employee in a Wal-Mart.

Or a reporter, like this guy:  http://thefw.com/fake-news-reporter/

No, the COURTS want proof, but there's a reason why we weed out certain types of people in juries.  Often because they're biased and prejudiced AGAINST the case in hand.

Sounds to me like Sereph's friend got suckered because this 'agency' has enough clout and pull to make it seem believable.  And that's the issue, it seems believable.  It might even be actually legal.

[Serephino]

Admittedly, no, he isn't a loving parent.  He didn't want kids.  He did use condoms.  Nothing is fool proof.  While she was pregnant they lived together.  Then one day he went to work, and when he came home she was gone.  She did the same thing 2 other times.  Gets pregnant, stays with the man while pregnant, then bolts after the kid is born. 

He probably should've gotten receipts, but he was foolish enough to trust her.  Kids should be taken care of, I don't argue that, but isn't the woman who decided to have them responsible too?  And shouldn't this guy be left with enough to live off himself?  He has to live with 2 roommates in a crappy apartment.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

She’s currently taking care of them, so I would say she is being responsible for them.  He on the other hand tried to wiggle out of his responsibilities by trying to sign away his parental rights.  More than likely that made the judge angrier if he actually brought that up in court.  The man in question would have been given enough to live on if he had followed the steps to paying child support through the court.  If he had been smart about it and gone through the proper channels, he would have had a strong case if he was supporting her through the entire pregnancy.  Instead he went with the verbal agreement and cash payments for unknown amounts.  Even if he had just used checks instead of cash he would have been able to show payments, just right child support or something on the check.

[TheGlyphstone]

As a semi-hypothetical tangent, PumpkinSeeds, do you also consider people who put their children up for adoption as 'wiggling out of their responsibilities'? Signing away parental rights is part of that process, after all- the only difference here is that the 'adopting' parent happens to already be the biological parent.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Giving a child up for adoption is in a way “wiggling out of the responsibility.”  Many of the people who give their children up for adoption will say they cannot handle the responsibility and cannot afford the care.  So the parent(s) of the child give the baby over to a larger institution or another family with the understanding that this family can and will care for the child. 

The difference here is that this man impregnated a woman and then attempted to get out of offering monetary assistance for his child, despite her ability and willingness to care for the child.  In effect he wanted to just remove himself from the equation thinking that was easiest for him, not for the child.  He was trying to do what was best for him, not the child. 

Parents giving their child up for adoption are doing what’s best for the child, in theory at least if not always in practice.  There is a difference between the two.

[Torch]

No, no. no, no.  This is totally and completely false.

No, the COURTS want proof,

Right, which is why I stated:

Cash payments under the table can't be proven in a court of law.

Seriously, people will believe anything if a close source tells them.

Yes, such as vague, unsubstantiated statements on message boards which have no basis in fact other than the author's opinion. I've read quite a few of those on this forum.

[elone]

Have been pondering whether or not to weigh in on this discussion. Having been one who paid child support for 16 years, I can attest to the courts being biased toward women. I never in all that time missed a payment yet was taken to court 3 times, had to produce all cancelled checks as my ex claimed she did not get the money, just to have all allegations dismissed. Each court appearance required legal counsel on my part costing me thousands of dollars, the state paid hers. Finally, I requested that my payments be made to social services instead of to the ex. The court agreed and the problem was solved.

At one point, the ex put my child in the care of her grandmother and did not pass on the support payments. She pocketed them. Then she had the nerve to request that payments continue past my daughters 18th birthday. The judge fortunately saw that she was no longer being cared for by her mother and ended that.

And by the way, support payments based in gross salary as stated above, are a little off track. They should be based more on net salary as long as deduction from the paychecks are not excessive.

Unlike alimony, child support is not a tax deductible expense, and is a taxable income for the recipient. Someone should check to see if this woman is declaring her child support as income.

[TheGlyphstone]

Giving a child up for adoption is in a way “wiggling out of the responsibility.”  Many of the people who give their children up for adoption will say they cannot handle the responsibility and cannot afford the care.  So the parent(s) of the child give the baby over to a larger institution or another family with the understanding that this family can and will care for the child. 

The difference here is that this man impregnated a woman and then attempted to get out of offering monetary assistance for his child, despite her ability and willingness to care for the child.  In effect he wanted to just remove himself from the equation thinking that was easiest for him, not for the child.  He was trying to do what was best for him, not the child. 

Parents giving their child up for adoption are doing what’s best for the child, in theory at least if not always in practice.  There is a difference between the two.

Except in this case he was never given the option to be a parent for 'his' child, if the story so far is accurate. The mother cut out and ran before giving birth, and regards him as nothing beyond a source of cash to support herself (and keep the child alive). Moreso, if he specifically didn't want kids and ended up with one anyways via either accident or malice (unsubstantiated here, but I've heard other stories of sabotaged condoms for the purpose of creating these scenarios), isn't it in the best interest of the child that he not have any interaction with it at all, financially or socially?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Actually, according to Serephino the baby was born and then she left.  Honestly he could have filed kidnapping charges if he wanted to get the child back.  Then if he had his child visitation revoked by a judge, so there was some ability of him to be a father to this child. 

Just because a parent or parents does not want a pregnancy or the resulting baby, does not make them unfit parents or detrimental to the child’s well-being.  Plenty of pregnancies were unplanned and the parents raised the child.  Certainly if the father is abusive mentally or physically to the child then there should be no social interaction.  Cannot imagine a plus to having financial support removed from a child’s care though.

[Chris Brady]

I was one of them, Pumpkin Seeds.  I was completely unplanned.

However, it does bring up a question.  If giving away his parental visitations is 'wiggling our of his responsibility', doesn't that mean abortion is what women do to get out of it on their end?  And I'm not talking about the ones that are necessary because of the severe negative impact that having a child would have on her health.  I'm talking about the ones who 'made a mistake' and didn't ever want a child.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

However, it does bring up a question.  If giving away his parental visitations is 'wiggling our of his responsibility', doesn't that mean abortion is what women do to get out of it on their end?  And I'm not talking about the ones that are necessary because of the severe negative impact that having a child would have on her health.  I'm talking about the ones who 'made a mistake' and didn't ever want a child.

I am going to bow out of this discussion due to that comment there. 

[Shjade]

I am going to bow out of this discussion due to that comment there.

To be fair, you did "open the door" on that one by derailing the conversation into whether or not the father was trying to shirk responsibility, which had nothing to do with what was being discussed.

[Oniya]

Okay, this one has me shaking my head:

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/27/cops-mom-abuses-daughter-sends-videos-tots-dad

The URL really says it all (although to make the words more accurate, there should be a colon between 'cops' and 'mom'), but the gist is that this woman sends 50-55 texts and 8 videos to her child's father (who promptly had his father call cops upon viewing them at the grandfather's home), that the police have managed to extract and view.  The woman's mother tells the police that her daughter suffers from bipolar disorder, obsessive-deviant disorder, is confrontational and violent, and suffered from postpartum depression after the birth of her first child.

The child is now in the maternal grandmother's care - the same woman who knew about her daughter's violent tendencies, and doesn't seem to have mentioned them to anyone until now.

[Chris Brady]

So instead of giving the kid to his/her dad, they're still forced to live on the maternal side of the family?  Correct me if I'm wrong (and seriously, please do!) but I was under the impression that children usually go to the closest immediate family in this sort of case.  Right?

[Oniya]

That seems to be the impression given by a good 90% of the comments so far ('Why isn't the baby with daddy now!?' is a typical comment from both men and women).  I've seen one poster say that she read an article saying the dad didn't want/couldn't get custody, and she's trying to track down the article now.  Some are suspicious of the fact that grandpa called the cops instead of dad, but I pointed out that if I was in a similar situation, I'd want a coherent person calling the cops - and that would not likely be me.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

You mean the father with the warrant out for his arrest?

http://www.scribd.com/mark_brackenbury/d/98322784-Erick-Vece-Warrant

[Oniya]

That would be the one.  I find a few things odd about both warrants (his and hers).  The Vece warrant is dated with a court date of 3/23/12, filed on 3/12/12.  So, that's over and done with - i.e., he doesn't currently have a warrant out on him.  There might still be a protective order, if that order was filed on behalf of the minor child as well as the mother.  A collapsed lung without signs of a struggle seems - odd.  Not saying it couldn't happen, just that it's odd.

The Park warrant (dated 6/20/12) lists that Vece said that the maternal grandmother would be a good caretaker (which sounds like an approval of the choice, not 'Don't give her to me!'), as well as that the maternal grandmother is in the process of trying to get custody of Park's other child (a 2-y-o).  I wonder at the fact that the 10-month-old wasn't already included on that petition to get custody, although I'm now more optimistic that the grandmother will not be simply dropping the baby back off when Park is out of custody (either psychiatric or legal).

I'm passing along that link to the warrants - very interesting reading.

[Valerian]

A collapsed lung without signs of a struggle seems - odd.  Not saying it couldn't happen, just that it's odd.

Lungs can collapse spontaneously, though it's rare.  Cigarette smoking can be a factor, though it also happened to a friend of mine who was a non-smoker.  He was, however, tall and very thin, which according to his doctor is also a risk factor for a spontaneous collapse.  In any case, for some people, lungs can collapse either without any trauma at all, or with only very minimal trauma that might not leave any outward signs.

Otherwise, about all I can say is that I hope Child Protective Services is keeping a very close eye out.

[Serephino]

I can't really make much out of that, but it could be a false allegation.  Crazy women aren't above such things.  I've heard my neighbor tell her ex that if he doesn't stop trying to get custody she's going to go the police and say he raped her.  Police always believe rape victims.  She clearly doesn't have brains enough to realize she lives in a duplex and we can hear her....  She also abuses and neglects the hell out of her kids.  If she can't find a babysitter she just leaves them home alone for days at a time.  These aren't teenagers either.  They have to borrow my can opener to eat.  Tell me again the mother is always the better choice for custody. 

[Oniya]

Otherwise, about all I can say is that I hope Child Protective Services is keeping a very close eye out.

You and me both.

I can't really make much out of that, but it could be a false allegation.  Crazy women aren't above such things. 

The doctor's report lends credence, but the scene description and the fact that she couldn't describe if he hit, punched, or kicked her is 'off' to my eyes, in the 'want to know more' sense.  I didn't see any broken bones listed, or contusions (bruises), although the officer might not have written all that down.  (I might not be able to tell a 'hit' from a 'punch', but a kick to the ribs is going to be a different sort of experience, especially if it occurs before the knockdown.  Shoes feel different.)

Out of curiosity, Sere, have you ever called CPS on your neighbor?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No Shjade, I did not open the door to abortion.  I also did not derail the thread, but I was pointing out that the male figure did not want the child which shined some light on why his child custody is so high.  Meaning that the situation, as I made mention, has other variables.  I do not agree with making use of a hot button topic like abortion in order to defend a point or win a discussion.  A father signing away parental rights in order to avoid child custody payments and abortion are different topics entirely.  Abortion has a great many morale, legal and emotional baggage attached to the topic.  There is simply not a comparison between the two.

Abortions, when outright illegal, were still sought after by women through “back alley abortions.”  Women would spend a considerable amount of resources to travel to states that offered them.  Women bleed to death, went into septic shock, died horrible deaths in order to have an abortion.  Today women have the option of legal abortions.  They still pay a large amount of money for what amounts to a surgical procedure on their bodies.  These women wade through picket lines, have to endure sonograms shoved into their faces and lectures mandates by the state for physicians to give.  Furthermore they live with the emotional trauma for the rest of their lives.

http://www.afterabortion.org/Survey2.htm

Key points:
54% of women Strongly Agree that their choice to have an abortion can be described as an agonizing one.
52% of women strongly disagree that the memory of their abortion faded over time.
59% of women strongly disagree that they received counseling prior to the abortion.

The reasons for abortion are varied and often intermingled.  Points that regularly come up are lack of support from the partner and family of the woman, responsibility to others and limitations on her life by others.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

So can we leave abortion off the table now?

[TheGlyphstone]

But what does any of that actually have to do with the question he originally asked? If a man signing away parental rights because he doesn't want a child is ducking responsibility, why is a woman having an abortion because she doesn't want the child not ducking the same responsibility? All the other reasons why women would/would not have abortions isn't a factor in this instance.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The man in this instance has nothing to lose whereas the woman has everything, including her life to lose.  These two comparisons are not even on the same wave length.  The man loses care of the child he did not want and loses any responsibility to pay/care for the child.  The woman risks losing her life, risks losing part of her mental health and loses money in order to not have a child.  The motivations are completely different as shown in the sources given.  Similiar to the discussion regarding adoption, the motivation is different. 

[Serephino]

You and me both.

Out of curiosity, Sere, have you ever called CPS on your neighbor?

Yes, we have.  Someone came out that afternoon, and we didn't see the kids for almost 2 months.  She always somehow manages to get them back.  I wish I had some warning before she starts screaming at the top of her lungs that she doesn't want them and orders them to pack their shit and get out.  I'd record it and hand it over to the dad so fast it would make her head spin.

[Oniya]

I thought I remembered you saying that somewhere else - it's a sad thing that I know so many people with neighbors like that.  :-\

[Iniquitous]

As someone who has placed a child up for adoption, I resent seeing someone claim it was me shirking my responsibility. You really shouldn't spout of things you know nothing about.

As for a man signing up his rights as a parent because he never wanted children - I think there is nothing wrong with that. Especially if he did take steps to try and prevent pregnancy and it happened anyway. If he knows he does not want to be a father, knows that he has no desire to spend time with the child, then let him sign over his rights. Better for everyone involved - child included - if he is not a part of that child's life at all.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

A man can sign his rights away for a child he does not want, but he cannot sign away the responsibility.  He took all the steps to prevent pregnancy except for the one that is 100% guaranteed which is abstinence.  Now the woman is taking her responsibility, but he should not have to bear even the financial burden?  I can understand an argument that a reluctant father might be a determent to the child, though I think there are a lot of reluctant fathers out there that still do their best.  I can obviously understand a story of an abusive father or one that is harming the family being removed from the picture. 

Show me evidence that a child benefits from a loss of income to the household.  I want to see evidence that a father signing away his financial responsibility to a child is of benefit to anyone else but the father.

As for my words, I’m sorry if they offended.  I have nothing but the highest respect for the decision a father and mother make in placing their child for adoption.  For the pain they go through in order to preserve a better place for their child with the hands of another.  Takes a lot of courage to admit that something as monumental as childcare cannot be done and that help is needed.  I do not have respect for a man that attempts to sign away his child so he can save a few bucks a month.

[Iniquitous]

If a man is signing away his rights as the father of that child - meaning he has NO say so whatsoever concerning that child - then why should he still pay for the child? If he is still paying for the child then he still has rights to that child. That is the part you are grasping. It is also why Pa (and likely many other states) do not allow the signing away of rights unless there is someone in the picture who wants to adopt the child in the biological fathers place.

And do you know for a fact that he chose to do something like that as a way to save money each month? No, you do not.

What I find sad is a woman can choose to abort a pregnancy she does not want whether the father wants the baby or not - but a father cannot choose to sign away his rights when he never wanted a child in the first place. And while abstinence is the only surefire way to not get pregnant, you cannot expect people to not have sex unless they are willing to be parents - because there are a LOT of people out there that do not want children ever and you cannot expect them to go through life without ever having sex. Not too mention the nut jobs that sabotage birth control just to force a man into getting her pregnant.

[Callie Del Noire]

I thought I remembered you saying that somewhere else - it's a sad thing that I know so many people with neighbors like that.  :-\

I had a coworker whose wife went hog wild while he was away on deployment. She would spend ALL his money (he gave her power of attorney while he was overseas) and since they were in base housing the 'BIG PROBLEM' bills were taken care of (utilities, rent, ect) and kept an airmen around for 'party time' (her words not mine). They'd drive down to clubs in Portland every night they could, leave the 8 year old to look after the baby (my buddy's wife would go up to help out after mom left.. or bring them down to feed them).

It was horrible seeing an 8 year old having to feed, clean and look after her baby sisters. It's worse seeing her play the system. She pulled all types of gags after my buddy came back. He was the 'bad guy' for filing on her, she reported him to the cops. According to her, while we were grilling on the back porch and introducing the kids to Monty Python, he was down in Portland beating her up. (her boytoy airmen backed her.. UNFORTUNATELY.. we were only 3 doors down from the kid's command master chief.. needless to say..he lost off base privileges and other things..)

Lots of charges.. she tried pretty much everything. Word was she tried to get someone to shoot her husband. Last I heard she tried to hire an undercover to destroy his car. He, needless to say, got full custody when the smoke cleared.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Because he fathered the child.  He was one of two people that brought a child into this world and so he is one of the two people charged with taking care of that child.  If both parents decided to put the child up for adoption, then that is their choice as a couple.  The father can give up his rights over the child such as visitation and participating in the child’s care, but he cannot give up the responsibility. 

Once more, show me evidence where the child benefits by losing income from the household.  Show me some sort of evidence that displays the man was giving that child any sort of benefit by his decision to sign away his parental rights and we can discuss that he might have had pure intentions at heart.

As for abortion, women carry the babies.  There is nothing that equality can do to change biology short of an artificial womb.  Abortion is protected under a right to privacy, because women have a right to privacy regarding medical treatment and procedures.  A woman decides what happens to her body, including carrying a child to term.

People participate in an activity knowing the risks.  On each and every package of birth control, every condom and on any other contraceptive device is the warning.  The end result of sex can be a child, simple.  Don’t have sex, won’t have a child.  Have sex even with contraception then a child can still result.  Neither the man nor the woman get to say, well I tried so I don’t have to take responsibility.  People take risks all the time and we may mourn that their risk hurt them, but we don’t say they weren’t expecting the result.  Not sure why sex is so different.

[Chris Brady]

Pumpkin Seeds, you're making a hell of an assumption here.  You're assuming that the mother in this case is actually caring for the kids, rather than using them as an excuse to get free money.  According to Callie's first post, based on his testimony, this is not the case.

As for Sereph's example, this woman pulled the same stunt at least TWICE, got the same agency to pretty much screw the two men out of most of their income.  And yet you're claiming that these women deserve the kids, just because of what?  The woman is the one who gets pregnant?  That's a highly unfair assumption.  And one that's likely used in court by sadly unfit mothers to get the kids, I'm thinking, but that's PURE conjecture.

It sounds to me, from what you are saying on this thread, that you believe that the mother of the child has the sole right to raise said child, no matter how unfit she may be.  Because the woman has to carry the child, the father has 0 say?

Is this what you are saying?  Please correct me, because that's what I am getting.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, to my understanding Callie and Sereph are talking about two different people.

I am going on what Sereph stated.  He did not mention her using the agency to go after the second man and honestly he would not know for certain if she did.  A lot of what he says about her is conjecture from others at this point.  He stated that his source saw the paperwork for the first man.  As for screwing them out of their money, she is getting child support.  We have already thrown into question whether or not father number 1 was paying adequate child support before she got ahold of this agency to “screw him out of his money” and pay for his child.  Your assumption that he is, my assumption backed by his child support arrangement that he was not is a lot more plausible considering the laws of child support.

I have never said that a woman should get custody of a child simply because she carried the child.  I do not think anyone in this thread has made such a statement.  Women do get credit in terms of taking care of the child during their pregnancy if the father has shown no interest or support.  Never have I said that a father is unfit to care for a child based on him being a man, nor have I ever said that a father is less fit than the mother.  If you are “hearing” that from my words then you are hearing them by your own design. 

I have posted a book to help dispute the claim that men are that out done in child custody cases.  That was refuted as being “political” despite a review from Psychology Today.  I then posted three separate articles showing that fathers are gaining custody more and more.  My statement being that the case originally indicated is not as widespread as he might think and women do not always have the upper hand. 

Women do have the “caregiver” stereotype given to them.  That is something that women have fought against for some time.  Many women feel dejected when they find out caregiving is not a natural part of being a mother, some women are just not caregivers by nature.  Some men are natural caregivers and men also fight the stereotype that they are not.  Times are changing, but courts move slowly.  Considering not too long ago a woman could be raped by her husband without recourse or be beaten half to death in her home while everyone turned a blind eye, I think the courts are making progress in regard to disparities by sex.

The woman in Sereph’s case I can only assume is caring for the children because he has given no indication that she has not done so.  On the other hand, the father mentioned for the first child attempted to sign away his responsibility so that he would not have to pay child support.  So he attempted to not have any responsibility for the child.  The woman is promiscuous apparently, but to my knowledge that is not illegal or an indication of poor motherhood.  You are making those assumptions about her mothering skills based on her having a child with another man, in an unknown timeframe and then seeking child support for that child.

As for Callie, Beguile is pretty much correct that judges do not like to overturn decisions without a lot of reason to do so.  I do not have enough information to conclude why Callie’s friend only had visitation and not joint custody of the child or full custody. 

[Serephino]

While it's true I can only go off of what my boyfriend tells me, he wouldn't lie to me.  He was also skeptical about it all at first, but D did bring in the paperwork, and everyone who has known D for any length of time backs it all up.  I have been talking to my boyfriend about it to make sure I have the facts straight.  She did use the same agency to go after the other men.  In fact, it was a marathon screwing all on the same day.

He tried signing away his rights because at the time he was living in his car.  Other co workers have confirmed this.  The woman doesn't work.  She doesn't need to because of how much she's getting in child support.  Shouldn't she like have to get a job?  Shouldn't she share some of the financial burden as well?  She was the one who decided to keep the kids.  Call me crazy, but I really think fathers should be left enough to live comfortably on.

And yes, sex can result in a child.  That is one of the reasons I'm extremely picky about who I have sex with.  But I do find it extremely hypocritical that a woman has an out, where a man doesn't.  It's okay to tell a man he should've kept it in his pants, but how dare anyone say to a woman she should've kept her legs closed.  Yes, it's her body, and unless she's a moron, she knows damn well what the risk is when spreading her legs. 

However, she can get rid of it.  No matter what the reasons, no matter if it's a difficult decision, it boils down to the cold hard fact that the woman decided she didn't want to be a parent, and made the embryo go poof.  The way I see it, it's only fair that men get an out too.  It should be a discussion that both parties have.  If the father wants no part in it from the start, then the woman can decide if she wants to take on the responsibility.  If she doesn't, then there is adoption or abortion.   

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Women have always been told to keep their legs closed.  A senator made a joke about how women should keep a quarter between their knees.  Women are encouraged far more than men to not have sex.  Men are given a pat on the back, while women are branded as sluts and whores.  Women are kept from getting vaccinations because people in office believe they will be promiscuous.  I think women suffer far more for having sex than a man does in that regard.

So wait, the woman had all three children and then went to this agency for child support from each father?  So we’re looking at roughly three years, give or take a few months before she actually pursued child support through legal channels against the first man?  Also if he was living in his car at the time she was pursuing child support, then how did they decide on that number?  If he did not have money for a place to stay, then they cannot garnish wages he doesn’t have.  If he was living in his car then he also probably wasn’t paying her child support. 

A woman has the option of getting rid of a pregnancy because during the time an abortion can be performed there is no “human” inside of her.  After a certain time she can no longer have an abortion and must, to the best of her ability, carry the baby to term.  The procedure is protected under a right to privacy stating that a woman has the right to her own body.  A woman carries the child, a woman bears all the risks and problems of pregnancy and so a woman has the ability to choose not to endure carrying the child.  After a certain point, she can no longer make that decision.

Once the baby is born, the child’s welfare is considered over either parent desires for money or freedom of responsibility.  Unless both parents state an unwillingness to care for the child and give the child for adoption, the law is designed to uphold the interest of the child.  A father cannot relinquish his responsibility to the child because the child’s need for money and care is considered a higher priority.  A mother cannot relinquish her responsibility over the child because once again, the child’s welfare is considered higher priority.  Child support is not meant to punish either party for having sex, it’s meant to secure needed funds for the child from the parties responsible for its creation.

[Iniquitous]

Admittedly, no, he isn't a loving parent.  He didn't want kids.  He did use condoms.

I went back and quoted that because I do not think you are remembering that. The guy did not want kids. Therefore, it is not an issue of 'gees, I do not want to lose money to this kid.' It is an issue of the man knowing he did not want kids and contraceptives failed. Yes, there are consequences for actions we take but that does not mean he does not have the ability to sign away his right as a parent and not be expected to pay for the child he did not, does not and will not want.

The other thing you are not seeming to grasp is the act of signing away your rights as a parent means that the child is no longer yours. Period. When I signed the papers to put the child I carried up for adoption I was legally saying that I had no claim to that child ever again. No visitations, no say in how the child was raised. Signing those papers also meant that the parents adopting the child could not come after me for support of the child as they became, through the law, the parents of that child. If the father would have been able to sign away his rights then no, he does not owe a penny to the mother for the child because he has signed documents in the court of law stating that he is terminating all of his rights as the father of the child.

Either way, I think you are hung up on the 'men don't want to pay for their children!' side of the discussion and refuse to admit that there are some men out there that simply do NOT want to be a father ever and things happen that force them into such a circumstance. For me, I think it would be less harmful to a child for a man who never wanted to be a father to be allowed to give up his rights as a father so another (wo)man can adopt the child instead of spending 18 years paying child support and outright ignoring the child.

[Serephino]

Also, does it do a child any good to see his/her parents fighting over them?  Like it or not, right or not, kids get dragged into this crap.  Kids hear stuff.  Sure, knowing your father didn't want you would be upsetting.  However, it's better than listening to the back and forth of your parents fighting.  Your father gets taken to court because of you, and you know it.  It's a constant reminder that you are not wanted.  You can't move on and forget about it, because your mother will talk about it, and you'll hear it.

And to clear it up, the guy was not living in his car when the first court order was made, but he ended up there and tried to contest it.  He lost his house because he couldn't pay for anything.

I very much believe in personal responsibility.  The whole quarter between the knees thing was said by someone who wants to outlaw abortion, which has nothing to do with this.  I have working female parts as much as I wish I didn't.  This means pregnancy is a real possibility.  And so, I keep track of my cycle.  If my boyfriend wants to have sex during my fertile period I have two options.  I can have sex with him and risk it, or I can tell him no.  Most of the time I tell him no.  That doesn't mean I don't ever have sex.  But when I do, and if it's during my fertile period, I'm well aware that pregnancy could result.  That's why I usually go with the option of saying no.  It doesn't take anything away from me.  In fact, the option of saying no gives me the power to avoid getting pregnant when I don't want to.   

Because I never said a woman should be punished for sex.  However, since women are the ones who get pregnant, a woman has the responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant if she doesn't want to.  All a man can do is use a condom or get a vasectomy.  Of course, most doctors won't do a vasectomy on a man who hasn't had at least one child, no matter how sure he is he doesn't want any.  Women have the same issue with sterilization, which I don't think is fair either. 

I've heard women complain, but yeah, the extra responsibility is on you because you carry the child.  And so, you either have to take birth control, make sure a condom is used, or barring that, know when you're fertile and at least keep your legs closed during that time.  The point some of us are trying to make is that should your method of contraception fail, you can go get an abortion.  You also seem hung up on the right to an abortion, which also is not being disputed.  The point is, that unless there is a medical reason, you are getting rid of the embryo because even though you may have taken precautions, nothing is fool proof.  You got pregnant.  You don't want to carry to the child.  You don't want the responsibility of said child.  You go get an abortion and get an instant get out of jail free card.

I'm not saying it isn't a difficult decision either.  I've been faced with it myself.  Birth control and my bi-polar disorder don't mix well, so I was naturally concerned how my bi-polar disorder and pregnancy hormones would mix.  I ended up not having to make that decision in the end.  Either the home test was a false positive, or I had a spontaneous miscarriage between then and when I could get myself to the doctor.

My point is, you can make that decision.  You can say okay, I'm pregnant, but I really can't have/don't want this kid.  You can even get an abortion to avoid pregnancy.  But a man can use a condom and all that, and if you choose to keep the child, he has absolutely no say.  Before you even have sex with him he can make it very clear to you he doesn't want kids.  It doesn't matter.  You can completely ignore his wishes and have the kid, and go after him for child support.  Then he resents both you and the child.  The child has to live with being resented even though it didn't do anything wrong.  It's not a good situation for anyone involved.   

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The woman’s “get out of jail free card” includes as possible consequences lifelong trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, permanent infertility, pain, humiliation, public shame, fear of discovery and oh yeah…death.  Not much of a “get out of jail free card.”  Also, once more the woman carries the child and she does get that decision.  She has a small window of opportunity for that decision to be made before the embryo is considered viable and a human child.  Then she cannot take that option.  Once the child is born, the child’s welfare once more becomes the state’s top priority.  People do not have a “right” to get out of responsibility. 

Once more Opheliac, show me the evidence stating that a child is better off without monetary support from one of the parents.  I have asked twice for that information and you have failed to provide this information to back up your opinion.  Show me where a child benefits from a loss of income to the household.  A father is welcome to remove his presence from a child’s life, as is the mother for that matter.  Loss of financial support though is not beneficial and so the state takes an active interest in upholding the child’s access to those finances.  I understand that there are some men that don’t want to be fathers, just like there are some women that don’t want to be mothers.  Guess what?  They took the risk. 

Once the child is born that is a life dependent on others for existence.  Neither the father or mother have the right to simply abandon the child without steps being taken to ensure not only the child’s survival but possibility for success, no matter how slim that possibility might be.  The father’s desire to retain his money and have his freedom is not a right and is secondary to the child’s need to survive.

Also Serephino, I agree abortion isn’t part of this discussion.  I even asked for abortion to be taken off the table.  I am not the one continually bringing up abortion and making reference to it as a “get out of jail free card.” 

The extra responsibility is on the woman to not get pregnant?  So the responsibility is not on the man to ensure that he is not getting someone else pregnant by using a condom or refraining from sex.  Not true.  If a man wants to prevent this situation then he needs to take into consideration that the child is also his responsibility and preventing pregnancy is also his responsibility.  Men have access to various condoms and men can say no as well if they feel pregnancy is a reasonable outcome for whatever reason.  I find it funny you listed for women the ability to “keep their legs closed” but didn’t list that same ability for men. 

[Sabre]

I have posted a book to help dispute the claim that men are that out done in child custody cases.  That was refuted as being “political” despite a review from Psychology Today.

Psychology Today is not a scientific journal for psychologists.  The book is no more research than an Ann Coulter book, and the review no less political or opinionated than any other magazine out there.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well since she is a psychologist and a professor of psychology and Psychology Today is a magazine that every therapist I know reads, I will go with those sources as having more credential and bearing then a random internet poster on an adult website forum.  My opinion, you may of course feel free to add your own weight to the evidence as presented.

[Sabre]

That's just it.  She's a professor of psychology writing on a matter of judicial and legal precedent and trends.  And a magazine being a popular read is different from it being a peer-reviewed journal of science and law.  The review carries no more weight than does a review in the New York Times about a political best seller - it is an opinion piece written about an opinionated political book that does not enjoy the authoritative backing of being a book based on a subject the author is educated in - psychiatry.  It is what it is, but evidence it is not.

[Serephino]

No, you keep saying women have the right to medical privacy and the right to abortions.  The legality or morality of abortions is not what is being discussed.  You did open the door by saying men just want to shirk their responsibility.  Yeah... they face psychological trauma, and possibly death... to what...?  To not be a mother!  You keep missing that point, or ignoring it, so this will be the last time I say it.  Unless it's a medical issue, a woman getting an abortion doesn't want to be pregnant.  They had sex, if they were using contraception it failed, and rather than taking responsibility of engaging in an activity where pregnancy may be a result, they get rid of it.  It may not be a piece of cake, but the end result is no baby to be responsible for.  If getting an abortion is as horrible an experience as you keep claiming, then why do it?

Can a man do that?  No.  All he can do is pray the woman will honor his wishes and not drag him into it.  Women raise kids by themselves without the father's help all the time.  Men do it without the mother's help too.  It may not be easy, but that is what the parent chose to do.  You keep harping on the loss of money.  Isn't a child better off without all the drama?  How is a child not better off without a father who resents them? 

My high school friend had a 'deadbeat dad'.  Her and her siblings knew what was going on.  They knew he wasn't paying.  They knew he didn't care.  It caused serious psychological trauma to the kids because their mother made sure they knew how little their dad cared.  Eventually she remarried and let him sign away his rights so the new husband could adopt them.  But by then the damage was done.  C wasn't paying anyway, so no income was won or lost until the very end when she used the very same advocate agency.  All it did was create unnecessary drama and permanent damage to the kids.           

[Chris Brady]

Pumpkin Seeds, it seems to me like you have too much emotion invested in this.  I'm not sure we, as a group, can continue to discuss this without someone getting upset.

[Iniquitous]

Now that I am home from work and can address this…

I’ve never once said that the loss of income for the child is best for the child.  I understand that the reason some states (might be all states though I have not bothered to do any research to find out for sure) refuse to allow a non custodial parent to sign away their rights without someone else being there to adopt the child is because they do not want the child to lose that income.

With that said - Sere has pointed out that single parents have been raising children alone and on their own for a very, very long time. What is your response to a situation of a couple breaking up and the non custodial parent dying. There is a loss of income for the child right there and guess what, the surviving parent has to go it alone.

I can honestly say that were I in a situation where I ended up pregnant by a man that did not want to be a father and I chose to carry the child and bring the child into the world, I’d have no issues with him not having any rights to the child. How can I say this? Because I DID IT. I was seventeen when I found out I was pregnant - a failure of birth control - and the father wasted no time in making it clear he did not want anything to do with me or the child. So, when I had my son I made sure to put ’father unknown’ on the birth certificate and I did not go after him for child support. I respected his wishes to never be a father (something that he has stuck to to this day). My son did not grow up with the bitching and the bickering. He did not grow up having to constantly know that his father begrudged his very existence every time a check was made out.

Was it easy? Hell no. Would I change it if I could? No. My son is better off without having gone through the emotional hell of such a thing. And while my son never had the best of everything, he never lacked for what he needed. He always had a roof over his head, food in his stomach, clothes on his back, he went on every field trip the school had and he even got to spend a summer in Japan as an exchange student. As for his sperm donor? Now that he is an adult he knows the guy’s name and knows he can hunt him down if he so wishes - and he does not wish to. 

[Trieste]

Just a reminder that if something here does upset you, you can always take a breather and step away from the computer.

If someone is breaking the rules, make sure to hit "report to moderator" instead of retaliating and making the situation worse.

And most importantly, if there is something that you don't want to read, remember that you do have the choice to stop reading and skip a post that you find hard to read for whatever reason.

Thanks, all.

[Serephino]

My boyfriend never knew his father.  All he knows is the man was sent to jail for molesting a 12 year old girl when he was an infant.  He spent the first 6 years of his life with his grandparents because his mother asked them to watch him for a few hours, and it took her 6 years to come back.  She had re-married and decided she wanted to be a mother again.  His grandparents didn't get child support from his father because he was in jail, and they didn't know where his mother was. 

They tried to get custody of him back when she took him, even pointing out that she'd abandoned him.  But back then it was still viewed it was always best for the child to be with its mother, and they were too old.  He wishes they would have been able to get custody because they gave him a stable, loving environment.  That's what a child needs.  I've met his mother, and his grandparents.  I agree he would've been better off with his grandparents.   

[Caela]

On men signing away their rights: I have no problem with this provided it is done before the child is born. If a man signs the birth certificate than he is, legally, acknowledging his paternity and is on the hook...end of story. If he doesn't want to be a father however then I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to sign away his rights to that child. Since it keeps being compared to the fact that women can abort, I would even say we could tie it to that same timing. If he want what would in effect be a "paper abortion", he has to sign and file the paperwork within the same timeframe that a woman has to get a physical abortion.

I had this particular belief put to the test 3.5 years ago when I got pregnant with my daughter. She was a surprise and neither of us wanted to be parents. Abortion was never an option for me but I did take the time to consider giving her up for adoption. In the end I made the chose to keep my child and have never regretted that choice. Even on her worst day she is the most amazing thing in my life and I love her more than I ever knew it was possible to love another person! I was, however, faced with a man whose views on parenthood didn't change along with mine. He didn't want to be a father...end of story. In my state you can't sign away your rights and so he had the very real concern that I would try and drag him to court for support.

I chose to respect his desire not to be a parent. We have an, unwritten, agreement that he stays away from me and MY child and I don't take him to court but if he ever shows up on my doorstep thinking he gets to change his mind I will drag him through the messiest court battle I can! She's almost 4 now and he's never seen her. As far as I know he's never even told his family she exists and we do just fine without his presence or his money.

[Zakharra]

On men signing away their rights: I have no problem with this provided it is done before the child is born. If a man signs the birth certificate than he is, legally, acknowledging his paternity and is on the hook...end of story. If he doesn't want to be a father however then I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to sign away his rights to that child. Since it keeps being compared to the fact that women can abort, I would even say we could tie it to that same timing. If he want what would in effect be a "paper abortion", he has to sign and file the paperwork within the same timeframe that a woman has to get a physical abortion.

What if he doesn't even know about it? The woman might have gotten pregnant and never even knew or hid it from him before the were parted. Whether through splitting up or just being away from each other for whatever reason? Perhaps he's in the military and they are lovers and he's deployed and doesn't see her for months at a time. A long business trip to another country or another part of the country. Whatever the reason, just say he didn't know and all of a sudden there is a woman with a baby in her arms demanding he support a child he never knew existed. Why shouldn't he be able to sign away his rights then?

[Trieste]

Because it is plausible for a woman not to know that she is pregnant until past the time period for a legal abortion. Because if she is not allowed to get an abortion due to rape, she should be able to sue her rapist for child support. Because if there are going to be limits on what women can do with their bodies, there should also be limits on what men can do as well.

I don't support limiting peoples' choices in any way, but if you're going to do it, that would be a fair way to do it, in my estimation. Shit happens and if you're going to tell the woman she shoulda kept it in her pants, you have to tell men the same thing.

[Callie Del Noire]

I have reservations about paternal rights of the father. My older brother is actually my HALF-brother.  His father skipped out on the child support, but this was back in the 'bad old days' where daddy could bail on his responsibilities. Which he did.. for YEARS. The vibe I got from my granddad was that he was 'encouraged' to leave my mom alone after they split up. Little things like the fact that NO ONE mentioned him till I was in my late teens, the family avoided their old church and stayed out of the town he was a member of the police in. FOR YEARS.

Knowing my grand-dad.. and his stonelike right hand I have my suspicions. If it hadn't been for him FINALLY signing over full custody to my brother when I was six, I'd have never met him at all. Hell I didn't get an explanation for who I was till I could DRIVE. It took my brother getting made senior partner in a law firm that pulled in INTERNATIONAL links. (His english associates represented the men who sued Dan Brown over his use of Holy Blood/Holy Grail) and BIG law suits in the US. (We're talking a nation wide one into the BILLIONS.)

Only then..after YEARS of ignoring him and never once trying to help us out, he surfaces and tries to make good with his SON. Who now lived in a house worth millions, contributed gobs of money, and made the news state wide and had just recently helped charter a bank.

I don't envy my brother.. he worked hard to get where he is. He and his wife do a LOT of good, normally very discretely. (He has for YEARS supplied teachers in his hometown with school supplies, donated publicly and privately to a LOT of folks and causes in an area that was wiped out from NAFTA's elimination of 'low paying blue collar jobs').

I heard from my mom that he was trying (up to the last six months of his life) to reclaim the role of 'dad' after years of ignoring my mom and brother. My brother is a much better man than I am to accept him in his life after the shit that he did to my mom (after his death.. my mom told me some of the shit he'd done. I'd have shot the man. I suspect that my grandfather read him the riot act. Abuse like that doesn't stop unless you're afraid of your own safety and I KNOW my granddad would have gleefully killed him, buried him in the back of a cotton field with a couple bags of quicklime if he pushed things. I loved my old paw-paw.. but there were few things that you didn't do. Hit women in is presence was one. My uncle's crooked nose is testament to that.)

So, I'm sorta split on a 'fathers rights'. I suspect a lot of my brother's biological father, but I've also seen a LOT of good men who got screwed because of laws enacted after my brother's childhood.

In the end.. I think that there are some issues that need to be addressed. Right now the country is a hodge podge of craptastic laws and precedents. Add in things like child pregnancy, rape, incest, medical issues. Pregnancy, child responsibilities are a nightmare that would have Solomon tearing his hair out.

[Sure]

Because it is plausible for a woman not to know that she is pregnant until past the time period for a legal abortion. Because if she is not allowed to get an abortion due to rape, she should be able to sue her rapist for child support. Because if there are going to be limits on what women can do with their bodies, there should also be limits on what men can do as well.

I don't support limiting peoples' choices in any way, but if you're going to do it, that would be a fair way to do it, in my estimation. Shit happens and if you're going to tell the woman she shoulda kept it in her pants, you have to tell men the same thing.

By this logic, we should just make abortion illegal to induce a parity in rights. After all, that's what men have effectively right now: you lose all right to control over such things the moment you consent to sex (or even if you don't). Women obviously need to be brought down to this low standard. Who cares if it's wrong? It's what men have, so we obviously need to have it for women too! This is called negative equality, and it's not an argument you want to make, particularly because women, at the moment, have more rights than men and thus would lose more by both genders losing any claim to them.

[Caela]

What if he doesn't even know about it? The woman might have gotten pregnant and never even knew or hid it from him before the were parted. Whether through splitting up or just being away from each other for whatever reason? Perhaps he's in the military and they are lovers and he's deployed and doesn't see her for months at a time. A long business trip to another country or another part of the country. Whatever the reason, just say he didn't know and all of a sudden there is a woman with a baby in her arms demanding he support a child he never knew existed. Why shouldn't he be able to sign away his rights then?

Honestly, if he didn't sign the birth certificate, than I wouldn't care. I only mentioned the time limit because a father signing his rights away kept being compared to a woman's ability to have an abortion so I thought that putting the same time limit on a man sounded fair if we were trying to keep everything equal.

[Zakharra]

Honestly, if he didn't sign the birth certificate, than I wouldn't care. I only mentioned the time limit because a father signing his rights away kept being compared to a woman's ability to have an abortion so I thought that putting the same time limit on a man sounded fair if we were trying to keep everything equal.

What if the mother put his name on it?

[Trieste]

By this logic, we should just make abortion illegal to induce a parity in rights. After all, that's what men have effectively right now: you lose all right to control over such things the moment you consent to sex (or even if you don't). Women obviously need to be brought down to this low standard. Who cares if it's wrong? It's what men have, so we obviously need to have it for women too! This is called negative equality, and it's not an argument you want to make, particularly because women, at the moment, have more rights than men and thus would lose more by both genders losing any claim to them.

Do not put words in my mouth in order to grandstand, Sure.

I don't support limiting peoples' choices in any way, but if you're going to do it, that would be a fair way to do it, in my estimation. Shit happens and if you're going to tell the woman she shoulda kept it in her pants, you have to tell men the same thing.

I find your reductio ad absurdum particularly frustrating because we've talked about this.

[Iniquitous]

To my knowledge, unless they've changed things in the past 17 years, there is no 'father signing' of the birth certificate. When I had my children they asked me what I wanted to name the child, who the father was and then I signed it. My ex husband certainly never signed the birth certificate and I know my dad never signed my birth certificate. I also know that a friend of mine had to pay to have DNA test done to prove that the child his ex wife had was not his so the courts would stop trying to get child support out of him.

[Sure]

Do not put words in my mouth in order to grandstand, Sure.

I find your reductio ad absurdum particularly frustrating because we've talked about this.

I find someone who says, "Because the state of women's rights is not where I want it to be, I don't support rights for your gender" both reductive and gynocentric. And I have met people who have made such arguments. If you are not among them, I am utterly misinterpreting your words. If so, please clarify what you are saying so I can understand better. Because as I understand it, you said something along those lines. Specifically this:

Because if there are going to be limits on what women can do with their bodies, there should also be limits on what men can do as well.

Another example:

Shit happens and if you're going to tell the woman she shoulda kept it in her pants, you have to tell men the same thing.

I see both these quotes, basically, as saying, "Because the state of women's rights is not where I want it to be, I don't support rights for your gender". Which in of itself, I find a false equivalence, because in truth we give women more rights. To wit: I singled out abortion not to grandstand but because it is one of the places where the inequality is most explicit. Equal rights for men has been argued to require they be given similar options, but the courts returned the ruling that "the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways." (Dubay V Wells). So, in effect, the legal standard is admitting inequality. If nothing else, perhaps you will agree that this is unequal, at least, if not that it puts men at a disadvantage?

And once again, if that is my misinterpretation of what you said, please tell me how. I genuinely believe I might be misunderstanding you utterly, but accusing me of grandstanding and putting words in your mouth makes me come no closer to that understanding.

[Trieste]

No, what I said was that I support the right of each individual to choose what they do.

If a woman chooses to abort, she should be able to.

If a man would prefer not to abort, he should be able to (for example) arrange for a surrogate to carry his child to term.

If a woman chooses not to abort, the man should be allowed to sign away all rights, or have first dibs if the child is slated for adoption.

I think that the nature of pregnancy makes it difficult to give men equal choice in the matter, and that the father of an unborn child should be given as many choices as possible provided that it doesn't essentially turn the woman into a living incubator.

And I think that if restrictions are going to be imposed on women, they should be equally imposed on men for the same reason. Currently, there is no walk of shame in front of clinics for men seeking to end their parental rights. There are no invasive ultrasounds. There are no 'concerned' health professionals prodding at the father to ask him if he was coerced into ending his rights. There are no real consequences aside from those of conscience for men whose conceived material is aborted. That is what I would also like to see for women. It's not that I want men punished; it's that I want to see either a lack of punishment for both genders or an equal application of legal consequences to both genders. Preferably the former.

It's similar to Selective Service registration. I don't want to see women required to sign up for it, because I don't want to see men required to sign up for it either. But if there's going to be a requirement for registration, it should apply equally to both sexes. I oppose the movement that agitates for registration requirements for women because I think that they're going the wrong way with it.

If you want to believe that it makes me gynocentric, there's nothing I can do about that - but I vehemently question the validity of the label, if so.

[Caela]

What if the mother put his name on it?

I only know how that works in my state. Here the mother can put any name she likes on the birth certificate, but if he doesn't sign it than he's not legally bound as the father. I did a lot of looking into that when I had my daughter and found the easiest way to simply bypass any "rights" her DNA donor might think he has was to just put no name on the birth certificate and make him jump through a lot of hoops to prove paternity. Luckily he doesn't want to do that so it works out well for both of us.

[Sure]

If a woman chooses to abort, she should be able to.

If a man would prefer not to abort, he should be able to (for example) arrange for a surrogate to carry his child to term.

If a woman chooses not to abort, the man should be allowed to sign away all rights, or have first dibs if the child is slated for adoption.

I think that the nature of pregnancy makes it difficult to give men equal choice in the matter, and that the father of an unborn child should be given as many choices as possible provided that it doesn't essentially turn the woman into a living incubator.

I agree with this. Men should have all rights in the matter ending exactly where women's rights on the matter begin, which is specifically control of their own body but not the child (or the fetus) once it exits it. It does not include a right to child support, or things such as that, with which she is currently furnished, though.

Notice, however, that of these things you list, only the first is actually guaranteed and protected. It's under attack but it's also the only one that exists as a national law.

And I think that if restrictions are going to be imposed on women, they should be equally imposed on men for the same reason. Currently, there is no walk of shame in front of clinics for men seeking to end their parental rights. There are no invasive ultrasounds. There are no 'concerned' health professionals prodding at the father to ask him if he was coerced into ending his rights. There are no real consequences aside from those of conscience for men whose conceived material is aborted. That is what I would also like to see for women. It's not that I want men punished; it's that I want to see either a lack of punishment for both genders or an equal application of legal consequences to both genders. Preferably the former.

It's similar to Selective Service registration. I don't want to see women required to sign up for it, because I don't want to see men required to sign up for it either. But if there's going to be a requirement for registration, it should apply equally to both sexes. I oppose the movement that agitates for registration requirements for women because I think that they're going the wrong way with it.

If you want to believe that it makes me gynocentric, there's nothing I can do about that - but I vehemently question the validity of the label, if so.

The point of disagreement is here: These things do not exist because men have no ability to do such things. There is no walk of shame because there are no such clinics (presumably legal clinics, in this case). I have no doubt there would be an equivalent if men could end their parental rights, people agitating for the reverse of such things, and so on. I know for a fact many of the same factions that have an issue with abortion take issue with men giving up such rights. I actually have (albeit in paper form so I can't link it) a form from a Catholic charity explicitly saying such.

To my mind they only do not exist now because men have no ability to end their parental rights, which they do not (again, Dubay V Wells is illustrative, which has an amicae curiae against giving men such rights from the NOW, actually). I agree these things should be ended: men must be given these rights and made capable of using them without repercussion. Women only need to be made capable of using them without repercussion, and thus are a huge step closer. There's certainly nothing stopping me from supporting both (except when I am asked to support an organization which only supports one of the two, such as the NOW). Both are quite serious, but...

Well that's why such opinions seem gynocentric to me: They seem, to me, to see only the punishment women suffer, not a man's lack of rights. They see men's lack of punishment compared to women, which does exist, but ignore the reason for it. It's because they are not given such choices in the first place. Just as I imagine there would be a great drop in that pressure not to choose abortion if women couldn't abort. There would be no walk of shame without abortion clinics.

And, as I said, bringing men up to the standard of legal equality women have would be an improvement of rights, even with all the ultrasounds and shaming.

And the difference between this and the Selective Service is that we're talking about giving men rights/freedoms, not imposing new obligations on them, as adding women to Selective Service would be for women. Obligations have a higher threshold to meet than freedoms do: Obligations need a justification to exist, freedoms need a justification to be taken away.

[WhiteTigerForever]

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me for that.  I have experience in this situation and it is horrid.  Going through another one atm too.  Trust me, it may just be an out dated urban myth, but no, the mother doesn't always win. It is a 50/50 chance and they take many things into account and do many things like family studies, etc.  What seems to matter most is if you have more money, employment (not a stay at home mom), and transportation they seem to consider more than anything.  After the social worker leaves, they can do anything they want.  My ex didn't give a crap about our shared 7 year old, but when I wanted to go visit my husband in Germany, his family raised hell, slammed me with a custody battle like she was an object to be possessed and a pissing contest.  He played his part well, like he cared to save face in front of his family, who are really fueling this.  I could very well lose my daughter just because I'm damn poor, so no, again, imo, females don't always win. :( 

[Oniya]

You are correct, there would be no 'walk of shame' if there were no abortion clinics.  There would be women dying of sepsis and poisoning from the back-alley quacks that would spring up to fleece, wait, prey on, sorry, 'provide service' to the desperate women that would still exist.

Because until society changes to insist that both parties are responsible for creating a baby, there will be those desperate women.  As long as men are taught 'be a stud' instead of 'parenthood can mess up your life', and the attitude towards sexual assault is 'Girls, don't get raped' and not 'Guys, don't commit rape, and girls are made to feel like a slut if they buy birth control, while a guy with a pack of condoms is assumed to be 'getting lucky'.

Once you've fixed that, then get back to me about how 'women have would be an improvement of rights, even with all the ultrasounds and shaming' as long as men were allowed to cut their parental rights and responsibilities with a signature.

[WhiteTigerForever]

You are correct, there would be no 'walk of shame' if there were no abortion clinics.  There would be women dying of sepsis and poisoning from the back-alley quacks that would spring up to fleece, wait, prey on, sorry, 'provide service' to the desperate women that would still exist.

Because until society changes to insist that both parties are responsible for creating a baby, there will be those desperate women.  As long as men are taught 'be a stud' instead of 'parenthood can mess up your life', and the attitude towards sexual assault is 'Girls, don't get raped' and not 'Guys, don't commit rape, and girls are made to feel like a slut if they buy birth control, while a guy with a pack of condoms is assumed to be 'getting lucky'.

Once you've fixed that, then get back to me about how 'women have would be an improvement of rights, even with all the ultrasounds and shaming' as long as men were allowed to cut their parental rights and responsibilities with a signature.

Well said!

[Chris Brady]

You are correct, there would be no 'walk of shame' if there were no abortion clinics.  There would be women dying of sepsis and poisoning from the back-alley quacks that would spring up to fleece, wait, prey on, sorry, 'provide service' to the desperate women that would still exist.

Hate to break it to you, but these exist NOW.  And they're just as common as legal abortion clinics.

[Oniya]

And the fact that there are currently women desperate enough for them to stay in business is a symptom of the whole mess I talked about in the rest of my post.

[WhiteTigerForever]

 lol Oniya... indeed!

[Vekseid]

...so, it's been made rather abundantly clear from several friends of mine that there are a few misogynists on this forum whose perception of the burden that pregnancy places on women is roughly zero. Nine months of having another living being grow within your belly, feeding on your food, making you ill, changing your habits, eventually causing physical debility and impairment, capped off with several hours of intense physical trauma in which your body is ripped open for your child to come out.

Fearing this.. not wanting to go through with this... gets treated with the same emotional levity as looking down at the sort of person who walks away from their responsibility for creating another life for no other reason than fearing actual responsibility and commitment.

What

the

fuck.

Fearing extended physical trauma and suffering is not the same as fearing responsibility. If for some reason you think they are, perhaps you should take some time to reflect on why.



People keep on posting anecdotes after another member has posted actual, raw data. Fine, here are my anecdotes: In every single situation where the 'mom has won' that I've seen, it's because she deserved to. I've seen plenty of cases where the mother did, in fact, lose. Including one case where a friend of mine had custody stripped by a feminist judge, and had her decision fully overturned on appeal. Not just 'a little bit', the mother didn't even get unsupervised visitation rights. Wonders for that judge's reputation, for sure.

The one friend of mine whose child support was single-handedly paying for another person's living expenses... was a woman paying child support to a perpetually unemployed father.

Are there fucked up things about the child support system? Yes. Yes there are. Men are not the sole group suffering from its flaws.

In the mean time, I've had enough complaints from my friends about this thread. It's running in circles, the same cognitive dissonance keeps cropping up, and I'm tired of the whining being spewed by people who don't feel their penis is getting them enough respect in life.

You want respect? Do things worth respecting. Build something. Master a skill. It's your own conscious choice whether you do that or not.

Not fair that a woman's vagina gives her a built-in respect token? Maybe. Technology might even that ground someday, but that's not going to change jack about how much respect you are getting. Your penis still won't bring you respect, even in that day.

Thread may be reopened in 24 hours if people wish it, but for now, some reflection would be nice.

[Vekseid]

The thread originator has asked that this thread not be reopened.

You may feel free to open your own thread about a topic of discussion raised here.

I would like it to be kept in mind that there are a number of posts in this thread that begin with the assumption that what men and women go through to create a child is 'equal', or otherwise treat matters in that vein.

At best, it's ignorant. At worst, it's pure trolling. It's no more civil than making homophobic, transphobic, or racist arguments, no matter how much you believe them. They will be treated accordingly.