WTF happened to the legal system!

[ThatGirl]

Why are the idiotic people of the law giving custody to dead beat retarded fathers for the sake of feelings?



There has been a recent movment in a fathers right to custody of a child. Gender barriers of keeping the child with their mothers have been broken to accomadate a fathers right to be in their childs life.

As a result children are getting placed in horrible situations of two worlds. You have mothers who provide wonderful homes saftey and support to their children being forced to hand their children over to druggies, ex convicts, or unsafe parents for the sake of fairness.

Is it fair to take a child out of a wonderful home and place it in the midst of psychological and possibly physical destruction if a better option is available for the sake of the fathers feelings because they share DNA?

How important is a bad father in a childs life? Who could that possibly bennifit? Where are the mothers rights? Why should the government decide what is best for a child they dont even know?

The whole system based on feelings make me want to spew all over the fucked up govenment. Who repesents what is best for the children?

[ajblaise]

Why are all the fathers in these legal situations "bad"? I'd have to see an example of what you are talking about.l

[kyuuei]

I could see both sides of the coin, because I've seen deadbeat no good mothers that get to keep their kids because the Father is stuck in that gender battle with the courts.

The problem is that the cases are SO situational, with one being always different from the other, that it's hard to create any one law to protect the children altogether. One side or the other will lose out..

My guess is they're just trying to break up the stalemate of the mother's ALWAYS getting the kids to benefit those stuck with bad mothers for a change.

[ThatGirl]

Because most mothers when fathers are outstanding citizens dont have a problem with sharing custody. If people are divorcing for unsafe reasons it is stupid to look at fairness. You need to look at the overall situation. This diplomatic liberal bullshit is rediculous.




Children need their mothers more than their fathers. What does it matter when the child needs a solid home.

[FDG]

Because most mothers when fathers are outstanding citizens dont have a problem with sharing custody.

The problem is, that custody is generally (at least here in italy) automatically assigned to the mother, and this does not seem to be particularly fair.

[ajblaise]

Because most mothers when fathers are outstanding citizens dont have a problem with sharing custody. If people are divorcing for unsafe reasons it is stupid to look at fairness. You need to look at the overall situation. This diplomatic liberal bullshit is rediculous.




Children need their mothers more than their fathers. What does it matter when the child needs a solid home.

I still really see no reason why doing this on a case-by-case basis isn't the best way to get the child in the best environment possible.

If you had your way, how would it be like? Kids going automatically to their mothers or what?

[ThatGirl]

I could see both sides of the coin, because I've seen deadbeat no good mothers that get to keep their kids because the Father is stuck in that gender battle with the courts.

The problem is that the cases are SO situational, with one being always different from the other, that it's hard to create any one law to protect the children altogether. One side or the other will lose out..

My guess is they're just trying to break up the stalemate of the mother's ALWAYS getting the kids to benefit those stuck with bad mothers for a change.

Well it is rediculous to take what other parents have been granted in the past out on children who had nothing to do with it.

A "father" should be working to support his child so they dont have time to just sit around fucking people through the legal system.

[Beat]

Yeah, I don't understand what you're saying, TG. It could easily go either way, dead beat mothers or fathers... But in whatever case it is, the destructive parent should most definitely not be involved in the child's life. Not to accommodate "feelings" or what one parent thinks is "their right." There is no "rights" as a parent, as I see it. You have a responsibility to take care of your child, if you neglect that, then you're privilege is revoked and you deserve to lose the kid and it be turned over to someone who cares and can support him/her.

[kyuuei]

Because most mothers when fathers are outstanding citizens dont have a problem with sharing custody. If people are divorcing for unsafe reasons it is stupid to look at fairness. You need to look at the overall situation. This diplomatic liberal bullshit is rediculous.




Children need their mothers more than their fathers. What does it matter when the child needs a solid home.

The problem is not all mothers are as fit as they seem? Like I said, I have seen my friend's drug-addicted mother (whom loves her son, but is unfit to care for him and was then.) win the custody over him (Mother and father divorced over her drug problems) and end up always having to sneak around to ask his father for basic needs.. Eventually they appealed or whatever it's called where you try again, and the son was old enough to have a say in it all and lived with his father thereafter.. but it took years before he got a solid foundation.

I agree that more often than not, it IS the father that's usually unfit and less caring.. that's just human nature, the mother will tend to be more attached. But that attachment can also be a bad thing, and they'd refuse to think that there's anything better for their child than themselves caring for them.

[ThatGirl]

The problem is, that custody is generally (at least here in italy) automatically assigned to the mother, and this does not seem to be particularly fair.

just come on over to the US there are plenty of people who would happily screw a mother over for the sake of changing the adage

[kyuuei]

just come on over to the US there are plenty of people who would happily screw a mother over for the sake of changing the adage

I think you're trying to get at there's no reason to change the way it is just because some dude's are pissin' and moanin' about gender discrimination. Don't change the standard just to be more politically correct. I understand that. But I do think the courts should be more situationally based.

[ThatGirl]

Yeah, I don't understand what you're saying, TG. It could easily go either way, dead beat mothers or fathers... But in whatever case it is, the destructive parent should most definitely not be involved in the child's life. Not to accommodate "feelings" or what one parent thinks is "their right." There is no "rights" as a parent, as I see it. You have a responsibility to take care of your child, if you neglect that, then you're privilege is revoked and you deserve to lose the kid and it be turned over to someone who cares and can support him/her.

That is exactly what I am saying.

Go spend a day in family court services. There is a movement on fathers rights and mothers are being told

"This isn't the good old days where mothers get to keep their children, we are emphasizing the fathers rights in a childs life because children need their fathers too. We just try to tell mommies it time to let go"

word for word

[FDG]

just come on over to the US there are plenty of people who would happily screw a mother over for the sake of changing the adage

I don't really understand why you are making the issue one-sided. We could generally said that the abusive (if there is an abuse) parent should not be given custody.

[ThatGirl]

What i am saying is that the system is making a stand right now in favor of fathers.

When your looking at a healthy mother vs a shady father, the custody should go to the mother so she is within her legal rights to watch out for and protect her child.

Instead what is happening is that for the sake of fairness mothers are being told to step aside and not intervene as they are by law now to hand their children over in fear every other week.

[Beat]

That is exactly what I am saying.

Go spend a day in family court services. There is a movement on fathers rights and mothers are being told

"This isn't the good old days where mothers get to keep their children, we are emphasizing the fathers rights in a childs life because children need their fathers too. We just try to tell mommies it time to let go"

word for word

Do you know where there are laws/articles related to this? I want to see it. That sounds like some ripe BS though. BS in the legal system, not surprising though obviously. Sounds like that crap probably started in California.

Love California, but there's some PC, whacked out SOBs over there.

[Jack Flak]

Fundamentally, people are idiots, hence all these problems, so why expect it to turn out fuckin' daisies for everyone?

[Anja]

I'm wondering if some the the answer might be that it could reflect a backlash of the Feminist movement aided by political correctness.

It's worth taking a look at the gender of the people who are making and enforcing the laws.

[Jeffster]

I wish they'd been on that "movement" 8 years ago. Then maybe I could have denied visitation to the mother who didn't come home one night when her child was still breastfeeding, leaving me to try to figure out what to do and where to take my son so I could go to work and afford to feed him myself.

[BryNTP]

Children need their mothers more than their fathers.

WHAT??!!

I agree, somewhat, with your original statement in that nothing should be automatic (going by default to the mother in the past or the swing the other way to go to default to the father). But I don't know how you could say children need their mothers more?

[Hexis]

Children need their mothers more than their fathers.

WELL HOLY SHIT! Now it all makes sense, I guess even if the mothers a dead beat crack whore who only wants custody so she can get a better tax right off on her drug prescriptions is OBVIOUSLY better by default just cause shes the mother than say the blue collar 9-5 job father who has hasnt done drugs since highschool.

Something like this is completely situational and I feel there not exactly favouring the father now, there just not favouring either. Which in my oponion is completely fair, for no reason is the mother better at being a parent than the father. Fuck that maternal shit, its the 21st century, I know guys who act like better woman/mothers than your average soccer mom! So dont give me this bullshit about complaining cause men are now being given the same rights as a woman concerning child custody, we could always take your right to vote away...

[Nighthawk]

Because most mothers when fathers are outstanding citizens dont have a problem with sharing custody.

Not always the case. I was told by the judge that, because I was a soldier, that I had no rights to custody at all ... and he gave full custody to my ex-wife. I wonder how that meshes with all the single mother soldiers in the army?

[BerberElla]

I think it's less on a case by case basis as it is just simply giving equal rights to some severely screwed up men just because fathers have rights too.

I'm all for the father having a right when it's simply a spiteful mother who can't get over the break down of her relationship and is using the kids for vengeance, but when the father has been an abusive bastard for years on end and the mother finally gets free and fights for that right to stay safe, what right should he have anymore?

I was told at the very beginning of my court case that even though my childrens father had abused me for years and was still a safety risk to me, the courts wouldn't see that as a barrier to his rights, how much justice really exists?

they did the same thing to my friend, made her allow access, which simply gave him access to pound her face into the ground for half an hour whilst her 2yr old boy hid under the table, seeing it all and even then they made her take her son to a contact centre because guess what? fathers have rights.

So yeah damn right, WTF has happened to the legal system?

Fathers for justice, a few men in caped outfits and the next thing you know even the most abusive asshole suddenly has rights just because he donated some sperm.

[ThatGirl]

Thing about sociopaths they can fool and charm their way into the destruction of a child.

Its unfortunate at best

[heart]

^There's a lot worse that goes on than this. Parents murdering their own children and getting baiscally a slap on the wrist. Our world views young children as property, sad but true.

[prplchknz]

WELL HOLY SHIT! Now it all makes sense, I guess even if the mothers a dead beat crack whore who only wants custody so she can get a better tax right off on her drug prescriptions is OBVIOUSLY better by default just cause shes the mother than say the blue collar 9-5 job father who has hasnt done drugs since highschool.

Something like this is completely situational and I feel there not exactly favouring the father now, there just not favouring either. Which in my oponion is completely fair, for no reason is the mother better at being a parent than the father. Fuck that maternal shit, its the 21st century, I know guys who act like better woman/mothers than your average soccer mom! So dont give me this bullshit about complaining cause men are now being given the same rights as a woman concerning child custody, we could always take your right to vote away...

+1


why do mom's make better mother's is it because they have vagina's? I have a vagina and I don't think I would make that good of a mother. my brother doesn't have a vagina and would make an excellent dad.

[heart]

Children need their mothers more than their fathers.

I totally disagree. Both parents are "needed." Your premise is illogical.

Mothers can be abusive.

Mothers can be a bad example.

Mothers can have addiction issues.

Mothers can be psychopathic or sociopathic.

All just as often as fathers.

[Metamorphosis]

A "father" should be working to support his child so they dont have time to just sit around fucking people through the legal system.

I know. Also, WTF are all these women doing in the workplace instead of taking care of the household? Everyone knows business benefits more from male employees than female ones.

[heart]

A "father" should be working to support his child so they dont have time to just sit around fucking people through the legal system.

Can you link to the particular case that is provoking this vent from you? Then maybe we could all understand why you are assuming the mother is prestine and the father is a low-down MF'er using the system to screw with her. Otherwise it looks like you're having a purely feelings based reaction just because you're a woman and he is a man.

[Anja]

Another answer to the question of WTF happened to the legal system. My husband says that's the inevitable result of turning lawyers into judges.

[runvardh]

I come from a situation where I had to stay with my mother even though had she been a man the things she has done would have had her in jail long ago and when she got out she wouldn't be allowed to be unsupervised around children under 18. Yes, the legal system is messed up.

[ptgatsby]

"This isn't the good old days where mothers get to keep their children, we are emphasizing the fathers rights in a childs life because children need their fathers too. We just try to tell mommies it time to let go"

word for word

Well, when I read that, I think "It's about time." Obviously, I don't think that fathers should get a blank check to get to see their child, but women have been cashing that check for so long that it's nice to see some equality.

[Hexis]

Well, when I read that, I think "It's about time." Obviously, I don't think that fathers should get a blank check to get to see their child, but women have been cashing that check for so long that it's nice to see some equality.

Im right there with you on that one!

[FDG]

So what are you doing at university ThatGirl? Go knitting and make children at home, fast!!

[ThatGirl]

I am going to try to give a pretty much round about response to what I have read here.


I am talking about mothers, decent mothers with no questions of loyalty or love for their children. Mothers who would throw themselves under the bus for their children and forsake everything they are as a human being, sacraficing beyond measure for their child, everything they need to for the sake of their children.

I am talking about mothers who hold down jobs to exaustion to provide for their children while their fathers say things like "I am too good to work a minimum wage job, or I shouldn't have to do extra." I am talking about mothers who get reprimanded in court that since they work too much they shouldn't be bothered by their children being taken to their lazy fathers who are friends with child molesters and drug addicts.

I have always fought against people who try to make a statment for the masses through someone else. We are creating a movement therefore I will use you to make a statment. It is not right to experiement with children. The only thing they ever did wrong was be born into such an enviornment. Its not their fault.

Mothers should not be denied their custodial right to accomadate those who dont or wont deserve it. If a better way is possible it should be granted. Fathers who love and care for their children deserve their right, but that is not the case.

I always hated the norms or standards that pretain to the masses, because they only bennifit those who are idiots. Innocent people should not get caught in the crossfire. Children are entitled to the best they can get.

[kyuuei]

:\ Children in general is a very touchy subject for anyone who has them, wants them, or is attached to someone else's.

I understand what you're saying.. I think the men of the forum just want to say the door is capable of swinging both ways. This sounds like a subject very close to home to you though.

[ThatGirl]

I always take matters of children personally, I admit it. They are just so trusting to their elders. It is the adults responsibility to not take advantage of that and really be a support system, otherwise don't have children.

[kyuuei]

That's a common feeling to have ^_^;; I know I'm very overprotective when it comes to kids, and I don't even have any of my own! Hah imagine if I did. I'd be yelling at people all day and before you know it I'd be the crazy mom.

[lowtech redneck]

Because most mothers when fathers are outstanding citizens dont have a problem with sharing custody.

Most divorces do not involve unfit fathers and saintly mothers; they involve human beings with bitter and angry feelings towards their Ex (each almost inevitably blaming the other for the failed marriage) and who share a mutually exclusive desire to retain as much influence in their children's life as possible. Custody battles ensue. In the event of an unequal custody arrangement, the winning party often proceeds to wield their custodial rights as a weapon, seeking to further punish their former partner to the general detriment of the children.

I think equal custody should be the default judgement, subject to change if one party can prove that the other is greatly unfit.

[Oberon]

Why are the idiotic people of the law giving custody to dead beat retarded fathers for the sake of feelings?


Yeah, fathers are just bastards. We should lobotomize boys at birth, keeping them alive for the sake of keeping the sperm banks stocked, and go straight to a total matriarchal society.

:rolli:

[ptgatsby]

And yet...

I am talking about fathers, decent fathers with no questions of loyalty or love for their children. Fathers who would throw themselves under the bus for their children and forsake everything they are as a human being, sacraficing beyond measure for their child, everything they need to for the sake of their children.

I am talking about fathers who hold down jobs to exaustion to provide for their children while their mothers say things like "I am too good to work a minimum wage job, or I shouldn't have to do extra." I am talking about fathers who get reprimanded in court that since they work too much they shouldn't be bothered by their children being taken to their lazy mothers who are friends with child molesters and drug addicts.

I have always fought against people who try to make a statment for the masses through someone else. We are creating a movement therefore I will use you to make a statment. It is not right to experiement with children. The only thing they ever did wrong was be born into such an enviornment. Its not their fault.

Fathers should not be denied their custodial right to accomadate those who dont or wont deserve it. If a better way is possible it should be granted. Mothers who love and care for their children deserve their right, but that is not the case.

I always hated the norms or standards that pretain to the masses, because they only bennifit those who are idiots. Innocent people should not get caught in the crossfire. Children are entitled to the best they can get.


This has been the norm for a long time now.

And the part I italicised was vastly worse when the crusade was against men.

Where was your anger then, I wonder?

[runvardh]

And yet...



This has been the norm for a long time now.

And the part I italicised was vastly worse when the crusade was against men.

Where was your anger then, I wonder?

Shhhhh, not supposed to say stuff like that! It gets the feminists mad! :peepwall:

[FDG]

Lol @ ThatGirl Feminazi rant

[ThatGirl]

No offence but you guys are idiots.

I have stated how innocent people are falling through the cracks for the sake of a purpose they are not even related to and the victims are the children. I was very specific in my complaint.

I also find it hilarious that everyone defending the father movement did not reference the best interest of the children but made the fathers out to be victims. This is the mentality I cannot stand. It is not about mother, it is not about fathers, it is about children

[MacGuffin]

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

[ptgatsby]

I have stated how innocent people are falling through the cracks for the sake of a purpose they are not even related to and the victims are the children. I was very specific in my complaint.

You could of generalised and said "what is wrong with the legal system. It allows unfit parents to keep custody/". You didn't, and you picked the side that has been the victim to the court's unfairness.

Your double standard was pointed out, nothing more.

[cafe]

It's about who has the better lawyer, isn't it?

My friend, whose almost ex husband has a PhD looks to be getting less in child support for three kids than my other friend's deadbeat husband is paying for one kid when he's earning about $8/hour. Crazy stuff. :dont:

[FDG]

No offence but you guys are idiots.

I have stated how innocent people are falling through the cracks for the sake of a purpose they are not even related to and the victims are the children. I was very specific in my complaint.

I also find it hilarious that everyone defending the father movement did not reference the best interest of the children but made the fathers out to be victims. This is the mentality I cannot stand. It is not about mother, it is not about fathers, it is about children

YES I WILL ABUSE MY CHILDREN AND GET CUSTODY, THANK YOU LEGAL SISTEM YAY

[runvardh]

No offence but you guys are idiots.

I have stated how innocent people are falling through the cracks for the sake of a purpose they are not even related to and the victims are the children. I was very specific in my complaint.

I also find it hilarious that everyone defending the father movement did not reference the best interest of the children but made the fathers out to be victims. This is the mentality I cannot stand. It is not about mother, it is not about fathers, it is about children

It is, but you focus so much on bad fathers and it is interesting that this sort of excitement did not happen when it was just bad mothers always getting custudy. Make your statements more gender neutral in the first place.

[ThatGirl]

I don't need to rephrase anything. I don't give two shits about how we got here, this bad father favoring is happening now. Standing around pointing the finger at nameless people from decades ago is counterproductive and idiotic. And what's more disturbing is the amount of people who fall into the heards of "progress".

My argument was not with fathers getting custody it was with bad fathers getting custody over good mothers because the legal system has blinders on its eyes.

[Oberon]

My argument was not with fathers getting custody it was with bad fathers getting custody over good mothers because the legal system has blinders on its eyes.

So... um... why are bad fathers worse than bad mothers, then? :huh:

Because that happens too, and probably just as often.

[ptgatsby]

I don't need to rephrase anything. I don't give two shits about how we got here, this bad father favoring is happening now. Standing around pointing the finger at nameless people from decades ago is counterproductive and idiotic. And what's more disturbing is the amount of people who fall into the heards of "progress".

My argument was not with fathers getting custody it was with bad fathers getting custody over good mothers because the legal system has blinders on its eyes.

Right, so... uhhh... the fact that courts still favor mothers, including bad mothers, and deny father's visiting rights more often doesn't affect you?

I consider it progress because more harm is being done by the lack of policy, sorry. Some kids will get poorly placed, but it'll be less than before and more fathers that should have access to their kids will, despite their bitter mother's complaints as she sucks them dry.

So I repeat - I'm very glad that it's happening, because it shows change towards a greater injustice. I feel for the individual kids that aren't being properly cared for, but I cared about that before, and this shows that the pendulum is coming back to reasonable.

Progress is a good word for it, because it is, and you are right, some people are standing in the way of it.

[Anja]

I don't need to rephrase anything. I don't give two shits about how we got here, this bad father favoring is happening now. Standing around pointing the finger at nameless people from decades ago is counterproductive and idiotic. And what's more disturbing is the amount of people who fall into the heards of "progress".

My argument was not with fathers getting custody it was with bad fathers getting custody over good mothers because the legal system has blinders on its eyes.

Just poppin' in to validate your anger, ThatGirl. Your rage and indignation are palpable and certainly justified.

That's where social activism starts. Once you get some of that vented you can use that angry energy where it will not harm you and work to change the system.

Do you have something in that direction to offer so you don't need to carry all that garbage?

[lowtech redneck]

Just poppin' in to validate your anger, ThatGirl. Your rage and indignation are palpable and certainly justified.

That's where social activism starts. Once you get some of that vented you can use that angry energy where it will not harm you and work to change the system.

Do you have something in that direction to offer so you don't need to carry all that garbage?

Change the system back to favoring the mother instead of favoring neither mother OR father? Why do you think that's a good thing? Why are you guys so angry at the prospect of equal custodial rights as the default judegement?

[Metamorphosis]

Gender barriers of keeping the child with their mothers have been broken to accomadate a fathers right to be in their childs life.


^ Yeah, this is horrible. :rolleyes:

I also find it hilarious that everyone defending the father movement did not reference the best interest of the children but made the fathers out to be victims. This is the mentality I cannot stand. It is not about mother, it is not about fathers, it is about children

Yet this is exactly what you are doing. You are mad that the power is being taken away from the mother instead of being mad that a bad parent of either gender would receive the kid.

The whole system based on feelings make me want to spew all over the fucked up govenment.

Your whole argument is based on feelings. What's the difference.

[Anja]

Change the system back to favoring the mother instead of favoring neither mother OR father? Why do you think that's a good thing? Why are you guys so angry at the prospect of equal custodial rights as the default judegement?

Putting words in my mouth, lowtech. I believe in equitable justice.

[Anja]

You guys - male and female? (Not sure.) are dragging an issue into your discussion which is muddying the waters and that's your feeling about feminism. It shouldn't apply, I think.

You are trying to talk about fairness in custody. That can be considered without dragging someone's politcal views into the issue. Maybe not in actually changing it, although that's also possible. But certainly in discussing it. . .

But I suspect this is more about a shared history of posting together and personal reactions to each other's views. And a way of relieving a little interpersonal stress?

It's interesting to watch but doesn't really acomplish much in the way of addressing the issue without defensiveness.

[ptgatsby]

You are trying to talk about fairness in custody. That can be considered without dragging someone's politcal views into the issue. Maybe not in actually changing it, although that's also possible. But certainly in discussing it. . .

Actually, I'm responding to

Children need their mothers more than their fathers.

That's the context of my comments. Her version of "best for the kid" is not based on individual kids, it's based on her bias towards women.

[runvardh]

It does apply, politics and activism always shape legal policies. Then again, we must also take a look at the fact that we are all not from the US so it is possible these policies are differing from country to country, region to region. Basically the only thing that chaps my ass is the fact that the OP started off with bad fathers always getting custody when really the true issue is bad parents getting custody. Or am I being overly emotional in having this view?

[prplchknz]

If we keep this up, no one will be allowed custody and children will be grown in pods. Ideally who ever is the best fit parent mother or father should get custody.

[runvardh]

If we keep this up, no one will be allowed custody and children will be grown in pods. Ideally who ever is the best fit parent mother or father should get custody.

+1

[lowtech redneck]

That's the context of my comments. Her version of "best for the kid" is not based on individual kids, it's based on her bias towards women.

Exactly.

[Anja]

Yay, prpl !;)

[Anja]

Not saying there's anything wrong with being angry about Feminism. . .

[Firelie]

Basically the only thing that chaps my ass is the fact that the OP started off with bad fathers always getting custody when really the true issue is bad parents getting custody. Or am I being overly emotional in having this view?

No, you're not being overly emotional. It bothered me, too, cuz I know of just as many shitty mothers as I do of shitty fathers.

[Anja]

I'm there, too. The issue IS the children's well-being.

It should be easy for courts to figure this out but many of them haven't a clue. They look at material things and often don't recognize emotional damage being done.

Why? Because it's darned near impossible to evaluate/enforce a morality issue.

[runvardh]

Not saying there's anything wrong with being angry about Feminism. . .

Na, I was being extreme there. Most feminists don't bother me, it's the ones who call for the extreme stuff that tick me off beyond sanity. When listening to some of them I start wondering if they really just want superiority.

[Anja]

Actually, I'm responding to



That's the context of my comments. Her version of "best for the kid" is not based on individual kids, it's based on her bias towards women.

Got that, pt. Makes sense.

Is that your stance, That Girl?