Rant--The CP is Not the Judge

[gini52]

Just a reminder to all NCPs--Your child's custodial mother, her parents,
sisters, etc. do not determine
family law matters. *Do not let them intimidate you.* These issues are
resolved by a court. You do not need your ex's permission to take your case
to court. You need the filing fee and the proper forms and procedures (if
you do not have an atty.) Many states now have these forms online as well as
instructions on how to file them. Granted, it is not easy to get a custody
change, but if you have a child in danger or at risk, you have a
responsibility to that child to try every possible avenue to help him or
her. I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1 year
old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself
intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers were in
every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a custody
change prior to the violent acts. If he didn't, shame on him; if he did,
shame on the courts and states and they should be held accountable for the
injuries or deaths of these children.
====


--
There may not be much difference
between Marilyn Monroe and Lenny
Bruce. If we check their coffins.
--John Lennon

[Bob Whiteside]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
> Just a reminder to all NCPs--Your child's custodial mother, her parents,
> sisters, etc. do not determine
> family law matters. *Do not let them intimidate you.* These issues are
> resolved by a court. You do not need your ex's permission to take your
case
> to court. You need the filing fee and the proper forms and procedures (if
> you do not have an atty.) Many states now have these forms online as well
as
> instructions on how to file them. Granted, it is not easy to get a custody
> change, but if you have a child in danger or at risk, you have a
> responsibility to that child to try every possible avenue to help him or
> her. I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1 year
> old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself
> intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers were
in
> every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a custody
> change prior to the violent acts. If he didn't, shame on him; if he did,
> shame on the courts and states and they should be held accountable for the
> injuries or deaths of these children.
> ====

I think this assessment of how fathers should act is not realistic. The
problem fathers face is no-fault divorce laws do not allow any of the "dirt"
from the relationship to be heard and considered by the court. Although not
specified in the law that means the no-fault process of ending a marriage
carries over into no-fault child custody.

My personal experience is a judge will not listen to the parties when the
laws in the state mandate custody mediation. Even after the divorce is
final, any subsequent attempts to seek a change of custody are forced back
into the same state mandated custody mediation process, with the same
evaluators who made the original decision. The real problem fathers face is
getting the custody evaluators who made the original decision to admit they
made a mistake and reverse their previous decision.

The only way I know for a father to get around this Pandora's box is to be
patient, pray something bad doesn't happen, and hope the mother finally
gives up custody.

I went so far as to tell the judge I thought the county custody evaluators
were professionally incompetent and biased in favor of the mother, and I
wanted an independent evaluation done by a private evaluator. The judge
told me she would not order an outside evaluator and crossed the custody
change off my motion to modify saying she wouldn't hear the case.

[Bob Whiteside]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...

I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1 year
> old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself
> intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers were
in
> every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a custody
> change prior to the violent acts.

Why does the whereabouts of the father have anything to do with a woman's
mental issues? Since 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, the
twins father was where other black fathers are today - excluded from their
children's lives so the mother can qualify for welfare benefits.

Would anyone consider a mother sane who names her twins Supreme Knowledge
Allah and Sincere Understanding Allah and then claims she went to the July
4th celebration looking for other black single moms and when she found none
decided to jump off the bridge because she felt alone?

Our welfare system gives these types of mothers money to raise children and
the system doesn't ever seem to take children away from dangerous situations
until after something bad has happened. And that is not the father's fault.

[gini52]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Just a reminder to all NCPs--Your child's custodial mother, her parents,
> > sisters, etc. do not determine
> > family law matters. *Do not let them intimidate you.* These issues are
> > resolved by a court. You do not need your ex's permission to take your
> case
> > to court. You need the filing fee and the proper forms and procedures
(if
> > you do not have an atty.) Many states now have these forms online as
well
> as
> > instructions on how to file them. Granted, it is not easy to get a
custody
> > change, but if you have a child in danger or at risk, you have a
> > responsibility to that child to try every possible avenue to help him or
> > her. I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1
year
> > old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself
> > intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers were
> in
> > every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a
custody
> > change prior to the violent acts. If he didn't, shame on him; if he did,
> > shame on the courts and states and they should be held accountable for
the
> > injuries or deaths of these children.
> > ====
>
> I think this assessment of how fathers should act is not realistic. The
> problem fathers face is no-fault divorce laws do not allow any of the
"dirt"
> from the relationship to be heard and considered by the court. Although
not
> specified in the law that means the no-fault process of ending a marriage
> carries over into no-fault child custody.
>
> My personal experience is a judge will not listen to the parties when the
> laws in the state mandate custody mediation. Even after the divorce is
> final, any subsequent attempts to seek a change of custody are forced back
> into the same state mandated custody mediation process, with the same
> evaluators who made the original decision. The real problem fathers face
is
> getting the custody evaluators who made the original decision to admit
they
> made a mistake and reverse their previous decision.
==
Not necessarily (in theory, anyway). Most family law modifications are based
on
"change of circumstance" which can be argued if a CP's mental condition
and/or lifestyle
has changed/worsened in a way that puts the child at risk. These changes are
rarely easy and
shouldn't be--but when well documented circumstances are in front of the
judge, he/she should be compelled
to act. I don't know whether there has been a recent
increase in violence against children by mothers, but it is happening *a
lot*--epidemic, perhaps. This needs to get the
notice of society/courts/legislatures so that mother custody is *not*
default and serious and equal consideration must be given to both parents as
well as enforcing shared physical custody so neither parent is carrying the
entire emotional/psychological load of "single parent." Otherwise, let the
accountibility fall into the laps of those who refuse to act to protect
these kids. This needs to be a forefront issue for fathers as it is one that
is critically needed and one society will sympathize with. The judge *will*
listen when society demands it. This is not an issue that can accomodate
excuses from fathers as to why they didn't try
to get custody. They must be compelled to try--and not give up on these kids
at risk. Don't forget--Drew did it and he is not alone.
==
==

[gini52]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1 year
> > old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself
> > intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers were
> in
> > every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a
custody
> > change prior to the violent acts.
>
> Why does the whereabouts of the father have anything to do with a woman's
> mental issues? Since 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, the
> twins father was where other black fathers are today - excluded from their
> children's lives so the mother can qualify for welfare benefits.
>
> Would anyone consider a mother sane who names her twins Supreme Knowledge
> Allah and Sincere Understanding Allah and then claims she went to the July
> 4th celebration looking for other black single moms and when she found
none
> decided to jump off the bridge because she felt alone?
>
> Our welfare system gives these types of mothers money to raise children
and
> the system doesn't ever seem to take children away from dangerous
situations
> until after something bad has happened. And that is not the father's
fault.
==
It is *not* the father's fault if he doesn't succeed. It *is* the father's
fault if he doesn't try.
==
==
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...


> ==
> Not necessarily (in theory, anyway). Most family law modifications are
based
> on
> "change of circumstance" which can be argued if a CP's mental condition
> and/or lifestyle
> has changed/worsened in a way that puts the child at risk. These changes
are
> rarely easy and
> shouldn't be--but when well documented circumstances are in front of the
> judge, he/she should be compelled
> to act.

So let's say a woman has multiple drug convictions, has never been married,
quit school in the 9th grade, had her first child at age 15, has had three
children with three different men, she collects welfare benefits, and has
never been able to hold down a steady job. How can a father prove "change
of circumstances" under this very common scenario unless something far worse
occurs in her life like a felony conviction?

Or let's say a married woman divorces. She shacks up with a drug pusher who
is an ex-con, starts doing lots of coke, drives while intoxicated, gets
tattoed and pierced, and generally goes through a second childhood. How can
a father prove "change of circumstances" when it comes down to his word
against hers? Aren't these lifestyle changes freely made and not an issue
unless she gets arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of a crime? What if the
first offense only results in a suspended sentence with probation and a
lecture to clean up her act? How many offenses does it take to prove a
"changes of circumstances"?

I don't know whether there has been a recent
> increase in violence against children by mothers, but it is happening *a
> lot*--epidemic, perhaps. This needs to get the
> notice of society/courts/legislatures so that mother custody is *not*
> default and serious and equal consideration must be given to both parents
as
> well as enforcing shared physical custody so neither parent is carrying
the
> entire emotional/psychological load of "single parent."

Mothers have always been more violent against their children than fathers.
But it's not just the violence. Children from mother headed households are
far more apt to be in prison, have drug problems, drop out of school, create
teenage pregnancies, commit suicide, etc. and the courts still don't act on
these statistics. These very real statistics get ignored because they don't
fit the decision-making template that mothers make better, nurturing
parents.

Otherwise, let the
> accountibility fall into the laps of those who refuse to act to protect
> these kids. This needs to be a forefront issue for fathers as it is one
that
> is critically needed and one society will sympathize with. The judge
*will*
> listen when society demands it. This is not an issue that can accomodate
> excuses from fathers as to why they didn't try
> to get custody. They must be compelled to try--and not give up on these
kids
> at risk. Don't forget--Drew did it and he is not alone.
> ==
> ==

Judges and state workers are protected from accountability for their
misdeeds through sovereign immunity granted to public officials. As long
as they can claim immunity they will never be accountable for their
mistakes.

[Chris]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Just a reminder to all NCPs--Your child's custodial mother, her parents,
> > sisters, etc. do not determine
> > family law matters. *Do not let them intimidate you.* These issues are
> > resolved by a court. You do not need your ex's permission to take your
> case
> > to court. You need the filing fee and the proper forms and procedures
(if
> > you do not have an atty.) Many states now have these forms online as
well
> as
> > instructions on how to file them. Granted, it is not easy to get a
custody
> > change, but if you have a child in danger or at risk, you have a
> > responsibility to that child to try every possible avenue to help him or
> > her. I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1
year
> > old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself
> > intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers were
> in
> > every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a
custody
> > change prior to the violent acts. If he didn't, shame on him; if he did,
> > shame on the courts and states and they should be held accountable for
the
> > injuries or deaths of these children.
> > ====
>
> I think this assessment of how fathers should act is not realistic. The
> problem fathers face is no-fault divorce laws do not allow any of the
"dirt"
> from the relationship to be heard and considered by the court. Although
not
> specified in the law that means the no-fault process of ending a marriage
> carries over into no-fault child custody.
>
> My personal experience is a judge will not listen to the parties when the
> laws in the state mandate custody mediation. Even after the divorce is
> final, any subsequent attempts to seek a change of custody are forced back
> into the same state mandated custody mediation process, with the same
> evaluators who made the original decision. The real problem fathers face
is
> getting the custody evaluators who made the original decision to admit
they
> made a mistake and reverse their previous decision.
>
> The only way I know for a father to get around this Pandora's box is to be
> patient, pray something bad doesn't happen, and hope the mother finally
> gives up custody.
>
> I went so far as to tell the judge I thought the county custody evaluators
> were professionally incompetent and biased in favor of the mother, and I
> wanted an independent evaluation done by a private evaluator. The judge
> told me she would not order an outside evaluator and crossed the custody
> change off my motion to modify saying she wouldn't hear the case.

I'm SHOCKED!

>
>

[Chris]

"Father Drew" > wrote in message
news:0kmOa.2396$7e.1696@fed1read07...
> Never give up, never say die. It's a hard road, but this is for your
kids.
> Any parent that is willing to give up on their kids probably wouldn't be
> much of a parent anyway in my book. If a father loses after exhausting
> every avenue, he can live his life knowing he did his best, but I'm
willing
> to bet many give up before using all their options. One word, "APPEAL".

Appeal to WHO, the other enemy?
I do commend you though for your persistency.

>
> -Drew
>
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Just a reminder to all NCPs--Your child's custodial mother, her
parents,
> > > sisters, etc. do not determine
> > > family law matters. *Do not let them intimidate you.* These issues are
> > > resolved by a court. You do not need your ex's permission to take your
> > case
> > > to court. You need the filing fee and the proper forms and procedures
> (if
> > > you do not have an atty.) Many states now have these forms online as
> well
> > as
> > > instructions on how to file them. Granted, it is not easy to get a
> custody
> > > change, but if you have a child in danger or at risk, you have a
> > > responsibility to that child to try every possible avenue to help him
or
> > > her. I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1
> year
> > > old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself
> > > intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers
were
> > in
> > > every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a
> custody
> > > change prior to the violent acts. If he didn't, shame on him; if he
did,
> > > shame on the courts and states and they should be held accountable for
> the
> > > injuries or deaths of these children.
> > > ====
> >
> > I think this assessment of how fathers should act is not realistic. The
> > problem fathers face is no-fault divorce laws do not allow any of the
> "dirt"
> > from the relationship to be heard and considered by the court. Although
> not
> > specified in the law that means the no-fault process of ending a
marriage
> > carries over into no-fault child custody.
> >
> > My personal experience is a judge will not listen to the parties when
the
> > laws in the state mandate custody mediation. Even after the divorce is
> > final, any subsequent attempts to seek a change of custody are forced
back
> > into the same state mandated custody mediation process, with the same
> > evaluators who made the original decision. The real problem fathers
face
> is
> > getting the custody evaluators who made the original decision to admit
> they
> > made a mistake and reverse their previous decision.
> >
> > The only way I know for a father to get around this Pandora's box is to
be
> > patient, pray something bad doesn't happen, and hope the mother finally
> > gives up custody.
> >
> > I went so far as to tell the judge I thought the county custody
evaluators
> > were professionally incompetent and biased in favor of the mother, and I
> > wanted an independent evaluation done by a private evaluator. The judge
> > told me she would not order an outside evaluator and crossed the custody
> > change off my motion to modify saying she wouldn't hear the case.
> >
> >
>
>

[gini52]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > ==
> > Not necessarily (in theory, anyway). Most family law modifications are
> based
> > on
> > "change of circumstance" which can be argued if a CP's mental condition
> > and/or lifestyle
> > has changed/worsened in a way that puts the child at risk. These changes
> are
> > rarely easy and
> > shouldn't be--but when well documented circumstances are in front of the
> > judge, he/she should be compelled
> > to act.
>
> So let's say a woman has multiple drug convictions, has never been
married,
> quit school in the 9th grade, had her first child at age 15, has had three
> children with three different men, she collects welfare benefits, and has
> never been able to hold down a steady job. How can a father prove "change
> of circumstances" under this very common scenario unless something far
worse
> occurs in her life like a felony conviction?
===
You are missing the point, Bob. I'm not going to attempt to rationalize
every detail of every
case, real or hypothetical. My point is that fathers *must* do everything
they can to get their children out
of an abusive or neglectful environment. What is your suggestion--that we
let the state "rescue" these
children at risk? Parents should be the first responders to their childrens'
needs. I don't care what odds he faces--A father has a duty to act quickly
and aggressively to retrieve his children from a dangerous living
environment. If you feel otherwise or wish to make excuses for his inaction,
fine. I just hope that fathers reading this thread who have children in
dangerous households do not use your comments as an excuse to not try to get
their children to safety.
(More)
===
......................

> I don't know whether there has been a recent
> > increase in violence against children by mothers, but it is happening *a
> > lot*--epidemic, perhaps. This needs to get the
> > notice of society/courts/legislatures so that mother custody is *not*
> > default and serious and equal consideration must be given to both
parents
> as
> > well as enforcing shared physical custody so neither parent is carrying
> the
> > entire emotional/psychological load of "single parent."
>
> Mothers have always been more violent against their children than fathers.
> But it's not just the violence. Children from mother headed households
are
> far more apt to be in prison, have drug problems, drop out of school,
create
> teenage pregnancies, commit suicide, etc. and the courts still don't act
on
> these statistics. These very real statistics get ignored because they
don't
> fit the decision-making template that mothers make better, nurturing
> parents.
===
I know kids are more at risk without an involved father but I would like to
see recent data on mothers'
violence toward their children. I will search for it.
(More)
===
>
> Otherwise, let the
> > accountibility fall into the laps of those who refuse to act to protect
> > these kids. This needs to be a forefront issue for fathers as it is one
> that
> > is critically needed and one society will sympathize with. The judge
> *will*
> > listen when society demands it. This is not an issue that can accomodate
> > excuses from fathers as to why they didn't try
> > to get custody. They must be compelled to try--and not give up on these
> kids
> > at risk. Don't forget--Drew did it and he is not alone.
> > ==
> > ==
>
> Judges and state workers are protected from accountability for their
> misdeeds through sovereign immunity granted to public officials. As long
> as they can claim immunity they will never be accountable for their
> mistakes.
==
Not true in Florida. Several case workers have faced criminal prosecution
for neglect of their
duties that resulted in harm to children.
===
===
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > Could be the reason it is that way (the abuse) is because more women
> have
> > > the kids, not the fathers. So of course there will be more abuse by
> single
> > > mothers. Duh.
> >
> > Exactly. Mothers are around the children more so they get more
> > opportunities to beat up the kids. Therefore, mothers should be around
> > their children less and the amount of abuse will go down. What better
> > reason to reduce the 85% mother primary custody rate to protect the
> children
> > from mother abuse?
>
> You miss my point. You NCP's rant about the large percentage of CP's are
> women. So oviously the stats for abuse will be higher for the women. Are
you
> saying men don't abuse kids.... because I know alot of adults who will
tell
> you otherwise.

Men abuse kids. The men who abuse kids are most frequently the men women
invite into their children's lives. The bad choices women make in men are
highly repsonsible for male child abuser statistics. It is rarely the
bio-father who abuses his own children. The mother's boyfriend is the most
likely male abuser followed by a step-father. Bio-fathers are way down the
list of child abusers.

> >
> > Could be part of the reason that so many kids from single
> > > mother households are that way because the father up and left......
can
> > you
> > > imagine what it does to a child when one parent isn't interested in
> them?
> >
> > The statistics show women initiate the breakup of the relationship 70%
of
> > the time by deciding they want to leave.
>
> Regardless who initiates..... I initiated a breakup with a boyfriend....
he
> was abusive.

Was that abuse child abuse or spousal abuse? I thought this thread was
about child abuse.

>
> Sadly, women also believe they can
> > raise their children as effectively as a single parent as a two parent
> > family can raise them. and this latter statistic tracts by race very
> close
> > to the single parent households. As examples 38% of white women, 64% of
> > black women, 61% of hispanic women, and 58% of indian/Alaskan women they
> can
> > raise children as effectively as single parents.
>
> Well, I agree that is wrong. It takes 2 parents. Not one... wether it be
> father or mother.

Fathers actually recognize the value of two parent households more than
mothers. 26% of men think they can raise a child without a woman's help
versus 42% of women.

> >
> > > But you know, I have been meeting more and more single fathers who are
> > > raising the kids, sometimes totally on their own. So we will see, as
> more
> > > fathers become the CP, how the stats might change.
> >
> > Mothers currently commit 55% of child murders.
>
> Because more mothers have their kids. Its hard for bio-fathers to commit
> crimes to the kids when they are not around. Now don't twist this.... I am
> going on the stats that are ALWAYS being posted here that mothers always
get
> the kids. I am NOT saying that is right. I beleive in equal custody. I
don't
> believe in posting stats that are misleading.

Okay, let's forget the stats. Fathers have psychological advantages they
bring to parenting. Fathers teach children how to keep their emotions under
control in crisis situations. Fathers teach ego strength to conduct
self-evaluation. Fathers show children alternative ways to express anger
without grudges. Fathers teach responsibilty. Fathers show how they can be
flexible to changes and shifting priorities. Fathers are more stable
emotionally because testosterone has been proven to be the calming hormone
rather than a cause of aggression.

[Batch File]

Thats an in correct assumption. Most ncps are men yet women default on CS at
twice the rate men do.

Also, men are less likely to request CS from the NCP mother.


"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > Could be the reason it is that way (the abuse) is because more women
> have
> > > the kids, not the fathers. So of course there will be more abuse by
> single
> > > mothers. Duh.
> >
> > Exactly. Mothers are around the children more so they get more
> > opportunities to beat up the kids. Therefore, mothers should be around
> > their children less and the amount of abuse will go down. What better
> > reason to reduce the 85% mother primary custody rate to protect the
> children
> > from mother abuse?
>
> You miss my point. You NCP's rant about the large percentage of CP's are
> women. So oviously the stats for abuse will be higher for the women. Are
you
> saying men don't abuse kids.... because I know alot of adults who will
tell
> you otherwise.
> >
> > Could be part of the reason that so many kids from single
> > > mother households are that way because the father up and left......
can
> > you
> > > imagine what it does to a child when one parent isn't interested in
> them?
> >
> > The statistics show women initiate the breakup of the relationship 70%
of
> > the time by deciding they want to leave.
>
> Regardless who initiates..... I initiated a breakup with a boyfriend....
he
> was abusive.
>
> Sadly, women also believe they can
> > raise their children as effectively as a single parent as a two parent
> > family can raise them. and this latter statistic tracts by race very
> close
> > to the single parent households. As examples 38% of white women, 64% of

> > black women, 61% of hispanic women, and 58% of indian/Alaskan women they
> can
> > raise children as effectively as single parents.
>
> Well, I agree that is wrong. It takes 2 parents. Not one... wether it be
> father or mother.
> >
> > > But you know, I have been meeting more and more single fathers who are
> > > raising the kids, sometimes totally on their own. So we will see, as
> more
> > > fathers become the CP, how the stats might change.
> >
> > Mothers currently commit 55% of child murders.
>
> Because more mothers have their kids. Its hard for bio-fathers to commit
> crimes to the kids when they are not around. Now don't twist this.... I am
> going on the stats that are ALWAYS being posted here that mothers always
get
> the kids. I am NOT saying that is right. I beleive in equal custody. I
don't
> believe in posting stats that are misleading.
>
> >Bio-fathers commit under 7%
> > of child murders. The other 38% are committed by the mother's boyfriend
> or
> > the child's step-father. Obviously, the most severe form of child abuse
> is
> > committed by mothers or men they invite into their children's lives.
> >
> >
>
> And as more fathers get full custody, we will see how those stats change
> too. Abuse happens all over the board folks, by men/women/blacks/white/ect
> ect ect.
>
> I got an off-topic question that I will pop in here. Maybe this is a moral
> dilema. I know someone, of course, who knows someone in this situation. It
> is her sisters family, sister is married, they have 3 kids with them, 2 to
a
> previous, one is their shared baby. Husband has been viewd hiting oldest
son
> in the head, in the back, whatever. Does this person risk breaking ties
with
> the family to report this?
>
>

[gini52]

"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:DatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02...
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Just a reminder to all NCPs--Your child's custodial mother, her parents,
> > sisters, etc. do not determine
> > family law matters. *Do not let them intimidate you.* These issues are
> > resolved by a court. You do not need your ex's permission to take your
> case
> > to court. You need the filing fee and the proper forms and procedures
(if
> > you do not have an atty.) Many states now have these forms online as
well
> as
> > instructions on how to file them. Granted, it is not easy to get a
custody
> > change, but if you have a child in danger or at risk, you have a
> > responsibility to that child to try every possible avenue to help him or
> > her. I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1
year
> > old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself
> > intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers were
> in
> > every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a
custody
> > change prior to the violent acts. If he didn't, shame on him; if he did,
> > shame on the courts and states and they should be held accountable for
the
> > injuries or deaths of these children.
>
>
> Gini - I agree with what you are saying, but I don't agree with "shame on
> him" for not trying. We don't know the full details of this case.
The
> father may have felt he didn't stand a chance, and wasn't "aware" of her
> true mental problems. I would like to give the father the benefit of the
> doubt and question why. What she did was sick... I couldn't imagine
> standing there witnessing *anyone* doing such a horrifying act.
==
I wasn't speaking of this particular case but fathers in general who
do know their kids are at risk.
(Out a little late tonight weren't you? ;-)
==
==

[Phil #3]

"Batch File" > wrote in message
.com...
> Thats an in correct assumption. Most ncps are men yet women default on CS
at
> twice the rate men do.
>
> Also, men are less likely to request CS from the NCP mother.
>

Don't forget, men are less likely to request sole custody as well.

Phil #3

[snip]

[Tiffany]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
> > rthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Could be the reason it is that way (the abuse) is because more women
> > have
> > > > the kids, not the fathers. So of course there will be more abuse by
> > single
> > > > mothers. Duh.
> > >
> > > Exactly. Mothers are around the children more so they get more
> > > opportunities to beat up the kids. Therefore, mothers should be
around
> > > their children less and the amount of abuse will go down. What better
> > > reason to reduce the 85% mother primary custody rate to protect the
> > children
> > > from mother abuse?
> >
> > You miss my point. You NCP's rant about the large percentage of CP's are
> > women. So oviously the stats for abuse will be higher for the women. Are
> you
> > saying men don't abuse kids.... because I know alot of adults who will
> tell
> > you otherwise.
>
> Men abuse kids. The men who abuse kids are most frequently the men women
> invite into their children's lives. The bad choices women make in men are
> highly repsonsible for male child abuser statistics. It is rarely the
> bio-father who abuses his own children. The mother's boyfriend is the
most
> likely male abuser followed by a step-father. Bio-fathers are way down
the
> list of child abusers.
>
> > >
> > > Could be part of the reason that so many kids from single
> > > > mother households are that way because the father up and left......
> can
> > > you
> > > > imagine what it does to a child when one parent isn't interested in
> > them?
> > >
> > > The statistics show women initiate the breakup of the relationship 70%
> of
> > > the time by deciding they want to leave.
> >
> > Regardless who initiates..... I initiated a breakup with a boyfriend....
> he
> > was abusive.
>
> Was that abuse child abuse or spousal abuse? I thought this thread was
> about child abuse.

Sorry, we were discusing child abuse. BUT I stated that in reply to your
comment that women initiate breakups 70% of the time. Why do so many women
initiate the breakups? (No I don't think its all the males fault.)
>
> >
> > Sadly, women also believe they can
> > > raise their children as effectively as a single parent as a two parent
> > > family can raise them. and this latter statistic tracts by race very
> > close
> > > to the single parent households. As examples 38% of white women, 64%
of
> > > black women, 61% of hispanic women, and 58% of indian/Alaskan women
they
> > can
> > > raise children as effectively as single parents.
> >
> > Well, I agree that is wrong. It takes 2 parents. Not one... wether it be
> > father or mother.
>
> Fathers actually recognize the value of two parent households more than
> mothers. 26% of men think they can raise a child without a woman's help
> versus 42% of women.

Some women have had no choice. (As the same goes with men)
>
> > >
> > > > But you know, I have been meeting more and more single fathers who
are
> > > > raising the kids, sometimes totally on their own. So we will see, as
> > more
> > > > fathers become the CP, how the stats might change.
> > >
> > > Mothers currently commit 55% of child murders.

Well, there is some equality.

> >
> > Because more mothers have their kids. Its hard for bio-fathers to commit
> > crimes to the kids when they are not around. Now don't twist this.... I
am
> > going on the stats that are ALWAYS being posted here that mothers always
> get
> > the kids. I am NOT saying that is right. I beleive in equal custody. I
> don't
> > believe in posting stats that are misleading.
>
> Okay, let's forget the stats. Fathers have psychological advantages they
> bring to parenting. Fathers teach children how to keep their emotions
under
> control in crisis situations. Fathers teach ego strength to conduct
> self-evaluation. Fathers show children alternative ways to express anger
> without grudges. Fathers teach responsibilty. Fathers show how they can
be
> flexible to changes and shifting priorities. Fathers are more stable
> emotionally because testosterone has been proven to be the calming hormone
> rather than a cause of aggression.
>
>
>


All that is a big generalization. Not all males are as stated above. But as
I said, I beleive in balance. A child should be raised by 2 parents, and I
personally prefer the male/female idea. lol

T

[Bob Whiteside]

"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:DatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02...

>
> Bob - I'm not sure where you are coming up with comments concerning the
> color of the mother's skin... but really now. It doesn't matter what
color
> her skin is. What happen is wrong, and it should raise concerns. "Naomi"
> could be a female from any race. As far as the names of the children -
yes,
> they are very uncommon and should have raised questions with someone...
but
> who knows the full story.
>

Here's a detailed story from the local press.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3975020.html

The picture accompanying the article clearly shows Naomi/Pleasant is a black
woman. Also from the story:

Gaines told police that she felt like people on the bridge were staring at
her and that someone whom she bumped into with the stroller reacted rudely.
She said she "would rather be dead than live in a place where I'm not free
to walk around, I'm not free to be who I am, I'm not free to see other moms
out, single black moms with their kids, enjoying their kids."

And finally to counter the erroneous assumption no fathers or father figures
were involved:

Jones (a mutual friend of the mother and father) said that he is a former
roommate of Allah's (the children's father) and that the two men often cared
for Supreme Knowledge and Sincere Understanding.

"They were like my little nephews," Jones said. "This is hard."

[Tracy]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:DatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02...
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Just a reminder to all NCPs--Your child's custodial mother, her
parents,
> > > sisters, etc. do not determine
> > > family law matters. *Do not let them intimidate you.* These issues are
> > > resolved by a court. You do not need your ex's permission to take your
> > case
> > > to court. You need the filing fee and the proper forms and procedures
> (if
> > > you do not have an atty.) Many states now have these forms online as
> well
> > as
> > > instructions on how to file them. Granted, it is not easy to get a
> custody
> > > change, but if you have a child in danger or at risk, you have a
> > > responsibility to that child to try every possible avenue to help him
or
> > > her. I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1
> year
> > > old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself
> > > intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers
were
> > in
> > > every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a
> custody
> > > change prior to the violent acts. If he didn't, shame on him; if he
did,
> > > shame on the courts and states and they should be held accountable for
> the
> > > injuries or deaths of these children.
> >
> >
> > Gini - I agree with what you are saying, but I don't agree with "shame
on
> > him" for not trying. We don't know the full details of this case.
> The
> > father may have felt he didn't stand a chance, and wasn't "aware" of her
> > true mental problems. I would like to give the father the benefit of
the
> > doubt and question why. What she did was sick... I couldn't imagine
> > standing there witnessing *anyone* doing such a horrifying act.
> ==
> I wasn't speaking of this particular case but fathers in general who
> do know their kids are at risk.
> (Out a little late tonight weren't you? ;-)


Not last night. I was just up late talking on the phone. We were talking
about this weekend. ;-)


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:DatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02...
>
> >
> > Bob - I'm not sure where you are coming up with comments concerning the
> > color of the mother's skin... but really now. It doesn't matter what
> color
> > her skin is. What happen is wrong, and it should raise concerns.
"Naomi"
> > could be a female from any race. As far as the names of the children -
> yes,
> > they are very uncommon and should have raised questions with someone...
> but
> > who knows the full story.
> >
>
> Here's a detailed story from the local press.
>
> http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3975020.html
>
> The picture accompanying the article clearly shows Naomi/Pleasant is a
black
> woman. Also from the story:

Did the picture tell you she was on welfare, or did you read the story? I
believe it stated she was working as an artist.


> And finally to counter the erroneous assumption no fathers or father
figures
> were involved:

What erroneous assumption? Who said the father wasn't around? If you are
referring to *me* step back and read what I typed again. I never made such
a claim. I said to give the father the benefit of the doubt.

I was just curious as to where you come up with your information on people.
I really would hate to think you were basing your assumptions about this
mother based on the color of her skin. I know some mixed raced individuals
which are lighter than I am right now. I was called some really ugly racist
names while growing up due to the color of my skin (when tanned) and my
tight natural curly dark brown hair. Let's not judge someone based on the
color of their skin... oh, and if it wasn't such an issue with you - then
why even mention the color of her skin?

As far as my opinion - the woman had major issues. What she did was just
sick. How well she hid her mental problems could be debated... but she was
probably in better mental shape than Mrs. Yates, and I remember how many men
in this group defended Mr Yates. So I'm surprised to see some *not* defend
this father, but defend Mr Yates. Interesting...


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Bob Whiteside]

"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> > > ==
> > > Not necessarily (in theory, anyway). Most family law modifications are
> > based
> > > on
> > > "change of circumstance" which can be argued if a CP's mental
condition
> > > and/or lifestyle
> > > has changed/worsened in a way that puts the child at risk. These
changes
> > are
> > > rarely easy and
> > > shouldn't be--but when well documented circumstances are in front of
the
> > > judge, he/she should be compelled
> > > to act.
> >
> > So let's say a woman has multiple drug convictions, has never been
> married,
> > quit school in the 9th grade, had her first child at age 15, has had
three
> > children with three different men, she collects welfare benefits, and
has
> > never been able to hold down a steady job. How can a father prove
"change
> > of circumstances" under this very common scenario unless something far
> worse
> > occurs in her life like a felony conviction?
> >
> > Or let's say a married woman divorces. She shacks up with a drug pusher
> who
> > is an ex-con, starts doing lots of coke, drives while intoxicated, gets
> > tattoed and pierced, and generally goes through a second childhood. How
> can
> > a father prove "change of circumstances" when it comes down to his word
> > against hers? Aren't these lifestyle changes freely made and not an
issue
> > unless she gets arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of a crime? What if
> the
> > first offense only results in a suspended sentence with probation and a
> > lecture to clean up her act? How many offenses does it take to prove a
> > "changes of circumstances"?
>
> If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.

And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test
you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a
hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an
invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right to
not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the
husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass her
without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would you
grant the drug test?

>
> >
> > I don't know whether there has been a recent
> > > increase in violence against children by mothers, but it is happening
*a
> > > lot*--epidemic, perhaps. This needs to get the
> > > notice of society/courts/legislatures so that mother custody is *not*
> > > default and serious and equal consideration must be given to both
> parents
> > as
> > > well as enforcing shared physical custody so neither parent is
carrying
> > the
> > > entire emotional/psychological load of "single parent."
> >
> > Mothers have always been more violent against their children than
fathers.
> > But it's not just the violence. Children from mother headed households
> are
> > far more apt to be in prison, have drug problems, drop out of school,
> create
> > teenage pregnancies, commit suicide, etc. and the courts still don't act
> on
> > these statistics. These very real statistics get ignored because they
> don't
> > fit the decision-making template that mothers make better, nurturing
> > parents.
>
> The statistics are ignored because they say nothing about the individual.
> Men are more likely than women to rob banks, but we don't prohibit men
from
> entering banks, working in banks, having bank accounts, or even owning
> banks. Black men driving a rented car with Florida license plates on
> interstate 95 north, are more likely to be transporting drugs than others,
> but you still can't pull them over merely for being black men driving a
> rented car with Florida license plates on interstate 95 north.

That is a good description of how the problems get dodged. It's that kind
of rationalization that prevents the statistical trends from being the basis
for social change. We have reached a point in our society where we fear
using any type of statistical trends because they lead to accusations of
profiling. Instead of focusing on changing the outcomes that are
statistically predictable, we allow them to continue under the premise of
protecting individuals from stereotyping. We create more government
programs to throw money at the issues instead of fixing the underlying
problem areas.

>
> >
> > Otherwise, let the
> > > accountibility fall into the laps of those who refuse to act to
protect
> > > these kids. This needs to be a forefront issue for fathers as it is
one
> > that
> > > is critically needed and one society will sympathize with. The judge
> > *will*
> > > listen when society demands it. This is not an issue that can
accomodate
> > > excuses from fathers as to why they didn't try
> > > to get custody. They must be compelled to try--and not give up on
these
> > kids
> > > at risk. Don't forget--Drew did it and he is not alone.
> > > ==
> > > ==
> >
> > Judges and state workers are protected from accountability for their
> > misdeeds through sovereign immunity granted to public officials. As
long
> > as they can claim immunity they will never be accountable for their
> > mistakes.
>
> No they are not protected. But of course misdeeds are in the eye of the
> beholder. Malfeasence of office are grounds for dismissal and criminal
> prosecution. As long as they act within the bounds of the law they are
> protected from civil actions, but if they act illegally they can, and are,
> held criminally responsible. As it should be, they are not held
accountable
> to you just because you don't like the decision they made.

I think we are agreeing. Public officials can be held accountable within
the government and can be prosecuted by the government, but private citizens
have no direct recourse should the public officials screw up. In most
instances, the same people who are responsible for the errors in government
are responsible for passing judgement on themselves. If they refuse to
acknowledge responsibility, or the legislature and/or the governor refuse to
accept responsibility, there is no civil lawsuit recourse for losses
suffered by private citizens. The limited legal recourse that is available
is through appeals to higher courts attempting to show violations of laws by
the government.

What drives me nuts about how government works is the feds can fine the
states, the states can fine the counties, the counties can fine the cities,
and the taxpayers at the bottom of the food chain end up losing services
because of the games that get played within the governmental hierarchy to
shift tax dollars around.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:1NIOa.11319$Ph3.1406@sccrnsc04...
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >
> > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > news:DatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02...
> >
> > >
> > > Bob - I'm not sure where you are coming up with comments concerning
the
> > > color of the mother's skin... but really now. It doesn't matter what
> > color
> > > her skin is. What happen is wrong, and it should raise concerns.
> "Naomi"
> > > could be a female from any race. As far as the names of the
children -
> > yes,
> > > they are very uncommon and should have raised questions with
someone...
> > but
> > > who knows the full story.
> > >
> >
> > Here's a detailed story from the local press.
> >
> > http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3975020.html
> >
> > The picture accompanying the article clearly shows Naomi/Pleasant is a
> black
> > woman. Also from the story:
>
> Did the picture tell you she was on welfare, or did you read the story? I
> believe it stated she was working as an artist.

I saw a Reuters, Fox, AP, and this local story on the Internet news sources
I read. One of them said she was on welfare. The one I linked to said she
had been under court order not to use drugs and alcohol and had sever mental
illness issues causing her children to be removed from her multiple times.
Her employment was as a singer for some kind of music group and continuing
that role was shaky based on the band's manager quoted in the story.

>
>
> > And finally to counter the erroneous assumption no fathers or father
> figures
> > were involved:
>
> What erroneous assumption? Who said the father wasn't around? If you are
> referring to *me* step back and read what I typed again. I never made
such
> a claim. I said to give the father the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry for any mix up. I followed your lead and responded to several posters
in the same response. someone suggested in cases like this one the
whereabouts of the father should be a major question to be asked. I was
just posting the father had been involved on an ongoing basis.

>
> I was just curious as to where you come up with your information on
people.
> I really would hate to think you were basing your assumptions about this
> mother based on the color of her skin. I know some mixed raced
individuals
> which are lighter than I am right now. I was called some really ugly
racist
> names while growing up due to the color of my skin (when tanned) and my
> tight natural curly dark brown hair. Let's not judge someone based on the
> color of their skin... oh, and if it wasn't such an issue with you - then
> why even mention the color of her skin?

What I originally posted was this woman said she went to the festival
looking for other black, single mothers enjoying their children. The only
reference to her skin color came from a quote attributed directly from her
comments to investigators.

>
> As far as my opinion - the woman had major issues. What she did was just
> sick. How well she hid her mental problems could be debated... but she
was
> probably in better mental shape than Mrs. Yates, and I remember how many
men
> in this group defended Mr Yates. So I'm surprised to see some *not*
defend
> this father, but defend Mr Yates. Interesting...

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Yates was accused of allowing his
wife to have ongoing contact with their children. In this case the mother
was under supervision of the court for drug and alcohol abuse treatment, had
her children removed by the state, etc. but the state kept giving her
children back to her. Obviously the state knew she was not stable before
the crime, not after the crime as in the Yates case.

[Tracy]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.
>
> And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test
> you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a
> hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an
> invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right
to
> not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the
> husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass
her
> without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would
you
> grant the drug test?


Yes - I'd order one on both.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[frazil]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
> > thlink.net...
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > > ==
> > > > Not necessarily (in theory, anyway). Most family law modifications
are
> > > based
> > > > on
> > > > "change of circumstance" which can be argued if a CP's mental
> condition
> > > > and/or lifestyle
> > > > has changed/worsened in a way that puts the child at risk. These
> changes
> > > are
> > > > rarely easy and
> > > > shouldn't be--but when well documented circumstances are in front of
> the
> > > > judge, he/she should be compelled
> > > > to act.
> > >
> > > So let's say a woman has multiple drug convictions, has never been
> > married,
> > > quit school in the 9th grade, had her first child at age 15, has had
> three
> > > children with three different men, she collects welfare benefits, and
> has
> > > never been able to hold down a steady job. How can a father prove
> "change
> > > of circumstances" under this very common scenario unless something far
> > worse
> > > occurs in her life like a felony conviction?
> > >
> > > Or let's say a married woman divorces. She shacks up with a drug
pusher
> > who
> > > is an ex-con, starts doing lots of coke, drives while intoxicated,
gets
> > > tattoed and pierced, and generally goes through a second childhood.
How
> > can
> > > a father prove "change of circumstances" when it comes down to his
word
> > > against hers? Aren't these lifestyle changes freely made and not an
> issue
> > > unless she gets arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of a crime? What
if
> > the
> > > first offense only results in a suspended sentence with probation and
a
> > > lecture to clean up her act? How many offenses does it take to prove
a
> > > "changes of circumstances"?
> >
> > If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.
>
> And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test
> you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a
> hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an
> invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right
to
> not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the
> husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass
her
> without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would
you
> grant the drug test?

The judge doesn't have to grant it. I watch an attorney pull this very
trick. During the pendent lite hearing held as part of the divorce hearing.
One of the attorneys wanted a clause in the temporary custody order that
said neither parent would do drugs when the child was with them. The other
attorney objected to the clause on the grounds that there was no reason to
require his client to provide such a sample. The first attorney offered to
withdraw the clause if the second attorney's client provided a urine or
blood sample within 24 hours. After consultation with his client the second
attorney agreed. I can only imagine what went on in that consultation.
(the implication is that if you don't do drugs what is the problem. if you
do do drugs you won't take the test).


>
> >
> > >
> > > I don't know whether there has been a recent
> > > > increase in violence against children by mothers, but it is
happening
> *a
> > > > lot*--epidemic, perhaps. This needs to get the
> > > > notice of society/courts/legislatures so that mother custody is
*not*
> > > > default and serious and equal consideration must be given to both
> > parents
> > > as
> > > > well as enforcing shared physical custody so neither parent is
> carrying
> > > the
> > > > entire emotional/psychological load of "single parent."
> > >
> > > Mothers have always been more violent against their children than
> fathers.
> > > But it's not just the violence. Children from mother headed
households
> > are
> > > far more apt to be in prison, have drug problems, drop out of school,
> > create
> > > teenage pregnancies, commit suicide, etc. and the courts still don't
act
> > on
> > > these statistics. These very real statistics get ignored because they
> > don't
> > > fit the decision-making template that mothers make better, nurturing
> > > parents.
> >
> > The statistics are ignored because they say nothing about the
individual.
> > Men are more likely than women to rob banks, but we don't prohibit men
> from
> > entering banks, working in banks, having bank accounts, or even owning
> > banks. Black men driving a rented car with Florida license plates on
> > interstate 95 north, are more likely to be transporting drugs than
others,
> > but you still can't pull them over merely for being black men driving a
> > rented car with Florida license plates on interstate 95 north.
>
> That is a good description of how the problems get dodged. It's that kind
> of rationalization that prevents the statistical trends from being the
basis
> for social change. We have reached a point in our society where we fear
> using any type of statistical trends because they lead to accusations of
> profiling. Instead of focusing on changing the outcomes that are
> statistically predictable, we allow them to continue under the premise of
> protecting individuals from stereotyping. We create more government
> programs to throw money at the issues instead of fixing the underlying
> problem areas.

Statistical trands can be useful in certain ways. First, it isn't very
useful in the judicial forum. It is useful in the legislative forum.
Second, statistic regarding the poor outcome of kids from single mothers is
a poor statistic to argue for joint or father custody. Rather the statistic
to use is the extreme minority of custodial fathers to show some sort of
systemic discrimination against males. Then it becomes a civil rights
argument. Rather than an argument to increase support for single mothers
because their kids have poor outcomes.


> >
> > >
> > > Otherwise, let the
> > > > accountibility fall into the laps of those who refuse to act to
> protect
> > > > these kids. This needs to be a forefront issue for fathers as it is
> one
> > > that
> > > > is critically needed and one society will sympathize with. The judge
> > > *will*
> > > > listen when society demands it. This is not an issue that can
> accomodate
> > > > excuses from fathers as to why they didn't try
> > > > to get custody. They must be compelled to try--and not give up on
> these
> > > kids
> > > > at risk. Don't forget--Drew did it and he is not alone.
> > > > ==
> > > > ==
> > >
> > > Judges and state workers are protected from accountability for their
> > > misdeeds through sovereign immunity granted to public officials. As
> long
> > > as they can claim immunity they will never be accountable for their
> > > mistakes.
> >
> > No they are not protected. But of course misdeeds are in the eye of the
> > beholder. Malfeasence of office are grounds for dismissal and criminal
> > prosecution. As long as they act within the bounds of the law they are
> > protected from civil actions, but if they act illegally they can, and
are,
> > held criminally responsible. As it should be, they are not held
> accountable
> > to you just because you don't like the decision they made.
>
> I think we are agreeing. Public officials can be held accountable within
> the government and can be prosecuted by the government, but private
citizens
> have no direct recourse should the public officials screw up. In most
> instances, the same people who are responsible for the errors in
government
> are responsible for passing judgement on themselves. If they refuse to
> acknowledge responsibility, or the legislature and/or the governor refuse
to
> accept responsibility, there is no civil lawsuit recourse for losses
> suffered by private citizens. The limited legal recourse that is
available
> is through appeals to higher courts attempting to show violations of laws
by
> the government.
>
> What drives me nuts about how government works is the feds can fine the
> states, the states can fine the counties, the counties can fine the
cities,
> and the taxpayers at the bottom of the food chain end up losing services
> because of the games that get played within the governmental hierarchy to
> shift tax dollars around.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02...
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >
> > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.
> >
> > And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test
> > you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for
a
> > hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an
> > invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right
> to
> > not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the
> > husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass
> her
> > without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would
> you
> > grant the drug test?
>
>
> Yes - I'd order one on both.

So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a legal
motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to protect
the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to diffuse an
issue to make it appear both parties are at fault?

Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle was to
apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly that is
what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are told
they are part of the problem.

[Tracy]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02...
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > thlink.net...
> > >
> > > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.
> > >
> > > And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug
test
> > > you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting
for
> a
> > > hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an
> > > invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional
right
> > to
> > > not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the
> > > husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to
harass
> > her
> > > without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge
would
> > you
> > > grant the drug test?
> >
> >
> > Yes - I'd order one on both.
>
> So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a legal
> motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to
protect
> the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to diffuse an
> issue to make it appear both parties are at fault?

The only parties I'd be interested in protecting are the children. The way
I view it is there exist a chance that if one parent is doing drugs, then
both are. If custody is to be determined based on a parent's drug habits,
then it is wise to have both parents tested. If one is shown to have done
drugs and the other not - then it would firm up who should have the
children.

It kind of reminds me of a man I use to date back in the late 80's. I could
never understand why he didn't go for custody of his son. After all the
mother had a huge cocaine and crank habit. I found out some three years
later that he was doing drugs while we were dating. He never told me
because he knew I would have left him. Now I tell people to not use the
drug trump card if you are doing drugs - because then it turns into a game
of the "lesser of the two evils" or both may end up losing custody.


> Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle was to
> apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly that is
> what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are told
> they are part of the problem.

Bob - have you ever heard of someone who lies to make the other party look
bad? To some people it is the principle behind it. They wouldn't want to
have the test because they would never do drugs. To some they have
something to hide. The best thing to do is just order both to have the
test. Big deal... if you have nothing to hide you'll come out clean.

I was tested for my current employer. Personally I would have no problem
rolling up my sleeve to be tested if asked to do so. Not doing drugs and
having the ability to prove it is something I'm happy with.



Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Bob Whiteside]

"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:6iNOa.10588$GL4.3682@rwcrnsc53...
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >
> > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02...
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > thlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.
> > > >
> > > > And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug
> test
> > > > you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting
> for
> > a
> > > > hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is
an
> > > > invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional
> right
> > > to
> > > > not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the
> > > > husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to
> harass
> > > her
> > > > without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge
> would
> > > you
> > > > grant the drug test?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes - I'd order one on both.
> >
> > So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a legal
> > motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to
> protect
> > the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to diffuse
an
> > issue to make it appear both parties are at fault?
>
> The only parties I'd be interested in protecting are the children. The
way
> I view it is there exist a chance that if one parent is doing drugs, then
> both are. If custody is to be determined based on a parent's drug habits,
> then it is wise to have both parents tested. If one is shown to have done
> drugs and the other not - then it would firm up who should have the
> children.

I agree with your resposne, but it doesn't address the questions I asked
you. The concept I am getting at is called "having clean hands." If a
party asks the court for help with an issue they had better have no similar
issues (i.e. clean hands) going into court. Also, there is the legal theory
that it takes a motion before the court to get the court to act. What I am
getting at is the courts act as if a motion from one party reflects back on
the moving party and the other party gets the benefit of a neutral ruling
without having to file their own motion. That describes one of the flaws I
see in family law.

>
> It kind of reminds me of a man I use to date back in the late 80's. I
could
> never understand why he didn't go for custody of his son. After all the
> mother had a huge cocaine and crank habit. I found out some three years
> later that he was doing drugs while we were dating. He never told me
> because he knew I would have left him. Now I tell people to not use the
> drug trump card if you are doing drugs - because then it turns into a game
> of the "lesser of the two evils" or both may end up losing custody.
>
>
> > Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle was
to
> > apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly that
is
> > what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are told
> > they are part of the problem.
>
> Bob - have you ever heard of someone who lies to make the other party look
> bad? To some people it is the principle behind it. They wouldn't want to
> have the test because they would never do drugs. To some they have
> something to hide. The best thing to do is just order both to have the
> test. Big deal... if you have nothing to hide you'll come out clean.

So using this logic why do judges sign ex parte restraining orders? If one
party claims abuse or fear of abuse wouldn't the court want to sign a mutual
restraining order and only after hearing from the other party? Why two
standards? Aren't the children at risk similarly in a drug related
household as well as one with violence?

>
> I was tested for my current employer. Personally I would have no problem
> rolling up my sleeve to be tested if asked to do so. Not doing drugs and
> having the ability to prove it is something I'm happy with.

I'm squeaky clean too, but the concept of having to prove your innocence to
remain employed is different than how issues with drugs and children are
handled. Look at all the uproar that occurs when people suggest welfare
recipients should have to pass periodic drug screens to continue getting
their benefits. 50% of welfare recipients couldn't pass the drug screens,
so we leave the children in their care. Why two standards? Aren't the
children equally at risk when their primary care parent, regardless of
income, is doing drugs?

[Tiffany]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:6iNOa.10588$GL4.3682@rwcrnsc53...
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > thlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > > news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02...
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > thlink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.
> > > > >
> > > > > And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a
drug
> > test
> > > > > you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of
waiting
> > for
> > > a
> > > > > hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test
is
> an
> > > > > invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional
> > right
> > > > to
> > > > > not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than
the
> > > > > husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to
> > harass
> > > > her
> > > > > without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge
> > would
> > > > you
> > > > > grant the drug test?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes - I'd order one on both.
> > >
> > > So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a
legal
> > > motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to
> > protect
> > > the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to
diffuse
> an
> > > issue to make it appear both parties are at fault?
> >
> > The only parties I'd be interested in protecting are the children. The
> way
> > I view it is there exist a chance that if one parent is doing drugs,
then
> > both are. If custody is to be determined based on a parent's drug
habits,
> > then it is wise to have both parents tested. If one is shown to have
done
> > drugs and the other not - then it would firm up who should have the
> > children.
>
> I agree with your resposne, but it doesn't address the questions I asked
> you. The concept I am getting at is called "having clean hands." If a
> party asks the court for help with an issue they had better have no
similar
> issues (i.e. clean hands) going into court. Also, there is the legal
theory
> that it takes a motion before the court to get the court to act. What I
am
> getting at is the courts act as if a motion from one party reflects back
on
> the moving party and the other party gets the benefit of a neutral ruling
> without having to file their own motion. That describes one of the flaws
I
> see in family law.
>
> >
> > It kind of reminds me of a man I use to date back in the late 80's. I
> could
> > never understand why he didn't go for custody of his son. After all the
> > mother had a huge cocaine and crank habit. I found out some three years
> > later that he was doing drugs while we were dating. He never told me
> > because he knew I would have left him. Now I tell people to not use the
> > drug trump card if you are doing drugs - because then it turns into a
game
> > of the "lesser of the two evils" or both may end up losing custody.
> >
> >
> > > Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle
was
> to
> > > apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly
that
> is
> > > what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are
told
> > > they are part of the problem.
> >
> > Bob - have you ever heard of someone who lies to make the other party
look
> > bad? To some people it is the principle behind it. They wouldn't want
to
> > have the test because they would never do drugs. To some they have
> > something to hide. The best thing to do is just order both to have the
> > test. Big deal... if you have nothing to hide you'll come out clean.
>
> So using this logic why do judges sign ex parte restraining orders? If
one
> party claims abuse or fear of abuse wouldn't the court want to sign a
mutual
> restraining order and only after hearing from the other party? Why two
> standards? Aren't the children at risk similarly in a drug related
> household as well as one with violence?
>
> >
> > I was tested for my current employer. Personally I would have no
problem
> > rolling up my sleeve to be tested if asked to do so. Not doing drugs
and
> > having the ability to prove it is something I'm happy with.
>
> I'm squeaky clean too, but the concept of having to prove your innocence
to
> remain employed is different than how issues with drugs and children are
> handled. Look at all the uproar that occurs when people suggest welfare
> recipients should have to pass periodic drug screens to continue getting
> their benefits. 50% of welfare recipients couldn't pass the drug screens,
> so we leave the children in their care. Why two standards? Aren't the
> children equally at risk when their primary care parent, regardless of
> income, is doing drugs?
>
>

Who would take care of those kids who parents test positive for drug use?
The goverment knows it couldn't handle that sort of epidemic.

T

[Tiffany]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > Who would take care of those kids who parents test positive for drug
use?
>
> In order of my personal priorities: fathers, close relatives, foster care,
> "clean" welfare mothers who get additional benefits for acting as
surrogate
> mothers, adoptive parents, orphanages.

As that sounds all fine and dandy, but in some areas, the whole family is
just as screwed up as the CP. Father could be a drug addict, parents could
be drug addicts, ect. Foster care.... well, sorry to say but ask around.
Foster care isn't all its cracked up to be. Sometimes foster parents are
worse then the real parents.

>
> BTW - Your question implies drug addicted parents do a good job of taking
> care of children. I disagree.

How did my question imply that? I think you misread. Although I would say
that depends alot on the parent and the drug. The question was pretty
general though I will say at this point that I don't think just because
someone smokes some pot once and awhile they should have their kids taken
from them.
>
> > The goverment knows it couldn't handle that sort of epidemic.
>
> That thinking is why government doesn't act on a lot of issues. Many
> government programs create unintended consequences. When the elephant in
the
> living room is too big (drug addicted welfare recipients), the thinking
goes
> nothing that can be done to remove the elephant (take the children out of
a
> harmful environment), so ignoring the elephant (doing nothing) is the best
> option.
>
>

I am not saying the government is RIGHT, I am saying that is the way it is.
Hopefully we will live in a society where the goverment wouldn't even have
to step in to take care of the kids.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...


> How did my question imply that? I think you misread. Although I would say
> that depends alot on the parent and the drug. The question was pretty
> general though I will say at this point that I don't think just because
> someone smokes some pot once and awhile they should have their kids taken
> from them.

So how much dope should a parent be allowed to smoke before it becomes too
much and the reason to take their children away from them?

Can a parent who has a track record of being a pot head teach their children
about the dangers of drug use and have any credibility?

[frazil]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:6iNOa.10588$GL4.3682@rwcrnsc53...
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > thlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > > news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02...
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > thlink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.
> > > > >
> > > > > And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a
drug
> > test
> > > > > you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of
waiting
> > for
> > > a
> > > > > hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test
is
> an
> > > > > invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional
> > right
> > > > to
> > > > > not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than
the
> > > > > husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to
> > harass
> > > > her
> > > > > without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge
> > would
> > > > you
> > > > > grant the drug test?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes - I'd order one on both.
> > >
> > > So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a
legal
> > > motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to
> > protect
> > > the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to
diffuse
> an
> > > issue to make it appear both parties are at fault?
> >
> > The only parties I'd be interested in protecting are the children. The
> way
> > I view it is there exist a chance that if one parent is doing drugs,
then
> > both are. If custody is to be determined based on a parent's drug
habits,
> > then it is wise to have both parents tested. If one is shown to have
done
> > drugs and the other not - then it would firm up who should have the
> > children.
>
> I agree with your resposne, but it doesn't address the questions I asked
> you. The concept I am getting at is called "having clean hands." If a
> party asks the court for help with an issue they had better have no
similar
> issues (i.e. clean hands) going into court. Also, there is the legal
theory
> that it takes a motion before the court to get the court to act. What I
am
> getting at is the courts act as if a motion from one party reflects back
on
> the moving party and the other party gets the benefit of a neutral ruling
> without having to file their own motion. That describes one of the flaws
I
> see in family law.
>
> >
> > It kind of reminds me of a man I use to date back in the late 80's. I
> could
> > never understand why he didn't go for custody of his son. After all the
> > mother had a huge cocaine and crank habit. I found out some three years
> > later that he was doing drugs while we were dating. He never told me
> > because he knew I would have left him. Now I tell people to not use the
> > drug trump card if you are doing drugs - because then it turns into a
game
> > of the "lesser of the two evils" or both may end up losing custody.
> >
> >
> > > Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle
was
> to
> > > apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly
that
> is
> > > what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are
told
> > > they are part of the problem.
> >
> > Bob - have you ever heard of someone who lies to make the other party
look
> > bad? To some people it is the principle behind it. They wouldn't want
to
> > have the test because they would never do drugs. To some they have
> > something to hide. The best thing to do is just order both to have the
> > test. Big deal... if you have nothing to hide you'll come out clean.
>
> So using this logic why do judges sign ex parte restraining orders? If
one
> party claims abuse or fear of abuse wouldn't the court want to sign a
mutual
> restraining order and only after hearing from the other party? Why two
> standards? Aren't the children at risk similarly in a drug related
> household as well as one with violence?
>
> >
> > I was tested for my current employer. Personally I would have no
problem
> > rolling up my sleeve to be tested if asked to do so. Not doing drugs
and
> > having the ability to prove it is something I'm happy with.
>
> I'm squeaky clean too, but the concept of having to prove your innocence
to
> remain employed is different than how issues with drugs and children are
> handled. Look at all the uproar that occurs when people suggest welfare
> recipients should have to pass periodic drug screens to continue getting
> their benefits. 50% of welfare recipients couldn't pass the drug screens,
> so we leave the children in their care. Why two standards? Aren't the
> children equally at risk when their primary care parent, regardless of
> income, is doing drugs?

Because the purpose is different. The argument behind testing welfare
recipients is that they are recieving a government benefit. High income
parents are not. As a condition of revieving that benefit the government
has the right and obligation to see that the benefit provided is not going
towards anything illegel. Drug testing welfare recipients is not for the
protection of children, rather it is for the protection of the tax paying
public.

[Tiffany]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > How did my question imply that? I think you misread. Although I would
say
> > that depends alot on the parent and the drug. The question was pretty
> > general though I will say at this point that I don't think just because
> > someone smokes some pot once and awhile they should have their kids
taken
> > from them.
>
> So how much dope should a parent be allowed to smoke before it becomes too
> much and the reason to take their children away from them?

Typically smoking pot isn't dangerous. Though I would suspect it would
become apparent if a parent is smoking to much pot. If they are so out of it
they don't feed the kids.... if they are so out of it and driving with the
kids.

>
> Can a parent who has a track record of being a pot head teach their
children
> about the dangers of drug use and have any credibility?
>
>

Depends, but that is not the discusion here. I thought this was about
welfare recipents getting tested for drug use and losing their kids.

But to answer, I would say no and yes. A parent could say they know from
personal use that it is not healthy to smoke pot because this or that happen
to them.