"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
k.net...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

You've got that backwards. The article says the best interest of the
child
custody standard was the overriding standard in ALL 50 STATES, but
recently
, Waahington, and West Virginia adopted legislation or case law
precendents which substitutes the old primary caregiver standard for
child
custody.

Thats THREE states, and furthermore it also "Currently, strong efforts
are
being waged in many states to rescind joint custody legislation and the
best
interests standard
simultaneously". It further suggests that "if" states are to follow
the
PC, they should have set criteria to determine WHICH parent is more fit
to
have the children. Which again, as ive said before, this should be done
as
there are BAD and GOOD parents.

So explain for the unenlightened how you can post the majority of states
use
the primary caregiver standard, and then when the rebuttal comes that your
own reference shows all but three states use the best interest of the
child
standard, how your original position was accurate?


However there is a huge amount of obsticles that must be overcome to
even
get to a point where "women" are not seen just as the PC's, like
cultures
which are not reflective of any feminist movements or masculist
movements.
The author points out some:

Cultural traditions, reflected in the law, also heavily influence
parental
decision-making about custody. Mainstream American culture still views
women
as the appropriate primary caretakers for children after divorce,
although
the strength of this assumption varies within subcultures. Recent social
change which encourages fathers to be more involved during marriage in
child
rearing responsibilities is primarily a white, middle and upper middle
class
phenomenon, and is not shared by the cultures of many ethnic and racial
minorities in the United States. Therefore, cultural assumptions among
these
other groups will more often lead to sole mother custody arrangements
with
limited visiting arrangements.

Another attempt to take Dr. Kelly's actual statements out of context. She
used those words, but in the context of influences on the custody decision
making process. She was referring to the powerful influences from within
the legal system, not the lobbying influences from outside the system.


The article further states the primary caregiver roles that get
defined are the activities typically undertaken by women such as
breastfeeding. No weight is given to the father's primary caretaker
roles
like earning money, playing with the children, encouraging physical
and
sports activities, coaching a team, etc.


You have stated fathers don't want to care for their children.
This
article
says pressure from men's groups have caused changes in custody
decisions
and
men are still concerned the best interest of the child custody
standard,
as
applied by judges, is nothing more than a disguised version of the
old
primary caregiver standard.

I didnt state that ALL fathers dont want to care fo their children.

It also makes the following statement about your groups:

"The current practice by advocates for small,
special interest groups for influencing legislation is to
selectively
use
a
certain research finding to bolster a political, or gender-linked
point
of
view, while ignoring other data. Such practices make it very
difficult
for
legislators or judges to achieve a balanced, informed view."

Nice try to make it sound like this is a tactic used by father's
rights
groups only. Dr. Kelly's quote in context includes her comments about
the
extent to which social science findings should be used in determining
custody standards. She did not name any groups that use the tactic of
presenting narrowly selected data to advance an agenda, but she
implied
both
sides have used this approach. And her point is a convergence of
research
findings ahs started to lead the dialogue among those who are more
comprehensive and thoughtful.

No, im just pointing out that you are not except from her statements,
nothing more.

So why did you represent Dr. Kelly's comments as being about men's groups?


You have made it very clear it is your opinion men have not accepted
their
financial responsibilities for children, and you have posted numerous
sources purported to show men don't pay CS. That tactic is exactly
what
was
pointed out in the paragraph above, i.e. presenting selected data in
an
attempt to sway the debate in favor of an agenda.

It is my opinon that fathers and mothers should be responsible for their
children. I have posted numerous sources that site statistics showing
some
NCP's do not pay support. You have again taken things out of context.
The
first time I posted it was because we were having an argument brought
about
by someone here that "men" pay their support. I showed that NCP, both
men
and women, DONT pay their support. The statistics I posted were about
NCP's
NOT about men solely.

So I guess you will agree that NCP mothers pay CS at a worse rate than NCP
fathers since your sources show that is true.


However, when I post anything or a comment all of you cry that you want
statistical data, yet here you are supporting that all statistics are
garbage, that would im assuming include your own statistical data.

The problem you have is your statements run counter to the sources you
post.
It's that simple.


The only way mothers can be the primary caregiver in most cses is to
narrowly define the role of primary caregiver to mother-provided
activities
only. Dr. Kelly is saying that is a disservice to the children and
the
children suffer repercussions in the long term from this biased
approach.
Dr. Kelly is also saying access needs to be adjusted over time and
parents
change over time and so should custody orders.

Sigh, did I say anything against this postion? Ive said throughout this
entire time that BOTH parents should be given access to their children.
This discussion included my opinons about 50/50 custody. Someone posted
something along the lines of why people dont view men as equal
participants
in the childs life. My response, which was taken WAY out of context was
in
reply to this. That we "americans" dont veiw each other as equal in any
way
shape or form, that we place a value on everything. My example was
related
to what a teacher and doctor made and why we value one more than the
other.
This also was twisted into this "lifestyle support" in that I supported
it,
when I didnt even say I supported it or not. As a matter of fact ive
said
over and over that "the NCP if ordered to pay any support should be
ordered
to take care of basic needs and any extraordinary expenses paid by them
as
a
gift directly to the child if they so choose".

Why are you introducing CS payments into a discussion of custody decision
making? I think you are trying to deflect attention away from your absurd
positions that are not backed up by the references you post.


I never said that MEN are not as important to children as the female. I
did
say that for every study that shows one view there is probably another
that
supports the exact opposite feelings. However, statistics are not
relavant
apparently.

When statistics are used to support a position they are oaky. But when
the
statistics are used selectively to advance an agenda they are used
improperly particularly when contrary evidence is ignored.

Better known as special pleading.



You are mistakenly associating visitation and access with providing
support.
They are two different things. However, other research has shown that
when
access and visitation is not a problem support for children, both
monatary
and psychological, goes up.

Im not associating anything here. I was only quoting what I said, you
are
the one again that made an assumption. I have made comments about 50/50
custody and "why" in some situations it wouldnt work out, and that often
there isnt a true 50/50 split (which this author has pointed out). I
have
NEVER said fathers shouldnt see their children. I have also made
comments
that "men" (again in response to the unilateral discussion ONLY) should
be
responsible for their children that they make, thats it. Ive made
comments
in response to some of the men here who think "men" in general are
getting
taken for every penny they have and the basic needs of the child are far
less expensive. However, ive never related visiation to payment of
child
support.

So because you posted Dr. Kelly's article does that mean you agree with
her
conclusions that more liberal access should be the norm, custody orders
should be adjusted as the children age, more joint custody should be
ordered, and judges need to put aside their personal biases and follow the
law?


It wasn't what men thought - it was the law before the industrial
revolution
began when men started to work outside of the family farm or the local
town.

"In Roman, and later in English common law, children were viewed as the
property of the father, who had a legal obligation to protect, support
and
educate his children. Fathers had the right as well to sell their
children,
and to enter them into enforced labor. In divorce, until the
mid-nineteenth
century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of
circumstances"

Dr. Kelly makes it very clear that the way we got to the current
screwed
up
system was because of the intense pressure in the 60's and 70's to
adopt
laws that retained the maternal custody preferences plus gave more
gender
favorable treatment to women who were entering the workforce in large
numbers and exercising their option to use no-fault divorce.

The article says NOTHING about the screw up occuring in the 60's and
70's
and it being due to women exercising their option to use no-fault
divorce.
Nice adding that on the end. Futhermore it specifically states (see
below)
that this is when the "fathers claim of sex discrimination in custody
decisions was challenged and this was the first time that states adopted
in
the childs best interest rather than the tender years assumption. It
further states that the notion of "joint custody" was made in the 70's.

Oh really? Then why does the author talk about it taking until the
mid-70's
for the maternal preference to be successfully challenged after all of the
feminist driven advancements for women?


I think you are mistaken, the "screw up" was when Freudian Psych Theory
was
prevalant in the 30's, which moved to keep children with their mothers
only
("which focused exclusively on the mother-child relationship, and
ignored
the role of the father in the child's development"). Previous to this
women
and children were nothing more than "property" to the father and the
mothers
had to give the child back to the father when the child was ready to be
put
to labor or sold.

"The maternal presumption for custody remained firm for many decades in
the
United States, challenged only after the divorce rate began its dramatic
rise in the 1960's. Spurred on by fathers' claims of sex discrimination
in
custody decisions, constitutional concerns for equal protection, the
feminist movement, and the entry of large numbers of women into the
workforce, most states had substituted the standard of the "best
interests
of the child" for the tender years presumption by the mid 1970's. For
the
first time in history, custody decision-making was to be rooted in a
consideration of the child's needs and interests, rather than based
simply
on the gender of the parent.

You just proved my point above. That's exactly what Dr. Kelly wrote.


The irony is
the feminists who fought so hard for these changes and for gender
equity
are
now the greatest opponents to men's claims of sexual discrimination
and
lack
of equal protection under the current laws.

Extremist groups are getting out of control, on both sides. Someone
needs
to put a sock in both their mouths.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Kelly came to a few more sophisticated conclusions
about the issues of child custody. Read her Policy Recommendations in
Custody Determiniations at the end of the article.