"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
While it is clearly understood that children need food, clothing,
shelter and medical treatment; and that this should be provided by the
parents if at all possible, we have created a system that neglects
less measurable, but as important, needs of the child. If we truly
want what is in the best interests of children, some changes need to
be made. and quickly.

First and foremost, a child should have regular contact with both
sides of the gene pool. It is unfortunate when one parent walks away,
but the detriment may outweigh the benefit if the parent who walks
away is forced. There are many things which cannot be duplicated in
nature and one of those is the exact combination of traits handed down
by combining a female's unique set and a male's unique set. Children
gain insight into themselves and their traits by knowing both
contributors. A person who denies contact with the other parent
without substantial cause may be robbing the child of fully developing
all the child has to offer. If the best interests of the child are
the goal, such thievery should never be tolerated.

Then there is the issue of outrageous child support awards. This can
actually have an adverse effect on children. Currently, the
government uses a standard based upon the percentage of income an
intact family may spend on a child. I suppose this is fine for intact
families. However, the government attempts to equalize a disparity of
incomes in two separate households and this is damaging to a child.
Why? Children need to be aware that choices adults make cause
difference. As long as the child has the essentials, it should not
only be acceptable but REQUIRED that children experience the
differences in their parent's households. They need to understand
that there is a different standard of living dependent upon choices.
A doctor's standard of living SHOULD be higher than that of a manager
of the local pizza parlor, for instance. What will drive our children
to want to achieve more if there is no difference? If the best
interests of the child are the goal, understanding the reality of
difference between choices is a lesson best learned young.

There is so much more about how the current system can harm children,
but the only thing that the government seems to know how to measure is
money. Some things may never be measurable, but are common sense. If
we are truly interested in the best interests of the child, perhaps we
ought to look at a child's total needs. not just physical needs

Good post Beverly.

One of the many flaws in the family law system is the lack of objective
application of the "best interests" standard in child custody decisions.
If
custody were to be based on the children's needs with the outcomes
measured
(as Beverly suggests) the judicial approach to custody would change
abruptly.

Without any clear findings or guidelines as to what "best interest" means,
judges make custody decisions based on their own value judgements and
experiences. If judges were to recognize their disguised maternal
preference custody decisions were really harming some children they might
change.

I have seen judges on TV challenged about how often they award custody to
mothers, and every one of them has ignored the fact they do that 85-100%
of
the time, and weaseled out of the challenge by claiming they award fathers
custody too.

I have YET to get an answer why a child needs to be denied a parent (father)
in the first place.
50/50 makes sense to me; or am I way out in left field?


The most important emotional behaviors promoting a child's development and
adjustment are ignored. Things like the psychological adjustment of the
primary parent, which is a critical factor post-divorce or for out of
wedlock children, is never considered. If this single factor were to be
considered, custody of children could be changed based on parental
behavior
in areas like addictions, abusive relationships, welfare dependence, abuse
and neglect, and general lack of parenting skills.