From: "Fighting for kids" adf
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

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".





Best Interests is a term throw around like it had some precise meaning. Does
anyone know what it means? Of course not. It has one meaning in case number 1
and a different meaning in case number 2.
It means whatever the judge believes it to mean in any given case.

The arguments that the states EVER followed any "standard" in custody cases
other than fathers always win under the old common law, and the tender years
doctrine that means mother always wins (which still permeates custody battles
to this day) really are semantic false premises.

Cultural traditions, reflected in the law, also heavily influence parental
decision-making about custody.

Child custody decisions are entirely political, and it's time people grew up
and realized that.

Mainstream American culture still views women as the appropriate primary
caretakers for children after divorce, although the strength of this assumption
varies within subcultures

Mainstream America still views woman as prisoners of their wombs, it is so
pervasive that even NOW falls for it.

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

Maybe because those racial groups are smarter than the white folks and know
that when white woman speak about fathers being important they know that "white
woman speak with forked tongue." If you believe that men are getting any
encouragement, even a small amount to be dads, need to visit Net-maven Liz
Kates' web site.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/

If you carefully read Ms. Kates' site, you will see her venom toward fathers,
but is Liz Kates speaking for only herself? No, she speaks for much of the
women's movement in America. Look at her cross-links to Feminists such as Trish
Wilson, Phyllis Chesler, Eleanor Smeal, and many other luminaries of feminism.
She speaks for the polemicists, but she also reflects the current level of
politics involved with child custody and she reflects the current massive
propaganda effort by the extreme culture that dominates feminism today. You
may think that the father involvement doesn't resonate in the other racial
cultures, it does, but I think it is because of a long legacy of listening to
the "shucking and giving" from the "white momma" that they just know better.
They know when they are getting played.

Therefore, cultural assumptions among these other groups will more often lead
to sole mother custody arrangements with
limited visiting arrangements.

Oh come on. The reason you don 't see African-American dads winning custody
is that they can't (by and large) get jobs that would allow then the $30,000 it
takes for a dad to win custody. They know that nobody wants then to have their
kids, so why get into a fight they can't afford and couldn't win if they could!

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 point is that fathers generally DO pay their support. If you look at
the statistics, even the hyped statistics, you will see that over 85% of child
support IS paid, and the part that isn't paid has lengthy explanations that
work. Such as unemployment. And just to defect silly arguments, unemployment
his families without a divorce. Adjustments are made... or not.

Arguments about child custody and child support are usually framed in ther
mindset of whatever axe one brings to the table that influences your particular
argument. This is classic war between the genders. I doubt we can ever grow up
enough as a species to think past out own selfish interests. Children are
merely a pawn to be used on the board game here.

Ive said throughout this entire time that BOTH parents should be given access
to their children.

Oh - as they say; "How mighty WHITE of you." They should be "GIVEN" a nice
little present by the STATE.. A GIFT from the Great White Father! ALLOWED to
have a relationship with their children. Talk about building a battleship
inside out.

Did it ever occur to you, or to the rest of the audience here, that the STATE
should not interfere with the parent child relationship (meaning CURTAILING IT)
unless there is:

1. A COMPELLING state interest, and
2. Clear and convining EVIDENCE that it is NECESSARY for the survival of the
child?

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.

Alas it is right here where our educational system fails us. What IS a "study?"
Is an OP -ED piece like that of Dr. Phyllis Chesler a "study?" Is Trish Wilsons
ranting and raving a "study?" Are the eruptions on Liz Kates' web site
documentary evidence?

The system fails us when we have NO critical judgment, when political ranting
is mistaken for "science." When we cannot discriminate between valid
methodology in a "study" and that which isn't. When we cannot see the political
ranting and raving in a Journal Article that separates it from being true
"scientific research." And one side is as guilty as the other in this. Going
back to what I have now said four times, these arguments are 100% political and
NOTHING REMOTELY NEAR "science." And the arguments have nothing whatever to do
with what is best for children. I would submit that Liz Kates, Phyllis Chesler
as well as some on the other side are TOTALLY clueless about what children
really need. The FIRST thing they need is for their STUPID parents to STOP
FIGHTING!

However, statistics are not relavant
apparently

Ever hear the old saying; "there are liers, then there are damned liers, and
then there are people who USE statistics." It isn't hard to make 2 plus to to
add up to 27.3.

I have NEVER said fathers shouldnt see their children.

How generous of you. That ranks right up there with; "I never said that ALL
negroes should be slaves."

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.

Oh we never want to talk about the "actual needs" of the children. This is
the boys versus the girls. Why bring "facts" into this, we've been doing
without them for so long. Have you ever looked at the USDA web site on the REAL
costs for raising children? Did you know they exist? They exist not only for
just about every region of the United States but are broken down by income
levels of the parents. High, medium and low.

Can anyone tell me why ONE parent shoulld be responsible for MORE THAN 50% of
the ACTUAL needs of the children as the USDA tables document? Why should ONE
parent be responsible for 95 or more than 100% of those costs?

"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.

A distortion of a very complex legal system. You use "property" here is a way
that wasn't the concept of those times.

Fathers had the right as well to sell their children,

Propaganda!

and to enter them into enforced labor.

sigh Later day revisionists. Fathers had the "obligation" to make sure their
children could become self supporting. There were no technical schools in those
days. What was done was to have a child become an "apprentice." Yes they worked
for low wages, but they were learning a trade to support themselves with. Your
picture in your argument of fathers "HEARTLESSLY SELLING THEIR CHILDREN INTO
SLAVERY" is what I was referring to with the success of political propaganda.

In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth
century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of
circumstances"

And if we look at out society today, we can see that the change was a
mistake.

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.

For whatever the atricle in question mat or my not say, no-fault divorce has
proven to be a disaster for children and for society.

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.

Extremis propaganda. Not historically accurate.

most states had substituted the standard of the "best interests
of the child" for the tender years presumption by the mid 1970's.

Which is precisely like telling a plantation slave; "You're free now, get back
out in the damn fields."

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.

Horse feathers! "best Interests" is merely two words meaning the same thing as
"Tender years Doctrine." Of course when people caught onto that one, "best
interests" has been replaced by "primary caretaker." No matter what you call
it, a slave still knows he's a slave on the plantation.



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


Physician heal thyself!