"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?