Mike Veon's position on Shared Custody!!!!!!

Thank you for your detailed, thoughtful, and well written letter. I
appreciate the obvious time and effort that you took in writing to me. I
realize that many times, fathers are not given the same consideration as
mothers in Family Court rulings. However, each case should be determined on
an individual basis. And to that end, we entrust our elected/appointed
judicial officials to safeguard against bias and ensure equality.
Unfortunately, as with any human endeavor, a certain level of error must be
factored. I am certain that there are many instances where a parent in a
custody battle is treated unfairly. This is regrettable.



Custody battles/settlements are never pretty. Even in the best case scenario
(amicable settlement, acknowledgment of good parenting by both parties,
financial and emotional stability by each party) a child can not shuttle
back and forth between each parent. I think even the most ardent equal
parental rights supporter would agree that residential stability is a key in
minimizing the detrimental effects of the situation on a child. It is
inevitable that one parent will be awarded primary residency, thus excluding
the other from a large segment of interaction and experience. Sometimes,
there are no easy answers. I would hope that Family Court judges would take
into consideration all influential circumstances before rendering such
decisions, but again, it is inevitable that one side will be excluded to a
certain extent. I want to be clear, however, that I do not believe that
father’s should be arbitrarily frozen out of the process.



Thanks again for e-mail. If I can be of any future assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact my office.



Sincerely,



Rep. Michael R. Veon

Democratic Whip

PA House of Representatives

14th Legislative District

Well, nice of him to write you back... Although he pretty much
handwaves joint custody out of existence.

It's worked pretty well for my son, my ex, and I for the last four
years. Quite very well for my ex especially, who collects 90% of the
standard CS and only has to care for her child 40% of the time.

- Ron ^*^


SCREWEDBYJUDGEJAMESREED wrote:

Thank you for your detailed, thoughtful, and well written letter. I
appreciate the obvious time and effort that you took in writing to me. I
realize that many times, fathers are not given the same consideration as
mothers in Family Court rulings. However, each case should be determined on
an individual basis. And to that end, we entrust our elected/appointed
judicial officials to safeguard against bias and ensure equality.
Unfortunately, as with any human endeavor, a certain level of error must be
factored. I am certain that there are many instances where a parent in a
custody battle is treated unfairly. This is regrettable.



Custody battles/settlements are never pretty. Even in the best case scenario
(amicable settlement, acknowledgment of good parenting by both parties,
financial and emotional stability by each party) a child can not shuttle
back and forth between each parent. I think even the most ardent equal
parental rights supporter would agree that residential stability is a key in
minimizing the detrimental effects of the situation on a child. It is
inevitable that one parent will be awarded primary residency, thus excluding
the other from a large segment of interaction and experience. Sometimes,
there are no easy answers. I would hope that Family Court judges would take
into consideration all influential circumstances before rendering such
decisions, but again, it is inevitable that one side will be excluded to a
certain extent. I want to be clear, however, that I do not believe that
father’s should be arbitrarily frozen out of the process.



Thanks again for e-mail. If I can be of any future assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact my office.



Sincerely,



Rep. Michael R. Veon

Democratic Whip

PA House of Representatives

14th Legislative District

Rep. Michael Veon quite evidently knows nothing about what happens in
courts, and quite evidently knows nothing about the use of apostrophes
either.


"SCREWEDBYJUDGEJAMESREED" wrote in message
...
Thank you for your detailed, thoughtful, and well written letter. I
appreciate the obvious time and effort that you took in writing to me. I
realize that many times, fathers are not given the same consideration as
mothers in Family Court rulings. However, each case should be determined
on
an individual basis. And to that end, we entrust our elected/appointed
judicial officials to safeguard against bias and ensure equality.
Unfortunately, as with any human endeavor, a certain level of error must
be
factored. I am certain that there are many instances where a parent in a
custody battle is treated unfairly. This is regrettable.



Custody battles/settlements are never pretty. Even in the best case
scenario
(amicable settlement, acknowledgment of good parenting by both parties,
financial and emotional stability by each party) a child can not shuttle
back and forth between each parent. I think even the most ardent equal
parental rights supporter would agree that residential stability is a key
in
minimizing the detrimental effects of the situation on a child. It is
inevitable that one parent will be awarded primary residency, thus
excluding
the other from a large segment of interaction and experience. Sometimes,
there are no easy answers. I would hope that Family Court judges would
take
into consideration all influential circumstances before rendering such
decisions, but again, it is inevitable that one side will be excluded to a
certain extent. I want to be clear, however, that I do not believe that
father's should be arbitrarily frozen out of the process.



Thanks again for e-mail. If I can be of any future assistance, please do
not
hesitate to contact my office.



Sincerely,



Rep. Michael R. Veon

Democratic Whip

PA House of Representatives

14th Legislative District

It appears that Rep. Mike Veon has no better understanding of the
glass ceiling on paternal custody than he does of the use of apostrophes.

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:sZZgd.580$931.216@lakeread01...

Well, nice of him to write you back... Although he pretty much
handwaves joint custody out of existence.

It's worked pretty well for my son, my ex, and I for the last four
years. Quite very well for my ex especially, who collects 90% of the
standard CS and only has to care for her child 40% of the time.

- Ron ^*^


SCREWEDBYJUDGEJAMESREED wrote:

Thank you for your detailed, thoughtful, and well written letter. I
appreciate the obvious time and effort that you took in writing to me. I
realize that many times, fathers are not given the same consideration as
mothers in Family Court rulings. However, each case should be determined
on
an individual basis. And to that end, we entrust our elected/appointed
judicial officials to safeguard against bias and ensure equality.
Unfortunately, as with any human endeavor, a certain level of error must
be
factored. I am certain that there are many instances where a parent in a
custody battle is treated unfairly. This is regrettable.



Custody battles/settlements are never pretty. Even in the best case
scenario
(amicable settlement, acknowledgment of good parenting by both parties,
financial and emotional stability by each party) a child can not shuttle
back and forth between each parent. I think even the most ardent equal
parental rights supporter would agree that residential stability is a
key in
minimizing the detrimental effects of the situation on a child. It is
inevitable that one parent will be awarded primary residency, thus
excluding
the other from a large segment of interaction and experience. Sometimes,
there are no easy answers. I would hope that Family Court judges would
take
into consideration all influential circumstances before rendering such
decisions, but again, it is inevitable that one side will be excluded to
a
certain extent. I want to be clear, however, that I do not believe that
father’s should be arbitrarily frozen out of the process.



Thanks again for e-mail. If I can be of any future assistance, please do
not
hesitate to contact my office.



Sincerely,



Rep. Michael R. Veon

Democratic Whip

PA House of Representatives

14th Legislative District

In article , Kenneth S. says...

Rep. Michael Veon quite evidently knows nothing about what happens in
courts,
===
Nor does he care. He appears quite aware that more of his votes come from women,
than men and until men make it known that they are a powerful voting block,
nothing will change.
===

Allow me to rewrite the first paragraph, changing the names of the "victims" to
see if the response is any more "acceptable." My changes I've noted in
parentheses.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thank you for your detailed, thoughtful, and well written letter. I
appreciate the obvious time and effort that you took in writing to me. I
realize that many times, (women) are not given the same consideration as
(men) in rulings (involving hiring). However, each case should be determined on
an individual basis. And to that end, we entrust our elected/appointed
judicial officials to safeguard against bias and ensure equality.
Unfortunately, as with any human endeavor, a certain level of error must be
factored. I am certain that there are many instances where a (woman) in a(n)
(employment situation) is treated unfairly. This is regrettable.

snip

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Of course, my letter is tongue in cheek, and believe me Mike Veon would NEVER,
EVER write such a letter. That is, he wouldn't write it unless it was his
intent NOT to get re-elected to his office. No one (including me) in their
right mind would right such a letter, because such a concept would be
wrong...wrong...WRONG! No one should be denied equal rights because it might
be sorta "inconvenient." Since when are the denial of basic human rights waved
off and simply dismissed as "regrettable?"

In article , GudGye11 says...

Allow me to rewrite the first paragraph, changing the names of the "victims" to
see if the response is any more "acceptable." My changes I've noted in
parentheses.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thank you for your detailed, thoughtful, and well written letter. I
appreciate the obvious time and effort that you took in writing to me. I
realize that many times, (women) are not given the same consideration as
(men) in rulings (involving hiring). However, each case should be determined on
an individual basis. And to that end, we entrust our elected/appointed
judicial officials to safeguard against bias and ensure equality.
Unfortunately, as with any human endeavor, a certain level of error must be
factored. I am certain that there are many instances where a (woman) in a(n)
(employment situation) is treated unfairly. This is regrettable.

snip

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Of course, my letter is tongue in cheek, and believe me Mike Veon would NEVER,
EVER write such a letter. That is, he wouldn't write it unless it was his
intent NOT to get re-elected to his office. No one (including me) in their
right mind would right such a letter, because such a concept would be
wrong...wrong...WRONG! No one should be denied equal rights because it might
be sorta "inconvenient." Since when are the denial of basic human rights waved
off and simply dismissed as "regrettable?"
===
Good post. Thanks, GudGye.
===

"GudGye11" wrote in message
...
Allow me to rewrite the first paragraph, changing the names of the
"victims" to
see if the response is any more "acceptable." My changes I've noted in
parentheses.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thank you for your detailed, thoughtful, and well written letter. I
appreciate the obvious time and effort that you took in writing to me. I
realize that many times, (women) are not given the same consideration as
(men) in rulings (involving hiring). However, each case should be
determined on
an individual basis. And to that end, we entrust our elected/appointed
judicial officials to safeguard against bias and ensure equality.
Unfortunately, as with any human endeavor, a certain level of error must
be
factored. I am certain that there are many instances where a (woman) in
a(n)
(employment situation) is treated unfairly. This is regrettable.

snip

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Of course, my letter is tongue in cheek, and believe me Mike Veon would
NEVER,
EVER write such a letter. That is, he wouldn't write it unless it was his
intent NOT to get re-elected to his office. No one (including me) in
their
right mind would right such a letter, because such a concept would be
wrong...wrong...WRONG! No one should be denied equal rights because it
might
be sorta "inconvenient." Since when are the denial of basic human rights
waved
off and simply dismissed as "regrettable?"


I think it's very desirable for fathers to keep this parallel in mind,
and to find ways of drawing it to the attention of others. That's one
reason why I have tried to popularize the use of the term "glass ceiling" in
regard to paternal custody.

Personally, I think the use of statistical disparities in many fields is
highly misleading, since the talents and personality characteristics are not
randomly distributed between men and women, or between different ethnic
groups. However, in the U.S. we are now saddled with the use of statistical
disparities to advance the interests of various groups. So the same
thinking should be applied to custody.

The disparity in custody between fathers and mothers is EXTREMELY
striking, and appears to have changed very little over decades. Why is it
that we don't have aggressive affirmative action programs to make custody
reflect the fact that 50 percent of parents are fathers? The answer is
simple: such action would benefit men at the expense of women, and
heterosexual men are one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups in
the U.S.