Question for you Boby

"Krista" wrote in message
...
DLove,

I disagree with you he

5. Remove the automatic granting custody of children to women and
enforce
a 50-50 concept with both parents retaining 100% all legal rights.

and he

10. Change the no fault divorce laws that give an incentive for a person
to divorce with no real cause but still make a valid cause actionable

Only because in my case 50-50 custody with no child support changing hands
would mean I'd be caring for my daughter 335 days/year and my ex 30 and
I'd
be doing all the "supporting." I realize that's not 50-50, but based on
the
fact that he uses about 10% of his rights for possession now, I don't see
where him having more possessory rights would change the amount he sees
her,
even if it would negate his child support.

I once offered to let him off the hook on child support if he would take
her
for 6 months out of the year (she's not school aged). He didn't want to,
in
his own words, "pay for daycare for her." I asked him if I gave him all
his
CS money back would he still feel the same and he said, "Yes because it
would cost me more than I pay in CS to put her in daycare."

I *DO* think that women should not be automatically given primary custody.
It should be based on the child's TRUE best interests. Men should be
considered just as much as women. I have known many fathers whose
children
would have been better off with them than with the mother. I know some
fathers who got custody who should have, and some who should have but
didn't. Those who do get it when they should ought to be the rule, not
the
exception. Men should have just as much of a chance to get custody as
women
do, and then the appropriate home should be chosen based on FACTS, not
just
"the mother is the primary caregiver." So what? She's about to have to
go
out and get a job, isn't she? So *then* who is going to take care of the
kids? Daycare? Well, then the kids would be just as well off with dad,
perhaps better if she gets a shift work type job....

But, Krista, if the default were 50/50, that would not mean that it would
automatically happen. If either parent refused to do his/her share of the
parenting, the custody issue would be revisited. It's not like it would be
set in stone. There has to be a starting point, and 50/50 joint is a better
starting point than "mom gets the kids."


And so far as number 10 is concerned, I would still be living with him if
that were true, if he hadn't killed me yet. I agree with no-fault divorce
laws because in some cases abuse can't be proven until it's already too
late. I do think too few people take their vows seriously anymore because
divorce is so easy to get, I know my ex used to use that as a tool against
me all the time. "Well if you don't do what I want, the way I want it,
when
I want it, I'll just get a divorce/cheat on you/etc."

I also think that people tend not to think that marriages require work. I
hear "if it doesn't work out I'll just get a divorce" all the time.
People
don't make the effort to keep it together because it's so easy not to. If
I
lived in a state that had covenant marriages, I would probably have one
right now. My ex would never have agreed to one, because then his
"divorce"
threats wouldn't have worked so well, because I would have known he
couldn't
just go out and get one any time he felt like it.

I also think we should get rid of no fault divorce. I think it was the
biggest mistake we ever made socially in this country. If people understand
that getting out of a marriage will be difficult, then maybe they will think
twice about getting into it. Especially if child support is severely
reduced and both parents of any child get 50/50 custody. We have to find a
way to do away with the REWARDS that women with children reap when they
ditch their husbands/lovers. We don't have to go all the way back to
proving fault beyond any doubt as it used to be--we can require a year of
counseling before divorce can be filed. Anything to make it more difficult,
and to imoprove the chances of marriages becoming long term.

"Krista" wrote in message
...
DLove,

I disagree with you he

5. Remove the automatic granting custody of children to women and
enforce
a 50-50 concept with both parents retaining 100% all legal rights.

and he

10. Change the no fault divorce laws that give an incentive for a person
to divorce with no real cause but still make a valid cause actionable

Only because in my case 50-50 custody with no child support changing hands
would mean I'd be caring for my daughter 335 days/year and my ex 30 and
I'd
be doing all the "supporting." I realize that's not 50-50, but based on
the
fact that he uses about 10% of his rights for possession now, I don't see
where him having more possessory rights would change the amount he sees
her,
even if it would negate his child support.

I once offered to let him off the hook on child support if he would take
her
for 6 months out of the year (she's not school aged). He didn't want to,
in
his own words, "pay for daycare for her." I asked him if I gave him all
his
CS money back would he still feel the same and he said, "Yes because it
would cost me more than I pay in CS to put her in daycare."

I *DO* think that women should not be automatically given primary custody.
It should be based on the child's TRUE best interests. Men should be
considered just as much as women. I have known many fathers whose
children
would have been better off with them than with the mother. I know some
fathers who got custody who should have, and some who should have but
didn't. Those who do get it when they should ought to be the rule, not
the
exception. Men should have just as much of a chance to get custody as
women
do, and then the appropriate home should be chosen based on FACTS, not
just
"the mother is the primary caregiver." So what? She's about to have to
go
out and get a job, isn't she? So *then* who is going to take care of the
kids? Daycare? Well, then the kids would be just as well off with dad,
perhaps better if she gets a shift work type job....

But, Krista, if the default were 50/50, that would not mean that it would
automatically happen. If either parent refused to do his/her share of the
parenting, the custody issue would be revisited. It's not like it would be
set in stone. There has to be a starting point, and 50/50 joint is a better
starting point than "mom gets the kids."


And so far as number 10 is concerned, I would still be living with him if
that were true, if he hadn't killed me yet. I agree with no-fault divorce
laws because in some cases abuse can't be proven until it's already too
late. I do think too few people take their vows seriously anymore because
divorce is so easy to get, I know my ex used to use that as a tool against
me all the time. "Well if you don't do what I want, the way I want it,
when
I want it, I'll just get a divorce/cheat on you/etc."

I also think that people tend not to think that marriages require work. I
hear "if it doesn't work out I'll just get a divorce" all the time.
People
don't make the effort to keep it together because it's so easy not to. If
I
lived in a state that had covenant marriages, I would probably have one
right now. My ex would never have agreed to one, because then his
"divorce"
threats wouldn't have worked so well, because I would have known he
couldn't
just go out and get one any time he felt like it.

I also think we should get rid of no fault divorce. I think it was the
biggest mistake we ever made socially in this country. If people understand
that getting out of a marriage will be difficult, then maybe they will think
twice about getting into it. Especially if child support is severely
reduced and both parents of any child get 50/50 custody. We have to find a
way to do away with the REWARDS that women with children reap when they
ditch their husbands/lovers. We don't have to go all the way back to
proving fault beyond any doubt as it used to be--we can require a year of
counseling before divorce can be filed. Anything to make it more difficult,
and to imoprove the chances of marriages becoming long term.

DLove wrote:
I know this question was put to Bob but I just had to add my 2 cents worth
to get this debate started in the right MRA direction.

1. Differentiate between married couples and their child(ren) that
divorce and women who simply have children out of wedlock.

Yep. Unmarried mothers are way wrong to start with. Shame on them. The
father made no promise to support the child, so she bears all the
responsibility.


2. Establish a minimum cost to support a child(ren) and make each parent
liable for ½ of that cost no matter how much either parent makes.

Nope. Make both parents 100% responsible, and the one who the child
lives with is 100% responsible. Otherwise take the child to the other
parent.



3. Stop making child support tax free and giving or giving benefits or tax
advantages to the CP.

So called "absentee child support" is slavery, and is an abomination. It
is a failed feminist social experiment that has hurt millions of men,
women, and especially children.


4. Remove the incentive for states to receive ever increasing federal tax
dollars (10 billon currently ) while perpetuating a system where states
and third party entities and court professional benefit from higher CS
awards that create quasi- indenture servants and debtors prison or debt
for life.

Indeed. Get states out of the slave trade entirely.


5. Remove the automatic granting custody of children to women and enforce
a 50-50 concept with both parents retaining 100% all legal rights.

That's the first one that's right on. The child is NOT getting a
divorce from either parent, hence no custody decision is appropriate.


6. Any claims of DV should not have undue influence on the court unless
proven.

Indeed. Claims of DV during a divorce are most often lies. They should
be treated with the utmost skepticism.


7. Establish and enforce visitation law as aggressively as support laws

Nope. Support laws should be abandoned as is other kinds of slavery.
Visitation is an abomination that trivializes the child's other parent.

Support the CHILD's RIGHT to BOTH parents. As long as you are focused on
the parent's rights it's hard to get to the right answer.


8. Change the CSE system and hold them legal liable for the wrongs they
make and their failure to act impartial or for burdens they unnecessary
created in their own interest.

Eliminate the CSE system. It does way, way more harm than good. Get the
state out of the slave chasing business for profit.


9. Stop immediately the jailing of NCP without legal representation and
those that are able to show that they are unable to meet payment demands

Debtor's prisons and slave chasers are way wrong. They ought to be
burned down. The C$ system is feminist designed slavery of men, and
ought to have been eliminated.


10. Change the no fault divorce laws that give an incentive for a person
to divorce with no real cause but still make a valid cause actionable

Stop paying women for divorcing their husband would be a good start.
That alone would reduce divorce by over half.

I'm sure I missed some issues since I wrote this so quickly ....guys,
anything to add to the list?
DLove

Yes, you support the radical feminist social experiment of "absentee
child support" designed by feminists in the 1850s to pay women for
leaving their husbands. No other system has hurt so many million
families. There is no moral justification for its support.

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

DLove wrote:
I know this question was put to Bob but I just had to add my 2 cents worth
to get this debate started in the right MRA direction.

1. Differentiate between married couples and their child(ren) that
divorce and women who simply have children out of wedlock.

Yep. Unmarried mothers are way wrong to start with. Shame on them. The
father made no promise to support the child, so she bears all the
responsibility.


2. Establish a minimum cost to support a child(ren) and make each parent
liable for ½ of that cost no matter how much either parent makes.

Nope. Make both parents 100% responsible, and the one who the child
lives with is 100% responsible. Otherwise take the child to the other
parent.



3. Stop making child support tax free and giving or giving benefits or tax
advantages to the CP.

So called "absentee child support" is slavery, and is an abomination. It
is a failed feminist social experiment that has hurt millions of men,
women, and especially children.


4. Remove the incentive for states to receive ever increasing federal tax
dollars (10 billon currently ) while perpetuating a system where states
and third party entities and court professional benefit from higher CS
awards that create quasi- indenture servants and debtors prison or debt
for life.

Indeed. Get states out of the slave trade entirely.


5. Remove the automatic granting custody of children to women and enforce
a 50-50 concept with both parents retaining 100% all legal rights.

That's the first one that's right on. The child is NOT getting a
divorce from either parent, hence no custody decision is appropriate.


6. Any claims of DV should not have undue influence on the court unless
proven.

Indeed. Claims of DV during a divorce are most often lies. They should
be treated with the utmost skepticism.


7. Establish and enforce visitation law as aggressively as support laws

Nope. Support laws should be abandoned as is other kinds of slavery.
Visitation is an abomination that trivializes the child's other parent.

Support the CHILD's RIGHT to BOTH parents. As long as you are focused on
the parent's rights it's hard to get to the right answer.


8. Change the CSE system and hold them legal liable for the wrongs they
make and their failure to act impartial or for burdens they unnecessary
created in their own interest.

Eliminate the CSE system. It does way, way more harm than good. Get the
state out of the slave chasing business for profit.


9. Stop immediately the jailing of NCP without legal representation and
those that are able to show that they are unable to meet payment demands

Debtor's prisons and slave chasers are way wrong. They ought to be
burned down. The C$ system is feminist designed slavery of men, and
ought to have been eliminated.


10. Change the no fault divorce laws that give an incentive for a person
to divorce with no real cause but still make a valid cause actionable

Stop paying women for divorcing their husband would be a good start.
That alone would reduce divorce by over half.

I'm sure I missed some issues since I wrote this so quickly ....guys,
anything to add to the list?
DLove

Yes, you support the radical feminist social experiment of "absentee
child support" designed by feminists in the 1850s to pay women for
leaving their husbands. No other system has hurt so many million
families. There is no moral justification for its support.

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

DLove wrote:
I know this question was put to Bob but I just had to add my 2 cents worth
to get this debate started in the right MRA direction.

1. Differentiate between married couples and their child(ren) that
divorce and women who simply have children out of wedlock.

Yep. Unmarried mothers are way wrong to start with. Shame on them. The
father made no promise to support the child, so she bears all the
responsibility.


2. Establish a minimum cost to support a child(ren) and make each parent
liable for ½ of that cost no matter how much either parent makes.

Nope. Make both parents 100% responsible, and the one who the child
lives with is 100% responsible. Otherwise take the child to the other
parent.



3. Stop making child support tax free and giving or giving benefits or tax
advantages to the CP.

So called "absentee child support" is slavery, and is an abomination. It
is a failed feminist social experiment that has hurt millions of men,
women, and especially children.


4. Remove the incentive for states to receive ever increasing federal tax
dollars (10 billon currently ) while perpetuating a system where states
and third party entities and court professional benefit from higher CS
awards that create quasi- indenture servants and debtors prison or debt
for life.

Indeed. Get states out of the slave trade entirely.


5. Remove the automatic granting custody of children to women and enforce
a 50-50 concept with both parents retaining 100% all legal rights.

That's the first one that's right on. The child is NOT getting a
divorce from either parent, hence no custody decision is appropriate.


6. Any claims of DV should not have undue influence on the court unless
proven.

Indeed. Claims of DV during a divorce are most often lies. They should
be treated with the utmost skepticism.


7. Establish and enforce visitation law as aggressively as support laws

Nope. Support laws should be abandoned as is other kinds of slavery.
Visitation is an abomination that trivializes the child's other parent.

Support the CHILD's RIGHT to BOTH parents. As long as you are focused on
the parent's rights it's hard to get to the right answer.


8. Change the CSE system and hold them legal liable for the wrongs they
make and their failure to act impartial or for burdens they unnecessary
created in their own interest.

Eliminate the CSE system. It does way, way more harm than good. Get the
state out of the slave chasing business for profit.


9. Stop immediately the jailing of NCP without legal representation and
those that are able to show that they are unable to meet payment demands

Debtor's prisons and slave chasers are way wrong. They ought to be
burned down. The C$ system is feminist designed slavery of men, and
ought to have been eliminated.


10. Change the no fault divorce laws that give an incentive for a person
to divorce with no real cause but still make a valid cause actionable

Stop paying women for divorcing their husband would be a good start.
That alone would reduce divorce by over half.

I'm sure I missed some issues since I wrote this so quickly ....guys,
anything to add to the list?
DLove

Yes, you support the radical feminist social experiment of "absentee
child support" designed by feminists in the 1850s to pay women for
leaving their husbands. No other system has hurt so many million
families. There is no moral justification for its support.

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Krista wrote:
DLove,

I disagree with you he


5. Remove the automatic granting custody of children to women and enforce
a 50-50 concept with both parents retaining 100% all legal rights.


and he


10. Change the no fault divorce laws that give an incentive for a person
to divorce with no real cause but still make a valid cause actionable


Only because in my case 50-50 custody with no child support changing hands
would mean I'd be caring for my daughter 335 days/year and my ex 30 and I'd
be doing all the "supporting."

And how many days per year is she still your daughter?

[Hint: You are responsible 365 days per year, regardless of whatever
his responsibility also is.]


I realize that's not 50-50, but based on the
fact that he uses about 10% of his rights for possession now, I don't see
where him having more possessory rights would change the amount he sees her,
even if it would negate his child support.

I once offered to let him off the hook on child support if he would take her
for 6 months out of the year (she's not school aged). He didn't want to, in
his own words, "pay for daycare for her." I asked him if I gave him all his
CS money back would he still feel the same and he said, "Yes because it
would cost me more than I pay in CS to put her in daycare."

I *DO* think that women should not be automatically given primary custody.

Typical feminist sexism. No surprise there.


It should be based on the child's TRUE best interests.

LIE. The child's best interest is to have unlimited access to both
parents, The child is not getting divorced. Your sexist claim is YOUR
best interest, not the child's


Men should be
considered just as much as women. I have known many fathers whose children
would have been better off with them than with the mother. I know some
fathers who got custody who should have, and some who should have but
didn't. Those who do get it when they should ought to be the rule, not the
exception. Men should have just as much of a chance to get custody as women
do, and then the appropriate home should be chosen based on FACTS, not just
"the mother is the primary caregiver." So what? She's about to have to go
out and get a job, isn't she? So *then* who is going to take care of the
kids? Daycare? Well, then the kids would be just as well off with dad,
perhaps better if she gets a shift work type job....

And so far as number 10 is concerned, I would still be living with him if
that were true, if he hadn't killed me yet. I agree with no-fault divorce
laws because in some cases abuse can't be proven until it's already too
late. I do think too few people take their vows seriously anymore because
divorce is so easy to get, I know my ex used to use that as a tool against
me all the time. "Well if you don't do what I want, the way I want it, when
I want it, I'll just get a divorce/cheat on you/etc."

I also think that people tend not to think that marriages require work. I
hear "if it doesn't work out I'll just get a divorce" all the time. People
don't make the effort to keep it together because it's so easy not to. If I
lived in a state that had covenant marriages, I would probably have one
right now. My ex would never have agreed to one, because then his "divorce"
threats wouldn't have worked so well, because I would have known he couldn't
just go out and get one any time he felt like it.

I've been to weddings where in the receiving line the bride introduced
us to her "first husband." Shocking.

Bob



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Krista wrote:
DLove,

I disagree with you he


5. Remove the automatic granting custody of children to women and enforce
a 50-50 concept with both parents retaining 100% all legal rights.


and he


10. Change the no fault divorce laws that give an incentive for a person
to divorce with no real cause but still make a valid cause actionable


Only because in my case 50-50 custody with no child support changing hands
would mean I'd be caring for my daughter 335 days/year and my ex 30 and I'd
be doing all the "supporting."

And how many days per year is she still your daughter?

[Hint: You are responsible 365 days per year, regardless of whatever
his responsibility also is.]


I realize that's not 50-50, but based on the
fact that he uses about 10% of his rights for possession now, I don't see
where him having more possessory rights would change the amount he sees her,
even if it would negate his child support.

I once offered to let him off the hook on child support if he would take her
for 6 months out of the year (she's not school aged). He didn't want to, in
his own words, "pay for daycare for her." I asked him if I gave him all his
CS money back would he still feel the same and he said, "Yes because it
would cost me more than I pay in CS to put her in daycare."

I *DO* think that women should not be automatically given primary custody.

Typical feminist sexism. No surprise there.


It should be based on the child's TRUE best interests.

LIE. The child's best interest is to have unlimited access to both
parents, The child is not getting divorced. Your sexist claim is YOUR
best interest, not the child's


Men should be
considered just as much as women. I have known many fathers whose children
would have been better off with them than with the mother. I know some
fathers who got custody who should have, and some who should have but
didn't. Those who do get it when they should ought to be the rule, not the
exception. Men should have just as much of a chance to get custody as women
do, and then the appropriate home should be chosen based on FACTS, not just
"the mother is the primary caregiver." So what? She's about to have to go
out and get a job, isn't she? So *then* who is going to take care of the
kids? Daycare? Well, then the kids would be just as well off with dad,
perhaps better if she gets a shift work type job....

And so far as number 10 is concerned, I would still be living with him if
that were true, if he hadn't killed me yet. I agree with no-fault divorce
laws because in some cases abuse can't be proven until it's already too
late. I do think too few people take their vows seriously anymore because
divorce is so easy to get, I know my ex used to use that as a tool against
me all the time. "Well if you don't do what I want, the way I want it, when
I want it, I'll just get a divorce/cheat on you/etc."

I also think that people tend not to think that marriages require work. I
hear "if it doesn't work out I'll just get a divorce" all the time. People
don't make the effort to keep it together because it's so easy not to. If I
lived in a state that had covenant marriages, I would probably have one
right now. My ex would never have agreed to one, because then his "divorce"
threats wouldn't have worked so well, because I would have known he couldn't
just go out and get one any time he felt like it.

I've been to weddings where in the receiving line the bride introduced
us to her "first husband." Shocking.

Bob



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Krista wrote:
DLove,

I disagree with you he


5. Remove the automatic granting custody of children to women and enforce
a 50-50 concept with both parents retaining 100% all legal rights.


and he


10. Change the no fault divorce laws that give an incentive for a person
to divorce with no real cause but still make a valid cause actionable


Only because in my case 50-50 custody with no child support changing hands
would mean I'd be caring for my daughter 335 days/year and my ex 30 and I'd
be doing all the "supporting."

And how many days per year is she still your daughter?

[Hint: You are responsible 365 days per year, regardless of whatever
his responsibility also is.]


I realize that's not 50-50, but based on the
fact that he uses about 10% of his rights for possession now, I don't see
where him having more possessory rights would change the amount he sees her,
even if it would negate his child support.

I once offered to let him off the hook on child support if he would take her
for 6 months out of the year (she's not school aged). He didn't want to, in
his own words, "pay for daycare for her." I asked him if I gave him all his
CS money back would he still feel the same and he said, "Yes because it
would cost me more than I pay in CS to put her in daycare."

I *DO* think that women should not be automatically given primary custody.

Typical feminist sexism. No surprise there.


It should be based on the child's TRUE best interests.

LIE. The child's best interest is to have unlimited access to both
parents, The child is not getting divorced. Your sexist claim is YOUR
best interest, not the child's


Men should be
considered just as much as women. I have known many fathers whose children
would have been better off with them than with the mother. I know some
fathers who got custody who should have, and some who should have but
didn't. Those who do get it when they should ought to be the rule, not the
exception. Men should have just as much of a chance to get custody as women
do, and then the appropriate home should be chosen based on FACTS, not just
"the mother is the primary caregiver." So what? She's about to have to go
out and get a job, isn't she? So *then* who is going to take care of the
kids? Daycare? Well, then the kids would be just as well off with dad,
perhaps better if she gets a shift work type job....

And so far as number 10 is concerned, I would still be living with him if
that were true, if he hadn't killed me yet. I agree with no-fault divorce
laws because in some cases abuse can't be proven until it's already too
late. I do think too few people take their vows seriously anymore because
divorce is so easy to get, I know my ex used to use that as a tool against
me all the time. "Well if you don't do what I want, the way I want it, when
I want it, I'll just get a divorce/cheat on you/etc."

I also think that people tend not to think that marriages require work. I
hear "if it doesn't work out I'll just get a divorce" all the time. People
don't make the effort to keep it together because it's so easy not to. If I
lived in a state that had covenant marriages, I would probably have one
right now. My ex would never have agreed to one, because then his "divorce"
threats wouldn't have worked so well, because I would have known he couldn't
just go out and get one any time he felt like it.

I've been to weddings where in the receiving line the bride introduced
us to her "first husband." Shocking.

Bob



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

In article , Krista says...

DLove,

I disagree with you he

5. Remove the automatic granting custody of children to women and enforce
a 50-50 concept with both parents retaining 100% all legal rights.

and he

10. Change the no fault divorce laws that give an incentive for a person
to divorce with no real cause but still make a valid cause actionable

Only because in my case 50-50 custody with no child support changing hands
would mean I'd be caring for my daughter 335 days/year and my ex 30 and I'd
be doing all the "supporting." I realize that's not 50-50, but based on the
fact that he uses about 10% of his rights for possession now, I don't see
where him having more possessory rights would change the amount he sees her,
even if it would negate his child support.
====
Nice post, Krista. Thanks for sharing. As for 50/50 cusotdy--It should be the
default with no court order. Only if one parent wishes less, should child
support be awarded in consideration of the time each parent has the
child/children. And the support should be need based, not income based--Just as
it is with intact homes. Noncustodial parents should not be required to provide
support at any greater degree than custodial parents/parents in intact
homes--And what is required of them is that their children have the basic
necessities of food, clothing, shelter regardless of their income or the amount
of child support they receive.
====

In article , Krista says...

DLove,

I disagree with you he

5. Remove the automatic granting custody of children to women and enforce
a 50-50 concept with both parents retaining 100% all legal rights.

and he

10. Change the no fault divorce laws that give an incentive for a person
to divorce with no real cause but still make a valid cause actionable

Only because in my case 50-50 custody with no child support changing hands
would mean I'd be caring for my daughter 335 days/year and my ex 30 and I'd
be doing all the "supporting." I realize that's not 50-50, but based on the
fact that he uses about 10% of his rights for possession now, I don't see
where him having more possessory rights would change the amount he sees her,
even if it would negate his child support.
====
Nice post, Krista. Thanks for sharing. As for 50/50 cusotdy--It should be the
default with no court order. Only if one parent wishes less, should child
support be awarded in consideration of the time each parent has the
child/children. And the support should be need based, not income based--Just as
it is with intact homes. Noncustodial parents should not be required to provide
support at any greater degree than custodial parents/parents in intact
homes--And what is required of them is that their children have the basic
necessities of food, clothing, shelter regardless of their income or the amount
of child support they receive.
====