story on lawsuits seeking change in custody laws

Good story on the lawsuits brought seeking changes in custody laws.

http://tinyurl.com/59h5o

(Cross-posted because I'm feeling lazy today.)

--
I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to
go chase it.
~Rogers Hornsby

In alt.support.divorce The Dave? wrote:
: Good story on the lawsuits brought seeking changes in custody laws.

: http://tinyurl.com/59h5o

: (Cross-posted because I'm feeling lazy today.)

I'd be interested in seeing which states have lawsuits filed against
them and how to join the class action.

'Anyone know? I went to the ACFC site and didn't see the info there.

b.

Men to Women rights

18 century. 100:1
19 century. 10:1
20 century. 1:1
21 century. :1


Toyzz


The Dave© wrote:
Good story on the lawsuits brought seeking changes in custody laws.

http://tinyurl.com/59h5o

(Cross-posted because I'm feeling lazy today.)

http://www.indianacrc.org/classaction.html#usamap
wrote in message
.. .
In alt.support.divorce The Dave? wrote:
: Good story on the lawsuits brought seeking changes in custody laws.

: http://tinyurl.com/59h5o

: (Cross-posted because I'm feeling lazy today.)

I'd be interested in seeing which states have lawsuits filed against
them and how to join the class action.

'Anyone know? I went to the ACFC site and didn't see the info there.

b.

The Dave© wrote:

Good story on the lawsuits brought seeking changes in custody laws.

http://tinyurl.com/59h5o

(Cross-posted because I'm feeling lazy today.)

What I found amazing in this story is that the past chairwoman of the
American Bar Association's family law section would argue *against* this
using the presumption that it is to get out of child support. Arrgh ....

This from the article.

"This is one more attempt to say that every case that goes into court
should start with the assumption that it's 50-50 time — even if they
haven't been putting in 50-50 time before that," said Lynne
Gold-Bikin, a family law attorney and past chair of the American Bar
Association's family law section. "And why do they want 50-50
(custody)? Some people want it because they know they can reduce the
support they pay to their wives" as a result.

Rambler

In alt.child-support Rambler wrote:
:
: What I found amazing in this story is that the past chairwoman of the
: American Bar Association's family law section would argue *against* this
: using the presumption that it is to get out of child support. Arrgh ....

: This from the article.

: "This is one more attempt to say that every case that goes into court
: should start with the assumption that it's 50-50 time ? even if they
: haven't been putting in 50-50 time before that," said Lynne
: Gold-Bikin, a family law attorney and past chair of the American Bar
: Association's family law section. "And why do they want 50-50
: (custody)? Some people want it because they know they can reduce the
: support they pay to their wives" as a result.

Agreed. With a gross assumption that CS goes to "wives" and all receivers
of CS are female.

A hypenated name bigot.

b.

Rambler wrote in message ...
The Dave© wrote:

Good story on the lawsuits brought seeking changes in custody laws.

http://tinyurl.com/59h5o

(Cross-posted because I'm feeling lazy today.)

What I found amazing in this story is that the past chairwoman of the
American Bar Association's family law section would argue *against* this
using the presumption that it is to get out of child support. Arrgh ....

This from the article.

"This is one more attempt to say that every case that goes into court
should start with the assumption that it's 50-50 time ? even if they
haven't been putting in 50-50 time before that," said Lynne
Gold-Bikin, a family law attorney and past chair of the American Bar
Association's family law section. "And why do they want 50-50
(custody)? Some people want it because they know they can reduce the
support they pay to their wives" as a result.

Rambler

Ms. Gold-Bikin's contact info (did not verify if it's current):

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sect...ontentID=10523

Rambler said ...

What I found amazing in this story is that the past chairwoman of the
American Bar Association's family law section would argue *against* this
using the presumption that it is to get out of child support. Arrgh ....

This from the article.

"This is one more attempt to say that every case that goes into court
should start with the assumption that it's 50-50 time =3F even if they
haven't been putting in 50-50 time before that," said Lynne
Gold-Bikin, a family law attorney and past chair of the American Bar
Association's family law section. "And why do they want 50-50
(custody)? Some people want it because they know they can reduce the
support they pay to their wives" as a result.

Okay, I just have to blurt this out.

Lynne "Gold-Bikin" is only one letter away from being Lynne "Gold-
Bikini".

I guess that's not very relevant, but still ....




Casey

"Casey" wrote in message
news:COVad.834$HG3.617@lakeread04...

Okay, I just have to blurt this out.

Lynne "Gold-Bikin" is only one letter away from being Lynne "Gold-
Bikini".

I guess that's not very relevant, but still ....


Dude,...you are still my hero.

This Gold-Bikin woman announced, with a great flourish when she became
head of the ABA family law section, that the group would be embarking on a
drive to educate younger people about the problems associated with divorce.
Of course, from the outset, any intelligent person would have been skeptical
about a leading member of the divorce industry doing anything to reduce the
amount of divorce, since that is the industry's income source. And, in
fact, the ABA operation seems to have become nothing more than a way of
telling young women about how divorce lawyers can help them to break up any
marriages that they may enter into, and get the best outcome from the
divorces. But perhaps any young men in the audience will learn a lesson
from that too, and will draw the appropriate conclusions about what kind of
a deal marriage is for them.

As for Gold-Bikin's idea that "child support" goes almost entirely to
wives, that is simply a recognition of reality. How many fathers (or
"people," if we are to use her vocabulary) are being paid by their ex-wives?
Very, very few.

The idea that fathers' attitudes towards custody are primarily
determined by CS factors is VERY widely circulated among feminist defenders
of the status quo. They fail to recognize that, in promoting this notion,
they are cleverly shooting themselves in the foot. Alas, they go on saying
this, and no one points out that they are unwittingly conceding the case
that fathers have been trying to make.

In the first place, is it simply those evil fathers who consider custody
in terms of CS, while mothers insist on custody solely because they are
self-sacrificing saints? Secondly, and more fundamentally, if CS has turned
children into a profit center, what does that tell us about the level at
which CS is set? If CS reflected the actual costs of the children, there
would be no advantage in changing custody arrangements. Any reduction of CS
that resulted from more evenly balanced custody arrangements would be
counterbalanced by increased direct spending by the father on the children.


wrote in message
. ..
In alt.child-support Rambler wrote:
:
: What I found amazing in this story is that the past chairwoman of the
: American Bar Association's family law section would argue *against* this
: using the presumption that it is to get out of child support. Arrgh
.....

: This from the article.

: "This is one more attempt to say that every case that goes into court
: should start with the assumption that it's 50-50 time ? even if they
: haven't been putting in 50-50 time before that," said Lynne
: Gold-Bikin, a family law attorney and past chair of the American Bar
: Association's family law section. "And why do they want 50-50
: (custody)? Some people want it because they know they can reduce the
: support they pay to their wives" as a result.

Agreed. With a gross assumption that CS goes to "wives" and all receivers
of CS are female.

A hypenated name bigot.

b.