Question for you Boby

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....

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.

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin

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....

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.

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin

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....

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.

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin

"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.


So because your ex is an asshole decent fathers should not have equal rights
when it comes to their children. It could just as easily be a woman that
would default on such an agreement. It is amazing how in this day and age
how people justify their discrimination.

It is like saying my justification for not give blacks equal voting rights
is because I have a black neighbor who is a criminal.


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....

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.

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin

"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.


So because your ex is an asshole decent fathers should not have equal rights
when it comes to their children. It could just as easily be a woman that
would default on such an agreement. It is amazing how in this day and age
how people justify their discrimination.

It is like saying my justification for not give blacks equal voting rights
is because I have a black neighbor who is a criminal.


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....

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.

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin

"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.


So because your ex is an asshole decent fathers should not have equal rights
when it comes to their children. It could just as easily be a woman that
would default on such an agreement. It is amazing how in this day and age
how people justify their discrimination.

It is like saying my justification for not give blacks equal voting rights
is because I have a black neighbor who is a criminal.


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....

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.

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin

Rowanyx19 wrote:
Im sure Ill regret this but Im really curious.
Boby all Ive read so far from you is everything you dont agree with.
Honestly Id like to know what you think is the"right" way things should be done
if a man and a woman have a child together and part ways one way or another?
Tracy

To start with you can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more
effectively. Two people making a child together have an obligation to
stay together at least until the child is grown. That's what marriage
is all about, and two people ought not make a child together unless they
have considered very carefully and committed to stay together to raise
the child. The current abomination of single mothers is child abuse,
and that's all that it is. Shame on them all.

When a divorce can't be avoided the divorce court has no business
assigning "custody" to either parent because to do so violates the
CHILD'S basic human right to BOTH of his/her parents. The CHILD is not
getting divorced from either parent. Any decision that assigns custody
VIOLATES the child's human rights and hurts the child. Judges LIE daily.

A possible exception is in the rare cases when one parent has been
CONVICTED of CRIMINAL child abuse. Even that is questionable because
there are so very many false accusations of child abuse all the time.
Any accusations of "DV" or "child abuse" filed concurrently with a
divorce petition ought be given extreme skepticism because of the
preponderance of lies commonly told during such time.

The person who leaves the family, or breaks up the family by filing for
divorce, ought not be allowed to take any of the family income or
assets, and should not be privileged to to take the children. The
parent who chooses to try to keep the family together should be entitled
to the family home and other assets. Generally a child is much better
off in a home with two parents even when they fight a lot, and many
studies have demonstrated that. Divorce ought to be the last resort,
not just because the mother "doesn't feel like a wife" or "wants to find
myself" or "dosen't love him any more," or any similar common excuse.

Both parents have 100% concurrent responsibility to support the child.
The person with whom the child is living is 100% responsible regardles
of the other parent's responsibilty. If she (or he) can not support the
child she (or occasionally he) needs to take the child to the other
parent and ask the other parent to support the child. In most cases the
parent supporting the child will have the family home and assets to work
with.

For a million years or longer the mother would take the child to the
father, or keep the child together with the father for support if she
was unable to support the child herself. Taking a child away from
his/her father generally deprives the child of a better life and the
father's teaching. Fathering is different from mothering and every
child needs both.

Often children, given a chance, will choose to live with one parent for
a while, and then with the other for a while. In some countries they
beleive that children generally favor their mother until about age 7,
after which they should be with their father.

Again there is no "right" way to do wrong. There are only less harmful
ways if the mother (95%), or occasionally the father (5%), is intent on
doing wrong to the child.

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.]

Rowanyx19 wrote:
Im sure Ill regret this but Im really curious.
Boby all Ive read so far from you is everything you dont agree with.
Honestly Id like to know what you think is the"right" way things should be done
if a man and a woman have a child together and part ways one way or another?
Tracy

To start with you can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more
effectively. Two people making a child together have an obligation to
stay together at least until the child is grown. That's what marriage
is all about, and two people ought not make a child together unless they
have considered very carefully and committed to stay together to raise
the child. The current abomination of single mothers is child abuse,
and that's all that it is. Shame on them all.

When a divorce can't be avoided the divorce court has no business
assigning "custody" to either parent because to do so violates the
CHILD'S basic human right to BOTH of his/her parents. The CHILD is not
getting divorced from either parent. Any decision that assigns custody
VIOLATES the child's human rights and hurts the child. Judges LIE daily.

A possible exception is in the rare cases when one parent has been
CONVICTED of CRIMINAL child abuse. Even that is questionable because
there are so very many false accusations of child abuse all the time.
Any accusations of "DV" or "child abuse" filed concurrently with a
divorce petition ought be given extreme skepticism because of the
preponderance of lies commonly told during such time.

The person who leaves the family, or breaks up the family by filing for
divorce, ought not be allowed to take any of the family income or
assets, and should not be privileged to to take the children. The
parent who chooses to try to keep the family together should be entitled
to the family home and other assets. Generally a child is much better
off in a home with two parents even when they fight a lot, and many
studies have demonstrated that. Divorce ought to be the last resort,
not just because the mother "doesn't feel like a wife" or "wants to find
myself" or "dosen't love him any more," or any similar common excuse.

Both parents have 100% concurrent responsibility to support the child.
The person with whom the child is living is 100% responsible regardles
of the other parent's responsibilty. If she (or he) can not support the
child she (or occasionally he) needs to take the child to the other
parent and ask the other parent to support the child. In most cases the
parent supporting the child will have the family home and assets to work
with.

For a million years or longer the mother would take the child to the
father, or keep the child together with the father for support if she
was unable to support the child herself. Taking a child away from
his/her father generally deprives the child of a better life and the
father's teaching. Fathering is different from mothering and every
child needs both.

Often children, given a chance, will choose to live with one parent for
a while, and then with the other for a while. In some countries they
beleive that children generally favor their mother until about age 7,
after which they should be with their father.

Again there is no "right" way to do wrong. There are only less harmful
ways if the mother (95%), or occasionally the father (5%), is intent on
doing wrong to the child.

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.]

Rowanyx19 wrote:
Im sure Ill regret this but Im really curious.
Boby all Ive read so far from you is everything you dont agree with.
Honestly Id like to know what you think is the"right" way things should be done
if a man and a woman have a child together and part ways one way or another?
Tracy

To start with you can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more
effectively. Two people making a child together have an obligation to
stay together at least until the child is grown. That's what marriage
is all about, and two people ought not make a child together unless they
have considered very carefully and committed to stay together to raise
the child. The current abomination of single mothers is child abuse,
and that's all that it is. Shame on them all.

When a divorce can't be avoided the divorce court has no business
assigning "custody" to either parent because to do so violates the
CHILD'S basic human right to BOTH of his/her parents. The CHILD is not
getting divorced from either parent. Any decision that assigns custody
VIOLATES the child's human rights and hurts the child. Judges LIE daily.

A possible exception is in the rare cases when one parent has been
CONVICTED of CRIMINAL child abuse. Even that is questionable because
there are so very many false accusations of child abuse all the time.
Any accusations of "DV" or "child abuse" filed concurrently with a
divorce petition ought be given extreme skepticism because of the
preponderance of lies commonly told during such time.

The person who leaves the family, or breaks up the family by filing for
divorce, ought not be allowed to take any of the family income or
assets, and should not be privileged to to take the children. The
parent who chooses to try to keep the family together should be entitled
to the family home and other assets. Generally a child is much better
off in a home with two parents even when they fight a lot, and many
studies have demonstrated that. Divorce ought to be the last resort,
not just because the mother "doesn't feel like a wife" or "wants to find
myself" or "dosen't love him any more," or any similar common excuse.

Both parents have 100% concurrent responsibility to support the child.
The person with whom the child is living is 100% responsible regardles
of the other parent's responsibilty. If she (or he) can not support the
child she (or occasionally he) needs to take the child to the other
parent and ask the other parent to support the child. In most cases the
parent supporting the child will have the family home and assets to work
with.

For a million years or longer the mother would take the child to the
father, or keep the child together with the father for support if she
was unable to support the child herself. Taking a child away from
his/her father generally deprives the child of a better life and the
father's teaching. Fathering is different from mothering and every
child needs both.

Often children, given a chance, will choose to live with one parent for
a while, and then with the other for a while. In some countries they
beleive that children generally favor their mother until about age 7,
after which they should be with their father.

Again there is no "right" way to do wrong. There are only less harmful
ways if the mother (95%), or occasionally the father (5%), is intent on
doing wrong to the child.

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 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.