Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"Tracy" ) oopsied:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris wrote:

Taxpayers (see voters) LIKE the idea of men
paying for their own children.

Children are for sale?

No, but they ARE to be supported. See the difference?

FYI - you are talking to someone who believes children can be raised for
free.

FYI - you are talking to someone who believes children are mommy's sole
property.

IOW, a kid pimp. HTH.

Andre

"Tracy" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris wrote:

Taxpayers (see voters) LIKE the idea of men
paying for their own children.

Children are for sale?

No, but they ARE to be supported. See the difference?

FYI - you are talking to someone who believes children can be raised for
free.

Well, perhaps HE is happy with his kids living in the doghouse and eating
road kill but most parents want better than that for their kids.

Marg

Tracy

"Gini" wrote in message
news:4YnOg.2177$c03.213@trndny05...

"Hyerdahl" wrote
Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
..............................
What rights do not go thru the front door, for women, came in the
other
way. :-)
....................................
Yes, that's true. :-) It's called 'going thru the back door'. :-)
==
I think your smiley key is stuck.

Apparently, it's "stuck" right up your ass.
==
Geez, that's the best you can do?

She won't be smiling when she realizes affirmative action that gave special
rights to women is incrementally going away by SC rulings.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris wrote:
(edit)

The ONLY time the government should step in is when the children are
being
abused: beaten, starved, exposed, no medical care etc.. Not when they
are
denied soccer practice, violin lessons, and designer jeans.

Nonsense! The court favors the best interests of children INCLUDING
maintaining their lifestyle.

How can a lifestyle be maintained if the child's parents were never married
and never lived together?

It seems to me the courts actually elevate the child's lifestyle from single
parenthood lifestyle chosen by the mother to a lifestyle as if the mother
got married or lived in an intact relationship. That amounts to
artificially projecting a putative lifestyle without it ever being a
reality.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"Gini" wrote

"Hyerdahl" wrote
Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
..............................
What rights do not go thru the front door, for women, came in the
other
way. :-)
....................................
Yes, that's true. :-) It's called 'going thru the back door'. :-)
==
I think your smiley key is stuck.

Apparently, it's "stuck" right up your ass.
==
Geez, that's the best you can do?

She won't be smiling when she realizes affirmative action that gave
special
rights to women is incrementally going away by SC rulings.
==
I think she inserts the smiley every time she believes she said something
ingenious.
Isn't that adorable? As for the Court, hopefully they will get around to
equal rights for men.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...................
Men make the choice to RISK childbirth, whether or not they
house the
harm.
==
As do women.

Indeed. So now you see why they share the expense of raising
a
child
THEY co-create.

And when it gets to the point that each parent has the child
50%
of the time, and they inconvenience themselves to make sure
that
their child has 2 parents, then maybe we can talk about
co-responsibility. Money is only a part of it.

So how do you propose ensuring all parents to do their (at
least)
50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate and enforce
this?

Well, Moon, they had to get together to create the child so they
can continue being close enough together to parent the child. At
the very least, both parents should have the same options: to
parent or not to parent, and if they bvoth choose to parent, and
equal amount of time with the child. Your situation is not the
norm. The majority of divorcing parents want to continue to
parent
their children.

My question was not about who desires what - you stated that each
parent has the child 50% of the time. I didn't bring *my*
situation
into it. My situation is no more the norm than yours is. I asked
how you propose to make sure that 50% parenting happens - because
in
far too many cases, it doesn't.

So again... How do you propose ensuring all parents to do their
(at
least) 50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate and
enforce this?

I actually think that if Big Daddy Gubmint stepped out of all but
the
most contentious cases, these things would work themselves out.
Despite BDG's opinion to the contrary, the vast majority of adults
are mature enough to handle the situation. And I do think that
once
the contentiousness was gone, we would see far fewer families
splitting up.

None of which actually answers my question.

What is YOUR proposed solution to ensuring that all parents to do
their (at least) 50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate
and enforce this?

You keep coming back to*forcxing* a parent to parent!!
\
I'm not trying to fore anything - except perhaps to have you directly
answer the question I have directly asked 3 times now.

You say that each parent has the child 50% of the time.

For the 4th time, how do you propose to ensure that each parent has
the
child 50% of the time?

For the gosh-knows-how-manyth time, Moon, PARENTS WHO WANT TO PARENT DO
NOT NEED TO BE COMPELLED TO DO SO!!!! Mom and Dad work it out
together.

Um, Teach? Generally, people who could not work it out together to stay
married to each other have difficulty working just about anything
together.

I don't agree with you. I think adults are perfectly capable of being
adults.

I know a number of adults who are not married yet work out their parenting
issues just fine. Apparently, she thinks the ONLY way to not need some third
party referee is to be married to each other.



NOT
Big Daddy Gubmint coming up with a one-size-fits-all plan. Each set of
parents WORKS IT OUT. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

Perhaps because I recognize the strong probabilities that people who
can't
work things out together to actually stay married to each other are far
less likely to be able to work anything out together :-)

I actually think that they are perfectly capable, if given the
opportunity.
As it stands today, mom usually gets all the rights and the support, so
there is no reason for her to bargain. If they start ou on equal ground,
I
think they will be perfectly capable.

Because of the so-called "strong probability" that they will not be able to
work it out, she advocates "family court" taking control. A pre-emptive
strike, to say the least!






I DO NOT think this
would be a problem.

Then why are you unable (or unwilling) to answer the question.

EACH set of parents works it out!

Hmmm, think they'll work it out as well as they worked out their
marriage?

Marriage and children are 2 totally different things. People who are not
willing to work through a marriage difficulty will still want what is best
for their children. You wouldn't harm your children just to stick it to
your ex, would you?

Maybe she WOULD! Hence her position on the matter. If the success of being a
parent hinges on the success of one's marriage, I wonder how she determines
the parental success of never-married parents?




Why are you so set on a step-by-step
plan?

I don't require a step-by-step plan - I was hoping that you might have
one
of those lightbulb moments, I guess

Light-bulb moments? Like coming to the conclusion that the human race is
so
devoid of hope that Big Daddy Gubmint has to control them, down to their
thought processes? I don't think so.


The vast majority of adults are mature enough to handle the details
themselves. I know many couples who have done just that.

And I'm sure there are any number of us who know just as many couples
who
are incapable of doing just that.

So much for anecdotal data :-)

Incapable because they really just can't do it? Or because the playing
fiend starts out so incredibly unfair to one party?

Her definition of "incapable" is a man who is threatened with jail if he
comes near his children.





Most parents *want* to paernt! Why do you think it
would be otherwise?

I've stated nothing about what I do, or don't, think - I asked you a
simple and direct question, and so far, you have done your darnedest
to
not answer it.

I have answered and answered and answered. You just do not like the
answer.

It's been a non-answer each time, Teach. I asked, and you danced
around,
but never answered the question. You gave answers to a whole bunch of
questions that weren't asked, as well as stating that my situation
wasn't
the norm, even though I never brought my situation into it.

Moon, let me spell it out: ADULTS ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF MAKING ADULT
DECISIONS AND, IF NOT PUT IN ADVERSARIAL AND/OR NO-WIN SITUATIONS, CAN
MAKE
FAIR AND RATIONAL DECISIONS.

She's making assumptions without affording parents the opportunity to prove
themselves.



Or, perhaps, you like having a rule book that everyone is forced to
follow lock step. There is no blanket answer. It is worked out by the
parents themselves--without The government breathing down their necks.

Yup - and I anticipate that the parents will be working it out just
about
as well as they managed to work out their relationship/marriage.

I just think it is so very sad that you have such little hope for people.
People are capable of rising to the challenge--they don't need the
government changing their diapers. I sure hope you discover that one day,
Moon.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
snip for length


For the 4th time, how do you propose to ensure that each parent has
the child 50% of the time?

For the gosh-knows-how-manyth time, Moon, PARENTS WHO WANT TO PARENT
DO
NOT NEED TO BE COMPELLED TO DO SO!!!! Mom and Dad work it out
together.

Um, Teach? Generally, people who could not work it out together to
stay
married to each other have difficulty working just about anything
together.

I don't agree with you. I think adults are perfectly capable of being
adults.


NOT
Big Daddy Gubmint coming up with a one-size-fits-all plan. Each set
of
parents WORKS IT OUT. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

Perhaps because I recognize the strong probabilities that people who
can't work things out together to actually stay married to each other
are far less likely to be able to work anything out together :-)

I actually think that they are perfectly capable, if given the
opportunity. As it stands today, mom usually gets all the rights and
the
support, so there is no reason for her to bargain. If they start ou on
equal ground, I think they will be perfectly capable.

As capable as they were in maintaining their marriage?

Children and marriage are 2 different things. In a nonadversarial system
where the playing field is equal, most adults can work things out. They do
not need a government agency to force solutions on them


I DO NOT think this
would be a problem.

Then why are you unable (or unwilling) to answer the question.

EACH set of parents works it out!

Hmmm, think they'll work it out as well as they worked out their
marriage?

Marriage and children are 2 totally different things. People who are
not
willing to work through a marriage difficulty will still want what is
best for their children. You wouldn't harm your children just to stick
it to your ex, would you?

Never have, hadn't planned on starting anytime soon - but this isn't
about
me :-)

Oh--so you think YOU are capable of working in the best interests of your
children, but most other people aren't. Hmmm....



Why are you so set on a step-by-step
plan?

I don't require a step-by-step plan - I was hoping that you might have
one of those lightbulb moments, I guess

Light-bulb moments? Like coming to the conclusion that the human race
is
so devoid of hope that Big Daddy Gubmint has to control them, down to
their thought processes? I don't think so.


The vast majority of adults are mature enough to handle the details
themselves. I know many couples who have done just that.

And I'm sure there are any number of us who know just as many couples
who are incapable of doing just that.

So much for anecdotal data :-)

Incapable because they really just can't do it? Or because the playing
fiend starts out so incredibly unfair to one party?

Clearly, you're really stuck on this man victim, woman
buddies-with-the-judge idea.
While it may be the case in some cases, we're back to the one-size
doesn't
fit all.
But as long as you insist that your viewpoint is the way the world runs,
I
guess we're all done.

I had hoped you might open your mind to other ideas, just a wee bit.

And I, Moon, had kind of hoped that you would see that adults are capable
of
being adults without the government standing there with a club insisting
that they, and only they, have the answer to any problem.

What strikes me is how is it that such government people with the big clubs
somehow have the ability to make things work out when the rest of the adults
don't?
Are they superior people?



Most parents *want* to paernt! Why do you think it
would be otherwise?

I've stated nothing about what I do, or don't, think - I asked you a
simple and direct question, and so far, you have done your darnedest
to not answer it.

I have answered and answered and answered. You just do not like the
answer.

It's been a non-answer each time, Teach. I asked, and you danced
around, but never answered the question. You gave answers to a whole
bunch of questions that weren't asked, as well as stating that my
situation wasn't the norm, even though I never brought my situation
into
it.

Moon, let me spell it out: ADULTS ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF MAKING
ADULT
DECISIONS AND, IF NOT PUT IN ADVERSARIAL AND/OR NO-WIN SITUATIONS, CAN
MAKE FAIR AND RATIONAL DECISIONS.

You can make the letters ten feet high in red enamel paint, Teach - but
you seem to miss the pretty simple point that I disagree with you.

I may, or may not, be the only one :-)

As does Big Daddy Gubmint, which once was "of the people, by the people
and
for the people," but now thinks they are the only ones who who can "save"
the people from themselves. Sad. Is the cup half full? Half empty? Or
provided by Big Daddy Gubmint, who gets to decide how much each person
gets,
because they are incapable of making such a choice for themselves?

And they work out their issues by FORCE or threat thereof. Uhuh, that's
really "working it out".........



Or, perhaps, you like having a rule book that everyone is forced to
follow lock step. There is no blanket answer. It is worked out by
the
parents themselves--without The government breathing down their
necks.

Yup - and I anticipate that the parents will be working it out just
about as well as they managed to work out their relationship/marriage.

I just think it is so very sad that you have such little hope for
people.

Well, I find your blind naivete, combined with your dogmatic insistance
that your viewpoint is the right one, to be equally disturbing.

I'm certainly glsd you have no dogmatic viewpoints, Moon. chuckle



Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


People are capable of rising to the challenge--they don't need the
government changing their diapers. I sure hope you discover that one
day, Moon.

Not all people, teach - and many times, not the people that matter. I
suspect it'll be a rude awakening for you when you discover this.

Of course not all people. But MOST people are.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message

oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...................
Men make the choice to RISK childbirth, whether or not
they
house the
harm.
==
As do women.

Indeed. So now you see why they share the expense of
raising
a
child
THEY co-create.

And when it gets to the point that each parent has the
child
50%
of the time, and they inconvenience themselves to make sure
that
their child has 2 parents, then maybe we can talk about
co-responsibility. Money is only a part of it.

So how do you propose ensuring all parents to do their (at
least)
50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate and
enforce
this?

Well, Moon, they had to get together to create the child so
they
can
continue being close enough together to parent the child. At
the
very least, both parents should have the same options: to
parent
or
not to parent, and if they bvoth choose to parent, and equal
amount
of time with the child. Your situation is not the norm. The
majority of divorcing parents want to continue to parent
their
children.

My question was not about who desires what - you stated that
each
parent has the child 50% of the time. I didn't bring *my*
situation
into it. My situation is no more the norm than yours is. I
asked
how
you propose to make sure that 50% parenting happens - because
in
far
too many cases, it doesn't.

So again... How do you propose ensuring all parents to do
their
(at
least) 50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate and
enforce this?

I actually think that if Big Daddy Gubmint stepped out of all
but
the
most contentious cases, these things would work themselves out.
Despite BDG's opinion to the contrary, the vast majority of
adults
are
mature enough to handle the situation. And I do think that
once
the
contentiousness was gone, we would see far fewer families
splitting
up.

None of which actually answers my question.

What is YOUR proposed solution to ensuring that all parents to
do
their
(at least) 50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate
and
enforce this?

You keep coming back to*forcxing* a parent to parent!!
\
I'm not trying to fore anything - except perhaps to have you
directly
answer the question I have directly asked 3 times now.

You say that each parent has the child 50% of the time.

For the 4th time, how do you propose to ensure that each parent
has
the
child 50% of the time?

For the gosh-knows-how-manyth time, Moon, PARENTS WHO WANT TO
PARENT
DO
NOT NEED TO BE COMPELLED TO DO SO!!!! Mom and Dad work it out
together.

Um, Teach? Generally, people who could not work it out together to
stay
married to each other have difficulty working just about anything
together.

NOT
Big Daddy Gubmint coming up with a one-size-fits-all plan. Each
set
of
parents WORKS IT OUT. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

Perhaps because I recognize the strong probabilities that people who
can't
work things out together to actually stay married to each other are
far
less
likely to be able to work anything out together :-)

I agree with you. But you have to admit states have forced mandatory
child
mediation onto parents since the mid-80's. These legally required
mediation
sessions are nothing more than "make work" programs for the local
court
judges' psychologist friends. The courts are so rigid in protecting
employment for their friends, they refuse to allow either party to
object
to
the mandatory mediation process to go outside for an independent
evaluation.

Now, Bob, don't you think things might have worked out better between
you
and your ex if she had not been so unfairly backed by the family court
system? If things had started out mandatory 50/50 custody, would she
not
have been a little more giving and a little less contentious? As it
was,
she held most of the cards. Why di she even need to bargain with you?

The irony is both of us bought into the mandatory mediation process. We
did
what the court asked - watched a very compelling film about being good
parents despite our differences, went through the mediation process, and
reached a custody agreement.

Where the deal went sideways was when her attorney asked her after the
fact,
"Why did you agree to all that stuff when you didn't have to?"

That attorney is the most disingenuous person I have ever met. He lied to
my attorney about his true intentions and misled us into a trap. He is
now
the presiding judge for the local county circuit court and impacting
numerous cases with his judicial bias.

My guess is this foolish man was raised by a mother who never said "no".

His law partner, who also worked for
my ex, is one of the county family law judges.

My point is - We thought we started on equal ground and both of us acted
like adults, but that's not how it ended up.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message

oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...................
Men make the choice to RISK childbirth, whether or not
they
house the
harm.
==
As do women.

Indeed. So now you see why they share the expense of
raising
a
child
THEY co-create.

And when it gets to the point that each parent has the
child
50%
of the time, and they inconvenience themselves to make
sure
that
their child has 2 parents, then maybe we can talk about
co-responsibility. Money is only a part of it.

So how do you propose ensuring all parents to do their (at
least)
50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate and
enforce
this?

Well, Moon, they had to get together to create the child so
they
can
continue being close enough together to parent the child.
At
the
very least, both parents should have the same options: to
parent
or
not to parent, and if they bvoth choose to parent, and equal
amount
of time with the child. Your situation is not the norm.
The
majority of divorcing parents want to continue to parent
their
children.

My question was not about who desires what - you stated that
each
parent has the child 50% of the time. I didn't bring *my*
situation
into it. My situation is no more the norm than yours is. I
asked
how
you propose to make sure that 50% parenting happens - because
in
far
too many cases, it doesn't.

So again... How do you propose ensuring all parents to do
their
(at
least) 50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate
and
enforce this?

I actually think that if Big Daddy Gubmint stepped out of all
but
the
most contentious cases, these things would work themselves
out.
Despite BDG's opinion to the contrary, the vast majority of
adults
are
mature enough to handle the situation. And I do think that
once
the
contentiousness was gone, we would see far fewer families
splitting
up.

None of which actually answers my question.

What is YOUR proposed solution to ensuring that all parents to
do
their
(at least) 50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate
and
enforce this?

You keep coming back to*forcxing* a parent to parent!!
\
I'm not trying to fore anything - except perhaps to have you
directly
answer the question I have directly asked 3 times now.

You say that each parent has the child 50% of the time.

For the 4th time, how do you propose to ensure that each parent
has
the
child 50% of the time?

For the gosh-knows-how-manyth time, Moon, PARENTS WHO WANT TO
PARENT
DO
NOT NEED TO BE COMPELLED TO DO SO!!!! Mom and Dad work it out
together.

Um, Teach? Generally, people who could not work it out together to
stay
married to each other have difficulty working just about anything
together.

NOT
Big Daddy Gubmint coming up with a one-size-fits-all plan. Each
set
of
parents WORKS IT OUT. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

Perhaps because I recognize the strong probabilities that people who
can't
work things out together to actually stay married to each other are
far
less
likely to be able to work anything out together :-)

I agree with you. But you have to admit states have forced mandatory
child
mediation onto parents since the mid-80's. These legally required
mediation
sessions are nothing more than "make work" programs for the local
court
judges' psychologist friends. The courts are so rigid in protecting
employment for their friends, they refuse to allow either party to
object
to
the mandatory mediation process to go outside for an independent
evaluation.

Now, Bob, don't you think things might have worked out better between
you
and your ex if she had not been so unfairly backed by the family court
system? If things had started out mandatory 50/50 custody, would she
not
have been a little more giving and a little less contentious? As it
was,
she held most of the cards. Why di she even need to bargain with you?

The irony is both of us bought into the mandatory mediation process. We
did
what the court asked - watched a very compelling film about being good
parents despite our differences, went through the mediation process, and
reached a custody agreement.

Where the deal went sideways was when her attorney asked her after the
fact,
"Why did you agree to all that stuff when you didn't have to?"

That attorney is the most disingenuous person I have ever met. He lied
to
my attorney about his true intentions and misled us into a trap. He is
now
the presiding judge for the local county circuit court and impacting
numerous cases with his judicial bias. His law partner, who also worked
for
my ex, is one of the county family law judges.

My point is - We thought we started on equal ground and both of us acted
like adults, but that's not how it ended up.

But it was because of the system now in place--not because the 2 of you
were
incapable of communicating and coming to a result that both of you could
live with. Kick the dang bureaucracy out, including lawyers. Get rid of
the idea that there needs to be a winner and a loser. Sure there will be
cases that need intervention--but not the vast majority. And I am
certainly
NOT in favor of some disgusting government-run group running the
mediations!

With the exception of criminal behavior, I have yet to have anyone explain
why the courts are needed.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message

oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...................
Men make the choice to RISK childbirth, whether or
not
they
house the
harm.
==
As do women.

Indeed. So now you see why they share the expense of
raising
a
child
THEY co-create.

And when it gets to the point that each parent has the
child
50%
of the time, and they inconvenience themselves to make
sure
that
their child has 2 parents, then maybe we can talk about
co-responsibility. Money is only a part of it.

So how do you propose ensuring all parents to do their
(at
least)
50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate and
enforce
this?

Well, Moon, they had to get together to create the child
so
they
can
continue being close enough together to parent the child.
At
the
very least, both parents should have the same options: to
parent
or
not to parent, and if they bvoth choose to parent, and
equal
amount
of time with the child. Your situation is not the norm.
The
majority of divorcing parents want to continue to parent
their
children.

My question was not about who desires what - you stated
that
each
parent has the child 50% of the time. I didn't bring *my*
situation
into it. My situation is no more the norm than yours is. I
asked
how
you propose to make sure that 50% parenting happens -
because
in
far
too many cases, it doesn't.

So again... How do you propose ensuring all parents to do
their
(at
least) 50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate
and
enforce this?

I actually think that if Big Daddy Gubmint stepped out of
all
but
the
most contentious cases, these things would work themselves
out.
Despite BDG's opinion to the contrary, the vast majority of
adults
are
mature enough to handle the situation. And I do think that
once
the
contentiousness was gone, we would see far fewer families
splitting
up.

None of which actually answers my question.

What is YOUR proposed solution to ensuring that all parents
to
do
their
(at least) 50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to
mandate
and
enforce this?

You keep coming back to*forcxing* a parent to parent!!
\
I'm not trying to fore anything - except perhaps to have you
directly
answer the question I have directly asked 3 times now.

You say that each parent has the child 50% of the time.

For the 4th time, how do you propose to ensure that each parent
has
the
child 50% of the time?

For the gosh-knows-how-manyth time, Moon, PARENTS WHO WANT TO
PARENT
DO
NOT NEED TO BE COMPELLED TO DO SO!!!! Mom and Dad work it out
together.

Um, Teach? Generally, people who could not work it out together
to
stay
married to each other have difficulty working just about anything
together.

NOT
Big Daddy Gubmint coming up with a one-size-fits-all plan. Each
set
of
parents WORKS IT OUT. Why is that so difficult for you to
grasp?

Perhaps because I recognize the strong probabilities that people
who
can't
work things out together to actually stay married to each other
are
far
less
likely to be able to work anything out together :-)

I agree with you. But you have to admit states have forced
mandatory
child
mediation onto parents since the mid-80's. These legally required
mediation
sessions are nothing more than "make work" programs for the local
court
judges' psychologist friends. The courts are so rigid in
protecting
employment for their friends, they refuse to allow either party to
object
to
the mandatory mediation process to go outside for an independent
evaluation.

Now, Bob, don't you think things might have worked out better between
you
and your ex if she had not been so unfairly backed by the family
court
system? If things had started out mandatory 50/50 custody, would she
not
have been a little more giving and a little less contentious? As it
was,
she held most of the cards. Why di she even need to bargain with
you?

The irony is both of us bought into the mandatory mediation process.
We
did
what the court asked - watched a very compelling film about being good
parents despite our differences, went through the mediation process, a
nd
reached a custody agreement.

Where the deal went sideways was when her attorney asked her after the
fact,
"Why did you agree to all that stuff when you didn't have to?"

That attorney is the most disingenuous person I have ever met. He
lied
to
my attorney about his true intentions and misled us into a trap. He
is
now
the presiding judge for the local county circuit court and impacting
numerous cases with his judicial bias. His law partner, who also
worked
for
my ex, is one of the county family law judges.

My point is - We thought we started on equal ground and both of us
acted
like adults, but that's not how it ended up.

But it was because of the system now in place--not because the 2 of you
were
incapable of communicating and coming to a result that both of you could
live with. Kick the dang bureaucracy out, including lawyers. Get rid
of
the idea that there needs to be a winner and a loser. Sure there will
be
cases that need intervention--but not the vast majority. And I am
certainly
NOT in favor of some disgusting government-run group running the
mediations!

In a back-handed way I was saying it doesn't matter where you start. It's
where you end up that counts.

Starting with a 50/50 joint custody presumption sounds good. But if there
are pitfalls within the process, the end result will be remarkably
different.

And my other point is - If the state laws continue to bar agreements
reached
outside of court when the parties no longer agree, the judges and
attorneys
will be able to override any parental agreement without participating in
the
mediations/negotiations.

It is very tempting when a lawyer says, "You didn't need to agree to 'X'
because I can get you 'Y'." Greed, insecurity, and lack of understanding
cause significant conflict that gets fueled by attorney intervention.

These yahoos are bent on immediate gratification at the expense of others.
But rest-assured, it always irons itself out in the end..... always.