If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
Thats an in correct assumption. Most ncps are men yet women default on CS at
twice the rate men do. Also, men are less likely to request CS from the NCP mother. "Tiffany" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote in message rthlink.net... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... Could be the reason it is that way (the abuse) is because more women have the kids, not the fathers. So of course there will be more abuse by single mothers. Duh. Exactly. Mothers are around the children more so they get more opportunities to beat up the kids. Therefore, mothers should be around their children less and the amount of abuse will go down. What better reason to reduce the 85% mother primary custody rate to protect the children from mother abuse? You miss my point. You NCP's rant about the large percentage of CP's are women. So oviously the stats for abuse will be higher for the women. Are you saying men don't abuse kids.... because I know alot of adults who will tell you otherwise. Could be part of the reason that so many kids from single mother households are that way because the father up and left...... can you imagine what it does to a child when one parent isn't interested in them? The statistics show women initiate the breakup of the relationship 70% of the time by deciding they want to leave. Regardless who initiates..... I initiated a breakup with a boyfriend.... he was abusive. Sadly, women also believe they can raise their children as effectively as a single parent as a two parent family can raise them. and this latter statistic tracts by race very close to the single parent households. As examples 38% of white women, 64% of black women, 61% of hispanic women, and 58% of indian/Alaskan women they can raise children as effectively as single parents. Well, I agree that is wrong. It takes 2 parents. Not one... wether it be father or mother. But you know, I have been meeting more and more single fathers who are raising the kids, sometimes totally on their own. So we will see, as more fathers become the CP, how the stats might change. Mothers currently commit 55% of child murders. Because more mothers have their kids. Its hard for bio-fathers to commit crimes to the kids when they are not around. Now don't twist this.... I am going on the stats that are ALWAYS being posted here that mothers always get the kids. I am NOT saying that is right. I beleive in equal custody. I don't believe in posting stats that are misleading. Bio-fathers commit under 7% of child murders. The other 38% are committed by the mother's boyfriend or the child's step-father. Obviously, the most severe form of child abuse is committed by mothers or men they invite into their children's lives. And as more fathers get full custody, we will see how those stats change too. Abuse happens all over the board folks, by men/women/blacks/white/ect ect ect. I got an off-topic question that I will pop in here. Maybe this is a moral dilema. I know someone, of course, who knows someone in this situation. It is her sisters family, sister is married, they have 3 kids with them, 2 to a previous, one is their shared baby. Husband has been viewd hiting oldest son in the head, in the back, whatever. Does this person risk breaking ties with the family to report this? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
News stories - was: Rant--The CP is Not the Judge
"Tracy" wrote in message newsatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02... "gini52" wrote in message ... Just a reminder to all NCPs--Your child's custodial mother, her parents, sisters, etc. do not determine family law matters. *Do not let them intimidate you.* These issues are resolved by a court. You do not need your ex's permission to take your case to court. You need the filing fee and the proper forms and procedures (if you do not have an atty.) Many states now have these forms online as well as instructions on how to file them. Granted, it is not easy to get a custody change, but if you have a child in danger or at risk, you have a responsibility to that child to try every possible avenue to help him or her. I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1 year old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers were in every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a custody change prior to the violent acts. If he didn't, shame on him; if he did, shame on the courts and states and they should be held accountable for the injuries or deaths of these children. Gini - I agree with what you are saying, but I don't agree with "shame on him" for not trying. We don't know the full details of this case. The father may have felt he didn't stand a chance, and wasn't "aware" of her true mental problems. I would like to give the father the benefit of the doubt and question why. What she did was sick... I couldn't imagine standing there witnessing *anyone* doing such a horrifying act. == I wasn't speaking of this particular case but fathers in general who do know their kids are at risk. (Out a little late tonight weren't you? ;-) == == |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
"Batch File" wrote in message .com... Thats an in correct assumption. Most ncps are men yet women default on CS at twice the rate men do. Also, men are less likely to request CS from the NCP mother. Don't forget, men are less likely to request sole custody as well. Phil #3 [snip] |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
Bob Whiteside wrote in message rthlink.net... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote in message rthlink.net... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... Could be the reason it is that way (the abuse) is because more women have the kids, not the fathers. So of course there will be more abuse by single mothers. Duh. Exactly. Mothers are around the children more so they get more opportunities to beat up the kids. Therefore, mothers should be around their children less and the amount of abuse will go down. What better reason to reduce the 85% mother primary custody rate to protect the children from mother abuse? You miss my point. You NCP's rant about the large percentage of CP's are women. So oviously the stats for abuse will be higher for the women. Are you saying men don't abuse kids.... because I know alot of adults who will tell you otherwise. Men abuse kids. The men who abuse kids are most frequently the men women invite into their children's lives. The bad choices women make in men are highly repsonsible for male child abuser statistics. It is rarely the bio-father who abuses his own children. The mother's boyfriend is the most likely male abuser followed by a step-father. Bio-fathers are way down the list of child abusers. Could be part of the reason that so many kids from single mother households are that way because the father up and left...... can you imagine what it does to a child when one parent isn't interested in them? The statistics show women initiate the breakup of the relationship 70% of the time by deciding they want to leave. Regardless who initiates..... I initiated a breakup with a boyfriend.... he was abusive. Was that abuse child abuse or spousal abuse? I thought this thread was about child abuse. Sorry, we were discusing child abuse. BUT I stated that in reply to your comment that women initiate breakups 70% of the time. Why do so many women initiate the breakups? (No I don't think its all the males fault.) Sadly, women also believe they can raise their children as effectively as a single parent as a two parent family can raise them. and this latter statistic tracts by race very close to the single parent households. As examples 38% of white women, 64% of black women, 61% of hispanic women, and 58% of indian/Alaskan women they can raise children as effectively as single parents. Well, I agree that is wrong. It takes 2 parents. Not one... wether it be father or mother. Fathers actually recognize the value of two parent households more than mothers. 26% of men think they can raise a child without a woman's help versus 42% of women. Some women have had no choice. (As the same goes with men) But you know, I have been meeting more and more single fathers who are raising the kids, sometimes totally on their own. So we will see, as more fathers become the CP, how the stats might change. Mothers currently commit 55% of child murders. Well, there is some equality. Because more mothers have their kids. Its hard for bio-fathers to commit crimes to the kids when they are not around. Now don't twist this.... I am going on the stats that are ALWAYS being posted here that mothers always get the kids. I am NOT saying that is right. I beleive in equal custody. I don't believe in posting stats that are misleading. Okay, let's forget the stats. Fathers have psychological advantages they bring to parenting. Fathers teach children how to keep their emotions under control in crisis situations. Fathers teach ego strength to conduct self-evaluation. Fathers show children alternative ways to express anger without grudges. Fathers teach responsibilty. Fathers show how they can be flexible to changes and shifting priorities. Fathers are more stable emotionally because testosterone has been proven to be the calming hormone rather than a cause of aggression. All that is a big generalization. Not all males are as stated above. But as I said, I beleive in balance. A child should be raised by 2 parents, and I personally prefer the male/female idea. lol T |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
News stories - was: Rant--The CP is Not the Judge
"Tracy" wrote in message newsatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02... Bob - I'm not sure where you are coming up with comments concerning the color of the mother's skin... but really now. It doesn't matter what color her skin is. What happen is wrong, and it should raise concerns. "Naomi" could be a female from any race. As far as the names of the children - yes, they are very uncommon and should have raised questions with someone... but who knows the full story. Here's a detailed story from the local press. http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3975020.html The picture accompanying the article clearly shows Naomi/Pleasant is a black woman. Also from the story: Gaines told police that she felt like people on the bridge were staring at her and that someone whom she bumped into with the stroller reacted rudely. She said she "would rather be dead than live in a place where I'm not free to walk around, I'm not free to be who I am, I'm not free to see other moms out, single black moms with their kids, enjoying their kids." And finally to counter the erroneous assumption no fathers or father figures were involved: Jones (a mutual friend of the mother and father) said that he is a former roommate of Allah's (the children's father) and that the two men often cared for Supreme Knowledge and Sincere Understanding. "They were like my little nephews," Jones said. "This is hard." |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
News stories - was: Rant--The CP is Not the Judge
"gini52" wrote in message
... "Tracy" wrote in message newsatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02... "gini52" wrote in message ... Just a reminder to all NCPs--Your child's custodial mother, her parents, sisters, etc. do not determine family law matters. *Do not let them intimidate you.* These issues are resolved by a court. You do not need your ex's permission to take your case to court. You need the filing fee and the proper forms and procedures (if you do not have an atty.) Many states now have these forms online as well as instructions on how to file them. Granted, it is not easy to get a custody change, but if you have a child in danger or at risk, you have a responsibility to that child to try every possible avenue to help him or her. I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1 year old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers were in every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a custody change prior to the violent acts. If he didn't, shame on him; if he did, shame on the courts and states and they should be held accountable for the injuries or deaths of these children. Gini - I agree with what you are saying, but I don't agree with "shame on him" for not trying. We don't know the full details of this case. The father may have felt he didn't stand a chance, and wasn't "aware" of her true mental problems. I would like to give the father the benefit of the doubt and question why. What she did was sick... I couldn't imagine standing there witnessing *anyone* doing such a horrifying act. == I wasn't speaking of this particular case but fathers in general who do know their kids are at risk. (Out a little late tonight weren't you? ;-) Not last night. I was just up late talking on the phone. We were talking about this weekend. ;-) Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
News stories - was: Rant--The CP is Not the Judge
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news "Tracy" wrote in message newsatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02... Bob - I'm not sure where you are coming up with comments concerning the color of the mother's skin... but really now. It doesn't matter what color her skin is. What happen is wrong, and it should raise concerns. "Naomi" could be a female from any race. As far as the names of the children - yes, they are very uncommon and should have raised questions with someone... but who knows the full story. Here's a detailed story from the local press. http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3975020.html The picture accompanying the article clearly shows Naomi/Pleasant is a black woman. Also from the story: Did the picture tell you she was on welfare, or did you read the story? I believe it stated she was working as an artist. And finally to counter the erroneous assumption no fathers or father figures were involved: What erroneous assumption? Who said the father wasn't around? If you are referring to *me* step back and read what I typed again. I never made such a claim. I said to give the father the benefit of the doubt. I was just curious as to where you come up with your information on people. I really would hate to think you were basing your assumptions about this mother based on the color of her skin. I know some mixed raced individuals which are lighter than I am right now. I was called some really ugly racist names while growing up due to the color of my skin (when tanned) and my tight natural curly dark brown hair. Let's not judge someone based on the color of their skin... oh, and if it wasn't such an issue with you - then why even mention the color of her skin? As far as my opinion - the woman had major issues. What she did was just sick. How well she hid her mental problems could be debated... but she was probably in better mental shape than Mrs. Yates, and I remember how many men in this group defended Mr Yates. So I'm surprised to see some *not* defend this father, but defend Mr Yates. Interesting... Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
"frazil" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote in message thlink.net... "gini52" wrote in message ... == Not necessarily (in theory, anyway). Most family law modifications are based on "change of circumstance" which can be argued if a CP's mental condition and/or lifestyle has changed/worsened in a way that puts the child at risk. These changes are rarely easy and shouldn't be--but when well documented circumstances are in front of the judge, he/she should be compelled to act. So let's say a woman has multiple drug convictions, has never been married, quit school in the 9th grade, had her first child at age 15, has had three children with three different men, she collects welfare benefits, and has never been able to hold down a steady job. How can a father prove "change of circumstances" under this very common scenario unless something far worse occurs in her life like a felony conviction? Or let's say a married woman divorces. She shacks up with a drug pusher who is an ex-con, starts doing lots of coke, drives while intoxicated, gets tattoed and pierced, and generally goes through a second childhood. How can a father prove "change of circumstances" when it comes down to his word against hers? Aren't these lifestyle changes freely made and not an issue unless she gets arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of a crime? What if the first offense only results in a suspended sentence with probation and a lecture to clean up her act? How many offenses does it take to prove a "changes of circumstances"? If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test. And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right to not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass her without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would you grant the drug test? I don't know whether there has been a recent increase in violence against children by mothers, but it is happening *a lot*--epidemic, perhaps. This needs to get the notice of society/courts/legislatures so that mother custody is *not* default and serious and equal consideration must be given to both parents as well as enforcing shared physical custody so neither parent is carrying the entire emotional/psychological load of "single parent." Mothers have always been more violent against their children than fathers. But it's not just the violence. Children from mother headed households are far more apt to be in prison, have drug problems, drop out of school, create teenage pregnancies, commit suicide, etc. and the courts still don't act on these statistics. These very real statistics get ignored because they don't fit the decision-making template that mothers make better, nurturing parents. The statistics are ignored because they say nothing about the individual. Men are more likely than women to rob banks, but we don't prohibit men from entering banks, working in banks, having bank accounts, or even owning banks. Black men driving a rented car with Florida license plates on interstate 95 north, are more likely to be transporting drugs than others, but you still can't pull them over merely for being black men driving a rented car with Florida license plates on interstate 95 north. That is a good description of how the problems get dodged. It's that kind of rationalization that prevents the statistical trends from being the basis for social change. We have reached a point in our society where we fear using any type of statistical trends because they lead to accusations of profiling. Instead of focusing on changing the outcomes that are statistically predictable, we allow them to continue under the premise of protecting individuals from stereotyping. We create more government programs to throw money at the issues instead of fixing the underlying problem areas. Otherwise, let the accountibility fall into the laps of those who refuse to act to protect these kids. This needs to be a forefront issue for fathers as it is one that is critically needed and one society will sympathize with. The judge *will* listen when society demands it. This is not an issue that can accomodate excuses from fathers as to why they didn't try to get custody. They must be compelled to try--and not give up on these kids at risk. Don't forget--Drew did it and he is not alone. == == Judges and state workers are protected from accountability for their misdeeds through sovereign immunity granted to public officials. As long as they can claim immunity they will never be accountable for their mistakes. No they are not protected. But of course misdeeds are in the eye of the beholder. Malfeasence of office are grounds for dismissal and criminal prosecution. As long as they act within the bounds of the law they are protected from civil actions, but if they act illegally they can, and are, held criminally responsible. As it should be, they are not held accountable to you just because you don't like the decision they made. I think we are agreeing. Public officials can be held accountable within the government and can be prosecuted by the government, but private citizens have no direct recourse should the public officials screw up. In most instances, the same people who are responsible for the errors in government are responsible for passing judgement on themselves. If they refuse to acknowledge responsibility, or the legislature and/or the governor refuse to accept responsibility, there is no civil lawsuit recourse for losses suffered by private citizens. The limited legal recourse that is available is through appeals to higher courts attempting to show violations of laws by the government. What drives me nuts about how government works is the feds can fine the states, the states can fine the counties, the counties can fine the cities, and the taxpayers at the bottom of the food chain end up losing services because of the games that get played within the governmental hierarchy to shift tax dollars around. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
News stories - was: Rant--The CP is Not the Judge
"Tracy" wrote in message news:1NIOa.11319$Ph3.1406@sccrnsc04... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message news "Tracy" wrote in message newsatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02... Bob - I'm not sure where you are coming up with comments concerning the color of the mother's skin... but really now. It doesn't matter what color her skin is. What happen is wrong, and it should raise concerns. "Naomi" could be a female from any race. As far as the names of the children - yes, they are very uncommon and should have raised questions with someone... but who knows the full story. Here's a detailed story from the local press. http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3975020.html The picture accompanying the article clearly shows Naomi/Pleasant is a black woman. Also from the story: Did the picture tell you she was on welfare, or did you read the story? I believe it stated she was working as an artist. I saw a Reuters, Fox, AP, and this local story on the Internet news sources I read. One of them said she was on welfare. The one I linked to said she had been under court order not to use drugs and alcohol and had sever mental illness issues causing her children to be removed from her multiple times. Her employment was as a singer for some kind of music group and continuing that role was shaky based on the band's manager quoted in the story. And finally to counter the erroneous assumption no fathers or father figures were involved: What erroneous assumption? Who said the father wasn't around? If you are referring to *me* step back and read what I typed again. I never made such a claim. I said to give the father the benefit of the doubt. Sorry for any mix up. I followed your lead and responded to several posters in the same response. someone suggested in cases like this one the whereabouts of the father should be a major question to be asked. I was just posting the father had been involved on an ongoing basis. I was just curious as to where you come up with your information on people. I really would hate to think you were basing your assumptions about this mother based on the color of her skin. I know some mixed raced individuals which are lighter than I am right now. I was called some really ugly racist names while growing up due to the color of my skin (when tanned) and my tight natural curly dark brown hair. Let's not judge someone based on the color of their skin... oh, and if it wasn't such an issue with you - then why even mention the color of her skin? What I originally posted was this woman said she went to the festival looking for other black, single mothers enjoying their children. The only reference to her skin color came from a quote attributed directly from her comments to investigators. As far as my opinion - the woman had major issues. What she did was just sick. How well she hid her mental problems could be debated... but she was probably in better mental shape than Mrs. Yates, and I remember how many men in this group defended Mr Yates. So I'm surprised to see some *not* defend this father, but defend Mr Yates. Interesting... I'm not sure what you are getting at. Yates was accused of allowing his wife to have ongoing contact with their children. In this case the mother was under supervision of the court for drug and alcohol abuse treatment, had her children removed by the state, etc. but the state kept giving her children back to her. Obviously the state knew she was not stable before the crime, not after the crime as in the Yates case. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net... "frazil" wrote in message ... If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test. And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right to not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass her without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would you grant the drug test? Yes - I'd order one on both. Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Judge: Child's Removal Was Unnecessary | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 2 | August 6th 04 09:20 PM |
DCF wrkrs & perjury Judge writes DCF wrong. U trust them? | Fern5827 | Spanking | 0 | August 6th 04 03:04 PM |
Judge in GA will take LONG LEAVE-investigation continues | Kane | General | 0 | January 12th 04 06:02 AM |
Judge in GA will take LONG LEAVE-investigation continues | Kane | Spanking | 0 | January 12th 04 06:02 AM |
Judge in GA will take LONG LEAVE-investigation continues | Kane | Foster Parents | 0 | January 12th 04 06:02 AM |