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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Your bias is showing...they didn't prohibit the CP from moving away from
the children. I'm curios - why is it more important to force the NCP to remain where the children are? Is this your admission that fathers are more important to kids than mothers are? Mel Gamble Indyguy1 wrote: Dave I too think this is a good thing. However they didn't go far enough. They should also prohibit NCPs from moving away from their children. Mrs Indyguy |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Mel wrote:
Your bias is showing...they didn't prohibit the CP from moving away from the children. I meant that the same rules should apply to the CP AND the NCP, and that NEITHER should be allowed to move away. I'm curios - why is it more important to force the NCP to remain where the children are? It is equally important for the CP to remain where the NCP is, as every child should be able to see both of their parents on a regular basis. Is this your admission that fathers are more important to kids than mothers are? More important? No. As important as the CP? Yes. Mrs Indyguy Mel Gamble Indyguy1 wrote: Dave I too think this is a good thing. However they didn't go far enough. They should also prohibit NCPs from moving away from their children. Mrs Indyguy |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Mel wrote:
Your bias is showing...they didn't prohibit the CP from moving away from the children. I meant that the same rules should apply to the CP AND the NCP, and that NEITHER should be allowed to move away. I'm curios - why is it more important to force the NCP to remain where the children are? It is equally important for the CP to remain where the NCP is, as every child should be able to see both of their parents on a regular basis. Is this your admission that fathers are more important to kids than mothers are? More important? No. As important as the CP? Yes. Mrs Indyguy Mel Gamble Indyguy1 wrote: Dave I too think this is a good thing. However they didn't go far enough. They should also prohibit NCPs from moving away from their children. Mrs Indyguy |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Mel wrote:
Your bias is showing...they didn't prohibit the CP from moving away from the children. I meant that the same rules should apply to the CP AND the NCP, and that NEITHER should be allowed to move away. I'm curios - why is it more important to force the NCP to remain where the children are? It is equally important for the CP to remain where the NCP is, as every child should be able to see both of their parents on a regular basis. Is this your admission that fathers are more important to kids than mothers are? More important? No. As important as the CP? Yes. Mrs Indyguy Mel Gamble Indyguy1 wrote: Dave I too think this is a good thing. However they didn't go far enough. They should also prohibit NCPs from moving away from their children. Mrs Indyguy |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Fido wrote:
This is good, good news in a landmark case that was being watched very closely by many groups. The decision simply allowes the court to consider the relationship of the child to the parents when considering change of custody requests with circumstance. Of course, the National Organization of Women and other "women's groups" bitterly opposed this concept in cases like this - because it puts the interest of the children ahead of the interest of the custodial parent - who in 85% of the cases is a woman. So, they consider this ruling to be an "erosion of women's rights". Pretty transparent agenda, as you can see. Best - Fido The decision is not as "good" as it seems. What the California Supreme Court did is to slap the wrist of the Court of Appeals because the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's decision. In "Burgess" (the prior such case), the trial court had said that the CP could move with the children and that it was the burden on the NCP to prove that such a move was detrimental. That has not been changed by the new case. LaMusga is another example (they are consistent) of the Supreme Court telling the Appeals Court that they should not reverse the trial court's decision. In LaMusga, the trial court agreed with the NCP and the Appeals court reversed that. What the Supreme Court is saying, according to a legal friend, is that the trial court is the "finder of fact" (???) and that it remains the burden of the NCP to prove that a moveaway is not "in the best interests of the child". BTW, the LaMusga decision does not necessarily mean that the child with stay with the father. It just means that the trial court should consider the proposed moveaway as a "change in circumstances" and should then order a new "evaluation". The "evaluator" could (and still might) recommend that the child go with the mother. My legal friend said, essentially, that what this all means is that the trial court determines the outcome, the system is still prejudiced against fathers, and that if one loses at the trial court level, one should "suck it up" and save the money that one would spend on an appeal and use it for your kid's college education. All that glitters is not gold. Best, Bob Robert A. Fink, M. D., President California Parents United, Inc. "The best parent is both parents...." |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Fido wrote:
This is good, good news in a landmark case that was being watched very closely by many groups. The decision simply allowes the court to consider the relationship of the child to the parents when considering change of custody requests with circumstance. Of course, the National Organization of Women and other "women's groups" bitterly opposed this concept in cases like this - because it puts the interest of the children ahead of the interest of the custodial parent - who in 85% of the cases is a woman. So, they consider this ruling to be an "erosion of women's rights". Pretty transparent agenda, as you can see. Best - Fido The decision is not as "good" as it seems. What the California Supreme Court did is to slap the wrist of the Court of Appeals because the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's decision. In "Burgess" (the prior such case), the trial court had said that the CP could move with the children and that it was the burden on the NCP to prove that such a move was detrimental. That has not been changed by the new case. LaMusga is another example (they are consistent) of the Supreme Court telling the Appeals Court that they should not reverse the trial court's decision. In LaMusga, the trial court agreed with the NCP and the Appeals court reversed that. What the Supreme Court is saying, according to a legal friend, is that the trial court is the "finder of fact" (???) and that it remains the burden of the NCP to prove that a moveaway is not "in the best interests of the child". BTW, the LaMusga decision does not necessarily mean that the child with stay with the father. It just means that the trial court should consider the proposed moveaway as a "change in circumstances" and should then order a new "evaluation". The "evaluator" could (and still might) recommend that the child go with the mother. My legal friend said, essentially, that what this all means is that the trial court determines the outcome, the system is still prejudiced against fathers, and that if one loses at the trial court level, one should "suck it up" and save the money that one would spend on an appeal and use it for your kid's college education. All that glitters is not gold. Best, Bob Robert A. Fink, M. D., President California Parents United, Inc. "The best parent is both parents...." |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Fido wrote:
This is good, good news in a landmark case that was being watched very closely by many groups. The decision simply allowes the court to consider the relationship of the child to the parents when considering change of custody requests with circumstance. Of course, the National Organization of Women and other "women's groups" bitterly opposed this concept in cases like this - because it puts the interest of the children ahead of the interest of the custodial parent - who in 85% of the cases is a woman. So, they consider this ruling to be an "erosion of women's rights". Pretty transparent agenda, as you can see. Best - Fido The decision is not as "good" as it seems. What the California Supreme Court did is to slap the wrist of the Court of Appeals because the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's decision. In "Burgess" (the prior such case), the trial court had said that the CP could move with the children and that it was the burden on the NCP to prove that such a move was detrimental. That has not been changed by the new case. LaMusga is another example (they are consistent) of the Supreme Court telling the Appeals Court that they should not reverse the trial court's decision. In LaMusga, the trial court agreed with the NCP and the Appeals court reversed that. What the Supreme Court is saying, according to a legal friend, is that the trial court is the "finder of fact" (???) and that it remains the burden of the NCP to prove that a moveaway is not "in the best interests of the child". BTW, the LaMusga decision does not necessarily mean that the child with stay with the father. It just means that the trial court should consider the proposed moveaway as a "change in circumstances" and should then order a new "evaluation". The "evaluator" could (and still might) recommend that the child go with the mother. My legal friend said, essentially, that what this all means is that the trial court determines the outcome, the system is still prejudiced against fathers, and that if one loses at the trial court level, one should "suck it up" and save the money that one would spend on an appeal and use it for your kid's college education. All that glitters is not gold. Best, Bob Robert A. Fink, M. D., President California Parents United, Inc. "The best parent is both parents...." |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
I've had only a quick scan through this 44-page Supreme Court of
California opinion, which is available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S107355.PDF. From this quick read, I would endorse the view expressed by Robert Fink below. This court decision IS a step forward for fathers. However, the question is, how much of a step forward is it? We shouldn't be distracted by the comments of the National Organization for Women on the court decision. NOW can be expected to set up an outcry any time any sops are thrown to fathers. However, a quick read through the opinion seems to indicate that: (1) a major influence on the court was the mother's determination, expressed in several ways, of blocking the father's access (she was talking about moving to Arizona OR Ohio -- anywhere to make it difficult for the father to have access to the children); and (2) there are references in the court decision to the importance of not interfering with mothers' ability to take the children with them when they move. As far as I can see, there's no reason for fathers to break out the champagne, in celebration of this decision. Nevertheless, California is a large state, and there may be ways of building on this precedent in the future -- even if it's only in situations where mothers have a history of trying to interfere with visitation. So far as moveaways by mothers are concerned, this is not the beginning of the end, but it MAY be the end of the beginning. "Robert A. Fink, M. D." wrote in message ... Fido wrote: This is good, good news in a landmark case that was being watched very closely by many groups. The decision simply allowes the court to consider the relationship of the child to the parents when considering change of custody requests with circumstance. Of course, the National Organization of Women and other "women's groups" bitterly opposed this concept in cases like this - because it puts the interest of the children ahead of the interest of the custodial parent - who in 85% of the cases is a woman. So, they consider this ruling to be an "erosion of women's rights". Pretty transparent agenda, as you can see. Best - Fido The decision is not as "good" as it seems. What the California Supreme Court did is to slap the wrist of the Court of Appeals because the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's decision. In "Burgess" (the prior such case), the trial court had said that the CP could move with the children and that it was the burden on the NCP to prove that such a move was detrimental. That has not been changed by the new case. LaMusga is another example (they are consistent) of the Supreme Court telling the Appeals Court that they should not reverse the trial court's decision. In LaMusga, the trial court agreed with the NCP and the Appeals court reversed that. What the Supreme Court is saying, according to a legal friend, is that the trial court is the "finder of fact" (???) and that it remains the burden of the NCP to prove that a moveaway is not "in the best interests of the child". BTW, the LaMusga decision does not necessarily mean that the child with stay with the father. It just means that the trial court should consider the proposed moveaway as a "change in circumstances" and should then order a new "evaluation". The "evaluator" could (and still might) recommend that the child go with the mother. My legal friend said, essentially, that what this all means is that the trial court determines the outcome, the system is still prejudiced against fathers, and that if one loses at the trial court level, one should "suck it up" and save the money that one would spend on an appeal and use it for your kid's college education. All that glitters is not gold. Best, Bob Robert A. Fink, M. D., President California Parents United, Inc. "The best parent is both parents...." |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
I've had only a quick scan through this 44-page Supreme Court of
California opinion, which is available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S107355.PDF. From this quick read, I would endorse the view expressed by Robert Fink below. This court decision IS a step forward for fathers. However, the question is, how much of a step forward is it? We shouldn't be distracted by the comments of the National Organization for Women on the court decision. NOW can be expected to set up an outcry any time any sops are thrown to fathers. However, a quick read through the opinion seems to indicate that: (1) a major influence on the court was the mother's determination, expressed in several ways, of blocking the father's access (she was talking about moving to Arizona OR Ohio -- anywhere to make it difficult for the father to have access to the children); and (2) there are references in the court decision to the importance of not interfering with mothers' ability to take the children with them when they move. As far as I can see, there's no reason for fathers to break out the champagne, in celebration of this decision. Nevertheless, California is a large state, and there may be ways of building on this precedent in the future -- even if it's only in situations where mothers have a history of trying to interfere with visitation. So far as moveaways by mothers are concerned, this is not the beginning of the end, but it MAY be the end of the beginning. "Robert A. Fink, M. D." wrote in message ... Fido wrote: This is good, good news in a landmark case that was being watched very closely by many groups. The decision simply allowes the court to consider the relationship of the child to the parents when considering change of custody requests with circumstance. Of course, the National Organization of Women and other "women's groups" bitterly opposed this concept in cases like this - because it puts the interest of the children ahead of the interest of the custodial parent - who in 85% of the cases is a woman. So, they consider this ruling to be an "erosion of women's rights". Pretty transparent agenda, as you can see. Best - Fido The decision is not as "good" as it seems. What the California Supreme Court did is to slap the wrist of the Court of Appeals because the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's decision. In "Burgess" (the prior such case), the trial court had said that the CP could move with the children and that it was the burden on the NCP to prove that such a move was detrimental. That has not been changed by the new case. LaMusga is another example (they are consistent) of the Supreme Court telling the Appeals Court that they should not reverse the trial court's decision. In LaMusga, the trial court agreed with the NCP and the Appeals court reversed that. What the Supreme Court is saying, according to a legal friend, is that the trial court is the "finder of fact" (???) and that it remains the burden of the NCP to prove that a moveaway is not "in the best interests of the child". BTW, the LaMusga decision does not necessarily mean that the child with stay with the father. It just means that the trial court should consider the proposed moveaway as a "change in circumstances" and should then order a new "evaluation". The "evaluator" could (and still might) recommend that the child go with the mother. My legal friend said, essentially, that what this all means is that the trial court determines the outcome, the system is still prejudiced against fathers, and that if one loses at the trial court level, one should "suck it up" and save the money that one would spend on an appeal and use it for your kid's college education. All that glitters is not gold. Best, Bob Robert A. Fink, M. D., President California Parents United, Inc. "The best parent is both parents...." |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
I've had only a quick scan through this 44-page Supreme Court of
California opinion, which is available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S107355.PDF. From this quick read, I would endorse the view expressed by Robert Fink below. This court decision IS a step forward for fathers. However, the question is, how much of a step forward is it? We shouldn't be distracted by the comments of the National Organization for Women on the court decision. NOW can be expected to set up an outcry any time any sops are thrown to fathers. However, a quick read through the opinion seems to indicate that: (1) a major influence on the court was the mother's determination, expressed in several ways, of blocking the father's access (she was talking about moving to Arizona OR Ohio -- anywhere to make it difficult for the father to have access to the children); and (2) there are references in the court decision to the importance of not interfering with mothers' ability to take the children with them when they move. As far as I can see, there's no reason for fathers to break out the champagne, in celebration of this decision. Nevertheless, California is a large state, and there may be ways of building on this precedent in the future -- even if it's only in situations where mothers have a history of trying to interfere with visitation. So far as moveaways by mothers are concerned, this is not the beginning of the end, but it MAY be the end of the beginning. "Robert A. Fink, M. D." wrote in message ... Fido wrote: This is good, good news in a landmark case that was being watched very closely by many groups. The decision simply allowes the court to consider the relationship of the child to the parents when considering change of custody requests with circumstance. Of course, the National Organization of Women and other "women's groups" bitterly opposed this concept in cases like this - because it puts the interest of the children ahead of the interest of the custodial parent - who in 85% of the cases is a woman. So, they consider this ruling to be an "erosion of women's rights". Pretty transparent agenda, as you can see. Best - Fido The decision is not as "good" as it seems. What the California Supreme Court did is to slap the wrist of the Court of Appeals because the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's decision. In "Burgess" (the prior such case), the trial court had said that the CP could move with the children and that it was the burden on the NCP to prove that such a move was detrimental. That has not been changed by the new case. LaMusga is another example (they are consistent) of the Supreme Court telling the Appeals Court that they should not reverse the trial court's decision. In LaMusga, the trial court agreed with the NCP and the Appeals court reversed that. What the Supreme Court is saying, according to a legal friend, is that the trial court is the "finder of fact" (???) and that it remains the burden of the NCP to prove that a moveaway is not "in the best interests of the child". BTW, the LaMusga decision does not necessarily mean that the child with stay with the father. It just means that the trial court should consider the proposed moveaway as a "change in circumstances" and should then order a new "evaluation". The "evaluator" could (and still might) recommend that the child go with the mother. My legal friend said, essentially, that what this all means is that the trial court determines the outcome, the system is still prejudiced against fathers, and that if one loses at the trial court level, one should "suck it up" and save the money that one would spend on an appeal and use it for your kid's college education. All that glitters is not gold. Best, Bob Robert A. Fink, M. D., President California Parents United, Inc. "The best parent is both parents...." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 | Beth Weiss | Info and FAQ's | 1 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | April 17th 04 12:26 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | April 17th 04 12:24 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 | Beth Weiss | Info and FAQ's | 1 | April 3rd 04 12:36 PM |
A Good Man | chillin' | Child Support | 83 | September 28th 03 05:37 AM |