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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. ==== I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it will mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting to their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by the state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that context, his interest in his children may change. And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to him, he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'. === It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he parents 50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to hire a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which I doubt he would), He already has. === I did not know WI(?) already has default 50/50 custody from which he can opt out. When did that happen? He opted out of ANY custody. His choice. I find that just way too odd, that he .."opted out of ANY custody" strikes me as there is a heck of a lot more to the story here. He wrote a letter to the courts ceding me full and sole custody. I have the letter, the GAL has the letter, the courts have the letter. But as usual, Moon only gives us the information she wants us to see and hides the rest - unless you get under her skin and then the real Moon comes out. And that is never a pretty sight. There's nothing to hide - he made it public record when he sent a copy to the courts. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. Perhaps there where things you did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice. THAT is the understatement of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HA! Well, I was being nice. heh, heh... Yupper, just like adding a lit match to a lake of gasoline! Just look at the rash of posts from Moon over this little thing! I love it. How many posts is a permissible number? Shall we check on how many you, or Paul have posted on any given subject? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. Perhaps there where things you did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice. THAT is the understatement of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HA! Well, I was being nice. heh, heh... Yupper, just like adding a lit match to a lake of gasoline! Just look at the rash of posts from Moon over this little thing! I love it. She'll go into massive denial, claiming she is innocent....but others know better. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. ==== I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it will mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting to their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by the state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that context, his interest in his children may change. And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to him, he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'. === It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he parents 50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to hire a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which I doubt he would), He already has. === I did not know WI(?) already has default 50/50 custody from which he can opt out. When did that happen? He opted out of ANY custody. His choice. I find that just way too odd, that he .."opted out of ANY custody" strikes me as there is a heck of a lot more to the story here. But as usual, Moon only gives us the information she wants us to see and hides the rest - unless you get under her skin and then the real Moon comes out. And that is never a pretty sight. just do a google search for 'anastazia's busy week' (moonie used to post under various other names) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Moon Shyne says...
"Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. ==== I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it will mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting to their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by the state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that context, his interest in his children may change. And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to him, he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'. === It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he parents 50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to hire a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which I doubt he would), He already has. === I did not know WI(?) already has default 50/50 custody from which he can opt out. When did that happen? He opted out of ANY custody. His choice. === Was he offered 50% parenting time with no restrictions or interference from you or the court? Yes? No? === === |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Moon Shyne says...
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. ==== I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it will mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting to their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by the state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that context, his interest in his children may change. And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to him, he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'. === It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he parents 50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to hire a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which I doubt he would), He already has. === I did not know WI(?) already has default 50/50 custody from which he can opt out. When did that happen? He opted out of ANY custody. His choice. I find that just way too odd, that he .."opted out of ANY custody" strikes me as there is a heck of a lot more to the story here. He wrote a letter to the courts ceding me full and sole custody. I have the letter, the GAL has the letter, the courts have the letter. ==== Was that *before or after* you filed a petition for full and sole custody? I guess it must have been after because you would not have filed for sole custody (which you previously posted that you did)if he was voluntarily ceding custody. ==== |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The key below is "fit parents," and I agree. For those who are not fit,
..... -- Tippy "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... Something of interest: ~AZ~ Coalition of Parents Unite in Nationwide Class Action for Their Children Representatives from across the country are announcing that on September 17, 2004, they will simultaneously file federal class action lawsuits, on behalf of an estimated 25 million noncustodial parents, demanding that rights to equal custody of their children be restored by the federal courts. In what some are calling "the mother of all lawsuits", the parents will challenge widespread practices by the states in determining care, custody, and support of children. "Parents are tired of being mistreated as second class citizens by state courts," according to Torm L. Howse, President of the Indiana Civil Rights Council. "Most parents say they care about their children, their families, and the related unnecessary waste of their hard-earned taxdollars, more than all other political issues combined." Plaintiffs are seeking damages in all 50 states, bringing widespread attention to what they allege as years of disparate taxation and willful financial mismanagement. The coalition is comprised of various leaders from family rights, fathers rights, mothers rights, and shared parenting groups, as well as political candidates, doctors, and other activists committed to dramatic social, taxation, and government reform in the area of family law. The effort is also backed by several prominent family rights organizations. "We're trying to protect the right of all fit parents to share equally in the custody and care of their children," says Howse. "The time has come for a drastic reform of government practices that harm children and parents." "Kids need both parents," adds Rachel Forrest, a leader with the National Congress for Fathers and Children. "We hope that this landmark action will wake up the government and make it aware of the inequities in family courts and social services that prevent our children from having equal access to both of their parents." According to attorney Garrett C. Dailey, who successfully obtained a recent landmark California Supreme Court decision, "children of divorced parents who have two primary parents in their lives do better in school, are better adjusted and happier than children raised by only one primary parent." Likewise, the American Psychological Association, the world's largest such group, confirmed through an exhaustive study that children in joint custody arrangements have less behavior and emotional problems, higher self- esteem, better family relations, and better school performance than children who are subjected to sole custody arrangements. Agreeing in a decision long-touted by parental rights advocates, Judge Dorothy T. Beasley of the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled: "Inherent in the express public policy is a recognition of the child's right to equal access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by the application of both parents' wisdom, judgement and experience. The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce." In addition to challenging standard practices pertaining to family law, the coalition also alleges that while nearly every state has recognized catastrophic budgetary failures, the states still recklessly refuse to consider the financial devastation involved with encouraging routine awards of sole custody, reminding that such patterns dramatically increase crime, poverty, drug use, suicides, dropouts, teenage pregnancies, and other forms of direct harm and costs against children, families, taxpayers, and society in general. Professor Stephen Baskerville, distinguished master of political science at Howard University, and one of the world's foremost experts on various custody and child support issues, explains: "Politicians often spend money to avoid confronting problems. Yet marshaling the government to strengthen families seems especially pointless when it is government that weakened the family in the first place." The plaintiffs further allege that the relocation of children away from one parent radically increases the incidence of parental kidnappings, which dwarf all other types of kidnappings, and wastes additional taxdollars in the ensuing processes. An in-depth analysis, conducted in 1990 by the U.S. Department of Justice, confirmed that over 350,000 children were abducted that year by a family member - typically a parent involved in a custody dispute - while the number of stereotypical kidnappings of children for ransom amounted only to a few hundred nationwide. The parents say that common inequities in state family courts are also directly and indirectly responsible for murders and suicides amongst the most estranged families. Every week, they note, approximately 300 fathers and 75 mothers commit suicide in this country, with the majority of these senseless deaths directly attributable to victimization by family courts. These suicides are often committed by passive parents, due to hopelessness in a system fraught with injustice, but the more aggressive parents occasionally snap at the weight of suffering such anguish, and violently take out their desperation on estranged partners, sometimes even murdering them, and possibly the children, before also killing themselves. They also allege that the states are recklessly responsible for much of the abuse and neglect experienced by children in this country. The National Clearinghouse for Child Abuse and Neglect Information, a service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, consistently reports that, year after year, single parents are responsible for almost two-thirds of all substantiated cases of abuse and neglect committed against children - more than all other classes of perpetrators combined. The national costs of these child abuse and neglect incidents surpassed $94 billion in 2001, according to Prevent Child Abuse America. "It's painfully obvious that the majority of child abuse can be easily prevented, by simply ensuring the regular presence of both parents in the daily lives of children," notes Howse. "Involving the eyes and ears of both parents creates a naturally self-balancing situation, wherein a child's health and safety is automatically monitored by opposing sides who stand to gain if the other side fails." The Plaintiffs further charge that because parents are generally treated unfairly in family courts, the results are also directly or indirectly responsible for very large, and otherwise unnecessary, additional tax burdens upon every citizen, through increased welfare spending and self-serving enlargement of state family agencies and entities, and that such inequities are also indirectly responsible for vast numbers of personal and corporate bankruptcies, which are absorbed into even more future taxation. Additionally, they note a pattern of fraud and abuse being progressively reported about various state family bureaucracies, which they say are very costly in terms of taxdollars, and which violate the rights of American citizens on an unprecedented scale. "It is high time for costly government to get out of the lives of most parents and children," says Howse. "American taxpayers should no longer be forced to fund systematic violations against parents and children, and the needless progressive destruction of our society." For more information, contact: Torm L. Howse President, Indiana Civil Rights Council 317-769-6108 Or contact: Robert G. Lasheff Member, DADS in FAMILY COURT Phone: 224-730-2970 Email: |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. ==== I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it will mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting to their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by the state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that context, his interest in his children may change. And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to him, he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'. === It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he parents 50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to hire a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which I doubt he would), He already has. === I did not know WI(?) already has default 50/50 custody from which he can opt out. When did that happen? He opted out of ANY custody. His choice. === Was he offered 50% parenting time with no restrictions or interference from you or the court? Yes? No? Of course he wassn't......moonie was even ocntemplating moving her and the kids out of the o****ry (which she will deny) and as in the process of filing false charges against him...(which she will deny) moonie was the typical hostile mommie who fought her ex at every turn....then when he gave up, she whines that he is not involved. === === |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. Forced, no. You cannot force anyone to do something that they may or may not want to do. Though, you can request (urgently, strongly) that they become involved. Been there, done that, cc'd the courts and the GAL on the monthly letters advising when the children were available (which was any weekend he wanted, or mid week times, or entire weeks - all were offered) But you cannot force him. It's his choice. Perhaps there where things you did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice. Sent him letters letting him know when the children were available? This includes, but is not limited to: your treatment of him in and out of court (prior to the end of the relationship and during); the courts treatment of him through actions (or inaction) on your part, your attorneys part, the judges part, the many people that make their living through forcing (through various means) one parent to leave the family; state and federal intervention on your behave (weather known or unknown to you or your representative) to make his life hell; things the children may have said, done or otherwise inferred that you where unhappy he was still around... I notice you left out quite a few things - like if he has any convictions for domestic abuse while we were still married? Like his false accusations of mental illness and planned 'kidnappings' of the children? Like the court's turning a blind eye to his repeated contempts of court orders by non-compliance of things that were also demanded of me? (like keeping up life insurance and health insurance for the kids)? ------------------ Why in dogs name would you want him around the kids? He sounds like he must have been a terrible father. Aren't you one of the posters to ACS who insists that children do better when they have their father involved in their lives? -------------- Your bias is noted, that you presume the father's lack of interest in the children is the mother's fault. Sometimes, it's simply the father's fault. The above list is by no means complete and does not constitute all possible situations. It does intend to point out the idea that his inactivity with the children may not be a wholly conscious act on his part; that his actions may well have been part of a greater whole that forced him to make such a drastic decision. Or that it was simply his own selfishness that caused him to make such a decision. You left out that one, too. ----------------- There are many, many subtle things that encourage people to act the way they do. I know a lot of men who didn't stay in contact with their kids because they honestly thought it was the best thing for them. They felt that if they were around the mom might take out her anger on the kids or that the kids would be confused and uncomfortable. You, obviously, had a very bad breakup with your ex and even if you tried to hide all of it from your kids I'm sure they were able to feel the tension. You are making an assumption about which you have no way of knowing any information, and in the process, adhering to the imperfect assumption that it has to be something the *mom* caused. Pretty laughable, considering every time my children express anger at their father for things he has done (like ignoring their b'days, ignoring them at Xmas time, never calling), I ihave repeatedly explained to them that no matter what they, or anyone else thinks or says about their dad, if he wasn't their dad they wouldn't be who *they* are, and I'm quite fond of who they are. Shoot, we saw him last month at the annual state fair, he and his friend walked right past the kids... my daughter had seen them, so I handed her my cell phone so she could call him and the children could see their dad (and vice versa). He told her "I can't get away right now". I'm not saying that your ex was coming from the position that he thought it was in the kids best interest to just stay away but that there are numerous subtle influences to a persons actions. I agree - and sometimes, those subtle influences are from the person themself, and *not* some external source - it's amusing to watch how hard some posters (including you) will work to maintain the position that it's something the CP must have done. Some NCP's are just lousy people. It's almost impossible to understand why someone does something, especially when you are unable to communicate with the person in a calm, open way. That's why some of us CP's communicate in writing - that way, there's no alleged 'tone of voice', alleged body language, and there's a clear record of what was actually stated. ----------------- I am not stating that I support his decision. I am, however, stating that I understand that there are other factors that usually don't get mentioned when you go on an anti-father rampage and slam your X whenever you get t he opportunity. This was no rampage at all - I asked if the same actions that would force the CP to relinquish the children to the NCP would also force the NCP to take the children. I'm sure I'm not the only CP who's in this particular situation. Stating facts is not slamming anyone - it's stating facts. ------------- I don't recall you ever saying anything good/positive/nice about your ex. He was convicted after assaulting me, he ignores the children, and (like you, among others) tries to insist that the reasons for his abandonment of the children is someone else's fault. Do you see anything good/positive/nice there? ----------------- Then why do you want him around? Or maybe you don't really. That is unless he was the idealized perfect dad you want him to be. ~AZ~ He has beautiful eyes - that's pretty much the only nice thing I can think of at the moment, and the same response I gave the *last* time I was challenged to say something nice about him. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Rowanyx19" wrote in message ... Is it possible for anyone to believe that there are those who just dont want to be a parent? -------------- Oh I believe 100% that there are those who just don't want to be a parent. The problem is that most people don't realize that they can choose not to breed until it's too late. The way society is people are just expected to follow the 'script' of marriage and kids without ever stopping to think if this is what they really want. I laugh every time I read one of those surveys about what parents really think about parenthood and if they had to do it all over again would they? The majority would not. ------------------ My ex hasnt seen the kids in 2 yrs. We hadnt touched court..he helped out financially at 1st and then just stopped and I never asked him for any. I never said no to him seeing the kids although he never asked I asked him. I gave him an open door to come and go as he pleased. I kissed his royal ass because I wanted no problems with the children..because I knew if I even uttered any word against him or asked him anything he didnt want to do he would stop seeing them. He just didnt like being a parent...he hated the wrok he hated the responsibility and he didnt try to hide it. So he kind of just dwindled away and that was that. Im not going to chase him and beg and if someone doesnt want to be a parent than you cant force them...the onl thing Im angry at is if he were going to walk away he didnt have to drag it out and make it so much harder for the kids.. ---------------- My dad should never have been a parent. I'm sure he never had any kind of desire to have a child to carry on his name or anything like that. I doubt if he ever really thought about it. He just followed the script. But then when the ugly, screaming thing was finally handed to him reality kicked in and he backed out right quick! He had absolutely no clue what to do with kids and even though we rarely saw him I really don't hold it against him. I don't like kids either. ~AZ~ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NY Federal District Court Judge Orders Defendants to Respond to Lawsuit | Editor - Child Support News | Child Support | 52 | May 18th 04 04:04 PM |
(FL.) Former DCF attorney files whistle-blower lawsuit in Lakeland | [email protected] | Foster Parents | 0 | August 28th 03 06:41 PM |