Big lawsuit

"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.

"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?

"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.

"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)

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?
===


===

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.
====

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:

"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.

===


===

"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.

"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~