Faulty to assume Shared Parenting: here's why

[TRG2010]

Mess, I never said you didnt say he wasnt abusive. But you seam to be stating that I am lying, Did you read the whole page??

Criminal Code offences include, but are not limited to,
homicide, assault, sexual assault, threatening death or bodily
harm, forcible confinement, harassment/stalking, abduction,
break and enter and property related offences. A criminal
offence can be as simple as a slap or as serious as a

homicide.
- It also sates later -

Domestic violence can be a single act of abuse. It can also
include a number of acts that may appear minor in nature,

but collectively form a pattern that amounts to abuse.
- Also states -
If reasonable grounds exist, the police lay charges.

The web page is about more than just physical assult. I think you need to become more informed about domestic violence. Anyway, Mess, I called the police, they told me they will take a statement from me and are obligated to call CAS as well, this is what they did, you dont want to believe me, well thats your problem. Its not fiction, Its not bogus proof, and you are stating that it isnt true about the police calling CAS, you have stated that I lied.
Are you mean like this to everybody?

Are you aware of how many woman are killed by there partners and it all starts with minor incidents and most women do not notify the police of the acts there former partners are comminting and therefore the police have no record. Mess, I dont appreciate your comments and your assumptions that I am not telling the truth. READ the whole article....

[representingself]

Personally I think this particular argument is pointless, there is no reasoning with this poster... she is upset and defensive and is not listening.

However...

Last year I was approached by my ex's sister. We were in a public place when she walked up to me and started screaming her head off... (which was typical behaviour from her).

I refused to argue with her, so when she got tired of getting no response from me, she walked away.

I was alone.. (except for the other random people who were there).

I later filed a police report, just to keep my butt covered and protect myself from false accusations.

Regardless of the fact that there were no children present, AND it was my ex's sister...(he wasn't even there)... the Police Officer told me that he HAD to call the CAS as the incident was related to a "family law matter".

Needless to say, I never heard from anyone from the CAS, but I do believe that the Officer did report the incident to them.

I am sure every situation is different and PO's are able to exercise their own discretion (to a certain extent).

[HammerDad]

Originally Posted by TRG2010

BTW - Here is the quote - it is from Australia, article: Shared parenting for divorce couples 'harmful to children'

You're an idiot.

You have totally misconstrued my comment. My comment wasn't about forcing 50/50 down other people throats. It was about each parent SHOULD WANT THEIR OWN CHILDREN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME THEY CAN. And that if any parent chooses to see their own child less then the maximum amount they can, they should be shot because they aren't real parents.

Not just that, but you cherry picked my post and obviously didn't read of my points.

You obviously have an agenda and a chip on your shoulder and are venting at people who will have zero impact on your problems. You are also railing against an ideal which obviously doesn't relate to you as your situation is different, as you have other mitigating circumstances.

And I agree with Mess, that you seem to relate your situation as every situation. Your is more an oddity, so you shouldn't be comparing it to me or others here.

[tugofwar]

Originally Posted by HammerDad

It was about each parent SHOULD WANT THEIR OWN CHILDREN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME THEY CAN. And that if any parent chooses to see their own child less then the maximum amount they can, they should be shot because they aren't real parents.

Thank you for this post!

[dadtotheend]

Nice chip on your shoulder TRG. Methinks thou doth protest too much. Keep playing that tired old abuse card. It's a good look for you.

No one could ever understand what you've been through could they? Keep trotting out that same old dismissive argument when someone even remotely challenges your position.

I'd say the ferocity of your defense of a ridiculous presumption that 50/50 shared parenting shouldn't be the default is abusive.

Maybe that's what ought to happen in your dysfunctional world, but not in the world where the mentally stable people live.

[ONdad]

I like the part where Mess is mean. Big Meanie!

[epinecone]

This is going to come off as fairly negative, however thanks to some previous threads from billiechic and CSAngel I am going to use the terms "payor" and "recipient" rather than an automatic assumption that it is man and woman.

Other than the usual pro-mommy dribble about primary care, roles before seperation, etc.. The thing that really bothered me about your post is your "Equalization" comment.

Here's another perspective on equalization:

Every dollar that you take in "Equalization" whether it be SS or CS, is a dollar stolen from your kids and your former spouse. "Fair" as you indicate is a highly subjective concept. "Fair" to me is when people are able to live because they work to support temselves and their kids, Fair does not equate to theft at any time.

If you are the payor in a sole custody situation, your children have been taken from your life and you are currently being robbed by another adult.

If you are the payor in a shared custody situation, your children are in your life half the time and you are currently being robbed by another adult.

"Equalization" is when the kids have access to both their parents half the time, and when both parents are obligated through their own efforts to support the children and themselves.

If you can't even support yourself, then maybe you should think about how much opportunity you are stealing from your kids by not giving the payor full custody.

If you really cared about the children, and were not being driven by your "Entitlements" in the state sponsored welfare system we call CS and SS.. You would probably move yourself into a one bedroom apartment, and let the children live a much better life with the parent capable of providing for them.

Quit drooling over what your going to get out of having your kids, and start thinking about what your kids are going to get out of life. "Recipients" with your attitude are driving children into poverty, not taking them out of it.

[Mess]

So you think the kids should live with whoever has the most money.

I think you're a dick.

[billiechic]

when people marry and decide to have children, they agree to share everything they have. Sometimes they agree that one will "work" at home and not bring in an income.

So you think that the person who sacrificed a career, should also have to sacrifice time with their kids just becasue they don't have the same earning potential as the other parent?

What kind of twisted world do you live in??

oh, and BTW..I INSISTED that my ex take the offset amount. Not because he couldn't support our daughter, but because he was "entitled" to it and I didn't want him throwing it in my face later.