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]

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]

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]

The myth of Equalization

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.

[momofonegreatboy]

Thank you SilverLining for this post. I may just send it to my former spouse in hopes he realizes that we need to get to the root of the problem first and that's US! He refuses to attend any mediation/counselling with me unless I send him a parenting plan/ topics I want to mediate on. I don't have that. All I want are parenting coaching tips, conflict resolution ect. Anyway, thank you again for your post. I do appreciate it.

[DowntroddenDad]

Thank you SilverLining for this post. I may just send it to my former spouse in hopes he realizes that we need to get to the root of the problem first and that's US! He refuses to attend any mediation/counselling with me unless I send him a parenting plan/ topics I want to mediate on. I don't have that. All I want are parenting coaching tips, conflict resolution ect. Anyway, thank you again for your post. I do appreciate it.

I can understand your former spouses' frustration.

You need to define what it is you want, he has to define what it is he wants, and then you can try to work with a mediator who will try to find common ground, and work out a plan that you can both work with.

If you don't do that at the start, it is bound to fail.

Mediation only works if both parties want it to work.

[blinkandimgone]

Thank you SilverLining for this post. I may just send it to my former spouse in hopes he realizes that we need to get to the root of the problem first and that's US! He refuses to attend any mediation/counselling with me unless I send him a parenting plan/ topics I want to mediate on. I don't have that. All I want are parenting coaching tips, conflict resolution ect. Anyway, thank you again for your post. I do appreciate it.

He does have a point. Without a clear understanding of what each side is looking for, and identifying how far apart you are on each of the issues, it does take up a lot of time (and money!) spent identifying those during mediation/counselling, and puts each parent on the spot to respond reactively.

Although YOU say "All I want are parenting coaching tips, conflict resolution ect." it may be well worth the time to identify specifics about that, and as well to make an effort to understand what HE would like to get out of it.

If you both provide the information to each other, it will give you an opportunity to read it over, absorb it, figure out what you do and don't agree on as well as to give you time to figure out WHY you don't agree on it ie: is it an unreasonable request? an emotional reaction? spite? control? or is it something that, given some thought, turns out not to even be worth objecting to?

The important thing to realize about mediation/counselling etc, is that it's important that BOTH sides feel they are getting what they need and want out of it.

He doesn't share your feelings and has made a very simple and reasonable request to better prepare for mediation and counseling for BOTH of you. I agree that going into mediation and counseling without any direction is costly, both time and money-wise.

Just food for thought.

[Tayken]

Thank you SilverLining for this post. I may just send it to my former spouse in hopes he realizes that we need to get to the root of the problem first and that's US! He refuses to attend any mediation/counselling with me unless I send him a parenting plan/ topics I want to mediate on. I don't have that. All I want are parenting coaching tips, conflict resolution ect. Anyway, thank you again for your post. I do appreciate it.

I would say that the other parent is getting great advice from counsel or someone who is very familiar on how to properly mediate in family law. I would never recommend attending mediation without some guidelines to frame what needs to be resolved.

You really need to re-think your position on this momof... This is very common and after signing a mediation agreement a good mediator generally will require that both parties do exactly what the other parent in your situation is asking for from you. It is often a part of the mediation agreement/contract BTW.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[LovingFather32]

Why is it that the "Maximum Contact Principle" is so faded when people like the OP talk about phone calls. What happened to the child? Tayken has a spectacular thread disentangling truisms on the term "abuse". OP should read them. http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...ase-law-16809/

Im not saying there was no domestic violence occurring, Im saying that your ability to accurately evaluate his parenting may me jaded by your extreme subjectivity of the situation. One might assume by your defensiveness and aggressive writing that it may be difficult for you to see "any" good qualities about him as a father to his child and very "easy| for you to view and amplify the bad ones. Generalizing your situation to the what the law should read is also preposterous. Children "do" deserve both loving parents in their life unless there is a VERY good reason they're deemed completely unfit to be parent.
My ex made all sorts of claims, planned to leave for a while. Went to police, filed a report of all sorts of BS including domestic violence (even name calling around child). Abducted our child in the night. CAS not called, not involved. Police didn't even feel the need to talk to me. I touched base with CAS to be sure of this. Think about your child more than the scars left from your failed relationship and start paving new roads.

[heather7497]

A very detailed and thoughtful post with many great ideas including the need to focus more energy on the children with respect to their parents coping with a broken relationship as it effects the children.

Unfortunaltey the purpose of the post is simple and biased toward the primary care giver during the marriage. To say that legislated shared parenting as the DEFAULT custody upon the breakup of a-marriage is not in the best interests of the child and is an unfair policy toward woman is misguided.

The whole basis of a just system is innocent until proven guilty. Yet the writter woiuld have us say that one must PROVE they are a capable parent before they can obtain shared custody away from the primary care giver during the marriage. Keep in mind that what some would call the 'primary care giver' during a marriage is not the one soley rasing the children, but is doing so in a very close relationship with the other parent who is involved to a high degree with the raising of the children during the marriage. To suddenly assign sole custody to one of the parents is actually more disruptive to most families and enslaves the other parent to work for the benifit of the family but not have the benifits of actually raising their own kids. The marriage ends, things will change, including the roles of the parents, why must the change be more child involvement for the one who already had more, and less for the other. It does not make sense from a fairness point of view nor from the childrens point of view.

The whole point of defining shared custody as the default is to say for the most part anyone is capable and usually desires to be the parent to their own child which only shared custody supports. Any other situation must be agreed upon by the parents, or forced upon through legal means to seek what is best for the children, as only an independent party can determine this.

There are two quotes in the post that clearly show bias in favour of the primary care giver.



The statement says that it is hard to prove abuse so we had better give the kids to the primary care giver. This of course is ridiculous because what if the primary care giver is the abuser? A shared parenting system would level the effects of being with one bad parent. If there is abuse of the children, then like in any parenting situation, it must be PROVEN to be true for the parents rights to be taken away. To assume the non primary care giver is more likely to be an abuser is unjust in the extreme.


How on earth could the assumption that both parents are capable of being parents be unfair treatment of women????

In summary, the point is that we must assume, not based on gender, not on who stayed home more with the kids, not on anything, that both parents have a right to be a parent if they decide and to take away that right must be proven to a judge. Simple, fair, unbiased, gender neutral. Innocent until proven guilty combined with the right for a person to raise their own children.

Awesome Billm! Couldn't agree more.