Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Custody Wars

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    I wonder how long it'll be before available statistics concerning school completion rates, continuance on to post-secondary education, lifetime wage prospects, teen pregnancy rates., etc., etc., (all of which seem to favour the father having sole custody/parenting over the opposite) will be seriously considered and applied.

    Cheers!

    Gary

    Comment


    • #62
      I read the article. I call bullshit. Its very outdated and jaded. It is in the best interests of the kids to have a relationship with both parents and as much contact as in their best interests.

      The onus should be on the PARENTS to make sure any sort of shared custody arrangment is positive for the kids and they do not feel they are property. If you fill their world full of conflict it wont be positive and the kids will ultimately suffer.

      I agree, that asking your kids to choose one parent over the other is indeed abuse. No kid should have that put on them. How selfish. What ever happened to good parenting?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by mrsb View Post
        What ever happened to good parenting?
        I fear that's going the way of the Dodo, along with manners, compassion, ethics, morals, and, most importantly, responsibility.

        With the way things are going, I hope I'm not around to see how my great-grandkids turn out

        Cheers!

        Gary

        Comment


        • #64
          In divorce/custody cases it is rare that the two opposing sides think about a positive arrangement for the kids, otherwise they most likely wouldn't be in court.

          I don't think the article was asking to sit a 5 year old child down and say....Timmy who would you like to live with, mommy or daddy? Yes that is completely abusive. On the other hand, if there is an 8 year old child saying "I don't get enough time with you mommy", and at daddy's house says, "I don't like you always going to work in the morning, I don't get to see you much". "I want to stay here at home because this is where I was born and I feel comfortable here, it is scary out at mommy's house because I'm all alone outside with nobody to play with, I wish I could stay with you and visit mommy". Given that, do you not feel it abusive that a court doesn't take that into consideration or even want to hear it, rather the courts just want to focus on equal time with both parents regardless of the circumstances.

          Now, as far as good parenting goes. I do not think parents should try to sway a child one way or another, and I agree it is abusive to do such a thing. For a parent to say, "why don't you just live with me and forget about them", that is horrible!

          But hopefully it is understood that both examples are different, one is a child being able to express a problem that is affecting them, not to be heard is what the writer was getting at in that article, as far as I took it anyway. But the first example here, is abusive trying to force a child, or even discuss with a young child who they should choose to live with.

          Comment


          • #65
            Sorry this is a riduculously long post but this kind of outdated, sexist crap really bothers me. (quotes straight from the article)

            "For more than a century the "tender years" doctrine dictated that small children needed the nurture and stability of a primary parent, and that parent was most likely to be the mother. The child then was assigned a single primary residence and a single primary parent-nearly always the mother. While this rule undoubtedly caused some unfairness, it did focus on the child's need for nurture and stability rather than on the parents' rights to access."

            Can a father not give stability and nurture to a child? Is it not the children's right to access with both parents what we should be hoping for?

            "The next round was won by men. In the eighties, fathers' rights groups pushed for and won laws favoring joint physical custody, replacing the tradition of a primary custodian and a single residence for the child. The California legislature determined that courts should favor joint custody, even when the parents didn't"

            If you change this paragraph to "the next round was won by the children, as they not have both parents fully involved in their lives" then it becomes a very different take on the author's view that adults are fighting over their own rights to the child - and becomes adults are fighting for the rights of their child.

            "observing these shifts in the law over the years, that "mothering" has been systematically cut out of the law The abolition of a maternal preference has turned the law away from the care-taking and nurture of children to the rights of parents. "

            Men have just as much right and ability to care-take and nuture their children as moms do. This is the right of the children. "mothering" has not been cut out of the law. Rather, "mothering" is now done by both parents.

            "The tender years concept respected the developmental requirements of children, recognizing that very young children have special needs for nurture, normally satisfied by a mother. "

            Where is Kimberley's kitten when you need her???


            "This book will develop five simple ideas that offer the basis of a child-centered custody policy that could apply in almost all circumstances in which adults fight for custody:
            • Children's needs are not one-size-fits-all. They change over time. Children of tender years should live with their primary parent. As children develop their needs should be reviewed."
            It all seems like the author cherry picked her beliefs to fit her own situation. If she believes that children of tender years should live with a primary parent (that being the mother in most cases, as she is the nuturing, care-taking parent) then should they not live with the father as soon as they turn 12 - to be taught "hunting tequniques" and job skills, as they have now come out of their nuturing phase and need some lifeskills?

            "
            Actual parenting should receive attention over biology."

            Actual parenting should recieve attention over biology, but biology plays a large part in parenting. If it didn't we should become a society like Margaret Atwood's 'Handmaid's Tale' and all children should be given away at birth to people who are trained and picked to be parents of humanity. I know I am extrapolating - but biology plays a part.



            "Children have been silenced. Their wishes and feelings must be listened to. All children should have a voice, both in court and out; an adolescent's voice should be the deciding voice.
            • Children have no place in which their voices are heard and their needs attended to. We must provide them a place."
            I don't believe that children have been silenced. Their parents are both there to listen and advocate on their behalf. Their needs should be attended to in their family. And when both parents are involved studies show that it makes a large positive difference in their lives in areas such as education, teen pregnancy, drugs etc.

            Child support is not rent-a-child. Support must not be tied to visitation."

            The author seems to think that money spent raising the children in 2 homes is somehow rent-a-child??? So what would it be if full support went to one home? Buy a child???

            I just can't agree with most of the article. When she makes a good point, she counteracts it with some sexist remark to say that what is good for the father isn't good for the child.

            Comment


            • #66
              Lumpy, totally agree, this thread requires a "facepalm" kitten asap.

              Comment


              • #67
                I couldn't even read it with an open mind after I got the gist of it.

                I think it's a bullship argument trying to make an end run around the real issues.

                The real issues that need to be discussed is the controntational nature of the Family Law System and the people involved in it that make a very good living from it!

                Good Parenting cannot be legislated!

                I am of the belief at this point that this whole society is F&^*%) up and this is just another small corner of it that is at the forefront of the media because of certain high profile incidences. - kids being killed by mothers to avoid letting fathers see them! Shit like that!

                Face it - there is no answer for everyone - and that is what your asking for from the Family Law Act. It will never ever in a million bazillion years accommodate all people in all circumstances.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by mrsb View Post
                  Lumpy, totally agree, this thread requires a "facepalm" kitten asap.
                  I only have one question left to be answered on this thread - how do you explain "facepalm" kitten without sounding like you are completely unhinged to anyone not on this forum. I'm a little scared that someone is going to say something completely nuts to me and I will sound even nuttier saying "where's the "facepalm" kitten when you need them."

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Well my 2 cents.

                    The article is crap, but I don't have the energy to articulate why. It was said by others already.

                    In short it implies that mothers are better than fathers at nuturing, which may be statistically true, but using stats to define me is the essence of bigotry - you can't judge me by stats. Also, even if my kids mother is more 'motherly', I bring being 'fatherly' to the table, and THAT is definitely equal in value to my kids.

                    Also, I strongly believe that kids should have a equal relationship with both parents if that is what a parent wants. If they can agree to some other arrangement, so be it.

                    In my case we never even discussed custody and access, it was obvious that both of us wanted to be with and raise our kids equally, and it totally works for all of us. But if their mother was hell bent on being the 'primary' parent, I would want a system that says - 'too bad so sad, its not about you, its about the kids, and they have 2 parents'.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Fortunately, in Ontario, there is the Divorce Act and or the Children's Law Reform Act, as amended, depending on the circumstance and open for broad interpretation. Reality is ... It's all there is.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        This book and article, is not taking sides. It is not sexist, nor gender biased. Take a step back and really listen. The author is giving a history of what has transpired over the years in the legal system. Please look at it solely from the author giving a history, of what has transpired in the legal system, in regards to Custody; perhaps this will change how you see the article. She is not saying that it should be one parent over the other, she is taking a stance of the “Child’s Best Interests” from a standpoint of the “Child’s Rights”, not the Parent’s Rights. (Mother, Father, or Same Sex)She is not utilizing the “tender year’s” to say that the child should be with the “mother” she said "For more than a century the
                        "tender years" doctrine dictated that small children needed the nurture and stability of a primary parent, (not specifying by gender)and that parent was (past tense) most likely to be the mother. The child then was(past tense) assigned a single primary residence and a single primary parent-nearly always the mother.”


                        She is saying that this is the way it was, and that the primary parent “used to always be the mother”

                        Maybe try reading the article again from a historical standpoint instead of taking it so matter-of-factly.

                        Her view is that we are objectifying our children in these custody wars, turning them into property, instead of individual human beings, with real emotions, and wants and needs of their own.

                        The image of that child in the classroom, saying goodbye to his friend, and hearing him say “I do not know who I belong to tonight”, speaks volumes.

                        What ConcernedDad said,
                        On the other hand, if there is an 8 year old child saying "I don't get enough time with you mommy", and at daddy's house says, "I don't like you always going to work in the morning, I don't get to see you much". "I want to stay here at home because this is where I was born and I feel comfortable here, it is scary out at mommy's house because I'm all alone outside with nobody to play with, I wish I could stay with you and visit mommy". Given that, do you not feel it abusive that a court doesn't take that into consideration or even want to hear it, rather the courts just want to focus on equal time with both parents regardless of the circumstances?”


                        This is really the true reality of it, what a child says outside of his or her own parent’s views, and influence can speak volumes, and the statement of that little boy in the classroom, was unprompted and probably never heard.



                        In fact this book may have been a stepping stone for its time, making sure that Gender Biased ceased, and that equal parenting is/ was construed in favour of the child’s rights. I do feel that the author had the intent of the children’s best interest which we are coming more and more to know. When parents cannot agree, is when the book is thrown, and a Judge makes a decision for the child and not the parents, thus leaving the parents frustrated and possibly seeking appeals. I think the key here is that when families cannot agree, and when they are in court with no settlement, and the parents are not thinking of anyone but themselves, while the child(ren) is caught in the middle of the unnecessary conflict, the courts are leaning more and more towards favour of the child. It is still fresh and a lot has to be changed. I thought you all may be interested in actually viewing some information that is for the Children's Rights movement, The Legislative Reform, from November 2009.

                        http://www.unicef.org/policyanalysis/files/Legislative_Reform_on_Selected_Issues_of_Anti-Gender_Discrimination_and_Anti-Domestic_Violence_-_the_Impact_on_Children.pdf

                        The courts need to be revamped and hopefully make conflict resolution more readily available, as it appears to be slowly doing. For those that cannot agree to anything then perhaps it is good that the courts are seeing the realities, because if making a child decide is abuse, then perhaps those types of parents should have their rights taken. Please listen to your children, no you don’t need to question who they want to live with, but if they are making comments like those of the little boy in the article “I don’t know who I belong to tonight”, something is not right.

                        Take my view as you will, I know I am already not liked in here so I have nothing to lose.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          IMO it isn't a court issue, but more of an issue with a child's understanding.

                          Kids see in black and white. The comment of "who I belong to" could easily just be a kids way of saying "which parent is coming to get me". It may sound literal to an adult, but to the child, it could mean something else. It simply boils down to how a child thinks and simple logic they use. And if the child is showing signs of confusion it is up to the parents to seek counselling for the children.

                          Taking away a parents right to be a parent for no other reason then believing they capable of being a parent is absurd IMO.

                          And the Berkley review did come off as sexist. Consistently refering to "mothering" instead of "parenting". And the authors past tense review also made it seem utopic, as if life was easier back then and it was almost something that we should strive to return to. But then again, the author was from Berkley university, which is a haven for left leaning individuals and feminist agendas (and if you don't believe me, you should do some research to see that Berkley is one of the most feminist education centres in the USA).

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            I agree with HammerDad.

                            Even if I read the article from a historical lean and forget any gender bias....

                            I disagee with her main point - that today we focus on parent's rights and forget about the child's rights.

                            "While this rule undoubtedly caused some unfairness, it did focus on the child's need for nurture and stability rather than on the parents' rights to access."

                            Calling it the "parents right to access" is a wierd way of putting it IMO. I think of it as the child's right to access with both parents.

                            And what of the children's other needs? It is certainly in the child's best interest to grow up with both parents (except in abusive cases). Historically these children who were in the stable, nuturing homes with one parent had lasting side effects from not having the other parent. Children who grow up without fathers can have many disadvantages. Teen pregnancy is more prevelant, drug & alcohol abuse more likely, dropping out of school more likely... etc. It neglects to mention the child's need for the other parents influence. Shouldn't the child have the right to meaningful contact with both parents?

                            The solution to this seems to be the system that we have now. It isn't perfect and there are many changes that could be made, but I believe that Joint Custody is the fairest to all concerned and promotes a very important right of the child , equal access to both parents.

                            Comment

                            Our Divorce Forums
                            Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                            Working...
                            X