Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nonsense. If it was about status quo, the judge would have awarded me custody. Refusing to work is not proof that she was the primary care giver. And she was not good enough when we were married. A big part of the reason we got divorced was her failure to take care of her responsibilities, including those as a mother.
12 lawyers and you still don't understand primary caregiver or status quo. It isn't about opinion of child rearing within the standard of fitness.
As a man, one thing I am terrified of is getting a divorce and not being with my kids. The courts are set up to where the woman gets the kids by default unless she is a complete mess ie drugs, no job, mental, etc.
If a woman simply files for divorce for anything other than something very serious ie abuse, infidelity, ect than the man should have the option to keep the kids. Same with the man in regards to the mother keeping the kids.
Then make working on your marriage job one. She is who you chose, and she chose you.
And while children are very important in marriages that have children, the children do best if the marriage stays strong and the parents flourish together. That bind makes them feel safe.
Go on date nights, talk to each other about things other than family. Nurture that relationship, and your children will be stronger because of it.
Thought that was assumed / common sense. Should be atleast. But people do not treat it as such. Sadly.
I never said any parent should be able to rob the other of their child. The only reason a parent should be able to retain custody of the children when filing for divorce is in the event of physical or mental abuse , drug use, infidelity etc. (would need to be proven and not hearsay) WHAT IF NEITHER PARENT IS GUILTY OF THOSE THINGS? THEN WHO SHOULD GET CUSTODY?
Basically if you want to divorce your spouse for a non serious reason then the other party should have the option to retain the children. EVEN IF THEY HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH CHILD REARING?
This thread would function a lot better if we were discussing a particular situation. Divorces are as unique as the people who get them and making generalizations about what women do, what men deserve, how the courts operate, etc., etc., isn't particularly productive.
MEDALLOKUYA, if you are contemplating filing for a divorce (or your wife has filed for a divorce from you ... for whatever reason) and want advice on how to get shared custody of your children (which is VERY common today), then why not say so? You aren't going to get very useful advice for your particular situation trying to get the people on this thread to agree with your very generalized point of view. The courts aren't in the business of punishing women OR men who have inadequate reasons for wanting a divorce (as if that could even be established). Especially not by taking their children away from them.
It also isn't all that productive to make pronouncements about what happens to "people" or "parents" or "Americans" who are divorcing because each case is different. If you aren't even getting a divorce and are just here to bang the drum that women are users and this is just one example, you won't find many people on the parents thread who want to play that game. Most of the people here seem to desire to be good parents. I think that's why your seeming inability to articulate what constitutes "primary care" was met with confusion.
The worst injustice is when the mother makes the accusation of..........."abuse" as a way to take away father's visitation until a complete investigation is done.
If/when proven false, the father can never make up for the time he was separated.
Not sure how one is the primary care giver. I imagine both me and my wife will equally take care and provide for our children.
Maybe... If you can both get jobs that allow you to both be home to help with homework, eat dinner together, help with baths and bedtime, drive them to soccer practice, etc. In most households, one parent does the majority of that, and the other earns the majority of the money. It depends, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEDALLOKUYA
Thought that was assumed / common sense. Should be atleast. But people do not treat it as such. Sadly.
I never said any parent should be able to rob the other of their child. The only reason a parent should be able to retain custody of the children when filing for divorce is in the event of physical or mental abuse , drug use, infidelity etc. (would need to be proven and not hearsay)
Basically if you want to divorce your spouse for a non serious reason then the other party should have the option to retain the children.
The entire premise of your post is unfounded. In my experience, if dad requests shared custody, they get shared custody. If he doesn't, maybe he didn't ask for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEDALLOKUYA
I said I imagine and in my own personal family. Your above quote was me speaking in a general sense.
However, I also said that is not an excuse for one party to keep the kids.
You can only do so much to keep your marriage in tact. In the end it comes down to the other person.
And thus back to my original point of there needing to be more stringent child custody laws to protect people from having their spouse dissolve a family and rob the children.
You don't even have kids, but you are already worried about who will get custody in a divorce? You seem more so to want to stop women from being able to file for divorce. If you are married and plan to have a child, just make sure you are an active participant in your child's life. If you should end up divorced, ask for 50% custody, and you'll probably get it, unless you are abusive or something.
As a man, one thing I am terrified of is getting a divorce and not being with my kids. The courts are set up to where the woman gets the kids by default unless she is a complete mess ie drugs, no job, mental, etc.
If a woman simply files for divorce for anything other than something very serious ie abuse, infidelity, ect than the man should have the option to keep the kids. Same with the man in regards to the mother keeping the kids.
My feeling is that people should work far more assiduously to hold a marriage together. In my view a child needs two parents, and not a custody food fight. Couples should think very seriously about the quality of their marriage prior to having children.
Oh yeah, those stories all have to be 100 percent accurate right . It's been my experience that that most deadbeat parents always make the claims of their sterling parenthood and the fact that they were robbed by the Courts. I have a woman on my fb who lost custody of her kids when the police came to find her high as a kite and her little boy with bruises all over him from her ex husband beating him. According to her though she was a great Mother and the fact that six years later she still has no custody is because she was screwed.
So now you have stooped to the level of accusing an entire gender of being deadbeats, huh?
Stay classy, Hecate.
Probably because none of your evidence was deemed real. They don't suppress evidence just because you have a penis. They suppress it when it either has no bearing on the case or is obviously not valid. If you have been through twelve lawyers in three years it should be evident that you might not of been the superstar parent you seem to think you were.
You are totally, completely, absolutely, wholly, entirely, enormously, and in all other ways, wrong.
In my state (and in most states) courts don't allow any evidence OR witnesses in temp hearings, only in trials.
Which begs the question, how can a judge possibly reasonably determine who is telling the truth in a 5 minute hearing without witnesses or evidence?
As to me being a parental superstar, you have one hell of a nerve accusing me of what you are inferring without knowing me. YOU ARE WRONG.
This right here is a perfect illustration of the problem writ large.
Here we have an individual who actually mocks the suffering of innocent children at the hands of false accusers.
Stay classy, hecate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't even have kids, but you are already worried about who will get custody in a divorce? You seem more so to want to stop women from being able to file for divorce. If you are married and plan to have a child, just make sure you are an active participant in your child's life. If you should end up divorced, ask for 50% custody, and you'll probably get it, unless you are abusive or something.
. It's been my experience that that most deadbeat parents always make the claims of their sterling parenthood and the fact that they were robbed by the Courts. I have a woman on my fb who lost custody of her kids when the police came to find her high as a kite and her little boy with bruises all over him from her ex husband beating him. According to her though she was a great Mother and the fact that six years later she still has no custody is because she was screwed.
