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.
I completely missed that part... yeah, hookers coming and going is not a good environment for a child.
Having boyfriends or girlfriends coming and going does not create a good environment for kids either, but that's what ends up happening in some cases. Guess what? If a custodial mother has a different guy in her bedroom three times a week and the father objects, the courts do nothing. It is now considered to be "normal" for a single parent to have multiple different overnight visitors.
Imagine you are a child, and three mornings a week there is some guy sneaking out the back door, or worse, sitting at the kitchen table. I actually know a situation where this happened. This single mother literally juggled three different boyfriends at the same time. All three would sleep over, but none knew about the other until one day, one of the kids told one of the boyfriends that their mother was sleeping with two other guys!
The father objected to all of this and tried to get custody, the court told him to go pound sand. The mother's sex life was not a custody issue, even if she paraded it in front of her kids. As long as she kept the bedroom door closed while she was doing the guys, it was A-OK with the court.
A bill to require counseling before divorce has been introduced in dozens of states and never passed. It isn't going to happen.
Elaborate on those bills, please. Also, according to a reader comment on an article, divorce counseling has been required somewhere at the county level.
Quote:
People with this agenda are ignoring the fact that OVER 50% of women under 30 having children are not married. WORK ON THAT PROBLEM. Find out why people are so reluctant to marry. Oh wait, we already know: a recent study concluded that women under 30 are afraid of divorce to the extent that they are simply not marrying the men who got them pregnant. In response, some idiots want to make divorce even worse than it already is? How is this going to help? Change the divorce laws to be less onerous, and people won't be so afraid to marry. Is it really so difficult to grasp this concept? PEOPLE ARE AVOIDING MARRIAGE because divorce is such a racket in this country.
That's your own personal axe to grind. Some of it is legit, but it's beyond the scope of this thread.
Quote:
Counseling, waiting periods and the rest of the stupid proposals simply do not work. If two people want to divorce, let them divorce.
Counseling has been proven to work better than doing nothing.
What's really irritating in this thread is that people assert that someone who is dragged into counseling never benefits from it. Really? How do you know that? I expect that most readers have taken required classes in school and gotten useful things out of them even if they wouldn't have voluntarily signed up for those classes. If mandated divorce counseling were to get a small percentage of marriages back on track or (more likely) make divorces less painful for many participants (and their children), it would be worth it.
Elaborate on those bills, please. Also, according to a reader comment on an article, divorce counseling has been required somewhere at the county level.
That's your own personal axe to grind. Some of it is legit, but it's beyond the scope of this thread.
Counseling has been proven to work better than doing nothing.
What's really irritating in this thread is that people assert that someone who is dragged into counseling never benefits from it. Really? How do you know that? I expect that most readers have taken required classes in school and gotten useful things out of them even if they wouldn't have voluntarily signed up for those classes. If mandated divorce counseling were to get a small percentage of marriages back on track or (more likely) make divorces less painful for many participants (and their children), it would be worth it.
Marriage counseling is so weak that even marriage counselors call it "Divorce Counseling".
As for where bills have been introduced, Google "mandatory divorce counseling bill" and read the list. It includes CO, MT, NC, AL, OK, WY....on and on.
The primary proponents of such a statute are...wait for it....MARRIAGE COUNSELORS! I wonder why?
Furthermore, at Divorce in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, it says
"For example, couples who choose to undertake a covenant marriage may be required to undergo counseling before a divorce can be granted, or to submit their conflicts to mediation. In states lacking such provisions, some couples sign contracts undertaking the same obligations."
A bill to require counseling before divorce has been introduced in dozens of states and never passed. It isn't going to happen. People with this agenda are ignoring the fact that OVER 50% of women under 30 having children are not married. WORK ON THAT PROBLEM. Find out why people are so reluctant to marry. Oh wait, we already know: a recent study concluded that women under 30 are afraid of divorce to the extent that they are simply not marrying the men who got them pregnant. In response, some idiots want to make divorce even worse than it already is? How is this going to help? Change the divorce laws to be less onerous, and people won't be so afraid to marry. Is it really so difficult to grasp this concept? PEOPLE ARE AVOIDING MARRIAGE because divorce is such a racket in this country.
Counseling, waiting periods and the rest of the stupid proposals simply do not work. If two people want to divorce, let them divorce.
What we need is mandatory counseling before MARRIAGE, followed by a test that each person must pass showing that the understand the legal and financial repercussions of marriage. If we did that, the divorce rate would plummet. People would only marry when they truly felt the person was the right one for them.
Actually in many cases they aren't afraid to marry, they stay unmarried to receive welfare.
Should you be required to get counseling to quit your job too?
Or cancel another business relationship contract?
Please keep big brother out of our relationships any more than he is in them already!
Can we please ban the phrase "Big Brother" from this thread? I doubt the idea would increase the size of government, and it certainly wouldn't make information disclosed in counseling part of the government record. I want to add a detail I hadn't thought of before - maybe 4-6 sessions technically could be required, but if after 1 or 2 sessions both parents think any more counseling would be a waste, they could opt out. (Some of the benefits of counseling would be handouts or book recommendations, which could preclude the need for more sessions.)
Business contracts usually cannot be dissolved unilaterally without penalty, by the way.
Actually in many cases they aren't afraid to marry, they stay unmarried to receive welfare.
Sadly, this is true.
The government has stepped in to become a surrogate father in a financial sense, and the result is that, incredibly, the majority of children under 5 now live in a home where not only is the bio father not present, but where there is no stable male presence at all. Just look at the struggles the African-American community has to see where the rest of society is headed. The current unwed mother numbers across society mirror the numbers seen in African-American communities for the last 25 years.
If the safety nets were not quite so lucrative, and the divorce laws not quite so stupid, many women would end up married, and at least some of these children would actually have the two parent family that study after study shows is so important to their future well-being.
The problem today is not parents divorcing. The problem is parents never marrying. People like the OP and the Coalition for Divorce Reform are living in the '60's. Trying to get them to understand that is futile. You would think someone in that organization could do 5 minutes of math and figure out that if only 50% of mothers are marrying, even they can save 10% of marriages headed for divorce (about half of all marriages), that's only going to affect 2.5% of children and not all positively. Get to work on the problem of mothers remaining unmarried, and you have a much bigger impact.
Having boyfriends or girlfriends coming and going does not create a good environment for kids either, but that's what ends up happening in some cases. Guess what? If a custodial mother has a different guy in her bedroom three times a week and the father objects, the courts do nothing. It is now considered to be "normal" for a single parent to have multiple different overnight visitors.
Imagine you are a child, and three mornings a week there is some guy sneaking out the back door, or worse, sitting at the kitchen table. I actually know a situation where this happened. This single mother literally juggled three different boyfriends at the same time. All three would sleep over, but none knew about the other until one day, one of the kids told one of the boyfriends that their mother was sleeping with two other guys!
The father objected to all of this and tried to get custody, the court told him to go pound sand. The mother's sex life was not a custody issue, even if she paraded it in front of her kids. As long as she kept the bedroom door closed while she was doing the guys, it was A-OK with the court.
The kids are completely screwed up.
Welcome to "Family Law" in the 21st Century.
Your right. Neither spouses dating/sex life is the others business nor a custody issue as long as they aren't doing anything illegal. I'm not sure if your defending high's suggestion to let the husband bring sex workers into the home as a solution to separation but prostitution is illegal
Can we please ban the phrase "Big Brother" from this thread? I doubt the idea would increase the size of government, and it certainly wouldn't make information disclosed in counseling part of the government record. I want to add a detail I hadn't thought of before - maybe 4-6 sessions technically could be required, but if after 1 or 2 sessions both parents think any more counseling would be a waste, they could opt out. (Some of the benefits of counseling would be handouts or book recommendations, which could preclude the need for more sessions.)
Business contracts usually cannot be dissolved unilaterally without penalty, by the way.
You've never been to a government mandated "counseling" have you?
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.
yeah, hookers coming and going is not a good environment for a child.
