Free Republic

Well...heheh ask and ye shall recieve??? Check out this article... GOP eyes seizing mansions, yachts of corrupt executives (I called it!!!)

Ok, now, I'm sorry to have to do this, but my thread from last week was REALLY on the mark LOL!!! Time to apply Civil Forfeiture Laws to Corporate Criminals like Drug Users?

"I think it's time to treat everyone equally. I think what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. Let's start using the Civil Forfeiture statutes to go after the Corporate Criminals. (You know, the criminals with real victims.) [b]Let's seize their mansions, let's seize their vehicles, let's seize their yachts and time-shares, let's freeze their savings and investment accounts. Let's assume they were obtained illegally with illicit funds, and make them prove they were obtained legally.[/b] Let's treat Corporate Criminals like we treat drug users? How about it fellow freepers? How about some liberty and justice for all?"

Patton, please expand your reply. I'm curious as to what you mean.

Are you saying that our economy would tank if we held corporate criminals to the same standards as other criminals? Or something else? I have a hard time believing that our economy is predicated upon allowing scum bags to fleece companies.

I concur. In many ways, what bothers me most is that forfeiture laws exist at all. I would much rather see them banished than see them applied to Corporate Criminals. The only thing more tragic than their existence, is their vicisously unequal and unfair application.

Save the Whales!

We can burn blubber for fuel once all the petroleum is gone

If hatred and evil be measured by the number of innocent children's lives that are destroyed, history will judge the divorce industry more harshly than the child porn or the landmine industries.

The divorce industry would not exist without divorce. The problem lies with people who get married to the wrong person, married when they are not ready, or people who are sinful and weak and give up on their marriage because its no longer making them happy or convenient.

The law considers family matters, divorce and custody so important that there is an entire court system devoted to just that one issue. It is the failing of people, not the legal system, that ruin the lives of children.

Yeah, well, Bush also said that Medical Marijuana is a states rights issue. Instead, he sic'd the DOJ on my state's medicinal MJ clubs, impounding their equipment, stealing patients/doctors files, and imprisoning providers.

I've never seen so much hatred and ignorance in a FR thread before.

As opposed to those other things you pointed out, the role of mother to child is biologically based, not socially/academically based.

See, in case you didn't get the memo, mother's give birth to children. Fathers don't. Likewise, mothers breastfeed children, fathers don't. Starting there, and continuing, mothers continue to play a specific role in their children's lives ~ a role that is different than that of the father.

Both roles are important. However, in terms of raising young children, the role of the mother is more important and more time consuming, and also more dependent on physical proximity and time spent with the child.

Now, I sense that fact really bugs you. Maybe its because you hate women, or you're a sexist? Or maybe you're just in denial? I really don't know, and unlike you, I'm not going to presume to know you or your motivations. One can only guess.

However, the importance of the mother to young children isn't just an opinion, its a biological fact. I'm quite confident that EVERY legitimate scientific study and every child development professional would agree. In fact, they do.

Now, that said, do I think that is justificaton for the poor treatment that men are said to recieve at the hands of the family law system? No, I do not. In my opinion, that is simply something that should be taken into account in terms of awarding primary custody (where agreement cannot be reached between the parents) of children below the age of 4 or 5.

And yet again, you still refuse to answer the question.

I would NEVER say that a father is unimportant. Only a moron would say that.

My point is that the issue is extremely complicated, it also varies state by state since its a state law matter. The fact that there is indeed a bias towards women is rooted in a biological fact ~ mothers are more important to raising young children than fathers.

And yet again, you try to respond to my one single point that i consider to be in favor of the system (note that I didnt even mention all the things I have AGAINST the system) and you STILL refuse to address it.

Do you or do you not agree that when it comes to raising young children, the mother has a more important / time-intensive / demaning role?

And by the way, I love how you guys refuse to deal with what I've actually said ~ that when it comes to caring for a young child, the mother has a more important and more time-demanding role.

Of course you dont respond to that, because it's true and you know its true. You can't just skip the facts that don't help your argument.

The refusal to lay out a specific allegation of what exactly you are complaining about is the death nail in the coffin of your complaint.

To a lot of people, you sound like an over-generalizing bitter person. A lot of what you say is total hogwash.

To the extent you might have a legitimate complaint (that men tend to get the short end of the stick in the family law circles) it is disserviced by your refusal to get specific.

I have laid out the argument to a T. What is sad about the majority of the posters on this thread is that they fail to address the specific things they are complaining about.

I've received nothing but personal attacks, for simply sharing my opinion and trying to flesh out a real analytical issue for this topic.

You wouldn't believe how many private messages I've received from people in support of what I've written.

Child custody law is a STATE issue. Every state has its own family law. They are handled very differently from state to state. Each case has its own specifics.

This post is full of hateful rhetoric and personal attacks, yet I'm still waiting for a serious attempt to point out some specific instances of bias that seem unfair or harsh.

My whole concern with this issue is that I do not believe that a society that estranges a significant fraction of its adult male citizens from their children is stable.

I guess I'm still confused about which conclusion you are really pushing. I mean, can we agree on a list of factors involved in this topic?

1. When people divorce, and cant agree on custody arrangements, they have a right to go before a family law judge.

2. When they do, the judge ends up making a divorce/custody decree.

3. No matter what happens, since the parents arent gonna be living together anymore, there is no perfect solution for custody. Even a "joint custody" arrangement of 50/50 time sharing still sucks.

4. Every state has different laws. While there are common themese, family law is clearly a states law issue.

5. In cases where things like adulters can be proven, or unfitness to be a parent, or etc etc etc, the judge may give custody to one parent over the other, regardless of that parents gender.

6. Historically, there has been a bias towards awarding primary custody to mothers. This is because of the fact that for young children, the mosther plays a more physical role, and a more primary role in the raising of that child.

It seems to me, that what you mean to say is something like this...

In cases of divorce, where both parents want full custody (minimal visitation rights for the other parent, i.e., weekends and holidays etc), and both parents are equally able to parent the child in terms of time/money/employment/character, etc etc ~ meaning, in a perfect example situation, when ALL other factors involved in the judges custody order are taken into account, there is a tendancy for courts to favor the mother.

Isn't that what your point really boils down to? Because if not, there really isnt much point arguing all the rest. There are just too many holes in the arguemnts to make them worth the time. BUT, that point, as Ive phrased it, crystallizes the issue in such a way that its at least arguable.

All factors being equal, should a mother get primary custody over a father, in a situation where the parents wont agree to 50/50 custody, just because she's female?

Well sorry to say, but there's a lot of people out there who would say yes, because of the simple fact that in terms of parenting young children, mothers play a more primary role, at least physically, and according to some experts, in other ways as well.

The bias that exists in life is more pro-mother than anti-father. There's reasons for that, both emotional and factual.

But there's another wrinkle to what youre really complaining about ~ and that's this. IF all factors really were equal, then a judge would be a LOT more likely to order joint (50/50) custody.

The fact that you have some baggage about this issue is clear to everyone else. Youre letting it totally cloud your post and your responses.

All I am saying is that YES there is a bias towards women, and yes its existed a LONG LONG time. I am also saying that part of that reason is because women are more important to children at a young age.

Do fathers get the short end of the stick? Yep. Is it fair? Nope. Do kids need fathers? Of course.

When a divorce happens, there is no good outcome. It is going to be bad no matter what. But there IS a system in place, and I think it does more good than bad.

The only way to avoid the downsides of the system is to avoid divorce in the first place.

Nick, I would really encourage you to get some counseling.

First off, when a man or woman loses custody as a result of a divorce decree and custody order, its noone's fault but their own. If they had married the right person, or lived up to their marital vows, they wouldnt be in that situation to begin with.

You seem to have a real problem with laying blame where it belongs. Listen close ~ if someone is unhappy with the terms of a custody order, it's their own fault. Not the judge, not society.

It was their choice to get married and have children to begin with. If you don't want to toss your hat into the ring of public law, then keep your johnson in the hangar to begin with.

That said, when a judge considers all the facts in front of him in making a custody decree, there is going to be a natural and eons old bias towards the mother. That is because when it comes to newbors, infants, toddlers and young children, the mother is more important. She nurses, she comforts, she mothers. That is NOT to say the father is unimportant. A concept you seem to have a real hang up about. That is just to say there is a natural bias because there is a natural fact ~ mothers ARE more important to a young child than fathers.

Well Nick, here's the things. I'm a child of divorce. My father was awarded custody in the 1970's, which was unheard of at that time. I'm also an attorney. It's a subject close to my heart, so I feel like my opinion is based in something other than the peanut gallery.

Yes, there's a bias towards women, and for men. But, I think there's enough science and common sense to back up that kind of bias. Young children need a mother more of the time than they need a father.

Isn't that logical? I mean, we are not talking about perfect families, perfect chilhoods. We are talking about moms and dads who are so damn selfish and sinful that they cannot make a marriage work, or live up to their commitments. Eventually, courts have to step in.

I believe there's a bias for mothers, and I believe its appropriate. All things being equal, a mother is more important to a young child than a father, and so IF (Note I say IF) there must be a choice as to "primary" custody, the bias should be for the mother in my opinion.

This article stinks of ignorance and self-pity.

Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York City, was denied the time he sought to spend with his own children.

There are a LOT of factors that get considered in family law courtrooms. Without knowing many of the necessary factors in his case, its impossible to have an informed opinion of what happened. That said, Giuliana is an adulterer. Regardless of the leadership he showed post 9/11, the fact that he was an adulterer, that he was the primary cause of the dissolution of his marriage, and that he's a man are all factors that are going to weigh in favor of the mother.

This is how American divorce courts treat fathers, purely out of anti-fatherhood sexism.

Could you be any more general, or biased?

However, he is by every credible account a good father, and that must be the pre-eminent consideration in his child custody proceedings.

Actually, you're wrong. There are MANY factors that get considered, not just the quality of the parent involved. Even the "good father" standard you speak of is incredibly complicated. Take, for example, the mayor of New York. How much time per week do you honestly believe he will have to "father" his children?

He should not, just as millions of other faultless fathers should not, have been reduced to being merely a visitor in the lives of his own children.

Faultless? Are you kidding? You yourself just referred to his adultery. He made his OWN choices when he dipped his stick in the wrong oil.

The whole concept of child-custody proceedings as a winner-take-all situation...

I suggest you read up on the issue before you make yourself sound even more ignorant. In case you haven't heard, child custody is almost NEVER EVER a winner-take-all. Joint 50/50 custody is common, so is primary with major visitations.

What on Earth does "traditional" mean, so used? That fathers being reduced to every-other-weekend visitors in the lives of their own children is now something "traditional"?

Traditional means (1) mothers are more important in the full-time upbringing of minor children that fathers and that (2) men are traditionally the bread winner and more involved in their careers than are women.