North Carolina Judge Assaults Mother's Right

Do we have a legal system that says a mother can kidnap her own kids...before that system even establishes that she does not have custody of them?
In that NZ case, didn’t the mother “kidnap” her child only AFTER the court stepped in and made some decision with regard to custody?
What I was saying in earlier posts is that if a woman, such as we were discussing in the original post, intends to remove herself and her children from her husband, she should do it
a., without involving the court, and
b., intelligently, with foresight and planning.

That means she ought to do her very best to relocate safely, not leaving herself open to criminal charges. She’s in danger of the law just by walking into court (or does anyone think that mental evaluations are objective and infallible?)
I don’t say it’s easy, but IMO she’s better off not availing herself of the legal system. Judges, by and large, are no wiser or more fair than a name picked at random from the phone book.
By going to court, she was betting her children’s future on the wisdom and fairness of a man she did not know to be immaculately unbiased, honorable and wise.
It’s amazing that with all the evidence to the contrary, people believe so much virtue is endowed by a black robe.

You said, “Their standard of living is dependent on the man’s faithfulness or lack thereof...” But you meant, “Their standard of living is dependent on both parents’ faithfulness or lack thereof...” Right?

You are correct in implying that women can be unfaithful and traitorious in marriage as well; however, in spite of decades of feminism, the trend of those who take more time off of work to parent is still with the women; women still make less money than men and hence as a group, more men than women are still the major breadwinners in intact families; and in this case under discussion, the couple observed the traditional pattern of the male being the primary breadwinner and the husband's income stream being a major marital asset.

I also commented that divorces that occur when the husband is prosperous and the woman has followed the traditional pattern of staying at home with the children, which was the case here, tend to differ from divorces in the middle- or lower-income families where finances and power tend to be more evenly matched. No-fault particularly punishes the educated women who forego a career to raise children and then are thrown out of the middle or upper-middle class by an unfaithful husband's desire to change partners and suffer no moral opprobrium under no-fault. These divorces are the ones to which I was mainly referring.

I agree that women can also exploit the no-fault, morality-free judicial environment and inflict great harm on their husband and children by adultery. But the work of Dr. Judith Wallerstein, among other researchers, found that men are harmed less financially, and remarry sooner and/or at a higher rate than custodial ex-wives. No-fault, she said, creates winners and losers, and her research established that women and children still tend to overpopulate the loser column due to the lack of justice inherent in the no-fault system.

Here are some links:

The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce by Judith Wallerstein, Julia Lewis and Sandra Blakeslee

The Good Marriage: How and Why Love Lasts by Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee

The post to which I responded seemed to indicate that you thought the mother should RIGHT NOW take her kids out of the reach of the courts - and I contend that is nothing but a fast trip to prison for the mom. And yes, Dr. Morgan took her daughter to NZ after the courts said that the father must have visitation and that there was no sexual abuse on his part and it was nothing more than a fabricated story by Dr. Morgan for meanness. She fled the country, took on assumed names, and stayed for a long time. No winners there.

If what you are now saying is that the mom should have made arrangements long before the courts were involved, I couldn’t agree more

Once the black robes get involved, there are no winners.

... both sides are usually supposed to provide half of the support in a divorce.

Actually, many states use the word "equitable" to describe the shares each spouse will pay. If an elementary schoolteacher who makes $27K per year marries an accountant who makes $50K per year to start, then the childcare worker stays home with the children while the accountant starts his own professional firm and starts making $120K per year, the courts do not expect the now-unemployed and out-of-skills teacher to pay half just because the accountant wants to revoke the marital promise. Instead, an equitable settlement will be reached, which takes into account the relative possibility of the teacher's need for retraining and future earning capacity as a single parent.

As you can imagine, the accountant's lawyer will grossly overestimate the unemployed teacher's ability to earn, and the former teacher may not even be able to afford a lawyer and must sue the accountant for attorney's fees. And the games begin.

Contested divorce is often a filthy way for a lawyer to make a living. The good ones get certified as mediators and try to help the couple settle it out of court; of course that's far less remunerative.

...unless she is willing to move to New Zealand a la Dr. Morgan to keep her kids out of the hands of the judicial system... she WILL lose them as she sits in a jail cell on a kidnapping charge filed by the husband.

And now, nearly 30 years later, New Zealand has also veered to the left, and Europe is hopeless. With the 24/7 cyber environment and so many people willing to do a "Joe the Plumber" search'n'disclosure of private information to make a buck, there is no longer anyplace to run to.

The only comfort in this is that Obama will not be able to suppress his records indefinitely.

Tick.

Tick...

Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't aware of all that regarding divorce decrees and child/spousal support. What a mess it all is.

One point I wanted to make is that in the WorldNutDaily(^) article, the father is referred to more than once as the defendant, just as the mother is listed as the plaintiff. Doesn't that mean that the mother sued the father in this action?

If she sued the father to get a judge to decide all of this, why is she complaining? She had to have known that things could have easily gone against her.

in no fault divorce the issue of an affair only comes into play as to the expenses. (except in FL where denial of marital relations can be used to establish mental abuse which justified the expenses incurred for an affai. A wife who denied sex to a husband as a means to attempt to isolate him and create a divorce enviorment with repeated “don’t like it have an affair” can’t then complain about the affair...really)

However, you answer just goes to show, this case is a divorce case NOT a homeschooling case. Homeschoolers are best advised to stay away from this one and do not let the wife drag any of you into this monstrosity of a divorce.

BTW the wife has a lawyer just like the husband.

If she sued the father to get a judge to decide all of this, why is she complaining? She had to have known that things could have easily gone against her.

She probably sued for divorce because he went to shack up with the other woman, who quite obviously didn't care how this looked to the children. Then he retaliated with the suit regarding the education, as a tactic of intimidation or punishment.

Adulterous men may often be ambivalent about initiating a divorce and will try to keep both women on the string for as long as possible, until one or the other of the women forces the issue. Statistically, more men than women are adulterous; more women than men file for divorce.

Sometimes, initiating the suit is the only way the abandoned spouse (of either gender) who is taking care of the children can get legal clarification of how much support money the abandoning spouse will give and whether the unfaithful partner is allowed to do such things as sleep over with the paramour when the children are in the house, etc. The cuckolded spouse needs to salvage some moral boundaries and also, if she/he has been the stay-at-home and the cheater has left the house, the custodial parent needs to sue for support. This opens the door for all the rest of the issues, no matter how cynically they are brought forward by opposing counsel just to weaken the opponent and make them desperate to accept a low-ball settlement offer, because their bills are mounting and the pressure is soul-searing.

Most people, men and women, get the shock of their lives when they enter the divorce arena and encounter the political correctness and moral suppression that goes along with "no-fault." In most cases, there has been an injured party, and most reasonable people believe this injury will be heard, understood and incorporated into the process; however, the more liberal judges either remove moral considerations from the table or rule against the religious believer. And parties to the divorce action can't choose their judge.

Contested divorce with custody issues is a nightmare for a host of imaginable reasons and many unimaginable ones as well. In Post#82 (above), I put a link to Judith Wallerstein's 25-year follow-up study of children of divorce. Contrary to popular slogans, children don't just adapt and get over it; the damage of divorce lasts for decades.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.