Posted on 12/08/2011 7:59:52 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Wrong. When the kid is grown, she will figure out what was what.
Generally a party who worked to keep the kid disconnected from the other parent tends to get left alone in a nursing home as retaliation.
Law of unintended consequences that bitter parents refuse to see until they find themselves alone and still bitter.
I’ve gotten primary or sole custody for plenty of men... Same rules apply as for women.
If I showed up without them she would simply refuse to let me see him and dare me to do anything about it, all in front of a 5 year old child. It's been over a decade and he still hasn't recovered from the damage that evil bitch did.
Good for you. I mean it. I know on a personal level of which you speak. I too agree with the end results in the case as highlighted in this news article. Difficult choices but still the correct decision. Perhaps and hoping the minor child will finally receive some love and have a stable environment at last.
Well I’m really sorry that happened to you. That’s awful. Some of these women give us others a bad name. ack!
I am seeing a lot of people here bashing mom, but are missing the fact that DAD moved away, to another state, and lost custody of his child.
At that point, support should have been dropped, and dad should have had no further rights. Once mom obtained sole custody, she had no further obligation to dad, and no further expectation to support either.
This reminds of that old joke about Bill Gates going to Hell.
>>Generally a party who worked to keep the kid disconnected from the other parent tends to get left alone in a nursing home as retaliation.<<
Unless said other parent is a lying, dangerous, manipulative, murderous sociopath.
In which case, the children are protected until they’re old enough to make that visitation decision on their own.
True.
As I said, the kid will figure out what was what.
Yup. Some of the psychotic ones are good at hiding it. For a while.
Been there.
I find this statement a little naive.
Why do you and the courts feel that just because a man doesn't pay child support he should lose custody of his child?
First of all, maybe the father doesn't have a job, maybe the father moved to another state to get a job? Or to get away from his crazy wife? Or maybe he can't afford to pay the crazy amount the court has set?
I have two sons who've gone through this hell. They tried to do the right thing, but the girls and the courts couldn't punish them enough.
The courts don't care if the man lives on the street because the only thing he can afford to pay is child support. Maybe, just maybe, this is one reason so many men run.
Exactly.
Men in a family district court all too often are seen as just a wallet and a ongoing source for $$$ for the attornies involved.
After the father moved to New Jersey, the Family Court issued a default order awarding Ms. Luke sole custody
It doesn't state this is due to non-payment of child support. What I am saying is that he chose to leave the child's life, and at that point, the court chose to give sole custody to the mom. I feel if sole custody is awarded to any parent, I do not feel the other parent should be required to pay child support.
And if you are going to walk away, there should be final consequences to that. You can't walk out during the hardest years in child rearing, and hope to come back when it is all fun and games. What right does he have to do that?
thanks for posting this.
My brother’s ex tried to do the same. Fortunately, the court called her on it, and awarded my brother primary custody by the time the divorce was final. We owe that judge a huge debt of gratitude for refusing to fall for her shananigans.
I think the point was that the father moved but so did the mom and, in the moms case, never told the dad where to.
Dad already lost custody. Why should mom be required to keep up with him? He moved and lost custody, too bad, so sad. Move on.
I’m with you, brother. Some women can be extremely abusive, and it doesn’t show up for a long while.
However, just to give you a smile on a grim subject:
Q: Did you marry your wife for her looks?
A: Yeah, but not for the looks she’s been giving me lately.
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.