Divorce, Child Custody, and "Traditionalism" (A Worthless Word)

TooGood Reports ^ | 3/14/02 | Isaiah Flair

[Good Tidings Of Great Joy]

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

This is how American divorce courts treat fathers, purely out of anti-fatherhood sexism. Even a father who did so much for the city of New York, and by extension for the spirit of all America, cannot get fair treatment from the divorce courts.

I don't agree with Rudy Giuliani on a number of things, and his affair with Judith Nathan is one of them.

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

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.

The whole concept of child-custody proceedings as a winner-take-all situation, heavily weighted against even the best fathers, is ridiculous.

So are the words of the judge in Rudy Giuliani's case, as she rejected his bid to spend more time with his own children:

"A more traditional visitation schedule reflects the historical division of responsibility for the children in this family," she said.

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"?

So used, the word "traditional" is now a word that means nothing. Is the single-mom welfare scenario now "traditional" because it has been prevalent for a few decades?

Is anything that has become the status quo for thirty years or more "traditional" no matter how socioculturally deleterious it may be?

By every measure, children from homes where the father is not majorly involved are more likely to get into drug use, crime, violence, and all manner of things not good for them.

Are these things "traditional"? Has the feminist counterculture become the Establishment Culture in these United States?

Actually, the answer is yes, it has.

And according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "traditional" is defined as "an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)".

Under that definition, fatherless homes, and mistreatment of fathers in child custody cases, qualifies, technically, as "traditional". Which is one reason I don't believe in traditionalism as a concept.

I do, however, believe in Fatherhood. And our society complains so much about those fathers who abandon their children, while totally disrespecting the millions of fathers who want to spend all the time they can with their children.

The latter breeds the former, folks.

Enough is enough, and it's time for a change.

There must be in every state in the nation a legislatively instituted presumption of joint residential child custody, to be shared by both parents, in the event of a divorce.

There are a small percentage of parents who are unsuited to child custody due to their criminal histories. Thus the rebuttability of the presumption. However, most parents are decent people. The fathers are, and the mothers are. To suggest that either of them is less capable or less valuable as a parent, for sons and daughters alike, is pure, undiluted sexism.

Children, whether infants or teenagers or any age in between, need their fathers and their mothers equally.

Equally in terms of actual time spent.

Traditional, not traditional, I don't care.

The word has become less than meaningless.

Joint residential custody is the right thing to do.

And it is the best interests of the children, not to mention society at large.

In lieu of legal protection for fatherhood, every single other address of every other social problem is simply spitting in the wind.

[Harrison Bergeron]

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.

[glory]

In fact, perhaps the rule should be that whoever is the adulterer, or the drinker, or the drug abuser, or the batterer,in short the person who in reality breaks up the home, if that person was guarenteed to not get custody, wow, what a change would take place

Hmm, you realize of course this might isolate those suckling mothers who fell out of love with thier husbands and that you believe should have custody away from thier babies right? There is so much in your post so obviously disjointed, I won't even dissect anything else... ...and no, I am not a divorced male with children.

[glory]

Babies need their mothers, bub...they are born of woman for a reason...they come out of our bodies, we suckle them...neither of these things can a well-meaning dad do..

Hmmm, my husband seemed to have no problem feeding our babies from a bottle and they seemed to really enjoy it. Sure a man can not breastfeed, but he certainly can feed and nurture his children. I'm not saying replace moms role anymore than mom can replace dads role, but I despise this notion that mom has total domination over her children and is the last word in what is best for them. What a bunch of hippie, alternative parenting rubbish that is! You wouldn't by chance be an alternamom would you..oh never mind...

[glory]

Little girls are just as vicious by nature as little boys

You are on to something there. I just got through making note of this to a friend who gloated about the fact that she had daughters and she was glad because boys were so mean. I have one of each and I told her while boys can be physically manipulative, hitting and kicking when angry(my toddler son to a tee), girls are emotionally manipulative and mean(I just witnessed this on the playground with some girls my daughter was playing with!). The difference I think is emotional manipulation is acceptable in this feminized society and is not as easily "seen", where physical manipulation is quite obvious and now seen as unacceptable so boys get dumped on for it. Truth is that both of these tendencies to evil need to be riegned in and children taught discipline and self control, unfortunately, it's becoming evident that we are letting girls, and eventually grown women, nurture that side of themselves that has a tendency towards mean spiritidness and manipulation, while completely and totally emasculating our sons for doing the same thing in a different way. There needs to be that old balance where boys can learn self control, but still stay vibrant and healthy in how they physically relate to the world and girls can learn self control, but still learn to use thier emotional assets for good purposes and not for manipulation and emotional blackmail. That's a very simple explanation, but it's what I have noticed from not only my two, but other things I have witnessed and read about children and those who observed them.

[jurisdog]

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.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"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."

All these iniquities existed a hundred years ago when divorce was considered scandalous, a last resort for all involved. Nick Danger pointed out that child custody was almost always awarded to fathers back then. Perhaps this was intended as a roadblock to divorce, truly placing the family as a whole - especially the children - on a higher plane of importance than any one person's needs. But sometime between then and now, a Marxist based radical feminist movement began a systematic demonization of men that had fathers fixed firmly in the bullseye - men as oppressors, men as abusers, men as uncaring fools and bumblers when it came to their own children. Right alongside this campaign marched the "women's liberation" arm of feminism that declared the family an evil tool of the patriarchy. Women were promised that they could free themselves of patriarchal bonds and "have it all" - even if "having it all" meant dumping hubby and sticking the kids in daycare. But the philosophy would have fallen on its face on day one if women were allowed to suffer the obvious consequences of stupid choices. That's where you come in.

Your profession has institutionalized all of the above by guaranteeing the selfish stupid women who've been charmed by feminism's promises the same deal as the women with righteous grievances. Accountability is assigned only on the male side of the courtroom. Fifty states plus the federal government have massive bureaucracies to enforce - under threat of incarceration - that support payments are met. Yet denial of visitation complaints by men are treated as nuisance cases. The message is clear: divorce decrees are about dissolution of the family and transfer of wealth from men to women - not about "what's best for the children."

Call all criticism ignorant and hateful if you will, it doesn't matter. It is you who is ignorant of your profession's past and arrogantly self righteous about its role in today's ongoing devastation of the family. Your profession has made law from lies, bigotry and socialist victimology. Reperations to blacks, reparations to women... what's the difference, right? I guess it's easier to keep taking the money and mouthing the party line than to step outside the box and look at the big picture.

[The Giant Apricots]

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

I read the entire thread. All of that was spread by you and cherry.

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

Disagree. Ever hear of Andrea Yates? Susan Smith?

[The Giant Apricots]

I despise this notion that mom has total domination over her children and is the last word in what is best for them.

Likewise.

[right2parent]

It is the fundamental right of a father to maintain custody and control of his children. The status is called guardianship by nature. This is what you might call legal protection for fatherhood. Most emasculated men out there, cowed by the new liberals, are afraid to stand up for this bedrock of family government. Why is that? This right is not absolute, and can be lost for good cause (such as adultery). The "no fault" standard for dissolutions does not apply to custody proceedings. The standard for releiving a father of his natural right to parent is strict scrutiny, as is interference with any natural right.

Mothers are certainly more capable these day of earning enough to care for children when it is necessary. This right, however, is subservient to the father's. Until this right is recognized and again protected, the rush to divorce court and for child support will continue at it's current break neck speed. Is it possible that the real threat of having to walk away from a marriage without custody of the children would convince some women to work harder to restore their marriage, rather than jumping for the current incentives to separate?

By the way, before the feminists (male and female) tell me that's no longer the law, look it up. Show me where legislation has trumped the natural right to parent, leaving it to the complete discretion of the court. An historical search of these laws will reveal their foundation in guardianship determinations for wards of the state. That's not to say the courts haven't made some bad case law in situations improperly invoking this law. They surely have. Policy and bad case law can not trump a natural right.

It is the patriarchial system of family government that has held families together for thousands of years. Look at what the falacy of equal rights to parent has taken us. Joint custody is properly left to the discretion of the father, as it "traditionally" has. Let's not get sucked into the lie of equality of the sexes. Folks, wake up. We do not have an equal right to parent, for a very good reason.

[right2parent]

You've got that right. The trouble is, what do we do about it, compromise? I don't think so. It is time to return to the standards for divorce that work for obvious reasons. A capitulation on the idea of equal rights for the new liberals is not the answer. What happened "between then and now?" Unsubstantiated findings and bad case law has effectively concealed the truth. The law hasn't changed, just the way it is applied (in the wrong situations).

[Harrison Bergeron]

"The trouble is, what do we do about it, compromise? I don't think so. It is time to return to the standards for divorce that work for obvious reasons. A capitulation on the idea of equal rights for the new liberals is not the answer. "

I agree with you 100%. Asking for a measly crumb like enforced visitation rights for men is just a rhetorical gesture on my part. Once someone admits that it's a good idea, they have basically admitted that divorced men - as a class - are denied access to their children out of sheer prejudice. Somehow, putting it on the table always seems to bring debate to a screeching halt.

[mamaduck]

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.

then he shouldn't have divorced their mother

[right2parent]

"...divorced men - as a class - are denied access to their children out of sheer prejudice."

Yes, it ends the discussion because the other side of the argument is unsupportable. So is the argument that a father is the head of a household, and with that status comes the right to custody upon the breakup of the marriage, unless an interested party can prove he should loose such a right.

I don't intend to slight women or mothers by this. It's in the best interest of the children because it's in the best interest of a secure family. Know what I mean? What a price we all have paid for womens liberation!

[Good Tidings Of Great Joy]

She filed for divorce, not he. And his right to be a father is independent of his marital status.

[right2parent]

She filed for divorce, not he. And his right to be a father is independent of his marital status.

"Right" on. I wish more people understood this important difference. The standard of review for a dissolution is not the same as the standard for depriving one of a fundamental right. The licensed union is a privilege granted by the state. Parenting is not a privilege. The state cannot legislate away a fundamental right without compelling justification.

In this case, the justification for laws misapplied to custody proceedings are for the protection of state wards. Guardianship statutes do not regulate the right to parent.