namelesstavern.net

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:00 pm**

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/4962898p-4537196c.html

Since this story came out, they found out the real reason he did what he did. He was frustrated with the Washington State child custody laws!

He was divorced from his wife 12 years ago and had made his final payments for child custody. However, he was still very bitter on the subject. He had filed many times for changes in the laws and finally went to the courthouse with a dummy grenade with the intention of being shot and killed.

My question is this: Are the child custody laws too far in favor of women? Discuss.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:09 pm**

Agrajag wrote:My question is this: Are the child custody laws too far in favor of women? Discuss.

For the most part? Yes. My friend gets her daughter every day, minus every other weekend when his dad takes him. He pays child support. Did he beat her? Did he cheat on her? No. All he did was want a divorce.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:28 pm**

My mother got full custody of me. My mother was unemployed, had no place to live. My father had a good job, he had a house.

My fathers family had a far beter track record of raising children. Everything pointed to me being beter off with my father.

My mother won full custody. My father got to see me every other weekend. We lived in a one bedroom apartment in the middle of a shitty neightborhood.

There is no doubt that the laws favor women. For a father to win custody, either he needs to have great lawyers or the mother needs to be a clear threat to the child. I have never known a single person whose father won custody of them of the many many I know that have divorsed parents.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:37 pm**

My dad had full custody and my mom paid child support to him.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:44 pm**

Azlana wrote:My dad had full custody and my mom paid child support to him.

I have full custody and my ex is supposed to pay me child support. She doesn't but she is supposed to. It's very easy to get a guy thrown in the clink for not paying, but try getting a woman to pay! Nothing happens and they continue like it's normal.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:25 pm**

Usually the ONLY way the dad will get custody is if the mother doesnt want the kid around.

If mom puts up the slightest resistance to letting the dad have full custody, well he doesnt get it.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:16 pm**

Custody should be determined by an arm-wrestling match.

Surely that would be most fair

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:19 pm**

I think it should be a knock-down, all out, bare-knuckle fistfight. No hair pulling allowed. That should determine who gets custody. It will also make men feel better about the divorce!

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:09 pm**

I'm a retard. Meant to edit this post, and quoted it. Read on.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:12 pm**

Kizzy wrote:Here is *MY* situation, and how I feel about it.

When we got divorced, David didn't want the kids. They didn't fit into his schedule. We lived 15 minutes apart, and he was supposed to have them every other weekend, and one night a week, I was lucky if he took them for 12 hours a week. He was much to involved with his new girlfriend, and working around her schedule. This went on for 6 months, and I finally got fed up and decided to move to Texas with my Mom, because it was a hassle raising 2 kids on my own with no help from their father. He fought me to go to Texas, but I won in the end. He was to have custody of the kids for the full summer. That worked out well, because that was right around the time I was moving to PA to be with Taxx. I was then 6 hours away from him, and for the whole 10 months I was in PA, he saw the kids three times. Once when I was going back to Cleveland to see some friends, and once for Christmas, the third was because he had a long weekend.

He wanted custody of the older one, but not our youngest son. Even though we tried for over a year to get pregnant, he claims he never wanted the second child. We have it worked out that he has full custody of the oldest, and I have full custody of the youngest. One weekend, they are both with me, and the next they arte both with his Dad. It has been this way since Easter. He always asks me to pick up the youngest early, and I usually flat out refuse. He let my oldest skip a weekend with me once, and always finds reasons to only have the kids half the weekends on his weekends. I called to make arrangements for the summer (He is to have the youngest for two full weeks and vice versa) He stated that the custody papers clearly state that he is to have them NO MORE than 2 weeks, and informed me that he didn't have day care for the youngest, and had no vacation time, yet I still plan on taking the oldest for my 2 weeks. He will not be taking the youngest. My friends say that I shouldn't take the oldest, but I feel that is only hurting my son, and not my ex husband.

So, in summation, alot of the time fathers(like in my case) don't want to be burdened with their children, and sometimes the mother holds the children over the father's head even when (like in Gidan's case) the child would be better off with the father.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:27 pm**

Goose_Man wrote:Usually the ONLY way the dad will get custody is if the mother doesnt want the kid around.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you there - my dad had custody of us - my mom is the one who left my dad and she made a much lower salary and wanted us to grow up in a nice house in a nice neighborhood.. and we did. She didn't want us growing up in an apartment with her barely making ends meet, instead we went over on the weekends and she'd reserve money from her paycheck to do all she could for us then.

Now, my mom and I are the closest we could ever be - I respect and appreciate her decision and know how hard it was for her to let us go.. it had nothing to do with her not wanting us around, just had to do with her being the type of woman who truly wanted the best for her kids and knew she couldn't give it to us.

I will agree that women get way too much when it comes to child custody - I think it's far too often that piss-poor moms get their children over fantastic dads simply because they're the mother.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:33 pm**

Child custody laws are a joke. Child support guidelines are even worse.

Not only are child custody laws NOT in favor of the woman, they are very seldom considered at all. That--from my attorney's own mouth.

It actually has more to do with the judge and geographical location of the situation. They've always given custody to women due to the fact that they are the child-rearing sex. Only recently do judges actually hear a case and consider "the best interest of the child." Even in those cases, it's bullshit. The best interest of the child, is not to see the other parent every other weekend, unless you are unfit and by unfit-I mean that you can't take care of yourself and are subjecting your child to dangerous environments, or are a drug addict/alcoholic, etc...

Support guidelines are fucking unbelievable and do not consider remarriage, or a second income. If you pay child support for your child, and their mother/father remarries and has added income, you still pay the same amount. Not only that, but they don't care what you pay or how much it takes for you to live. If you break even, they don't give a fuck. You had better pay it. Or you're going to jail. And while you're in jail...guess what. You're still responsible for making payments.

The reason why this is bullshit--is because yes, support for your children is important/necessary, we all know this. What isn't, is the way that our children are used in custody/support cases for rewards and awards. It's nauseating. Husband cheat on you? Oh, don't worry about it. Take the kids and make him pay an assload of money in child support.

It's a system that's been broken since it started and seriously needs reviewing. There are too many people with custody of their children who have no business even owning a dog. There are many GREAT fathers and mothers who have no business seeing their children every other weekend. And there are COUNTLESS children who suffer every single day because they can't have the same amount of time with both parents, when it's deserved.

Posted: **Wed Jun 22, 2005 7:18 am**

Your son is very, very fortunate. :wub:

Posted: **Wed Jun 22, 2005 7:53 am**

My parents had a legal battle over it, but I think the reason my dad got custody is because my mom was in the doctorate program, and didn't have a lot of time to dedicate to raising me, even though she wanted to. I think it was a good choice, I still saw her on the weekends, and I have the best dad ever.

Posted: **Wed Jun 22, 2005 5:22 pm**

Eziekial wrote:Your son is very, very fortunate.

you made my day =)

Posted: **Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:10 am**

Araby you make a very good point on Child Support, but the one of the main flaws I really saw was the marriage after child support begins part. Child Support is paid to support the raising of the child. Based on both the fathers and mothers income they figure out a set amount. Now I don't see the point in whether or not either get married on raising or lowering the amount paid. example:::>

Father & Mother get a divorse. Mother has custody and is single. Father re-marries and now has more income... should he start paying more child support since his household income went up? Hell no. This works Vice Versa also.

This money is for raising a child between the mother and father. Whomever they marry or who they are seeing/living with should never make a difference. The only time where household income comes into effect is when the custodial parent signs up for Title-19, WIC, and other Government/State Programs.

I believe the system is screwed but is getting better if you are a dad. You will have a hell of a better chance now than you would have 15 years ago. The costs of raising a child are high and that's why support is high, yes you are paying part of the custodial parents bills, but if the custodial parent can use the money to pay the extra for utilities (heat in the winter), water, rent/mortgage(for a better location), food(real food not just Great Value Mac 'n' Cheese every night), not to mention everything else a kid gets, etc to give your child a better environment to live in, so be it.

Just my 2 cents.

Posted: **Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:20 am**

What I see as still a problem with paying child support is this:

Hypothetically, I make $100K a year and pay $3k a month in child support per month. If I get fired or take a drastic paycut (no idea why that would happen) the courts will still require I continue to pay the $3k per month. The reasoning is that I had the ability to pay that much so I should still pay that much to let the child keep his/her standard of living. If I do not/can not continue to pay that amount I will end up in jail. What's really the kicker is that you have to continue paying child support while you are IN JAIL! This is Washington State law, mind you. :wtf:

The laws need to be changed, period!

Posted: **Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:46 am**

Hrm, I think child support payments are wrong because they are a form of involuntary servitude. I believe the supreme courts even ruled that "Peonage" (which is what child support boils down to) is in fact involuntary servitude.

It's also a spit in the face for the loser of the custody battle - you don't get your kid AND you have to pay out the ass for it?

Posted: **Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:54 am**

You can't be serious.

Posted: **Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:01 am**

Support payments are a necessity. Some people look at it as a burden, however I know my father regularly paid his support checks, he also added extra onto it every chance he got because he understood that everythign he added would make my childhood a little beter. Your paying to help support your child. He/She may not live with you but is still your child and you should contribute financially. I can assure you that in most cases the parent the child lives with is spending far more on that child then the other parent is.

I do beleive chidl support should be reviewed every six months, and reevaluated based on the incomes of the 2 parents (not household income).

Posted: **Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:06 am**

Gidan wrote:I do beleive chidl support should be reviewed every six months, and reevaluated based on the incomes of the 2 parents (not household income).

Just curious why it shouldn't be based on household income. If I marry a woman with millions in the bank and quit working, since I have no income should I not be required to pay child support?

Posted: **Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:08 am**

It is very rare that every penny (or even a small percentage) of child support goes to the child it is intended for. I take any money my ex pays me for child support (which is a rarity that she pays at all) and I put it into an account for him. When I get enough saved, I put that into a ROTH IRA for him.

I pay for all his school clothes, lunch money, soccer fees and any other expendatures with no help from her. I got tired of asking for money a long time ago.

Posted: **Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:10 am**

My ex-wife was unfaithful, left me and took my kid and moved 1800 miles away. There was nothing I could do to stop her. The laws are TOTALLY fucked and skewed in the mothers favor. $6000 in legal fees and several court appearances later, I was no better off than I would have been if I just given up from the beginning.

Posted: **Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:17 am**

lyion wrote:
Gidan wrote:I do beleive chidl support should be reviewed every six months, and reevaluated based on the incomes of the 2 parents (not household income).

Just curious why it shouldn't be based on household income. If I marry a woman with millions in the bank and quit working, since I have no income should I not be required to pay child support?

At the same time you could then make a case that if you marry somone who isn't working and you are supporthing that person completely that your child support payments shoudl go down because you have less $$ available to pay for the child. Obviouly there would need to be ways to keep people from abusing the law, such as stopping working all together and living off somone else to lower the payments.

Posted: **Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:10 pm**

No, the laws take into account potential earnings and costs. They are not great but they do the best they can.

It should not be 'adjusted' based on changing 'personal' incomes. Do you know how many guys quit working just to spite their ex's? As petty and silly as that is, it's a fact.

namelesstavern.net

Child custody laws

Child custody laws

Re: Child custody laws