#1 Dating Site for Successful Singles and Admirers

Home > Millionaire Forums > Long term relationship and Love > Child Custody Previous topic Next topic
Jump to:
Child Custody
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Apr 03, 2006 23:42

Go have children first, and then we can have a conversation.

Available only
to logged in members


Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Jul 03, 2006 14:44

GrapesOfGoodHope write:

All good arguements, but I think it is the saddest of all that the 2 people who created the child can't be loving and caring enough to agree between themselves what would be best for their child, instead of abusing it by fighting over it.
I believe custody court cases arise because one of the parents is so completely egoistic that (s)he starts the battle for the sole purpose of hurting the spouse or to profit financially. Then it is the duty of the other parent to enter into the battle so as to protect the child's interests.
So often, the parents become the children: fighting over a "toy" and then a 3rd party has to determine an unknown child's future. Very sad indeed for those poor kids, because even after a messy court case the battle between its parents usually continues for the rest of that child's life ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sharp1 writes:
So true Grapes. My kids were 12 & 14 yrs when my ex & I separated. He said "I want 50/50 custody." and I said, "Okay." That was that. We didn't need a contract, or a court telling us how to handle matters with our kids, we just did it. Almost as if nothing in their lives had changed other than their parents were no longer living together under the same roof. It went well, and our kids benefited from it. I had teachers commenting to me that my kids never showed the signs that kids from divorced families normally show. That made me feel good. We must have been doing something right. People should remember when a divorce or separation occurs it should be kept btn the 2 of them only. Their kids don't belong in the middle of their dispute. It's the parents responsibility to protect their kids from any fallout arising from their disputes. Keep it private. Too bad, parents feel a need to air things, & vent to their children. Their shoulders are not strong enough yet to bare such stresses and animosity.



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Jun 07, 2006 19:40

I missed out on a lot of my children's lives, (and they, their mother's), due to custody battles, filed against me. I have a couple pieces of advice now... "The one who files FIRST, wins"! and "Flush your money, before you give it to a lawyer who won't play it your way"! Forced to look at the brihgt side... for the most part, my kids remember me as the 'fun' parent.
Never in my wildest dreams, did I think the picket fence would turn black.

Available only
to logged in members


Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Thu, Apr 20, 2006 03:00

GrapesOfGoodHope write:
cutiepie01 write:
I feel that the court does not always make the best decisions and once the decision is made, its difficult to get it changed. Even if you can prove the custodial parent is unfit. Its a sad situation that one person has the final word as to who's care the child would be best in.

sharp1 write:
Altruisticman write:
Angyson write:
If men and women are equal under the law now, why do judges award custody of children to the mothers 90% of the time?

So are you suggesting that it is better to teach your child to break the law?

Why would you be less interested in custody of a daughter?

By the way your stats are wrong, but men who share your sentiment about girls would be the primary reason for a higher rate of Mothers getting custody.

Courts don't award custody based solely on the gender of the parent. They actually investigate to see which parent has the childs best interest at heart, and is most capable of fostering a nurturing relationship between the child and the other parent.

His stats are not wrong, you have to remember he doesn't live in the US. It is changing though. It was the mid-80's when the first case in the Prov. of Alberta occurred awarding full custody to the Father. Usually they go to the Mother, unless it can be proven that she is unfit. This can be difficult to prove sometimes. But many parents are opting for 50/50 custody now. This is so much better for the kids.
It's too bad more people can not work together.



All good arguements, but I think it is the saddest of all that the 2 people who created the child can't be loving and caring enough to agree between themselves what would be best for their child, instead of abusing it by fighting over it.
I believe custody court cases arise because one of the parents is so completely egoistic that (s)he starts the battle for the sole purpose of hurting the spouse or to profit financially. Then it is the duty of the other parent to enter into the battle so as to protect the child's interests.
So often, the parents become the children: fighting over a "toy" and then a 3rd party has to determine an unknown child's future. Very sad indeed for those poor kids, because even after a messy court case the battle between its parents usually continues for the rest of that child's life ...

I agree with all of you including Angy, thank's to Sharp reminding me that he is speaking with reference to canadian law, of which I have no first hand knowlege.

To angy, I say that girls need their father as much as, if not more than boys. Father's are supposed to set the standard by which all men in their lives are to be measured. Girls who don't have good relationships with their fathers tend to look for love in the wrong places. On the flip side boys need there Mother's to teach them how to interact with females. Boy who don't have healthy relationships with their Mothers tend to be the wrong places where the afore mentioned girls look for love.

Sharp it was refreshing to hear a story like yours. Congratulations! I wish that my ex-wife could acknowlege the fact that I'm a good man and a great father.

Cutie, the only thing that we disagree about is whether or not jury's should decide. I feel that jury's would make the same mistakes as judges, due to the fact that they would have to follow the judges criteria in addition to settling on a unanimous decision. Jury's often dead lock which would lengthen an already lengthy process. Furthermore, the law has started taking more precautions to prevent making inaccurate assessments. For instance they appoint what is called a guardian ad litem- an attory whose fees are paid by both parents equally to represent the childs interest. The Guardian does home visits with the child at both parents home, in addition to visiting the childs school. The Guardian may interview anyone that has contact with the child/children in question. Besides appointing a Guardian Ad Litem
some states are adopting a shared parenting agreement which is structured with terms that both parents agree upoon, which leaves nothing for the parents to fight about.

FYI, to all who don't realize that in the US men prodominently won Custody prior to the 1960's.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Apr 17, 2006 15:12

sharp1 write:
Altruisticman write:
Angyson write:
If men and women are equal under the law now, why do judges award custody of children to the mothers 90% of the time?
I have no children, but if I had a son and the mother was living on the other side of the country, there is no way he would be living with her, no matter what a judge says. It's not his son. She can keep the daughters.

So are you suggesting that it is better to teach your child to break the law?

Why would you be less interested in custody of a daughter?

By the way your stats are wrong, but men who share your sentiment about girls would be the primary reason for a higher rate of Mothers getting custody.

Courts don't award custody based solely on the gender of the parent. They actually investigate to see which parent has the childs best interest at heart, and is most capable of fostering a nurturing relationship between the child and the other parent.

His stats are not wrong, you have to remember he doesn't live in the US. It is changing though. It was the mid-80's when the first case in the Prov. of Alberta occurred awarding full custody to the Father. Usually they go to the Mother, unless it can be proven that she is unfit. This can be difficult to prove sometimes. But many parents are opting for 50/50 custody now. This is so much better for the kids.
My kids were 12 & 14 yrs at the time of my separation. I could not imagine the pain of losing even 1 of my children, so how could I consider inflicting that same pain on my ex. He said, "Don't take my kids away." No problem, we did 1 wk with him, 1 wk with me. I picked my kids up from school daily, so I saw them all the time. When they were with me, if I was busy for a few hours I'd drop them off at his house so they could spend quality time with him. I had a couple teachers comment to me that my kids did not show the signs that other kids showed when their parents separated. We kept things amicable, and it had a positive affect on our kids. It's too bad more people can not work together.

Altru, I have never once disagreed with you, right? I feel that the court does not always make the best decisions and once the decision is made, its difficult to get it changed. Even if you can prove the custodial parent is unfit. Its a sad situation that one person has the final word as to who's care the child would be best in. That! I think should be left up to a jury.



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Apr 17, 2006 14:45

Tommy1546:
No one is angry, we all have different views, just like you.
Angyboy likes to pose and wants ladies to wonder whats under the speedo ) thats all.

Have a Martini and I hope to c ya in a red speedo



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sun, Apr 16, 2006 05:06

thomas1546 write:
I must say, I have been surprised by so much of the anger that seems to appear in the forum--this topic and others on this site. I think people think this internet blogging is real life. That said, I am astounded at Angyson, his views, and the sibliminal suggestion that his picture in front of a bank vault and his body in a speedo might somehow raise his views about children and childrearing to the level of something other than narcisisstic trash.

The most enlightened comments on this issue came from Bombshelldiva, a substantially younger individual;, but someone with far more maturity and sensitivity to the human condition and it's most vulnerable ones than the other opinions addressing this topic. many of us older (and supposedly wiser) --the kids. much more maturity attitude

Hi Thomas. Are you saying that all the views here other than bombshell are angry and 'trash'? I disagree. My comments are not coming from anger but rather presenting angy with different view and potentially give him 'food for thought', which is exactly what the forums are for - sharing opinions.

Angy's pics have nothing to do with anything being discussed here. It is strictly based on the position he states in his topic.

All that said, what are your thoughts on angy's position on child custody?



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sat, Apr 15, 2006 07:44

bombshelldiva write:
That's a pretty lame and screwed up statement that Angyson has made, "She can keep the daughters". Your child is your child regardless if it is a male or female.....glad you don't have children because its attitudes like that, that has the world all screwed up. I know you want sons as a reflection of you but we would have more women who appreciate themselves and knows their worth if we didn't have attitudes like that. You are supposed to protect your daughters from assholes and school them on men, not deny them.

Based on what Angy wrote in reply to this (above yours/below mine), I'm going to surmise that he didn't mean it in the context you interpreted it. And I'd have to agree with him. I know men who have raised their daughters and did an excellent time. They all had a women intervene when it came to that time in a girl's life that Mother Nature takes over (around 13). I shared custody with my ex for a few years. But at 14, my daughter made a choice to live with me full time. I disputed it for awhile. She sees her Dad a fair amount. He's a good father. But there were things that she wanted to talk to me about, and couldn't talk to her Dad about. Personal issues with respect to friends, school, sports, her body, etc.
Her Father couldn't relate well to her. But he's a good man, with good intentions. So maybe in some cases where a Mother can't relate well to her sons, but the Father can, it is best if the sons have more time with their Father. Considering what I've just written, Altruistic's comments ring through to me. Unfortunately, our court systems have not evolved to that position yet. So hopefully the parents can be perceptive enough to resolve the issues amicably between themselves.
A court battle over sons as Angy suggests he'd have done if his ex lived across the country...well, it may be in his best interests, but his sons will lose out just based on the hostility the court battle over custody would create. It doesn't sound like he's had to do that yet.



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sat, Apr 15, 2006 07:25

Altruisticman write:
Angyson write:
If men and women are equal under the law now, why do judges award custody of children to the mothers 90% of the time?
I have no children, but if I had a son and the mother was living on the other side of the country, there is no way he would be living with her, no matter what a judge says. It's not his son. She can keep the daughters.

So are you suggesting that it is better to teach your child to break the law?

Why would you be less interested in custody of a daughter?

By the way your stats are wrong, but men who share your sentiment about girls would be the primary reason for a higher rate of Mothers getting custody.

Courts don't award custody based solely on the gender of the parent. They actually investigate to see which parent has the childs best interest at heart, and is most capable of fostering a nurturing relationship between the child and the other parent.

His stats are not wrong, you have to remember he doesn't live in the US. It is changing though. It was the mid-80's when the first case in the Prov. of Alberta occurred awarding full custody to the Father. Usually they go to the Mother, unless it can be proven that she is unfit. This can be difficult to prove sometimes. But many parents are opting for 50/50 custody now. This is so much better for the kids.
My kids were 12 & 14 yrs at the time of my separation. I could not imagine the pain of losing even 1 of my children, so how could I consider inflicting that same pain on my ex. He said, "Don't take my kids away." No problem, we did 1 wk with him, 1 wk with me. I picked my kids up from school daily, so I saw them all the time. When they were with me, if I was busy for a few hours I'd drop them off at his house so they could spend quality time with him. I had a couple teachers comment to me that my kids did not show the signs that other kids showed when their parents separated. We kept things amicable, and it had a positive affect on our kids. It's too bad more people can not work together.



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sat, Apr 15, 2006 03:43

Angyson write:
Look. You don't seem to understand my point of view. There are only so many children to go around. Better that the females are raised by a female. What do I know about raising girls? But I know an awful lot about raising boys. Am I to leave my ex with no children? After all, she gave birth to them.

I'm really lol, angy. "There's only so many children to go around"? What the heck does that mean?! lol

Child custody isn't about what the parents want. It's about what's best for the child/ren.

If you are really involved in Child Custody cases, then surely you notice the feelings of children who are split up. If you don't, then go do a follow up visit to those kids after a few months. Most kids want to be with their sibling(s).

You certainly ar not alone on not knowing how to raise a child - again, regardless of gender. I would know no more about raising a daughter (if I'd had one) than I knew about raising my son. Yes, there are awkard times between parent/child of opposite sex during the puberty years. For me, one moment that stands out is when my son, then about 11-12, wants to wear his boxers on gym day. Not a good idea for a guy, right? That's what I say, to which he responds, "why"? So there I am, scratching my head trying to figure out how to tell him so he gets it but isn't embarrassed. I decide I have to answer it like a man might. My mouth opens and out comes, "well you just don't want your balls flapping around!" we both cracked up, but he got it and went and put on his whitie tighties. You deal with those moments.

Otherwise, you're really just trying to raise a good person. The core qualities of a good person are the same regardless of gender.

Ever heard the saying, "Daddy's little girl, Mommie's boy"? It's more true than you would know. That little girl is going to melt your heart and you will not want to have her with you any less than you will your son.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Thu, Apr 13, 2006 10:01

That's a cop out....I think.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Apr 12, 2006 15:50

La situacion esta caliente

  


Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Apr 12, 2006 15:34

That's a pretty lame and screwed up statement that Angyson has made, "She can keep the daughters". Your child is your child regardless if it is a male or female.....glad you don't have children because its attitudes like that, that has the world all screwed up. I know you want sons as a reflection of you but we would have more women who appreciate themselves and knows their worth if we didn't have attitudes like that. You are supposed to protect your daughters from assholes and school them on men, not deny them.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Apr 12, 2006 06:30

peace in the Middle East!!!!


Martini anyone?? or perhaps a tequila blanco?

  
Available only
to logged in members


Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sat, Apr 08, 2006 22:59

Well, I live in Colorado where fathers are more favored by judges than any other state. The judge agreed upon a 50/50 split over our 2 year old daughter and newborn son, but at the last minute my ex told the judge he did not want them. The judge informed my ex that he would never get them, based on that one remark. So now I have full custody of my two kiddos. But I think it is a shame that in a state where fathers are more equal to mothers than most states, this one father simply did not want his kids. There are so many dads out there who would be awesome at raising their children as single fathers, but do not get the chance for shared custody because of the way most judges tend to rule. It does not seem fair. I think in most places you would be right, but here in Colorado a lot more fathers are raising their children. While I regret that my ex is not helping to raise our children, it is better that I know the truth from the beginning - that he just does not want them. Funny about that, too. We haev a son that is the only male to carry on the family name, who will inherit evrthing from his grandparents, and he wants no influence on who this child turns out to be. So many fathers only wish for the chance that my ex threw away on a whim. I wish the fathers who deserve to help raise their children were given the same chance that my worthless ex had. I think that whatever is best for the children should be what happens, but it so rarely happens like that. Why would you not want to help raise a daughter if you had one?



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sat, Apr 08, 2006 15:28

Angyson write:
If men and women are equal under the law now, why do judges award custody of children to the mothers 90% of the time?
I have no children, but if I had a son and the mother was living on the other side of the country, there is no way he would be living with her, no matter what a judge says. It's not his son. She can keep the daughters.

I do agree that the mother usually obtains primary physical custody of the children, although this is changing. Granted, not at some rapid pace, but I believe the system does try to do what they - and the divorcing parents - feel is right at the time. I know several men who have primary physical custody of the children. Typically in divorce with children, there is also joint legal custody which includes a clause that the primary custodian cannot leave the state without the other parent's consent, so your scenario of the mother being across the country isn't likely unless you bought into it.

Are you really serious that you would take your son and she can keep the daughters? It is clear you're not a parent or you would know the gender of your children doesn't matter. They are all yours. You may think you would love your son more than your daughter(s), but you won't. You will love them all.

Splitting up the kids (as though you're splitting up the furniture) is rarely the right thing to do. It's bad enough they only see one of their parents part-time, you would have siblings not grow up together and know each other?



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Fri, Apr 07, 2006 02:25

come again?

  


Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Thu, Apr 06, 2006 01:31

Angyson write:
If men and women are equal under the law now, why do judges award custody of children to the mothers 90% of the time?
I have no children, but if I had a son and the mother was living on the other side of the country, there is no way he would be living with her, no matter what a judge says. It's not his son. She can keep the daughters.

So are you suggesting that it is better to teach your child to break the law?

Why would you be less interested in custody of a daughter?

By the way your stats are wrong, but men who share your sentiment about girls would be the primary reason for a higher rate of Mothers getting custody.

Courts don't award custody based solely on the gender of the parent. They actually investigate to see which parent has the childs best interest at heart, and is most capable of fostering a nurturing relationship between the child and the other parent.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Apr 05, 2006 07:00

okay, men and women are equal and the judge awards custody to the parent he/she has decided according to an evaluation made that has helped to determine which parent can best meet the child-ren's needs.
And lets say that you did have children and that the mother was in the other side of the country, you can still see them Oh! sorry him right? because I understood that she could keep the daughters>>> Newaz, what would you do IF the judge grants full custody- you mention something like no matter what the judge says... can u explain-kinda confused in here*
Now, its a different thing when a mother doesn't allow her children to interact with their father for very immature reasons and that is unfair to the child and parent.



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Apr 05, 2006 06:13

lol
ITS A GOOD THING-weirdo