Comments on: Reader to Legislature–’I Do NOT Support Shared Parenting’

By: Robert Stevens

Robert Stevens — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:38:43 +0000

Bolwriter is correct, shared parenting laws do not guarantee shared parenting and the associated shared financial arangement. There are cases where shared parenting would not work, but those cases are rare.
I do support the passage of the UPREPA ( Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act .) Maybe I should in nonlegal terms explain just what UPREPA is, in simple english this proposed federal law abolishes the civil cause of custody for children, the criminal cause would remain. It would do away with the ” judicial kidnapping’ that now goes on in the utterly corrupt and evil family courts. But it would not guarantee joint physical/legal custody. It would force the biased courts to abide by the law and give fathers more rights, but it would have be enforced and we would have to pass supporting legislation. A lot of “government terrorists” and a lot of women would have to be came down hard on to make them obey it.
We should protect children from being hurt. I firmly believe if you harm your own children, there is no punishment severe enough for you and we should not give children to such a person or even let them around a child.
We need a balance, we need to go back to common law. If you prove by reasonable evidence a parent would harm their child then they should be barred from the child to protect them. This would have to be base on “real evidence” a hysterical women making absurd and unsubstantiated claimes needs not only to be discounted but if she lies and it causes a man to lose his rights, she needs to be punished severely. Go to jail and face stiff civil penalties, I believe that is what it will take to stop them from making false , it will take years and lot of battles. We will win ofcourse, but it will not be easy.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:45:13 +0000

When up to 88% of the divorces include lies to obtain an restraining order, Roger, I respectfully disagree with your premise.

Women lie.

Never give them an inch.

Why?

They will take a mile.

Otherwise, I think your argument/points are worthwhile.

Eric

By: roger

roger — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:06:39 +0000

do most divorces have abuse allegations? I think not. therefore, this “case” would be in the minority. we are looking for a law that would rule correctly in the majority of cases. and that would be shared physical custody (50/50) and shared financial support (50/50). If there are unusual circumstances, then by all means make your case to the judge.

By: conservativation

conservativation — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:16:58 +0000

I am SICK AND TIRED of “emotional abuse”…..I see men on the Christian site I post on regarding divorce saying the BS PC things like “the damage from physical abuse will heal, but the emotional scars last forever” and all kinds of platitudes to the ladies about verbal abuse etc.

CRAPPPPP!!!!!

So if I’m beaten to a friggin pulp, THAT has no emotional effect?

I swear folks have checked out and ain’t checkin back in mentally.

She was emotionally abused??? Oh but its just not at all emotionally harmful to keep a man from seeing his kids eh?

SICK.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:39:34 +0000

On a different site (www.divorcesource.com—Men’s Rights board)discussing the UPREPA proposal as found here on the upper left hand side of the site:

http://www.ChildrensJustice.org

This article was posted. Here a just a few of the comments made about it:

FathersRBest
What the following “lady” does not seem to understand is that there is no proposed bill preventing the ability to contest Equal Shared Parenting (ESP). The above UPREPA proposal certainly does not.

We say, take the exceptions to the courts. Stop the insanity of having every divorce scrutinized and thusly, saving each divorcing couple about $20,000 to $500,000 that can be used for the benefit of the children or whatever the parent feels/deems worthy.

EricTheGreat101
What gets me about her comments is that it lays out every single freak’n “excuse” by the feminazis to promote their slavitude of the male to the female.

Of course, there is no sound reasoning for this except for the feminazis illogic, lies, twists of the truth and outright lies as they take everything out of context to promote what? More money. For whom? The PIGS and the cohorts of mommy court and the tyrannical black robes of injustice-damn the disposable pawns and the damage done to the poor innocent children-as they line their pocket books with blood money.

FathersRParents2
Hasn’t anyone noticed that she doesn’t want the law to change, yet she has the problem(s) (supposedly) with the CURRENT laws?

Just imagine how freed up the courts would be to take care of her alleged problems if every single divorce case was not scrutinized by some “measure” of what the “correct” people think things should be?

Support the UPREPA proposal.

It’s the right thing to do.

Sheesh!

What a biotch!

LooseScrews101
Forget about the wench.

She just has an aberrant desire to “prove” that she is the most worthy parent just because she is female.

Besides, with the UPREPA proposal, there would be “first right of refusal.” So, if she did not want/like the child to be “parked” somewhere without the other parent around, she could have the child when the father decides to responsibly leave the child with the grandparents late at night as he solves his “problems” with a “roll in bed with honey” (the jealous biotch!).

Now (no pun intended) she has to modify the custody order when if the UPREPA proposal was law, she would only have to enforce it instead of modifying and then enforce it.

Sheeesh!

Do we have to teach EVERYTHING to all the women “out there?”

Get over it. YOU ARE NOT THE “parental gods.” You are only 1/2 of the equation whether or not you like it. Don’t like them apples? TS.

Grow up women. Stop being stigmatized because you don’t have sole custody. Think of the children first.

Don’t like that? Keep your skirt zipped and keep an aspirin between your knees!

Me? I am “neutral.”
ROFLMAO

By: bolwriter

bolwriter — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:20:43 +0000

What none of these opponent of shared parenting admit is that shared patenting laws do nothing more than create a presumption in favor of shared parenting. That means that, in a divorce case, if neither spouse presents evidence against equal custody, then the judge must grant equal custody. But if either spouse does present such evidence, the judge must make a finding about whether the evidence is sufficient to overturn the presumption and grant some form of unequal custody. So the woman with the drunk husband could produce that evidence and the judge could rule accordingly. There’s nothing hard and fast about shared parenting laws; they just make the party claiming sole custody prove his/her case.

By: donnieboy57

donnieboy57 — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:46:20 +0000

i was a drunk (nope), a gamble holic (please) and just a general all around abuser ( she hit me for 3 years without retaliation). all worked out good…for her. well almost. 30 years later, our son “gets” it. we live 50 miles apart and are just fine. she lives 700 miles away and thats ok with me.

By: TheManOnTheStreet

TheManOnTheStreet — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:49:43 +0000

They always start out the same….

“My ex-husband abused me both physically and emotionally blah blah abuse…blah blah fear….blah blah MY children….blah blah…. scared for my life….blah blah…….”

Sorry toots… two sides… two stories.. and I AM SURE his side (pardon the pun) is quite different…

TMOTS

By: mdkn1

mdkn1 — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:34:58 +0000

Yep: I lived it. This woman is so typical. I spent four years in civil court maintaining my visitation right from a clone of this woman. The false accusations of alcoholism, drug abuse etc.. Each time having to prove myself innocent in the eyes of the court, until my child’s law guardian picked up on the pattern of harassment. It cost me a fortune in lawyer bills and took many things from the child that I could not afford because the little money I had was going to the legal system and child support. All because this Holier than though woman wanted complete control. Can someone please tell what the problem is with the child having some time with a grand parent or aunt? Yes the man also has the right to have another life after marriage with dating and friends as well. As long as the child is well cared for and in the guard of a relative, this woman has no right to control his visitation. I am very sure this womans story is NOT the whole story.

By: Robert Stevens

Robert Stevens — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:31:24 +0000

I have to wonder just what this lady is not telling? Maybe she like a lot of women, does not want the father to have any rights at all and the sob story about him being a drunk and the child being harmed by the battle that is going on is just justification for not want to obey the court order for the father to see him kid.
I have to be fair though, shared parenting is not the easiest thing in the world to do! It does require trust and cooperation that is usually not present in a post divorce setting. But it is usually the uncooperative behavior of women and the “terrorcrat state officials” who back her that creates this “state of war” that existe. Women don’t want to give back control of children that they fair and square did, with the help of the state, judicially kidnap and now do not want to give up any of the spoils of that victory.
It is about power with women and they don’t want to give it up.
And all this talk about the “best interest of the children” and ” a man should do the right thing” is just empty talk. If it come down to the women, in the “best interest of the child” having to do something they don’t like or want to do, then the childs interest go out the window.
We should protect the safety and welfare of children, but a balance is needed. A real threat has to existe , not simply some woman not wanting a man to have parental rights. We can’t assume someone will harm their children just because we don’t like them, it has to be proven. No matter how PO liticall CO rrect and pretty, denying a man his rights is made to appear. It is simpy wrong and that is enough for most people.