I don't understand NOW, feminists or "reproductive rights."

I am re-posting this as after just re-reading it I realize that I am even more convinced that what NOW has become may be the single most insidious force in modern society actively working against American families. Originally posted in Feb 2006.

I have to admit - as much disgust as I feel at a legal system that appears to systemically award custody based on gender instead of equally or on merit- I am not one to completely discount "maternal instinct."

I do feel as though often parents offer different supports to their children. A lot of the times these differences lie in stereotypical traits - mothers are more empathetic and nurturing while fathers are more pragmatic, physical and better equipped to teach boundaries. NOT ALWAYS - but a lot of the time. This is not to say that either contribution is more important but that often parents help teach their kids differently.

I'll bite when a woman claims the bond between mother and child at childbirth is stronger. I understand that the intimacy of breastfeeding is not easily duplicated by a father. I believe that more often the mother stays home with the child(ren) and is therefore more demonstrably involved in the day to day activities. I'll even temporarily agree that a stay at home mom (or stay at home dad for that matter) should enjoy spousal support along with child support until that party is able find a position with which they can adequately support themselves - not just the first cashier position in the want ads. (Now this forces the question of what is adequate and just how long but I'm not writing legislation here so lets just use the term reasonable. I know this a cop out but I will never be convinced that every case can be handled with some "joint custody, no support" position. There are stay at home Parents and often this arrangement resulted as a joint decision based on the children's best interests - the parent at home should have a reasonable expectation of temporary support in this realignment of the family structure).

I don't understand, however, why women keep beating the "pay discrimination" horse when it is so clear that more women take time off work (and plan to take time off work) to care for children. Not just maternity leave time but often for the first few years of the child's life. Time off for maternity leave should not result in pay disparities but certainly a woman coming back to the workforce after SEVERAL YEARS can not honestly expect to make a salary comparable with the man who worked through her entire period off. Would that not be discriminatory?

NOW lists their "top priority issues" as: Abortion Rights/Reproductive Rights, Violence Against Women, Constitutional Equality, Promoting Diversity/Ending Racism, Lesbian Rights and Economic Justice.

On the NOW site they list the median salary for male registered nurses as $36,868 and female registered nurses as $35,360. So the woman makes 96% of the males salary... This is certainly not the .74¢ for every dollar they were talking about the paragraph earlier. Nor is a male teacher at $33,800 with a female at $32,292. Could these small disparities have anything to do with more women taking time off to care for children? I can't prove it but it seems a hell of a lot more reasonable than as a result of pervasive wage discrimination.

They do get to the .74¢ with their salary numbers for computer operators- but the final example of cashiers have women making 83.3% of the males salary. I can't begin to consider all of the variables that would have to be accounted for in order to fully compare salaries by gender but I can say that it seems irresponsible to continue to cry about .74¢ on the dollar and then only produce one example of such a disparity while completely ignoring the fiscal impact on mothers who ELECT to stay home either temporarily or permanently after their children are born.

I don't understand feminists who assert that they need an "Equal Rights Amendment" while simultaneously fighting against all legislative efforts to equalize parenting post divorce. I'm not talking about the cases in which the father/mother is a demonstrated abuser of any ilk - but the run of the mill divorce with two involved and caring parents.

I would think women would prefer such a system as if one begins to think logically about who should be preferred in a custody case (as though any parent should be instantly preferred without considering the case and facts) it would have to be men. At least from the speculative point of who is less likely to abuse their children (if we want to use the issue of who *may* be abusive) it seems women are more frequently the perpetrators of abuse or neglect of children.

It appears children in mother headed households are also more likely to be under the poverty line when compared with father headed households. The CRC has a wonderful chart but you can see the census info here. Now, one might say that this is a result of men not paying child support effectively forcing these women into poverty. I mean, come on, you have seen those "deadbeat dad" commercials. Except that actual "deadbeat dads" account for somewhere around 10% of those who have accrued arrearages in child support. In reality, far more non custodial mothers default on their support orders than fathers.

I can't imagine why men would be at all hesitant to pay - it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that some researchers are now claiming as many as 30% of "fathers" may not be biologically related to their children.

So NOW stands for equal rights - but not equal rights for men or children. Their rights come after our wonderful feminist population has been sufficiently (*equally*) served.

They also list "lesbian rights" as a top issue - listing Equal Marriage Now as a related issue. Not being particularly religious, I won't go into what a conflict this position could be for a religious woman - but honestly, how can you claim to desire "equal" marriage rights for gay women while publicly bashing the fatherhood movement?

In this link there is a heading titled "Relocation Laws Keep Women in Their Place." That is asinine - relocation laws keep children in their communities. Women can go wherever they want - they may just have to do so by voluntarily leaving their children. To in any way assert that women should be able to move at will with children (moving them away from their fathers and community) just because they are women may be the pinnacle of an outright discriminatory and inherently UNEQUAL position. This is a quote from the link above: "Feminists vow to educate legislators and judges that ex-husbands are sometimes more interested in exerting control over and making life difficult for their former wives than in maintaining beneficial relationships with their children and that the needs of the children and custodial parent must be given priority."

Absolutely no commentary on how children do better with meaningful contact from both parents. No mention of the hypocrisy of this position. No substantive mention of the welfare of the children - just a warning about "abusive or controlling ex-spouses and sexist judges" with no evidence to back up the claim that either of these alleged groups are conspiring to keep women in their geographical place.

And finally, "reproductive rights." I'm sorry but considering it takes both genders to "reproduce" should not reproductive rights be offered to both parents? Not in the cases where the mother is in danger but in truly elective abortion should not both parents have the opportunity to offer to raise the child? Is it fair to the child or to the father to let a woman unilaterally decide to abort a child just because it is "her body?"

I'm not anti-abortion per se but I certainly think that provided a father willing to raise the child it is just insane to allow the woman to abort just because she wants to. How did women make unregulated fetus killing a primary position? Again, this also seems a very difficult position for a woman of a religious background. Apparently you cannot be religious and "dedicated to making legal, political, social and economic change in our society in order to achieve our goal, which is to eliminate sexism and end all oppression." (That is what NOW says it stands for anyway - can't say I'm convinced).

I find that I am not resolutely anything one way or another. There are tenets of all political parties that I agree with, there are self described feminists that can make a lot of sense as are there proponents of the fathers movement that are reasonable and dedicated to what I consider worthy and laudable goals.

But I'm sorry - most of what I see on the NOW site looks like crap. I simply cannot begin to comprehend an organization who purports to seek equality but uses the most unequal of methods.

And really, the thought that goes through my head every time I read feminist nonsense of this ilk - all of these efforts have and will visit themselves on the boys of this country. I'm quite sad for my 8 year old stepson - he has a long road ahead.

I found this quote today ~ apparently Ms. Lewis was an actress.

You don't have to be anti-man to be pro-woman. ~Jane Galvin Lewis

Are single mothers the 'New American Family'?

Latest Glenn Sacks

Are single mothers the 'New American Family'?

Excerpts:

Last fall Stanford University Gender Scholar Peggy Drexler penned the highly-publicized book "Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men." This month Oxford Press released Wellesley College Women's Studies professor Rosanna Hertz's "Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice: How Women Are Choosing Parenthood Without Marriage and Creating the New American Family."

Drexler portrays father-absent homes – particularly "single mother by choice" and lesbian homes – as being the best environments for raising boys. Hertz interviewed 65 single mothers and concluded that "intimacy between husbands and wives [is] obsolete as the critical familial bond." Whereas a family was once defined as two parents and their children, Hertz asserts that today the "core of family life is the mother and her children." Fathers aren't necessary – "only the availability of both sets of gametes [egg and sperm] is essential." In fact, Hertz explains, "what men offer today is obsolete."

Our children would beg to differ. Studies of children of divorce confirm their powerful desire to retain strong connections to their fathers. For example, an Arizona State University study of college-age children of divorce found that the overwhelming majority believed that after a divorce "living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children."

Men are often stereotyped as fearing commitment, and it is they who are usually blamed for the divorce revolution. However, it is mothers, not fathers, who initiate most divorces involving children. In some cases, these mothers have ample justification. In others, however, they simply don't want to make the compromises and do the hard work required in any relationship, and can't or won't recognize that their children need their fathers. In fact, according to research conducted by Joan Berlin Kelly, author of "Surviving the Break-up," 50 percent of divorced mothers claim to "see no value in the father's continued contact with his children after a divorce."

Down, Down, Down (Reflections On The Boy Crisis)

Down, Down, Down (Reflections On The Boy Crisis)

Excerpts:

Boys are churning wads of energy. They are physical and competitive. They want to climb things, test themselves, jump off of things, explore, drive fast, fight, behave like damn fools, and sack cities. In later years this energy may serve them well, but not yet. School is hellish for them, with its year after year of sitting, bored out of their skulls, while some drone babbles. It is worse for the bright, verging on child abuse.

Parents need to focus on what’s best for children in divorce - Illinois

Parents need to focus on what’s best for children in divorce

Excerpts:

Divorce can affect each child differently, and parents need to learn how best to help their children through the situation.

For the last three years, Marriage and Family Counseling Service in Rock Island has offered classes on co-parenting after divorce or separation.

New rules enacted by the Illinois Supreme Court require parents in divorce proceedings to go through a class like the TransParenting class offered by Marriage and Family Counseling Service. Parents who have never married but who are going through a child custody case also will be required to take the class, said Rock Island County Circuit Judge Lori Lefstein.

The state supreme court announced the class requirement in February as part of a series of new rules to help ensure that child custody proceedings be handled expeditiously, competently and with great emphasis on the "best interest of the child."

The rules grew out of the continuing work of the special Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Child Custody Issues that was established in January 2002 to study child custody, parental termination and adoption issues.

Judge Lefstein said she often recommended the class to parents even before the requirement went into effect July 1. Even if the parents are going their separate ways, they can learn to work together for the sake of their children, she said.

"Co-parenting is a very different relationship than a spousal relationship," he said. "Even though the marriage is ending, the parenting continues."

It's important for parents to focus on the child, he said, even though they may have their own emotional issues to deal with.

Families who navigate divorce successfully are those who talk about it and continue to talk about it and allow children to have their say, he added. If a family doesn't address the issues raised during a divorce right away, it can cause problems down the road.

Tips for divorcing parents

1. Don't badmouth the other parent. "Kids have loyalty to both parents regardless of how great or lousy the person is," said Derek Ball, a licensed marriage and family therapist.

2. Don't make your kid the messenger. Your child will be very interested in what's going on and will want to get the inside scoop, but as a parent, do your own communicating with the other parent as much as possible.

3. Be a good listener. Mr. Ball said parents are quick to use opportunities to lecture or teach their child, but in this situation, your child just wants to be heard. Give them feedback to make sure you understand what they are saying.

4. Don't make your kid into your confidante. Your child needs to be allowed to be a child. Go to your friends, parent, pastor or therapist for emotional support, not your child, Mr. Balls aid.

Upcoming Dates
5:30-9:30 p.m. July 13
5:30-9:30 p.m. July 25
9 a.m.-1 p.m. Sept. 9
5:30-9:30 p.m. Oct. 24
5:30-9:30 p.m. Dec. 5

Cost: $50 per person

Location: Marriage and Family Counseling Service, 1800 3rd Ave., Suite 512 Rock Island
For more information, call (309) 786-4491.

Joint custody works, but it's not easy

Joint custody works, but it's not easy
By Kirsten Feldman

Excerpts:

My children's father and I separated and then divorced several years ago, when my son was in kindergarten. Next year he'll be starting middle school.

I certainly think my children have benefited from joint custody, in our case meaning that they might spend some nights at their father's house and some nights at ours in a given week, and we trade off for vacations and holidays.

Their father and I are amicable, and we have worked out the intricacies of having bicycles, and homework, and sports equipment in the right place at the right time. We attend teacher conferences together. We have resolved thorny issues involving religion and dentistry and Christmas dinner. I hope we are setting a good example for our children of how to relate to someone with whom you differ.

Bill's Arena

It figures - as soon as I talk about scaling back I see something I just have to post.

Please stop by and show your support for Bill's Arena. The site is run by Bill, a 14 year old child of divorce. From the site:

Think about this. Imagine if you, the child of two divorced parents, had the the power to change something. What if you could see both of your parents equally? Well, such a thing exists, and it is known as "Presumption of Joint Physical Custody." That means both your parents have control over your skin! Just kidding, it means you see them equal amounts of time if they cannot agree on a visitation schedule. Right now you may be thinking, "Well, that makes sense. Why don't my parents do that concerning me?" Well, here is the truth. People just don't get along. There, I said it. People don't get along. It has gotten too easy to become divorced, I saw a billboard the other day that said that some attorney (or lawyer, depending on your preference) could divorce you from your spouse for only $500! Outrageous! Well, it gets easier. It has gotten to the point that whoever has more money can typically get the better attorney, so they can get all the belongings, and you too! It seems to me anymore like kids are treated like a stupid piece of junk belonging.

Well I had this smart idea. Lobby for Joint Physical Custody. Remember Martin Luther King Jr.? He had a very nonviolent protest idea that worked very well. Others have done that kind of thing with success, Gandhi (Sorry to any of those typo spotters. I can never spell his name right.) for instance. Well, what about this case? We have something in common, we want something. No, we need something. We need Joint Physical Custody. Let's walk, I say. I am going to have t-shirts made to give to anyone I know. When I am done I will post up a template for you to go to Kinko's or somewhere to have it made. Make signs up. Call anyone you know, no, call everyone you know. But don't start yet. We need to do it on one day, one day while the whole nation can sit and watch as their children march and fight fist less for something they want. I don't care where you live, ghetto, mansion. Shoot, if you have married parents, help us! You don't know what it is like! What if you had parents get divorced? Wouldn't you want to see both of them? Let's see if we can shoot for Spring Break 2007, the Georgia Legislature will be in session then.

Thank you to Disenfranchised Father via Broken Bread for this link.

DIVORCE SUCKS

All of this discussion and cataloging of joint custody initiatives has resulted in *at times* forgetting my real position on divorce/custody. DIVORCE SUCKS even under the best, most amicable of circumstances.

Sure, I started this site because of my disgust at a legal system that appears to treat dads as little more than a source of funding. And I know that with no fault divorce - if this is the route your spouse wants to take you have few resources to impede the divorce.

I certainly would not advocate begging anyone to remain in their marriage - but then, who am I kidding? As a child of divorce between two parents with few differences other than conflicting outlooks - the kid left in me wants to scream stop it any way you can even if it means you have to drop to your knees and plead.

The adult in me is disgusted at that idea. I knew that my mother was cheating and I will be the first to publicly say that the best thing that ever happened to my father was their divorce. (The ensuing custody war is something else entirely). And yet, I still hear my seven year old voice wishing they "would get back together" and that things should just PLEASE go back to normal. During this period I loved and hated them both. I knew my mother had made the decision, I knew she had been cheating and I resented the almost instant presence of her new boyfriend in our home. But my dad had abandoned us (I can rationalize now that he obviously did not) but then I couldn't get my head around how he could leave OUR HOME and then let this new man show up, sleep in his bed, boss us around, etc....

Hmm, do I still have unresolved issues about my parents divorce? Absolutely.

The following is from an article printed earlier this month: Even 'good' divorces can make life highly stressful for children

Marquardt discovered that, even in "good" divorces where both parents worked together to make the situation as comfortable as possible for the children, 52 percent of those surveyed said that life was stressful, compared to 6 percent from happy marriages.

And the situation tended to make them feel isolated from both parents. In response to the survey question, "In thinking back on your childhood, when you needed comfort, what did you do?", 69 percent of children in intact families said they went to a parent, but only 33 percent of children of divorce did.

This and other data led Marquardt to the conclusion that - although children are better off after divorce when there was abuse, serial infidelity and other serious problems - they are not better off when divorce ends a "low-conflict" marriage.

"The children of low-conflict couples fare worse after the divorce because the divorce marks their first exposure to a serious problem. One day, without much warning, their world just falls apart," she writes in her book Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce. Along with complete survey data and her analysis of it, the book also includes examples from her own life.

She describes a low-conflict marriage as one "in which parents divorce because they are unhappy or unfulfilled, or have other problems that are not seriously threatening." According to studies, she said, about two-thirds of marriages that end in divorce could be described as low-conflict.

She said she would not presume to tell people that they should stay together just for the sake of the children. What she would hope, she said, is that people who know that their spouse is a good person and a good parent will take her findings into account before going ahead with a divorce.

So what to do (if you are in what was described above as a low conflict marriage)? One of my first suggestions would be as soon as there is talk of divorce visit the uptoparents.com site and both go through the commitments. Try to aware your spouse of the research regarding children of divorce. Explore counseling/therapy to address issues within the marriage. And whatever happens - do not forget who will suffer the most and always keep the welfare of your children at the forefront of your mind.

Can A Human Wallet Build A Snow Fort?

I saw this picture on NHCustody.org and wanted to share. *Hope they don't mind!*

Can a human wallet help build a snowfort? NO. But, a Dad can...

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Excerpts:

More than three years ago, a Maine district court judge ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his.

But that didn't stop the state from revoking Fisher's driver's license and coming after him for thousands of dollars it says he owes in back payments.

Last year, Maine sent Fisher, 35, a letter seeking $11,450 in child support, even though officials know that DNA tests proved he isn't the father of the child in question.

Fisher had a brief relationship with a woman eight years ago and when she got pregnant and told him he was the father, he believed her. He began paying child support but eventually fell behind.

In the summer of 2001, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services took him to court because of delinquent payments. The court ordered him to pay up, and the state had his license suspended under the "deadbeat dad" law.

That fall the girl, then 3, was placed in foster care. When Fisher pushed for custody, the state ordered a paternity test, which proved he wasn't the father.

At that point, one branch of the human services department told him he could no longer see the girl because he wasn't the father, while another said he owed $10,000 and couldn't have a driver's license because he was the father.

As the nation experiences an unprecedented increase in unwed motherhood, more men are finding themselves named as "fathers," for purposes of child support, simply because of their ability to pay, say several recent studies.

It's called "paternity fraud," and one state that examined the problem found as many as 30 percent of those paying child support were, indeed, not the biological fathers of the children being supported.

The most recent comprehensive study took place in New Hampshire under the auspices of the Commission on the Status of Men.

The commission found that even men who later were able to prove they were paying support for the children of other men were sometimes still forced by courts and state agencies to continue.

Like New Hampshire, California has also established a commission to explore the problem, based on reports that 14 percent are being misnamed as fathers. A report is expected later this year.

Florida is about to pass a new law that would end child support if a man proves he's not the father. Like most states, Florida currently requires that child support – once legally established – continue until the child's 18th birthday, regardless of who the real biological father is. Eleven states have changed similar laws since 1994.

A new state law took effect in Colorado this year that permits men, for the first time, to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring – at least during the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child-support action. However, once a final order is entered, the new law says, the man is barred from presenting evidence of non-paternity.

Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville Interview

On February 14, 2006 Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville joined together in a landmark interview about the "War Against The Family."

Click here to listen to the interview.

Do Teachers Dislike Boys?

Okay, this is in no manner directly related to divorce or custody. However, once you cross over to joint custody you will have to deal with school issues with your ex. And when things go badly at school the natural tendency can be to try and place the blame with your ex.

This is something we are currently going through. My husband is the father of a bright, articulate, sweet, athletic, high energy boy who is having substantial difficulties with "behavior" in second grade.

I should qualify - most of his problems stem from either talking in class or not being able to sit still. This is not a mean or malicious child - though I believe he did have on incident when he and buddy decided to flush paper towels down the toilet after they claimed the trash was full.

While my instinct is to give you the whole history of this child - including that he has been in daycare since he was two, moved on to pre-school and manipulated kindergarten and 1st grade without such "issues." This is not to say he has been perfect - but until this point all of his instructors have successfully been able to manage his behavior.

I realize that I am biased so my singing the praises of this child will be perceived with a certain degree of speculation. Also, I was the first (when his parents were wringing their hands in the air about how this teacher had for some reason singled him out) to come to the teachers defense. She has 20+ students and needed to have an expectation of order in her classroom.

However, as I sit here trying to think about things my husband should address this afternoon when he and his ex go in for their latest "conference" - I am truly starting to wonder if I was not championing the wrong party.

My husband is becoming very frustrated. They (he and his ex) tried to support the steps taken by the teacher until they felt it was obvious they were not helping behavior and were damaging this child's self esteem. And really, the question has lingered as to how bad this behavior should actually be considered. Not to minimize the teachers standards - but should the inability to always sit still be something the parents can (and should) address daily at home? Further, this is a child who is performing academically at the top of the class. His work has been advanced several times to reflect his abilities and at the last meeting the teacher indicated he was doing the most advanced math in the class and was at the highest reading level (with two other students). He has lots of energy - but could he be bored as well?

Compound this with two parents who are talking to each other and are both saying that they don't have issues like this with the child. And inevitably my husband begins to wonder if this isn't a result of .... at his mothers house. I'm certain his ex has at some point done the same. Maybe the teacher does at well - wonders if his behavior isn't due to the nature of his custody situation.

And I'm starting to wonder if my step-son isn't falling victim to the same problems witnessed around the country with boys in schools. As I was getting ready for work this morning, the Today Show was doing a story about boys in schools and the widening achievement gap between girls and boys. Then I get into work and this article was listed on my home page: Do Teachers Dislike Boys?

From the article:

Jenkins says that she talked to a kindergarten teacher about this recently and was told, "Because some teachers are exasperated with trying to control boys' energy, they [sometimes] recommend holding a boy back until his body catches up with his brain."

This teacher also told Jenkins that if all a young boy hears all day are comments like "Sit down" and "Stop that," he may be labeled as a problem child and his self-esteem could suffer.

I have come to believe that schools need to do much more to adapt to the way boys learn. This belief has been bolstered by the stories of other parents, who tell me that they are being pushed to put their active young sons on Ritalin. "Being a boy is not a disease," one parent writes.

"Our schools," Pollack writes, "in general, are not sufficiently hospitable environments for boys and are not doing what they could to address boys' unique social, academic, and emotional needs. Today's typical coeducational schools have teachers and administrators who, though they don't intend it, are often not particularly empathic to boys; they use curricula, classroom materials, and teaching methods that do not respond to how boys learn; and many of these schools are hardly places most of our boys long to spend time. Put simply, I believe most of our schools are failing our boys."

Read Pollack's book, in particular the chapter "Schools: The Blackboard Jumble," for a detailed analysis of how he thinks public coed schools are failing boys. His most compelling arguments are simply numbers: Research shows that most of the students at the bottom of the class are boys, most of the students in remedial classes are boys, most of the students suspended are boys, fewer boys than girls go to college, and many more boys than girls have serious difficulties with reading and writing.

The Today Show segment was due in part because the latest Newsweek is looking at The Trouble With Boys.

Excerpts:

The problem won't be solved overnight. In the last two decades, the education system has become obsessed with a quantifiable and narrowly defined kind of academic success, these experts say, and that myopic view is harming boys. Boys are biologically, developmentally and psychologically different from girls and teachers need to learn how to bring out the best in every one. "Very well-meaning people," says Dr. Bruce Perry, a Houston neurologist who advocates for troubled kids, "have created a biologically disrespectful model of education."

Boys have always been boys, but the expectations for how they're supposed to act and learn in school have changed. In the last 10 years, thanks in part to activist parents concerned about their children's success, school performance has been measured in two simple ways: how many students are enrolled in accelerated courses and whether test scores stay high. Standardized assessments have become commonplace for kids as young as 6. Curricula have become more rigid. Instead of allowing teachers to instruct kids in the manner and pace that suit each class, some states now tell teachers what, when and how to teach. At the same time, student-teacher ratios have risen, physical education and sports programs have been cut and recess is a distant memory. These new pressures are undermining the strengths and underscoring the limitations of what psychologists call the "boy brain", the kinetic, disorganized, maddening and sometimes brilliant behaviors that scientists now believe are not learned but hard-wired.

When Cris Messler of Mountainside, N.J., brought her 3-year-old son Sam to a pediatrician to get him checked for ADHD, she was acknowledging the desperation parents can feel. He's a high-energy kid, and Messler found herself hoping for a positive diagnosis. "If I could get a diagnosis from the doctor, I could get him on medicine," she says. The doctor said Sam is a normal boy. School has been tough, though. Sam's reading teacher said he was hopeless. His first-grade teacher complains he's antsy, and Sam, now 7, has been referring to himself as "stupid." Messler's glad her son doesn't need medication, but what, she wonders, can she do now to help her boy in school?

For many boys, the trouble starts as young as 5, when they bring to kindergarten a set of physical and mental abilities very different from girls'. As almost any parent knows, most 5-year-old girls are more fluent than boys and can sight-read more words. Boys tend to have better hand-eye coordination, but their fine motor skills are less developed, making it a struggle for some to control a pencil or a paintbrush. Boys are more impulsive than girls; even if they can sit still, many prefer not to, at least not for long.

In elementary-school classrooms, where teachers increasingly put an emphasis on language and a premium on sitting quietly and speaking in turn, the mismatch between boys and school can become painfully obvious. "Girl behavior becomes the gold standard," says "Raising Cain" coauthor Thompson. "Boys are treated like defective girls."

I suppose my point with all of this is simply when you have two involved and concerned parents who are having difficulty making headway with any issue involving your children - try and resist the urge out of frustration to point fingers at the other. This is not to say that issues cannot arise because of home life in one setting or another - only that one must try and be as objective as possible. Implicit in this I suppose is trust that what the other parent is telling you is accurate and a true belief in the parenting skills and intentions of the other parent.

I look at my step-son and I see how heavily this school issue is weighing on him. I would hate to see this become further complicated by two frustrated parents who would now prefer to turn on each other than to continue to explore positive options to address these problems.

UPDATE: (As I sit on pins and needles waiting for the results of the latest conference) Dr Helen is talking about this as well and as always her post has generated lots of interesting comments. Boys are Just "Defective Girls"

Tis the Season for Divorce

Well, divorce is all over the news lately. And for good reason - as pointed out by MIsForMalevolent January is the peak month for divorce.

I do some work with a local agency that is available to parents who would like to try and have a more amicable divorce. It is not a true "collaborative divorce" program as has been described by the media lately. The parties are not represented by their own respective lawyers - though there is always an available attorney to answer points of law. The crux of the program is learning based - understanding how divorce affects children and then the parents go into an unbinding mediation session where they try to come to a resolution on custody. While we will help them to dissolve all of their marital property if they can do so quickly and without much rancor - primarily we deal with issues involving the children.

The success rate of this program is very high but there is a pretty rigid screening process so only those who truly desire to cooperate but are impeded by hurt feelings, etc are accepted. It is almost entirely volunteer - including the advising attorneys and the court approved mediators.

The "traffic" of the agency pretty much dies in December. People become involved in the holidays and often wait to break the news to their spouse after they "get through the holidays." Often their reasoning for this is to not ruin the children's holiday.

But in January we get slammed. It seems the calls start on New Years Day and things don't get back to normal levels until mid February or so. Every year it is this way and we have to turn away even qualified couples due to lack of resources.

So this is a depressingly busy time for me. And for a lot of other people as well.

Soldiers' divorce rates up

Excerpts:

Among enlisted soldiers in the U.S. Army, there were 7,152 divorces in 2004, an increase of 28 percent over the previous year and 53 percent since 2000. Among Army officers, the rate of divorce jumped 78 percent between 2003 - the year the U.S. invaded Iraq - and 2004.

A total of 3,325 Army officers were divorced in 2004, more than three times the number that divorced in 2000. The increases are especially meaningful considering the overall number of enlisted military personnel has barely changed over the last five years.

Research has shown that around 20 percent of military marriages end in divorce within two years of one partner's going to war.

Divorce has lasting effects on happiness levels

Excerpts:

A study published in the December 2005 issue of Psychological Science shows that divorce leaves a lasting effect on one's satisfaction levels. A person's happiness level drops as she or he approaches divorce and gradually rebounds over time. But the level of satisfaction does not return to baseline (the level of satisfaction felt prior to the divorce).

Putting the children first

Excerpts:

For years the national divorce rate has fluctuated between 45 and 50 percent, on the source. Wyoming's divorce rate is 44 percent higher than the national average, according to a national vital statistics report.

Many of these separations involve children. In 2003 alone, nearly 2,500 Wyoming children were directly affected by their parents’ divorces.

The Wyoming Children's Access Network provides parent-education seminars for divorcing, separated and never-married parents. The one-time, 4-hour seminar is offered monthly in Cheyenne, Cody, Gillette, Jackson, Lander, Laramie, Rawlins, Rock Springs, Sheridan and Torrington.

The seminar provides information on the impact of parental conflict on children and teaches parents skills to help with the difficult transition. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other adults close to the children are welcome to attend as well.

A nominal fee is charged; based on need, the fee may be waived upon request. Pre-registration is required 24 hours in advance. Info: toll-free (866) 726-3700.

Colorado's Restriction of Protections Against Paternity Fraud

Excerpts:

On New Year's Day the children and fathers of Colorado got a present courtesy of the state legislature. Effective January 1, a man's right to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring was restricted to the duration of the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child support action.

Once a final order is entered in that proceeding, a new state law says, the putative father is barred from presenting newly discovered evidence of non-paternity -- ever.

State Senate Bill 181, enacted in Colorado's 2005 legislative session, requires that any evidence from genetic testing of parent and child be introduced before the entry of final orders. The new law applies to divorce, child support establishment and enforcement and parentage.

"Women file over two-thirds of all divorces in America," said Richar' Farr, founder of the Internet radio station KRightsRadio.com. "And with the increasing number of cases constesting paternity across the nation, this action is simply another example how our elected officials are out of touch with the real needs of the people they are elected to serve. This law benefits no one but the state's treasury," Farr added.

Sharing the kids can be painful this time of year

Sharing the kids can be painful this time of year
Rachel Bryant

This is an article along the lines of my post Happy or not - the Holidays are here.
Excerpts:

1.) Don't forget that your relationship with your children will always be more important to them than where they spent the 25th of December in 2005. Long after the holidays are over, it is the loving bond between parents and their children that sustain them and provide a model for the kind of parent that they will one day want to be.

3.) Focus on what you can do, rather than what outside interference has taken away. What do you want your children to take away from this season? Is it the family time together, the joy of opening presents Christmas morning, or the spiritual message of the season that is important to give your children this time of year. All three of these can be accomplished regardless of visitation schedules. Again, it may not be your first choice, but if the message vs. having it your way is the priority for your children, than all can still be accomplished.

As for spending time together, use the time you have to make holiday moments with your children. Kids' memories of what Mom or Dad did for the holidays are not bound by a date. Special decorations, traditional songs, shopping sprees, family recipes, or new traditions are still all yours for the making.

4.) Take special care of yourself this season. While we all can get exhausted with work, family, holiday demands, etc., the parent who is struggling with the painful reality of family separation has an immeasurable additional burden. One of the best ways you can help your kids to get through this change, even if it is not the first year, is to let them see you take care of yourself. Use your family, friends, prayer, hobbies, therapy, exercise, work, a massage, a manicure, or all of the above, to bring yourself moments of comfort, sustenance, and peace. You have a right to your deep feelings and reactions to what has happened, and you need to take care of them.

And remember, it is ultimately your love, and with that love your lessons for your children, that they will take with them forever.

Insanity in Kansas

Reasons to stay out of Kansas:

Judge rules for mother in custody case where father is in Iraq

Excerpts:

LAWRENCE, Kan. - A custody battle between a Marine stationed in Iraq and his estranged wife may have implications for all Kansas service members who are overseas, according to a lawyer involved in the case.

A Franklin County judge has twice ruled that a federal law meant to protect military personnel from civil litigation does not apply in the custody case between Marine Cpl. Levi Bradley and his estranged wife, Amber Bradley.

Levi Bradley, who has lived in Pomona and Ottawa, filed for divorce in May. When he was deployed to Iraq, he asked for a delay in the custody case over their 2-year-old son.

The Servicemember's Civil Relief Act, signed in 2003, shields military personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan or other war zones from lawsuits and evictions until they are back in the U.S. The law required judges to postpone judgment for at least 90 days if the service member applies for more time.

Court records show that Levi Bradley and his mother, Starleen Bradley, had legal custody of the child when he was deployed in July. Amber Bradley, the Marine's estranged wife, signed the agreement.

Levi Bradley asked in October - a month before the first child custody hearing was scheduled - to delay further proceedings. The application included a letter from his commanding officer in Iraq and his own testimony, as the law requires.

But on Nov. 8, Franklin County Judge James Smith ruled that the mother should get custody of the child, saying the federal law didn't apply because the temporary action affected the child, not Levi Bradley himself.

Apology to student suspended for speaking Spanish in school

The boy, a high school junior, was sent home from the Endeavor Alternative School in the Turner School District on Nov. 28 for talking in Spanish, his native language, at lunch and later in the day. Principal Jennifer Watts sent him home and suspended him through the following day.

District officials said Watts told the boy's father the suspension was a direct result of his speaking Spanish. Superintendent of Schools Bobby Allen reversed the suspension within hours of learning about it from the father, the district said.

"As soon as he found out, he contacted the parent and said that should not have happened," said Bart Swartz, the district's executive director of certified personnel.

Happy Or Not- The Holidays Are Here

Just wanted to take the time to say Happy Holidays to everyone! This can be a very difficult time of year for divorced parents. So here are my things to remember:

1. Generally, the states provide non custodial parents half of their child's time off for Winter Break. If you are like my parents who live in different states - one year my father has the first week of vacation (including Christmas Day) and then the kids fly out on the 26th to spend a week with my mother. The following year the reverse - my mother has the first week with Christmas Day and the kids fly home on the 26th. To that end, whichever parent does not have the children over Christmas Day gets to have them over Thanksgiving. So for example, this past Thanksgiving my mother flew my younger siblings to her home, next year they will stay home with my dad but fly out the first (or second) day of winter break.

If you are like my husband and your ex lives in the same town (or general area) regardless of what custody arrangement you have (unless restricted to supervised or something of that ilk) the law generally provides you split all holidays. This can mean a literal split - 12 hours with each on each holiday or it can be split each year. My husband and his ex wife are on a one week/one week schedule. Halloween almost always falls into his week while New Years Eve almost always falls into her week. Instead of switching half way through the day (especially since the "fun" parts of Halloween and New Years are at specific times) or trading off each year - they have just declared Halloween his and New Years Eve hers. This prevents a lot of scheduling conflicts, questions, etc as everyone is fully aware of the schedule. This would also be an example of "splitting" the holidays. However, this is possible because they agreed - if the court had been forced to decide a half day split would have likely been ordered on both days.

For Christmas, one year one parent has the child Christmas Eve and overnight until midday Christmas Day - the next year they switch. Again, it is easy and something they agreed to without court assistance.

I am just providing all of this so you realize splitting the holidays does not have to mean at 12:00 pm one party turns the children over to the other party. Try to work with each other and around the traditions of the other.

But most important - WORK IT OUT FAR IN ADVANCE OF THE HOLIDAYS! Something about the holidays seems to bring out raw emotions in everyone, particularly if this is your first after the divorce. Come to an agreement, put it in writing and have it filed - and then adhere to it! It will make it a lot easier on everyone - particularly your kids.

2. Your children did not want you to divorce. They ALSO do not want to see you continue to fight or degrade the other. It doesn't matter whose fault anything is - they love you both - RESPECT THAT. Children see themselves as half mom - half dad. If you make negative comments about mom or dad in front of them - they see themselves negatively. The holidays are for them - this is harder for them to understand and get over than it is for you - make every effort to make this a painless and enjoyable holiday for them no matter how lousy or angry you are feeling.

3. Someday this will end. I know it is hard to imagine a life in which your everyday is not colored by a "custody arrangement" - wondering if you got all the school paperwork, find homework, trying to balance who will purchase clothes (will you share a winter coat or each have your own?), who will schedule (and remember) dentist, doctor, tryouts... Is your support paid- why is the support late.... Whatever your daily issues may be - they will end.

My parents oldest and youngest child are 13 years apart. That definitely prolongs the experience - but even for them (I keep telling them) someday it will end.

Where will you be when it does? Do you really want to spend the next 1 -20 years constantly battling with someone else? Do you want to spend those years internalizing your bitterness? Even if that is what your ex chooses to do? Would that be a productive use of your time?

Eventually your child(ren) will reach the age of 21 or graduate college - generally when agreements disappear. At that point you will have an adult child who will still need/want to spend the holidays with someone - but there will be no more description of how they will be spent. A good previous relationship with your ex about the holidays will be conducive to a good subsequent relationship. Now you will just have the added stress of what your child(ren) and potentially their new family will be able to manage.

Make decisions with your children as your first factor to consider - but don't live for your children. In this I mean, (as an example) abstain from remarrying a new spouse until your children are out of the home, but don't abstain from dating or having a life outside of your children. Eventually your children will have their own lives. If you have spent the previous time obsessing over them and every punctuation mark in your custody decree - you will probably be in very bad shape when that decree ceases to exist and your children go off on their own.

If you are paying child support - and you believe it to be an inordinate amount - make sure you place your anger in the right place. Although it is unfortunate that your ex cannot see the benefit to having a financially sound co parent - the courts and the government dictate child support levels. Get mad at them if you need to be mad. Get mad at the broken system we call family law. Get involved in a group attempting to change that system. (But if you do this do not let it overtake you. Everything in moderation - don't forget to enjoy the blessings in your life - your kids). Regardless of your levels of child support, find a way to save. You may have to reduce your standard of living - but eventually you may find yourself needing to pay for college and you WILL want to retire. Don't let the courts prevent you from fulfilling the dreams you have - just change the manner in which you achieve those dreams and be realistic about what is attainable considering the current system you are under. I know this is all easy to say and I know that some of you have horrific stories where you are ordered to pay more than you actually make, plus your ex's attorney fees, etc... If you are in that kind of situation I encourage you to continue to petition the court for relief - try doing it pro se, there is help out there for people who want to represent themselves.

My mother is the type who lives through her children and sticking my father at every opportunity. She has had a series of failed marriages and relationships - something I attribute mainly to the extent of her anger at.... Everything - stemming from the courts mandating her to "share" the custody of her children with their father. She has spent thousands and thousands of dollars (requiring my father to spend the equivalent) battling over the most petty of issues in a courtroom. Now that she is the one paying support she withholds it at regular intervals. At the risk of delving too deep into this - I will say I am certain that when my youngest sister (now 16) is finally free of a court ordered custody arrangement, my mother will surely fall apart. She has no other focus in her life than to control us and her partners - who all quickly leave her after witnessing the depths of her anger - furthering her need to "punish" my father for this life he forced her into by impregnating her.

Ask yourself how you envision your life once your children have graduated college or gone out on their own - and then make the necessary choices to get there. While having children and an ex spouse may encompass your entire life today - you will likely have quite a number of years where this will not be the case. Don't forget to plan for this time too and don't let yourself become so bitter and directed that you don't know how to do anything except stew about how badly you got screwed.

4. I can't remember the exact verbiage - but I was told once by a mediator that in 18 years parents will make close to a half a million decisions about their children. This will be everything from what to eat for breakfast to what time to set curfew. Some decisions are more important than others. Ask yourself what you are arguing about in court? Is the money you are expending on your attorney, evaluator, etc... plus the tension you are breeding with your ex worth the decision of whether your ex feeds your child too many fish sticks? If you consider roughly 70 decisions are made a day, you could be in court for the rest of your life... is it worth it? Add up what you spend on your attorneys in a month and then figure out what that would be invested for the next 15 years - you might find you just wasted a year of college for your child...

To that end, cooperative parents try to identify the positives about the other and let slide some of their more lacking attributes. Come on, you married the person - you know that he/she is not such a great cook, terribly organized, timely, athletic, whatever.... Keep in mind that while at the others house the kids may eat more fish sticks but they will also have the advantage of accessing all of those wonderful things about your ex. And there are wonderful things - remember, you used to think so too! No one ever died from eating fish sticks!

Truthfully I have never heard of a case with fish sticks but I have heard about a couple who spent around $20,000 arguing about whether one fed the children too much macaroni. Seems pretty ridiculous, right? Ask yourself if any of your issues are equally ridiculous.

5. Finally, whatever scenario you have with your ex, remember this - YOU WILL NEVER GET THIS DAY BACK WITH YOUR CHILDREN. There will never be another Christmas 2005. So whether you see your kids for a day a month or half the month - TAKE ADVANTAGE. There will come a day when your children get to decide for themselves where they go - and they will remember if you spent the past years degrading their other parent, being mad about the arrangement - or if you cherished every second you had with them. And those decision's will come back to you once the court can no longer control your family. Make the right ones!!

Make this holiday as wonderful as you can - don't dwell on what your don't have - focus on what you do...

Messy or not, divorce is hard on kids, survey finds

Messy or not, divorce is hard on kids, survey finds

Excepts:

Even in a so-called good divorce, in which parents amicably minimize their conflicts, children inhabit a more difficult emotional landscape than those who grow up with married parents, according to a new survey of 1,500 adults ages 18-35.

"All the happy talk about divorce is designed to reassure parents," said Elizabeth Margaret, author of the study, which is described in her new book, "Between Two Worlds." "But it's not the truth for children. Even a good divorce restructures children's childhoods and leaves them traveling between two distinct worlds. It becomes their job, not their parents', to make sense of those two worlds."

"The key is to separate pain from pathology," said Robert Emery, director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law at the University of Virginia. "While a great many young people from divorced families report painful memories and ongoing troubles regarding family relationships, the majority are psychologically normal," Emery said.

Men of character, boys of fortune

Men of character, boys of fortune
by Rebecca Hagelin

Excerpts:

I'm the mother of two teenage boys, and believe me, I am well acquainted with the behaviors that have led to the popular phrase "boys will be boys." But I am also blessed to know what it means to my sons' development and character for them to have a father who holds them accountable, is engaged in their lives, and is intimately familiar with their strengths, weaknesses, personalities and individual needs.

Social science research, statistics and real life unequivocally tell us that the safest, healthiest, most nurturing place for children is in a home with a mother and father who are married to each other. Yet, according to the National Fatherhood Initiative, some 24 million children live in homes where fathers are absent, meaning one in three children "go to sleep in a home in which their father doesn't live." Fatherlessness is the great American tragedy of modern times.

Flip on the television and watch for just one evening. You'll find that virtually every commercial and sitcom portrays fathers as either wimpy or ignorant. The message to our kids is pretty clear: Dads are losers.

What does that say to our children about the value of their own fathers? To young boys about their own possible futures as fathers? To young girls about what to look for in a future husband? To the men who are already dads?

The media must be crazy. But I ain't crazy – either as a columnist or a wife. So as just one small voice in today's mass media, I'm going to do my part to say to all the great dads out there, "Thank you. We need you."

Mom's Make Lousy Dads

Mensnewsdaily

Mom's Make Lousy Dads
by Burt Prelutsky

Divorcing parents should consider their kids, teen says