Men get put in JAIL when they can't afford to pay child support, but women get rewarded with a WELFARE CHECK.

[SMR 368]

A rarely spoken inequity is that there is NO accountability in regard to the spending of that child-support money. Every dime should be thoroughly accounted for, every month, as having been spent on or for the child.

The custodial parent has to be given a certain amount of leeway and trust. Otherwise the red tape would become ridiculous. A better standard would just be that the child should be well taken care of. If the parent paying child support can show that the custodial parent is neglecting the child, then the non-custodial parent can and should bring suit on those grounds.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think you missed the point of the thread. It's not about tarnishing women but about tarnishing the courts. If the courts are biased, it's not the fault of women for using it.

If the courts are biased. If. That's an assumption. I just don't think kip's subjective experience, which appears to contribute directly to his generally negative views of women are very useful in proving the assumption.

[kytwell 179]

The custodial parent has to be given a certain amount of leeway and trust. Otherwise the red tape would become ridiculous. A better standard would just be that the child should be well taken care of. If the parent paying child support can show that the custodial parent is neglecting the child, then the non-custodial parent can and should bring suit on those grounds.

What is this custodial parent stuff? Mom and Dad should have 50-50 custody in the majority of the cases. Dad has them a week, provides for them. Mom has them for a week and provides for them. If someone wants to move to a different town, school district, city or state, then it goes to court and the one wanting to move should absolve the other from having to pay and gives up all holidays and summers(Easter, Summer Break, Thanksgiving and Christmas.) If the court denies the move which they should, except for exceptional circumstances. I'd like to know if they would still move and give up the kid or if they weren't still going to be getting a check for the kid, would they still move? I know there's exceptions and different circumstances in every case. But every case should be looked at from the kids perspective, what's best for the kid. And that is to have 2 actively involved parent's having equal time and access to their kids.

I have primary legal and physical custody of my 3 kids. But I went through the 50-50 thing before that happened, prior to her going off the wagon and it worked out well for the kids. There's no reason at all Mom's should get the kids or the awarding of any custodial rights in routine cases. Dad's are just as capable of raising, caring and providing for them as a woman. And in some cases may be even better.

[slim 1,530]

Yes, in criminal law and no in family law.

So you presented no evidence when you went to court?

Slim, you seem to suffer from the same stereotyping and prejudice (pre-judging!) that so many judges and court officials do. It is much easier for women to plan for a divorce since there are some winning strategies they can use that have little dependency on the actual merits of their cases. One of the biggest factors, in my opinion, is that most judges are male and are just as ready as you seem to be to throw other men under the bus, justifying it based on nothing other than stereotypes and that the woman is there in front of them needing the big, strong, manly judge to rescue poor little damsel in distress from that drunk, cheating husband of hers!

When a woman comes in crying about how horrible her husband is and how she and the kids need to get out yet he controls all the money and there's nothing she can do - what do you expect the judge to do?

I don't think it's about men wanting to throw other men under the bus or the preconceived notion tht the mother is bad. What it has everything to do with is the story mom comes in with and the story dad comes in with.

Additionally, it's rare for folks to keep their cool in divorce court. Anger is never a good emotion to show in court and typically, anger is shown by the men. When a sobbing woman who is "just concerned for the welfare and future of her kids" is pitted against an angry "no good" husband... who's going to win that one?

I found out, after my divorce, that my ex-from-hell had actually already lined up her divorce attorney prior to our marriage!

FWIW, I don't drink alcohol or use drugs, ever. I work hard, am respected in my community, have never been abusive, etc..... NONE of that matters!! All that matters is the stereotype out there and the willingness of so many women in our society to pretend to be a victim, even when they are not!

You may not drink or do drugs yet somehow you were married to a woman who lined up her divorce attorney prior to your marriage? If I was you I'd blame that on some kind of chemical!

Exactly my point. Men make very poor decisions on the women they marry and then blame it on the woman and bias of the courts. She was prepared. You weren't.

I'm beginning to wonder if that's actually slim posting or maybe fishdude jacked slim's account.

It's me.

This is my "accountability" side. I've yet to hear one of you divorced gents take the blame for ignoring certain factors prior to marriage and then being ill-prepared for court. Settling for things you shouldn't have settled for. Agreeing to terms that you didn't really want. Etc.

A rarely spoken inequity is that there is NO accountability in regard to the spending of that child-support money. Every dime should be thoroughly accounted for, every month, as having been spent on or for the child.

I'd support that.

I think this has more to do about the inequity that happens in many divorce cases. There is also the financial consequence that most men deal with which can take many many years to recover from. My divorce cost me $80K .... because my ex-wife was constantly forcing me back to court. An ex-spouse can force you into court as much and as often as they want until you are financialy and emotionaly broke. The system is at fault for allowing this abuse.

Sounds like a good idea but I think that would be unreasonable. It would become another excuse for even more litigation.

So the money wasn't as important as winning the case?

What is this custodial parent stuff? Mom and Dad should have 50-50 custody in the majority of the cases. Dad has them a week, provides for them. Mom has them for a week and provides for them. If someone wants to move to a different town, school district, city or state, then it goes to court and the one wanting to move should absolve the other from having to pay and gives up all holidays and summers(Easter, Summer Break, Thanksgiving and Christmas.) If the court denies the move which they should, except for exceptional circumstances. I'd like to know if they would still move and give up the kid or if they weren't still going to be getting a check for the kid, would they still move? I know there's exceptions and different circumstances in every case. But every case should be looked at from the kids perspective, what's best for the kid. And that is to have 2 actively involved parent's having equal time and access to their kids.

I have primary legal and physical custody of my 3 kids. But I went through the 50-50 thing before that happened, prior to her going off the wagon and it worked out well for the kids. There's no reason at all Mom's should get the kids or the awarding of any custodial rights in routine cases. Dad's are just as capable of raising, caring and providing for them as a woman. And in some cases may be even better.

The problem with kids in divorce is every case is different. The bias is supposed to be in the interest of the child and that's supposed to be the determining factor.

It would be impossible to legislate anything other than recommendations or if possibles since each case is going to be different. The reason there's a perceived bias towards the mother is more often than not, she's the one with the kids. If more men had custody of their kids, we probably wouldn't see that.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

We started off at 50-50 too but only after she couldn't sustain the false spousal abuse claims my ex-FIL and her attorney kept encouraging her to pursue. Those were wildly successful at first of course. Zero evidence, boilerplate claims, 20 minutes in a DV shelter and I was out of the house by court order faster than poop through a goose. Clockwork filing for DV Protection on new spurious claims a day or so before each court hearing, then in court withdrawing them 'for the moment' IF I behaved so she never had to be questioned on the false filings dragged custody on for months.

Finally on the eve of custody trial 1 my ex was encouraged to quit the patty cake spousal abuse gambit and pull the 'molesting his daughter' nuke. She got as far as taking our daughter to a medical clinic, which sent them to the hospital, which got the attention of CPS. Then my ex abandoned her dad and attorney and settled 50-50 without trial and before CPS could get involved and she promptly left the kids with me to truck across country with one of her numerous new BF's.

CPS came to me trying to figure out where this woman was but didn't tell me why. My ex filled me in on the plot when she returned.

None of the above mattered when the ex and her then 2nd ex-husband decided to seek full custody by once again claiming the 'molester' nuke. CPS worked hard to make her sick dream a reality but law enforcement kept pointing out there was nothing there. Still I didn't so much as get phone contact with either kid for ten weeks, all while facing the total destruction of life as I knew it. When it became apparent through questioning mom was coaching our daughter I wound up with custody, and mommy got yelled at in court. No further consequences. Unsupervised visitation every two weeks for mom. No well deserved jail.

Nine months zero child support paid, zero consequences for mom again. She now collects welfare for her kid from her second failed marriage, but the kid actually lives with my ex-FIL. Apparently it's good to be the queen!

[sly_wolf 199]

If the courts are biased. If. That's an assumption. I just don't think kip's subjective experience, which appears to contribute directly to his generally negative views of women are very useful in proving the assumption.

I can say that they are biased in Canada. Lawyers have validated that fact to me personally ..... and not just one.

[kytwell 179]

The problem with kids in divorce is every case is different. The bias is supposed to be in the interest of the child and that's supposed to be the determining factor.

It would be impossible to legislate anything other than recommendations or if possibles since each case is going to be different. The reason there's a perceived bias towards the mother is more often than not, she's the one with the kids. If more men had custody of their kids, we probably wouldn't see that.

That;s the problem, they shouldn't. It should be 50-50 legal and physical custody, not Mom having the kids. The only cases where custody should be awarded to 1 side over the other are: documented abuse, neglect, arrest records of parent and whoever is going to be in the domicile while kids are there, drug/alcohol abuse, etc these types of things.

Pennsylvania enacted something this year after Rendell left office to make the awarding of custody gender neutral.

Pennsylvania child custody cases are now governed by PA’s new child custody law, Act 112 of 2010. The new law took effect on January 23, 2011. The law states, “it is public policy of this Commonwealth, when in the best interest of the child, to assure a reasonable and continuing contact of the child with both parents after a separation or dissolution of the marriage and the sharing of the rights and responsibilities of child rearing by both parents and continuing contact of the child or children with grandparents when a parent is deceased, divorced or separated.”

Under the new PA child custody law:

Courts will be prohibited from assuming that custody should be awarded to a particular parent based solely on gender.

Contempt citations for willful violations of custody orders will be gender neutral.

Consideration must be given to a comprehensive list of factors, including: which parent is more likely to encourage and permit frequent contact with the other parent; parental duties of each parent; the need for stability and continuity in the child's education, family life, and community life; assuring access to siblings and extended family; and protection for victims of domestic violence.

Judges must provide an explanation of custody decisions on the record in open court or in a written opinion or order.

A framework will be used by Judges in making relocation decisions including consideration of how the move will enhance the quality of life for the child and not just how it will benefit the parent seeking to move.

Each parent must submit a parenting plan in cases of contested custody, allow for appointment of a guardian ad litem or counsel for the child when necessary.

The list of criminal convictions courts may consider in determining custody has been expanded.

Punishment for willful violation of a custody order may include imprisonment of not more than six (6) months, a fine of not more than $500.00, probation not to exceed six (6) months, and an Order for non-renewal, suspension or denial of driver’s license and/or counsel fees and costs.

Parties living separate and apart in the same residence may seek an Order for custody, but the Order will only be effective upon one party physically vacating the residence; or an Order awarding one party exclusive possession of the residence.

http://www.jbmartinlaw.com/blogs/family-law/bid/52262/PA-s-New-Child-Custody-Law-Act-112-of-2010

[sly_wolf 199]

So you presented no evidence when you went to court?

Of course evidence is presented. But not all testimony is supported by evidence, and in family law the judges choses what to ignore and what to accept. So, if you are a good lier you will get away with it even if caught sometimes. My ex-wife did it without consequence.

So the money wasn't as important as winning the case?

What was important to my ex-wife was to destroy me financially because she knew the courts would still force me to pay her even if I was broke. Thats the travisty with the system!

[Ban Hammer 13,498]

What was important to my ex-wife was to destroy me financially because she knew the courts would still force me to pay her even if I was broke. Thats the travisty with the system!

been through that with my ex - it was pretty bad when i was better off financially (less debt to assets) at 19 than i was at 33.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Glad i never got myself into those situations i am smart in that area.

[sly_wolf 199]

been through that with my ex - it was pretty bad when i was better off financially (less debt to assets) at 19 than i was at 33.

Lol, I was older. Sux having to start over from scratch.

[sly_wolf 199]

Glad i never got myself into those situations i am smart in that area.

What is your contingency plan?

[MyLittlePony 340]

What is your contingency plan?

I really cant explain? lol

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

What is your contingency plan?

A bullet cost less than a divorce?

[sly_wolf 199]

A bullet cost less than a divorce?

Very true. I could have hired someone to do that job for much less