Who likes Ron Paul here?

[prohobo]

Originally Posted by dmthompson

Prohobo, this whole arguement is nonsence. Your line of reasoning is faultly. While I agree that the largest % of custodial parents are mothers and your % of those seeking a divorce is probably correct as well as the % of fathers ordered to pay child support. The flaw in your logic is the REASON why this is true. Most young men are not equiped to take care of a child on their own nor do they want the responsibility. From past experence the courts know this so unless the man can prove the mother is unfit the mother will get custody of child/children. Another reason is that the man thinks he is right but does not prepare for court (no lawer). Most of the time judges try to do what is best for the CHILD given the information at hand. Another thing to be considered is if the child is female usually the father has no clue how to take care of a girl entering her teen years. Of course there are exceptions to this but there are exceptions to everything.

Of course most divorces are initiated by the woman. As long as he has a roof over his head, food on the table, and sex most young men are perfectly happy to not change anything. Women are not quite so easily pleased and this is really true if she believes he is having sex with someone else.

If over 80% of the women have the children don't you think that it is logically that 60% of the fathers are the ones paying the child support? After all the money is for his child.

Dwight

You'd be surprised about young fathers, and if we're going to base custody on the gender of the child, then shouldn't all the boys go to their dads? Mom's not going to know what to do is she?

Did you ever stop and wonder why 80+% of women are the custodial parents? Maybe read up on some of the cases brought against multiple fathers, as well as the resistance of the courts to give custody to someone other than the mother. Even when mom isn't in the picture, CPS and the courts tends to skip over the father as an option and either go to a relative or even straight to adoption/foster care.

I hate to use Mary as an example again (she is the poster child for all that is wrong in the family courts) she managed to get custody of her kids, while in jail, after murdering their father... no grandparents, no aunts or uncles, were an option, even though they were available. That option should not even be on the table...

For the divorce, you have no fault divorces (which started the rise in the number of divorces today), more than likely she's getting the kids, along with that she's probably getting child support as well as alimony. Since she's probably got the kids, she's more than likely getting the house as the kids need a place to live, and a car since she needs a way to get around.... all that is a pretty good incentive to leave a guy.

Because she and the kids are "used to a certain standard of living" he would have to pay to keep that standard for them, nevermind that the paycheck/s are now supporting 2 households instead of 1.

For the child support, why don't the parents split parenting 50/50. She gets the kids 2 weeks, then he gets em 2 weeks. Then we don't have to worry about who pays child support. You've also got the blatant abuse of child support, such as making men pay for kids that aren't their's (paternity fraud), Paternity Fraud Fathers & Families, making men pay for kids created through IVF (do women pay for donated eggs?), jailing men who can't pay (debtors prison), while denying them the right to an attorney.

Many family court systems base child support on what you made in, say, the past year. This issue comes in when you're making a good paycheck, lose your job, then get another one making half what you made before. There's plenty of examples like this out there... why does it need to be the past year, why not what he's making now?

There's currently a bill that proposes to allow the government to take 100% of a mans pay for child support... Do You Think It Is Fair To Take Men To The Poor House For Child Support Debt? CBS Atlanta

If a the couple are married, and he loses is job, does he go to jail for failing to support the family? No, the family as a whole tightens up and tries to get through it till he can get a job, why then do divorced men end up in jail after losing a job?

Mom can also take the kids and run to another country and very rarely will the kids get sent back, even after she's convicted of parental kidnapping. Japan is famous for this..

If dad wants the kids and she doesn't, but she doesn't want to go through with an abortion and doesn't want him to have them, she can call Utah... they'll put the kids up for adoption and not let dad know the kid was even born. Then once adopted, dad is out of the picture... in the more extreme version, she'll kill the kids (driving van into river sound familiar?)

Then you have stuff like this... Statutory Rape Victim Ordered To Pay Child Support - Chicago Tribune

and this Prisoner's Dilemma

Stuff like this happens all over the country, every day...

and I only recommend Father and Families because they're the most balanced, there's other sites out there that report on stuff like this, but they seem more anti-female in some aspects. F&F links the articles, links any studies, as well as reports on women that go through the same things and any reports that bring the treatment of both men and women close to equal.

GlennSacks.com is an archive site for Glenn, he writes for F&F now so that site is no longer updated, but still has his past articles.

[prohobo]

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

A buddy of mine is going through that right now. He is right, he thinks he is right and he actually has the law on his side. But he makes the tactical decision that the judge will see it his way.

The Judges job is to uphold the law, not dispense fairness.

They confuse the law, with Justice. Often, there is little correlation between them.

He keeps going into court unprepared, and never with a lawyer.

Once I got him to see the folly of his ways, then all of a sudden he found that he about half the time, the judge sees it his way, and the other half of the time the judge sees it her way.

So he has the law on his side, the judge is supposed to follow the law, yet the judge still sides with her half the time?

Am I the only one that sees an issue with that train of thought?

We need to make the laws fair as well as get the gender bias out of courts.

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by prohobo

So he has the law on his side, the judge is supposed to follow the law, yet the judge still sides with her half the time?

Am I the only one that sees an issue with that train of thought?

We need to make the laws fair as well as get the gender bias out of courts.

It would be more correct to say that half the time he he has the law and judge on his side, and half the time it is the other way around.

I find the courts to be fair and honest, as long as you are prepared. I don't see gender bias in the courts most of the time.

Usually when men lose in courts, it is because they are unprepared. Then they blame it on the women, the courts, the moon rising in Aquarius, or what ever else they can point at, besides themselves.

[dmthompson]

Originally Posted by prohobo

You'd be surprised about young fathers, and if we're going to base custody on the gender of the child, then shouldn't all the boys go to their dads? Mom's not going to know what to do is she?

Did you ever stop and wonder why 80+% of women are the custodial parents? Maybe read up on some of the cases brought against multiple fathers, as well as the resistance of the courts to give custody to someone other than the mother. Even when mom isn't in the picture, CPS and the courts tends to skip over the father as an option and either go to a relative or even straight to adoption/foster care.

I hate to use Mary as an example again (she is the poster child for all that is wrong in the family courts) she managed to get custody of her kids, while in jail, after murdering their father... no grandparents, no aunts or uncles, were an option, even though they were available. That option should not even be on the table...

For the divorce, you have no fault divorces (which started the rise in the number of divorces today), more than likely she's getting the kids, along with that she's probably getting child support as well as alimony. Since she's probably got the kids, she's more than likely getting the house as the kids need a place to live, and a car since she needs a way to get around.... all that is a pretty good incentive to leave a guy.

Because she and the kids are "used to a certain standard of living" he would have to pay to keep that standard for them, nevermind that the paycheck/s are now supporting 2 households instead of 1.

For the child support, why don't the parents split parenting 50/50. She gets the kids 2 weeks, then he gets em 2 weeks. Then we don't have to worry about who pays child support. You've also got the blatant abuse of child support, such as making men pay for kids that aren't their's (paternity fraud), Paternity Fraud Fathers & Families, making men pay for kids created through IVF (do women pay for donated eggs?), jailing men who can't pay (debtors prison), while denying them the right to an attorney.

Many family court systems base child support on what you made in, say, the past year. This issue comes in when you're making a good paycheck, lose your job, then get another one making half what you made before. There's plenty of examples like this out there... why does it need to be the past year, why not what he's making now?

There's currently a bill that proposes to allow the government to take 100% of a mans pay for child support... Do You Think It Is Fair To Take Men To The Poor House For Child Support Debt? CBS Atlanta

If a the couple are married, and he loses is job, does he go to jail for failing to support the family? No, the family as a whole tightens up and tries to get through it till he can get a job, why then do divorced men end up in jail after losing a job?

Mom can also take the kids and run to another country and very rarely will the kids get sent back, even after she's convicted of parental kidnapping. Japan is famous for this..

If dad wants the kids and she doesn't, but she doesn't want to go through with an abortion and doesn't want him to have them, she can call Utah... they'll put the kids up for adoption and not let dad know the kid was even born. Then once adopted, dad is out of the picture... in the more extreme version, she'll kill the kids (driving van into river sound familiar?)

Then you have stuff like this... Statutory Rape Victim Ordered To Pay Child Support - Chicago Tribune

and this Prisoner's Dilemma

Stuff like this happens all over the country, every day...

and I only recommend Father and Families because they're the most balanced, there's other sites out there that report on stuff like this, but they seem more anti-female in some aspects. F&F links the articles, links any studies, as well as reports on women that go through the same things and any reports that bring the treatment of both men and women close to equal.

GlennSacks.com is an archive site for Glenn, he writes for F&F now so that site is no longer updated, but still has his past articles.

Again you have missed the entire goal here. While you can correctly point out a few exceptions there are hundreds of thousands of cases that could be pointed out on the other side. I never said that custody should be gender based. I am simply pointing out that the female is better equiped to deal with children than the male and particularly with female children.

Two weeks with one parent and two weeks with the other would be a diaster for the child and it's the child we are talking about here not if it's fair to one adult or the other. Actually if the father were really concerned with the childs welfare he should be happy to pay the child support if for no other reason than to know his child was going to be better taken of.

Alimony is rare these days unless there is unusual conditions. Non-payment of child support, in most states, is not why men go to jail. They go to jail for CONTEMPT OF COURT. If the judge says you should do something and you don't do it you are in contempt of court. Usually if they would contact the court other arrangments could be made and thus no jail time.

While it's true if the mother takes the kids to another country there is not a lot you can do about it because the US cannot control what other countries do. What you could do however is if you get wind of it go to court and make your case about why she should not take the kids out of country. If you win the court pulls the kids passports.

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

It would be more correct to say that half the time he he has the law and judge on his side, and half the time it is the other way around.

I find the courts to be fair and honest, as long as you are prepared. I don't see gender bias in the courts most of the time.

Usually when men lose in courts, it is because they are unprepared. Then they blame it on the women, the courts, the moon rising in Aquarius, or what ever else they can point at, besides themselves.

Usually young men let their egos get in their way. "I''m a big strong man and I will show her she can't get away with doing xxxxxxxx (whatever shes done). They go to court unprepared with nothing but a story to tell the judge and no idea what the law says. He, mistakenly, thinks it's him against her and what's fair all the while the court looks at what is best for the child.

You need to look no further than the animal kingtom of which we are a part of to see how a female will try to protect her offspring. A sow bear, for example, will attack a male offen over twice her size to protect her cubs and at the risk of her own lifte. The attzck is so viscous that the male will give up. Humans are no different.

Dwight

[Reeflections]

Wow! What happened to this thread? When I left the discussion was about politics and now it's about who's better - men or women? What is confusing me though is that, as far as I can tell anyway, everyone here is a man. So why is it that the right wingers and Ron Paul supporters seem to like the men better and the lefties all like the women better. Yet the Righties are against Gay Rights?

Just wondrin'.

My take: People that abuse their spouses need help - no matter whether it's men abusing women, women abusing men, men abusing men, women abusing women, adults abusing kids, or kids abusing adults. And ANYONE being abused needs to be protected by society. Percentages don't really matter.

[prohobo]

Originally Posted by dmthompson

Again you have missed the entire goal here. While you can correctly point out a few exceptions there are hundreds of thousands of cases that could be pointed out on the other side. I never said that custody should be gender based. I am simply pointing out that the female is better equiped to deal with children than the male and particularly with female children.

Two weeks with one parent and two weeks with the other would be a diaster for the child and it's the child we are talking about here not if it's fair to one adult or the other. Actually if the father were really concerned with the childs welfare he should be happy to pay the child support if for no other reason than to know his child was going to be better taken of.

Alimony is rare these days unless there is unusual conditions. Non-payment of child support, in most states, is not why men go to jail. They go to jail for CONTEMPT OF COURT. If the judge says you should do something and you don't do it you are in contempt of court. Usually if they would contact the court other arrangments could be made and thus no jail time.

While it's true if the mother takes the kids to another country there is not a lot you can do about it because the US cannot control what other countries do. What you could do however is if you get wind of it go to court and make your case about why she should not take the kids out of country. If you win the court pulls the kids passports.


Dwight

Once again, you'd be surprised, but I can see that you have your biases, and you're not going to let go of them, which is fine. You don't realize how hard it is for things like, the dad to get an adjustment on child support, or getting a kid back from another country despite agreements being signed between countries, and the studies that show having both parents in their life is better for the kids, not just money, or just how common alimony is, Florida is in the process of changing their laws so that alimony isn't a permanent thing anymore.

I also still don't understand how taking a dad that can't pay, not won't, and putting them in jail is supposed to fix anything.

[prohobo]

Originally Posted by Reeflections

Wow! What happened to this thread? When I left the discussion was about politics and now it's about who's better - men or women? What is confusing me though is that, as far as I can tell anyway, everyone here is a man. So why is it that the right wingers and Ron Paul supporters seem to like the men better and the lefties all like the women better. Yet the Righties are against Gay Rights?

Just wondrin'.

My take: People that abuse their spouses need help - no matter whether it's men abusing women, women abusing men, men abusing men, women abusing women, adults abusing kids, or kids abusing adults. And ANYONE being abused needs to be protected by society. Percentages don't really matter.

I don't think either is better, they're both needed to raise a child. It's the courts and society that think men aren't needed... and look where that's gotten us.

I do agree with your second statement, once again though it's society and the courts that think men are expendable. They don't need protection...

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by prohobo

I also still don't understand how taking a dad that can't pay, not won't, and putting them in jail is supposed to fix anything.

Of course it doesn't.

But you are emphasizing the exception, not the rule.

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by prohobo

I don't think either is better, they're both needed to raise a child. It's the courts and society that think men aren't needed... and look where that's gotten us.

I do agree with your second statement, once again though it's society and the courts that think men are expendable. They don't need protection...

Those are bold statements not supported by reality. Only by the right wing press. And the purpose of the right wing press is to support their positions with both misinformation and disinformation. Of course, that charge can be leveled at the left wing press also.

Saying that both the courts and society think men are expendable is paranoia.

[Reeflections]

Of course the more people raising a child the better, but one good parent is better than a good one and a bad one. One good gay parent is better than one or two bad straight ones.

But the reality is you are not going to remove all kids from bad parents for two important reasons: 1) there are not enough places to put them; 2) where do you draw the line between good and bad and WHO decides.

So, since there are some kids in homes where the parent(s) are lazy and gaming the system, you HAVE to still feed and educate their children if you want to live in a civilized society. If that means some parents will get money they don't deserve from taxpayers, so be it.