Class Action Lawsuit for Equal Custody!

[EmsMom9]

I know in the case of my daughter, she spends every other weekend with her father, and she comes home in tears everytime because of the way she is treated over at her fathers house. Her father has 5 other children between him and his wife and my daughter says she is treated as an outsider when she is over there. The other kids pick on her and she gets very upset. She also has cerebal palsy and cant play like the other kids do and her father tells her she is just lazy and that is why she can't. So tell me is this just because she doesnt spend enough time with him. How can you ask a child to spend MORE time somewhere when they are miserable the whole time.

 

[nextwife]

And there are many kids who are in tears when they have to go from dad to mom and her boyfriend or husband and must LIVE there because mom gets custody preference, even if she lives like a slut and exposes her kids to a parade of abusive boyfriend du jours. These are personality issues, NOT "gender" issues.

That is the point, the parent should not get custody preferenceon the basis of gender.

 

[haiku]

yes, you are absolutely correct. I was focusing more on unwed parent situations. rather than divorce was I was talking about infants.

OK LDiJ, I am enjoying the debate so here comes another one back atcha- there really is no difference between parents who divorce and parent seperately, and parents who were never married, and are now parenting separately. I don't see any relevance, Parents of infants or no.....

off to read link...

 

[haiku]

I know in the case of my daughter, she spends every other weekend with her father, and she comes home in tears everytime because of the way she is treated over at her fathers house. Her father has 5 other children between him and his wife and my daughter says she is treated as an outsider when she is over there. The other kids pick on her and she gets very upset. She also has cerebal palsy and cant play like the other kids do and her father tells her she is just lazy and that is why she can't. So tell me is this just because she doesnt spend enough time with him. How can you ask a child to spend MORE time somewhere when they are miserable the whole time.

again, not relative to the debate....this is about parents denied custody and time with thier child based solely on gender and/or NCP status.

 

[annefan]

Imho

Back to the original link posted, though, I'm not certain that federal government involvement is the answer either.

 

[nextwife]

Unfortunately, many of the "core" changes in the way our society acted in enforcing indiduals basic rights have needed to happen at the federal level. There should be no more basic right than an equal opportunity to raise one's own children and make parental decisions about their future.

And certainly gender discrimination is not tolerated in many other aspects of the law.

Fair Housing and racial discrimination is a classic example. Left up to the states, stautus quo would have been acceptable in many places for a very long time.

 

[LdiJ]

OK LDiJ, I am enjoying the debate so here comes another one back atcha- there really is no difference between parents who divorce and parent seperately, and parents who were never married, and are now parenting separately. I don't see any relevance, Parents of infants or no.....

off to read link...

Yes there is a difference. There really are very few divorce cases where the parents weren't together for part of the infancy. Therefore the father is already bonded to the child when the parents split up. In unwed situations the father is frequently a complete stranger to the child until a court orders some type of visitation....and there are TONS of unwed cases.

 

[LdiJ]

Back to the original link posted, though, I'm not certain that federal government involvement is the answer either.

I was hoping to see if anybody picked up on the core problem that I sensed. However since no one has I will go ahead and bring it up.

Family law, is something that is reserved for the states under the US constitution. The federal government doesn't actually have the POWER to make laws in that area (the feds have very limited power under the constitution).

The feds have PROPOSED laws, like the UCCJEA, however in order for those laws to be enforceable in any state, the state has to agree to adopt them. The feds often use financial incentives to get states to adopted proposed legislation.

This case is based entirely on federal law. Every citation they are making to buttress the case comes from federal code, or the US constitution. There is no discussion of individual state constitutions or of state statutes.

Therefore, it would seem to me that the federal courts might not be able to hear this case...and if they can, then the individual states will fight it hard...not on its merits, but as an infringement on state's rights.

It seems to me, that if they were going to do this, that it should have been filed in the individual state courts, and should have been tailored to each state based on the state's constitution and statutes, using the bill of rights from the US constitution, but not using federal code.

What do others think about that issue?

 

[nextwife]

Yes there is a difference. There really are very few divorce cases where the parents weren't together for part of the infancy. Therefore the father is already bonded to the child when the parents split up. In unwed situations the father is frequently a complete stranger to the child until a court orders some type of visitation....and there are TONS of unwed cases.

It's too bad that woman go ahead and make babies with men that they really have no substantive relationship. This should not negate the father's right to equitable parenting of their child.

The "cure" for a child not knowing dad IS spending more time together. After all, baby didn't really know mom when she brought baby home but SHE was granted unfetered access to her child.

 

[tigger22472]

IFamily law, is something that is reserved for the states under the US constitution. The federal government doesn't actually have the POWER to make laws in that area (the feds have very limited power under the constitution).

This would explain the whole Troxell Vs. Granville ruling that I never understood how if it was a SUPREME COURT ruling that it could be overridden by the state and had to have IAAL explain it to me...

 

[haiku]

Yes there is a difference. There really are very few divorce cases where the parents weren't together for part of the infancy. Therefore the father is already bonded to the child when the parents split up. In unwed situations the father is frequently a complete stranger to the child until a court orders some type of visitation....and there are TONS of unwed cases.

And most unwed cases today, are parents who WERE parenting together in the same home or not, without a marriage certificate. It still does not make one parent better than the other.

barring being an axe murderer, both parents should get equal unfettered access to thier kids.

 

[LdiJ]

And most unwed cases today, are parents who WERE parenting together in the same home or not, without a marriage certificate. It still does not make one parent better than the other.

barring being an axe murderer, both parents should get equal unfettered access to thier kids.

No, it doesn't make one parent better than the other, but until we get to the point where paternity, custody, parenting time etc., can all be decided before the child is ever born and a formula is developed that the medical worlds believes is truly equal to breastmilk, there is always going to be an imbalance. The problem isn't the law, is biology.

Also how can equal, unfettered access be possible? I am talking about pure logistics here...not the law or anything else. My ex had and has free entry to my home at any time, (for the last 14 years) he even has a key...but I HAVE to be in the minority!

 

[gml659]

Here is part of the Bio for Barbara Madsen who is running for WA. State Supreme Court Justice. She is supposed to be Non-Partisan. OK. I guess this means not belonging to a party. If you were a man would you feel she could be fair to you?


>>>>She received Washington Women Lawyer’s Vanguard Award, Seattle University’s Woman of the Year, the Equal Justice Coalition’s Judicial Award, the Department of the Army’s Certificate of Achievement and was honored by the Bar Association for her work on diversity.<<<<<


GML

 

[gml659]

From www.barbaramadsen.org:

>>>>In 1992, when I first ran for the court, there had been only 2 women to serve in the court’s 110 year history. Because I believe it takes both the male and female points of view to get to the human point of view, I believed that the judicial branch needed more diversity. After 12 years on the court I have earned a reputation for leadership and a strong work ethic in carrying out the work of the court, deciding over 1500 cases and chairing the court’s most important committees.<<<<

Bias?????????????

What if Bob Madsen a graduate of U. of Alabama was running for the same position....and wrote:

>>>>In 1992, when I first ran for the court, there had been only 2 white men to serve in the court’s 110 year history. Because I believe it takes both the white male and female points of view to get to the human point of view, I believed that the judicial branch needed more diversity - more white males. After 12 years on the court I have earned a reputation for leadership and a strong work ethic in carrying out the work of the court, deciding over 1500 cases and chairing the court’s most important committees.<<<<

How would you feel going in front of Bob Madsen if you were a black female?

(Keep in mind I am not for this Bob scenario. As a Libertarian I STRONGLY support EQUAL rights. I support Gay Marriage.)

GML

 

[JAguirre]

And there are many kids who are in tears when they have to go from dad to mom and her boyfriend or husband and must LIVE there because mom gets custody preference, even if she lives like a slut and exposes her kids to a parade of abusive boyfriend du jours. These are personality issues, NOT "gender" issues.

That is the point, the parent should not get custody preferenceon the basis of gender.

I have no statistical data to back this up, but … it’s something to think about.

I wholeheartedly agree that gender does not a better parent make. However, this discussion appears to be focused on cases where the father actually desires to be an equal primary caregiver (no alternative motives of power play games, etc.), and assuming he is capable (with no adverse personality traits as outlined in previous posts), but is not being given a fair opportunity due to gender. I would imagine that these cases, while undoubtedly out there, are very low in comparison with the vast majority.

Because the law has to be based on the generalities of the masses, how would you separate out the two?