Tired Of Him Threatening To Take My Son

[Whyte Noise]

Re: Re: Re: Re: OK, maybe OT, but I have to ask

You can't cry universal bias, or use it as an example, when he could have gone down the street and found another urologist that would have done it w/o a consent form, or without consulting you. It is a personal choice of that doctor it had nothing to do with bias towards women.

Jut like some people have bad lawyers and want to blame the "system" here you are, consulting a doctor that isn't in accorance with your thinking and you want to blame society, all some people have to do is find a better lawyer, and all you had to do was find a better doctor.

First of all, this happened 10 years ago. Every urologist in the town had the same consent form. It wasn't just one doctor. I never once said that it wasn't in my way of "thinking", did I? Don't put words in my mouth that were never there. I'm not blaming the doctor or "society" for a thing. I was simply stating facts that were true in MY case, and using it as an example. And I simply asked a question of... If a MAN has to get his wife's consent, why doesn't a WOMAN have to get her husband's? However, since you wanted to say it was unuseful as an example because he could have easily found another doctor that didn't require this consent (and I've told you there weren't any) let me throw a few more examples of bias out there to ya:

1.) Women cry wolf with a false claim of abuse, and the man is automatically guilty until they're proven innocent, a man cries abuse at the hands of a woman, and he's laughed at. All a woman has to do is say she is in "fear" of harm, whether it's true or not, and the man normally has a restraining order slapped on him. Why do you think it's such a popular tactic in divorce and custody cases?

2.) A woman accuses a man of rape and again, he has to prove his innocence. A man accuses a woman of rape and he gets stared at like he's from Mars or something.

3.) Per the National Center for Health Statistics, men get custody in 9% of cases, women in 72% of cases, and joint custody is awarded in 16% of cases. The other 3% of cases the children are awarded to "Other".

4.) Women are more likely to harm or kill their children than fathers, yet mothers are awarded sole custody in most cases. (Do the names Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, or Deanna Laney ring a bell?)

5.) In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more.

6.) 66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial mothers default on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42) A NC father is told to get a "second job" to pay his child support, while a SAHM isn't told to get a FIRST job to help support the children. In every state, isn't it required that BOTH parents provide for the children financially?

7.) Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%
(Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy) Almost 80% of custodial mothers get a CS award from an NC father, and only 30% of custodial fathers get a CS award from NC mothers.

8.) Every state in this country has a centralized system set up for the collection and disbursement of CS. In those systems, the payors are of the male majority. In all of those cases, not paying can get you anything from a slap on the wrist to imprisonment. How many women that have defaulted on CS payments have been to prison? Or had their credit ruined? Or their license suspended? Anyone? How many custodial mothers are jailed for custody interference? How many non custodial fathers are jailed for not paying CS?

I'm not just pulling numbers out of my hat here. In Family Court, females definately have the upper hand. Thank the "Tender Years Doctrine" for that one. There is bias all around in the court. You can try to call it what you want to, or sweep it under the rug, but it's there.

Oh, and I'm a non-custodial mom myself that now has physical custody of my children. I'm not some wicked stepmother that's just pissed because my SO has to pay CS and it takes away from my household. Fair is fair. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and it shouldn't matter one iota what your gender is. But that's not what the courts are showing us, is it?

 

[businessjustice]

Uh-huh, lawyers don't care about their writing skills. Sure.
And your extreme bias against fathers? What's your excuse for that?
While we're here, what's with your dodgy legal advice? When do you plan to cite some LAW, lawyer? You're a fake...you're probably some bitter mom who learned a bit of law on the internet.

Let's see, when I'm sitting at home, on a rare day off, taking calls, kidding around with my kids, BSing around on the internet, nope, don't really care if I proofread or not. I don't type a lot, I dictate and my legal assistant types. Sue me. Or should I say soo mee.

I don't have extreme bias against fathers, I have extreme bias against people who have extreme bias. I've been very fair and accurate in my information, and it can go both ways, and I have made that very clear.

I will cite law only when warranted, when a question is specific to a state that I have practiced/do practice in, of which hasn't been the case in this string at all, in fact, there hasn't been anything discussed that warrants it. Just because I happen to be in the legal profession doesn't mean I can't have opinions, of which I'm entitiled to express, same as you without having to cite case law to back it up.

Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean you have to knock my credibility, or question my gender. It is perfectly fine to disagree with me, but if you are going to do so, at least use the intelligence god gave you to do so in a manner that makes you actually sound, intelligent. You may want to private message BLCM for a lesson or two in honest debate of opinion.

Oh, and feel free to typo, I do it all the time. I care more about the idea behind the words. If they had spell check on this board I'd be a happy camper.

 

[haiku]

ITA BLCM

 

[businessjustice]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OK, maybe OT, but I have to ask

First of all, this happened 10 years ago. Every urologist in the town had the same consent form. It wasn't just one doctor. I never once said that it wasn't in my way of "thinking", did I? Don't put words in my mouth that were never there. I'm not blaming the doctor or "society" for a thing. I was simply stating facts that were true in MY case, and using it as an example.

Why haven't you let go of something that happened so long ago? And if it bothered you so much, why didn't you petition the doctors in the area to change the practice if you felt it was unfair? Or are you only just now figuring out how wrong it was and speaking out? Like in a lot of custody cases back 10 years ago, it was "just the way it was" so no one did anything about it?

1.) Women cry wolf with a false claim of abuse, and the man is automatically guilty until they're proven innocent, a man cries abuse at the hands of a woman, and he's laughed at. All a woman has to do is say she is in "fear" of harm, whether it's true or not, and the man normally has a restraining order slapped on him. Why do you think it's such a popular tactic in divorce and custody cases?

2.) A woman accuses a man of rape and again, he has to prove his innocence. A man accuses a woman of rape and he gets stared at like he's from Mars or something.

3.) Per the National Center for Health Statistics, men get custody in 9% of cases, women in 72% of cases, and joint custody is awarded in 16% of cases. The other 3% of cases the children are awarded to "Other".

4.) Women are more likely to harm or kill their children than fathers, yet mothers are awarded sole custody in most cases. (Do the names Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, or Deanna Laney ring a bell?)

5.) In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more.

6.) 66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial mothers default on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42) A NC father is told to get a "second job" to pay his child support, while a SAHM isn't told to get a FIRST job to help support the children. In every state, isn't it required that BOTH parents provide for the children financially?

7.) Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%
(Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy) Almost 80% of custodial mothers get a CS award from an NC father, and only 30% of custodial fathers get a CS award from NC mothers.

8.) Every state in this country has a centralized system set up for the collection and disbursement of CS. In those systems, the payors are of the male majority. In all of those cases, not paying can get you anything from a slap on the wrist to imprisonment. How many women that have defaulted on CS payments have been to prison? Or had their credit ruined? Or their license suspended? Anyone? How many custodial mothers are jailed for custody interference? How many non custodial fathers are jailed for not paying CS?

I'm not just pulling numbers out of my hat here. In Family Court, females definately have the upper hand. Thank the "Tender Years Doctrine" for that one. There is bias all around in the court. You can try to call it what you want to, or sweep it under the rug, but it's there.

Oh, and I'm a non-custodial mom myself that now has physical custody of my children. I'm not some wicked stepmother that's just pissed because my SO has to pay CS and it takes away from my household. Fair is fair. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and it shouldn't matter one iota what your gender is. But that's not what the courts are showing us, is it?

My dear friend, I never once said there wasn't bias in the courts did I? You pretty much went whole hog on this post to convince me of something I already know. I just said your one example was a poor example of bias, not that there wasn't any. HOWEVER...

How this whole thing got started on this string, is my insistance that people stop blaming the WOMEN for what the system has become. It isn't their fault. It's largely the reason I stopped practicing family law and I thought I had made that clear somewhere in this flurry of activity.

As a lawyer, I'm bound by the history of the courts. Case law is everything in some disputes. This is when things that happened 10 years ago is very relevant.

10-15 years ago, when there was a divorce, there wasn't "mediation" there weren't GAL's as we know them today, there weren't these incredibly invasive home studies and psych evals. It was two feuding parties and a battle of "lawyer wits". Divorcing couples didn't talk to each other, the lawyers handled everything. It wasn't about what was fair and right, it was all about the legal WIN, and it was done by whatever means necessary and boy oh boy could it get down and dirty. (heh, you think it's bad now, but back then you didn't speak of your divorce in public) Back then, clients didn't question the lawyer's authority, if the lawyer said jump, the client said HOW HIGH.
That is where abuse charges flourished, and rape and all the other mud slinging crud that still happens in courts today because there are still lawyers out there that find it perfectly acceptable to use. I find it reprehensible.

Yes, it still exisits, does it happen as often as before, no. Why? Because people are becoming more aware of right and wrong in the legal system (as well as taking on the courts on thier own which as little as 5 years ago was almost unheard of) and CHALLENGING it. It takes time for law and precedent to change. (Not unlike civil rights) But focus your anger and energy on the place it needs to be focused on, the legistators, the law makers, the swindling lawyers...Hell, MY side of the law tracks.

For every one person who is educated on the "bias" that is in the court system, (be it in family court by gender or criminal court by race) there are probably 1000 who aren't, because they have no reason to be involved with it. When they do get sucked in, they go by what they know, or what a lawyer tells them. You were niieve at one point weren't you? Would you have appreciated being bashed for things you were unaware of?

If you want to get a message across, don't do it with spite and hate, do it in a way that is educational and non-confrontational. (which btw you do for the most part, but there are others here who are so insensative and crude, thier message gets lost)

BTW, I'm not discussing your percentages and citations of studies only due to the fact that I refuse to really put a lot of weight on them for the only reason that for every study that is done, another one can be done citing the opposite using different criteria, and it is a wasted argument. Any group can do a study, the only ones that matter are the ones the lawmakers take seriously, and those are only the ones THEY do THEMSELVES. The rat *******s. So I gave up citing stuff like that a looooong time ago. It's a personal thing, don't take offence to it.

Oh, and the way CS is set up, I disagree with totally. My opinion, CS is CS regardless of who pays it, we are SS#'s for so many other things to the government, that is all paying parents should be numbers who owe numbers and punished according to a national scale of arrears. This whole stateby state guideline thing gives even the most competent lawyer a migraine.

But what I do know, is that it won't change, until people, such as yourselves lobby for it to, in an organized fashion, and stop harranging the innocent citizens caught up in the tidal wave of bureaucratic BS.

 

[JoandJa'smom]

haiku, SOrry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say to me, but I do think you may not understand me all that much either, but I'm not going to argue w/you over it. No biggy.

I am supported by my DH, not my ex. My child support is spent on things that are needed for my son. The rest is saved. If I did not have my DH I would have to work and I would not try and live off the child support I get for my son.

JoandJa'smom

 

[Whyte Noise]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OK, maybe OT, but I have to ask

Why haven't you let go of something that happened so long ago? And if it bothered you so much, why didn't you petition the doctors in the area to change the practice if you felt it was unfair? Or are you only just now figuring out how wrong it was and speaking out? Like in a lot of custody cases back 10 years ago, it was "just the way it was" so no one did anything about it?

>>>> You misunderstood the intent. I never "held on" to be able to "let go" of something that happened 10 years ago. I haven't even thought about it until this thread. I just simply used it as an "example" of ONE WAY that there is bias towards women. A man had to get permission from his wife to be sterilized, but a woman didn't have to have permission from her husband for the same procedure. That was ALL the intent was.

My dear friend, I never once said there wasn't bias in the courts did I? You pretty much went whole hog on this post to convince me of something I already know. I just said your one example was a poor example of bias, not that there wasn't any. HOWEVER...

>>>> No, you never once came out and said there wasn't bias, but it was insinuated by some of your comments. Such as how people with bad lawyers want to blame the system, etc.

How this whole thing got started on this string, is my insistance that people stop blaming the WOMEN for what the system has become. It isn't their fault. It's largely the reason I stopped practicing family law and I thought I had made that clear somewhere in this flurry of activity.

>>>> It's not that anyone is blaming WOMEN for what has happened. We're just trying to point out the fact that the system is indeed biased towards women, no matter when or where it started, or by whom. And I, as a woman, will hold to that opinion even though I haven't personally benefited from being a woman in a courtroom. Yet...

As a lawyer, I'm bound by the history of the courts. Case law is everything in some disputes. This is when things that happened 10 years ago is very relevant.

10-15 years ago, when there was a divorce, there wasn't "mediation" there weren't GAL's as we know them today, there weren't these incredibly invasive home studies and psych evals. It was two feuding parties and a battle of "lawyer wits". Divorcing couples didn't talk to each other, the lawyers handled everything. It wasn't about what was fair and right, it was all about the legal WIN, and it was done by whatever means necessary and boy oh boy could it get down and dirty. (heh, you think it's bad now, but back then you didn't speak of your divorce in public) Back then, clients didn't question the lawyer's authority, if the lawyer said jump, the client said HOW HIGH.
That is where abuse charges flourished, and rape and all the other mud slinging crud that still happens in courts today because there are still lawyers out there that find it perfectly acceptable to use. I find it reprehensible.

Yes, it still exisits, does it happen as often as before, no. Why? Because people are becoming more aware of right and wrong in the legal system (as well as taking on the courts on thier own which as little as 5 years ago was almost unheard of) and CHALLENGING it. It takes time for law and precedent to change. (Not unlike civil rights) But focus your anger and energy on the place it needs to be focused on, the legistators, the law makers, the swindling lawyers...Hell, MY side of the law tracks.

For every one person who is educated on the "bias" that is in the court system, (be it in family court by gender or criminal court by race) there are probably 1000 who aren't, because they have no reason to be involved with it. When they do get sucked in, they go by what they know, or what a lawyer tells them. You were niieve at one point weren't you? Would you have appreciated being bashed for things you were unaware of?

>>>>>>> I'm not bashing anyone. I rarely trade puches with anyone on the net. No point in it. Personally, 2 attorneys on this site have called me on my naivete, on more than one occassion. Doesn't bother me in the least. Like I have said before, as long as my questions and inquiries get answered, that's all I'm really worried about.

If you want to get a message across, don't do it with spite and hate, do it in a way that is educational and non-confrontational. (which btw you do for the most part, but there are others here who are so insensative and crude, thier message gets lost)

>>>>I think I'm supposed to take that as a compliment....? I don't post anything on here that holds hate or spite. I might be honest but that's about as far as it goes. Oh wait... I have posted hateful things to one poster on here, but that was for personal reasons back then....

BTW, I'm not discussing your percentages and citations of studies only due to the fact that I refuse to really put a lot of weight on them for the only reason that for every study that is done, another one can be done citing the opposite using different criteria, and it is a wasted argument. Any group can do a study, the only ones that matter are the ones the lawmakers take seriously, and those are only the ones THEY do THEMSELVES. The rat *******s. So I gave up citing stuff like that a looooong time ago. It's a personal thing, don't take offence to it.

>>>> I don't.

Oh, and the way CS is set up, I disagree with totally. My opinion, CS is CS regardless of who pays it, we are SS#'s for so many other things to the government, that is all paying parents should be numbers who owe numbers and punished according to a national scale of arrears. This whole stateby state guideline thing gives even the most competent lawyer a migraine.

But what I do know, is that it won't change, until people, such as yourselves lobby for it to, in an organized fashion, and stop harranging the innocent citizens caught up in the tidal wave of bureaucratic BS.

>>>> And I agree with that wholeheartedly. I've been involved with many things and attempts to get laws passed. I supported Carnell fully in his fight. And I'm glad to see what everyone else thought was common sense actually be seen that way in the Georgia Legislature. I participated in the MDM. Even though I was the only one here in my town last weekend that did, male OR female. LOL We had a big car show here last weekend, was the perfect time. Oh well, lots of people wanted to know more info on what I was trying to do, so my goal was accomplished. I've written Congressmen, Senators, Even those not in my own state. I do what I can.

>>>> Oh.... private messaging is turned off... but I swear, I think you actually gave me 2 compliments in this thread. Of course, I've been wrong before. Once.

 

[businessjustice]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OK, maybe OT, but I have to ask

[B
>>>> Oh.... private messaging is turned off... but I swear, I think you actually gave me 2 compliments in this thread. Of course, I've been wrong before. Once. [/B]

I did compliment you, due to the fact that you are able to hold an intelligent conversation about a controversial subject without resorting to mud slinging, broad generalizations and just general negativity. Unlike some people on this board so I have found. They call themselves advocates, but are more interested in trashing people and putting them down, than actually being productively helpful, and whatever intitial help they do give that is semi-reasonable, gets lost and becomes ineffective when they get belligerant and bully-like.

YOU are a true advocate, in what the spirit of an advocate is. Helpful, insightful, willing to listen to all sides and still disagree accordingly, holding your cause in the highest regard at all times.

And everyone goes off on occasion, if it weren't for Veronica striking a chord with me by her belligerance (giving a new person grief for typing in caps but later in the string making comments that would make a decent sailor blush) and her cronies diving in afterwards, I wouldn't have felt the desire to even say a word.

I said this somewhere else, and I'll say it again. I have to wonder how many people she, and the others like her, has driven off and intimidated from really investigating correct answers to things by the way she treats them. Pretty much negates the idea of an "advocate". You can't teach an empty room, and you make more enemies by forcing your ideals on them. People inherantly like to feel they came to an informed decision on thier own.

 

[stephenk]

" Women are more likely to harm or kill their children than fathers, yet mothers are awarded sole custody in most cases. (Do the names Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, or Deanna Laney ring a bell?)"

if i remember right, Andrea Yates was still married and living with her husband when she decided to drown her kids.

 

[Whyte Noise]

" Women are more likely to harm or kill their children than fathers, yet mothers are awarded sole custody in most cases. (Do the names Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, or Deanna Laney ring a bell?)"

if i remember right, Andrea Yates was still married and living with her husband when she decided to drown her kids.

Yes, she was. As was Deanna Laney. Her husband was asleep upstairs while she pounded her children to death with a big rock because God told her to do it. Again, I was just making a point that women are more prone to do these things, yet it's also women that gain custody most often. Not that divorced or unmarried mothers only do this. Just women in general.

 

[stealth2]

Yes, she was. As was Deanna Laney. Her husband was asleep upstairs while she pounded her children to death with a big rock because God told her to do it. Again, I was just making a point that women are more prone to do these things, yet it's also women that gain custody most often. Not that divorced or unmarried mothers only do this. Just women in general.

Let's not forget the men who tend to kill both the mother of their children along with the kids.

 

[karma1]

You make some valid points.....

End up with nothing? Or not end up 100% with what they wanted? Big difference there. If they had thier paternal rights taken from them completely, then they probably deserved it and can whine all they want to my deaf ears (male or female). A court takes parental rights begrudgingly.

As to "rights" message boards, if they lost that much, there was a reason for it they aren't telling you. The only people who truly know what happened in there is the CP/NCP/and legal authorites, and that whole his side her side and the truth aspect comes into play. You hear about the sob stories on message boards and not the good stories because the ones who didn't have problems in the system don't have a need to post, and for how crowded the family court systems are, the percentage of people on boards that make up that crowd, is minscule at best.

You know, it isn't always the law that screws NCP's,. There are really crappy lawyers out there, it's a wonder many of them passed the bar. Far too many are just in it for the money. Pro se kills a lot of chance too, because of shoulder chips and nieve to the law and courts. Law is a business, like any other, and needs to be treated that way. It's a competition, it's about strategic negotiation skills and knowledge. It's a chess game.

RE: forefather's...I do think that if things were different back then, if women weren't considered non-entities and were allowed to vote, work, etc, things would be a lot different today, a lot more "progressed" as it were. Compare it to segregation, for the longest time people of color were treated with total disrespect, and that was just "how it was". Until slowly, a wave of fight came on, and it took a lot of years, but things are changing for the better. Same will go with family court, things will evolve, but they would have been a lot farther along if it was recognized as a problem earlier...

if you want to be the great and almighty equalizer, figure a way for a man to gestate and give birth to a child, otherwise, succomb to the fact that just, by nature alone, there wouldn't be children to fight over if women didn't hold a certain, shall we say "physical superiority" to men.

and true, from messages boards, chat rooms, etc....you only get the information that is posted and there may be much more to the story.
BUT, I will point out 2 case scenarios that unfortunatley, does happen.
1) Mom get pregant, never tells dad. Years later, she files for welare and names said dad as father. Welfare tracks dad down, dad goes through all the dna testing and the child is his. Dad then files for visitation rights, and let's say, the child is old enough to talk to a judge. Judge determines visitation is not in the "child's best interest" and dad fights this. Thousands of dollars later, no visitation but dad still has to pay support. (quick summary)
2) Dad and Mom break up and one day, mom just takes off with child. Dad has done everything "Right" from day one--paid support, parental involvement with visitation, school activities, etc....and Mom disappears. I"ve seen this one work out 2 ways.....dad locates Mom and child after years and tons of money and is granted supervised visitation or, like previously mentioned, a judge determines visitation is not in the best interest of the child. (years of absense-child old enough to talk to judge again)

Let me ad one more scenario-
Dad and Mom break up---she starts making false claims of abuse. Now, business, I'm sure I dont have to tell you how long court cases can be drug out when abuse is in question--unfortunately, this is a "tactic" used by many CP's to keep child/ren away from other parent. We're talking years of court proceedings (civil, criminal and family court), years of counseling, therapy, etc....and even if all works out....those years are lost.

My point is, although the court systems are slowy changing (let's say, REALLY considering "best interest of child), there are still many NCP's that do go through litegation (sp?) nightmares inspite of following every law there is....thats why there are message boards like the one I mentioned, I suppose. I do agree with you about childbirth giving the woman a certain superiority, especially in family court. However, creating a child does not a parent make....and that can be said for both genders.

I would also like to comment that although many NPC's do continue to fight to get their rights....in many cases, the money runs out (I know one parent that has spent 80K so far....child hidden, found, now parent has supervised visitation to re-establish the relationship....at a facility paid for by NCP~). And you're right, there are "good" lawyers and "bad" lawyers, but regardless, they all cost money.

Generally speaking---and I'll reference this from CA family courts-things are changing. I know each case is different but at least there is more recognition that BOTH parents are important and one should not have more control than the other....

 

[businessjustice]

people can go back and forth and cite situations all day where either the mother or the father gets screwed in some capacity.

Some moms abandon thier kids, some dads abandon thier kids. Some NCP moms do "everything right" and still get screwed, just like some NCP dads. Some CP moms screw NCP fathers and vice versa...ok fine, by percentage more men get wholloped than women, but the blame doesn't fall on the women themselves.

But all of that really isn't what I have the problem with.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is this:

People come to advice boards like this, for lack of a better word, green, when it comes to law & reality of the court system. Most of the time it is before they talk to a lawyer, or anyone in person. They are confused, scared and worried. They can ask some pretty outrageous questions at times for sure. When I practiced family law (and even my business law clients today) I expected them not to know a thing, and went about treating them with respect for thier "ignorance", because it's sad that they even have to go through the process as it is.

Some of the seasoned posters treat these people as if they should already know better and that just gets under my skin. In a different string I was told I could be banned because I'm not "not part of the group" so I had "no right" to make a comment in regards to my view. Where does this sense of "ownership" come from on a free board? Here I am, a lawyer, taking time out of my day to help people who really need it, and these "long timers" want to run me off, just because I happen to oppose how they treat people.

The sad part, if a poster is female, there seems to be an immediate aura of "you are only out to screw the guy" and it is very well noticed in the difference in tone of the responses to questions. Just because I choose to treat the poster with respect and answer the question based on just the qestion, as it should be, my credibility comes into question. Give me a break.

It is perfectly fine and wonderful to be an advocate for a cause, but if you want to be an advice giver, sometimes you have to drop the attitude and answer the question, regardless of the gender of the poster. You should automatically assume they know less than you do, otherwise, why would they be posting?

Now I'm sorry, but if you have never been divorced, never known anyone who has, what business would you have to know anything about law or the courts or bias? I have had probably well over 300 female divorce/custody clients and out of all of them maybe five or six came into my office with the intention of only being out to screw the guy for all he was worth and keep him from the kids on purpose. I don't advocate that behavior, but A LOT of lawyers do. And who are these women told to trust? THIER LAWYERS. They do what they are told, and unfortunately, a lot of lawyers tell these people to "work the system", and they do it, like sheep, because for a lot of lawyers, it is all about the billable hours.

My sympathy towards women, and how they get treated on some of these boards, does not, in any way or form reflect my opinion on the rights of fathers/NCP's. Nor my opinion on child support reform. Or any of the other legal issues surrounding divorce/custody., but they would like to twist it to be to discredit me. Sad.

I just feel some of these long time posters are misplacing thier anger/strong feelings of what is "right" onto people who don't deserve it. Look at the other boards on this huge site. None of them get nearly as catty, if at all, than here. Says a lot about the people who are the "frequent fliers". I originally came to this site to post mainly on the business law area, since that is what I do now, but since I have a background in family law, and saw how unbelievably unsupportive some of these "long timers" were being...I felt compelled to bring my knowledge here as well. And to let people know, there is no reason to be intimidated.

 

[JoandJa'smom]

*Clapping at everything you just said Business" You are so right as I have noticed the same thing going on here myslef and have been wondering why some of the posters answer the posts the way they do. Makes no sense to me.

JoandJa'smom

 

[mommymommy]

I have to agree with you Mr. Justice, I've made all of 3 or 4 posts and I already have a bad taste in my mouth about this board due to how I was treated.

Sheesh!

 

[Whyte Noise]

Most of the "regulars" that have been on this board a long time post the correct legal answers to the OP's questions. How the OP interprets them, is their business. The OP in this thread has her answer in VG's post to her. What was the OP's next post...?? "But, you don't understand! I had to beg him to be a father the first 3 years of his life!"

That's irrelevent. As Business said, the law is the law. And yes, in Missouri, until ruled otherwise by a court, BOTH parents have EQUAL rights to custody of the child. Plain and simple. VG gave her the answer she wanted, she didn't like it, and that's how all the other BS on this thread got started.

It's not just us "old hats" that come on with attitude. When new posters don't hear what they "want" they cop just as much of one with us. Like the OP did to VG in her second post on this thread. She wanted a "legal" answer to her "legal" question and she got it. That should have been the end of it. But, as for the posters question of "What can I do?" I'll answer that for her here as well...

Take it to court and get custody officially established. That's what you can do. That's what it's going to take to protect yourself from his threats. If you have a legal court order granting you custody of the child then he's only legally allowed to take the child on the days specified in that court order. Any other time he takes her, or if he keeps her, he could be in contempt. If you don't want to do it, then you'll have to keep living with his threats until one day he makes good on them. Then it will be too late.

EDIT: for mommymommy

Your other posts on this board were in another thread accusing a regular on here of trolling on another board, and this one above. When you come to a place with insinuations like that, have been told it wasn't the same person, still have that "tude" and say, "So, this isn't you?" and post a message from another board when LMSP already told you it wasn't her... were you expecting to be welcomed with open arms? Or did you specifically just come to this board to ask about our LMSP? I see no other posts by you asking any questions or giving any advice. And no other thread you've posted in other than these 2.

So, if you've been responded rudely to on THIS board, it's because you came here accusing someone of trolling on another board. You aren't going to get nice-nice answers when you do that.