Tuesday, July 25, 2006

ND Fathers' Rights Part 2

Hmm, apparently, blogger ate my last post. I wonder how that happened.

I had a post up here with links and stuff, but I'm not going to do all that research all over again. If it wasn't for the fact that I am using public computers, I'd back up all of my posts. But I'm not, so, *shrugs*.

Anyway, in my last entry I spoke of the Family Law Reform Initiative, and why I felt it was a poor piece of legislation. Today, I would like to write about the Shared Parenting Initiative which I'm told is a kinder, more mainstream version of Fathers' Rights Activism.

I must say, I don't like this one much better than flri. Yes, it has less immediately objectionable material, but SP still has the joint parenting presumption, which is not good for anyone around.

Here is what the problem with joint parenting presumption: it is completely not feasible and harmful for the child. In amicable divorces, the custody is decided out of court, and most of the time it’s a joint custody. Even in not-so-amicable divorces, most parents can put aside their personal problems for children's needs.

But in not-so-amicable divorces, or even worse, violent divorces, the presumption of joint custody is the most harmful thing you could do to the spouse/s and the children. To be a child, forced to witness your parents fight every week, or if not fight, be tense and snipping at each other and to be a child is hard, and just continues to be hard.

To see one parent live comfortably, maybe with a new family, while you spend the bulk of the time with the other, watching that parent try to make ends meet and you have to suffer the lack of income, is hard on a child. A child starts to wonder why they aren't important enough to get income, why they don't get some of the income of the other.

And then, we throw in people having lives. Today's economy means that parents will have to move, nine times out of ten, if they want to get a decent income. What then? Do you have a bi-coastal childhood? How do you get the money for all the travel the child has to do? What do you do when the child wants to go to a friend's birthday party, but oh no, that's the week they're supposed to be at their other house.

What about children who do not want to live with the secondary parent? What about the children who are scared to death of their secondary parent? What do you do then? Tell them to suck it up because their parents own them, and therefore have rights to them?

So who exactly is the presumption of joint custody helping? The children? The primary parent? It seems to me that the only person the presumption of joint custody is helping is the parent who didn't do any of the parenting labor. It seems to me that the secondary parent gets to mess with the lives of their children and ex-spouse.

I think the premise of joint custody is that both parents have a "right" to their children. I don't think you do. I think as parents, it is your responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the child, not what makes you the most comfortable. And I think the law should reflect that.

8 Comments:

At 7:56 AM, Anonymous Teddy said...

There's no text. Blogger might have deleted it or something. I see a title and an empty box where opinions would normally be.

Just letting you know.

 
At 4:25 PM, Blogger Goddess Cassandra said...

Thanks Teddy, I'll get right on that.

 
At 9:22 PM, Anonymous Rob said...

Here is what the problem with joint parenting presumption: it is completely not feasible and harmful for the child. In amicable divorces, the custody is decided out of court, and most of the time it’s a joint custody. Even in not-so-amicable divorces, most parents can put aside their personal problems for children's needs.

This makes me wonder if you're even familiar with ND family law, which is pretty specific on the fact that joint custody does not exist. One parent is custodial, the other parent has visitation.

I do not see where, in a situation where both parents are found to be fit in a court of law, why either should be denied custody. Even if a divorce is acrimonious, does that make one parent less fit to be a parent?

Most divorces that involve children tend to be 80% fighting over custody of the kids. Both parents see it as a prize to be won. Something to go to war over. The Shared Parenting Initiative tells parents that there is nothing to fight over. Unless one of the parents are found to be abusive or neglectful or what have you, both parents get custody.

This has the end result of focusing the parents on how to be actual parents to their children.

Will this solve all our problems? No. Some people out there are jerks and are going to try and work the system to their advantage (putting their kids in the back seat in the process) regardless of what happens. But what Shared Parenting does do is make the system more equitable by recognizing that, in absence of evidence proving one parent unfit, both parents are important to a child.

But in not-so-amicable divorces, or even worse, violent divorces, the presumption of joint custody is the most harmful thing you could do to the spouse/s and the children. To be a child, forced to witness your parents fight every week, or if not fight, be tense and snipping at each other and to be a child is hard, and just continues to be hard.

Divorces are hard period. It is never easy for a child to witness his/her parents splitting up. But is your solution to this really to give one parent an edge over the other so that he/she can use the kids as a weapon against the other?

Do you have any idea how hard it is to be a non-custodial parent who loves his child but doesn't get to be a father to that child because the mother has custody and uses it in a vindictive manner?

The 14th amendment of the Constituion requires that all citizens get equal protection under the law. Why, then, should a fit parent be denied custody of his/her children simply because the court is required to choose one parent or the other?

To see one parent live comfortably, maybe with a new family, while you spend the bulk of the time with the other, watching that parent try to make ends meet and you have to suffer the lack of income, is hard on a child. A child starts to wonder why they aren't important enough to get income, why they don't get some of the income of the other.

Again, your solution to this is to grant one fit parent custody over the other fit parent simply on a whim?

Nobody is denying that divorce and visitation are hard, but that fact isn't justification for choosing one parent over another.


What about children who do not want to live with the secondary parent? What about the children who are scared to death of their secondary parent? What do you do then? Tell them to suck it up because their parents own them, and therefore have rights to them?


Past a certain age (I'm forgetting what age, but ND law has it set specifically) a child's opinion on visitation and custody can be considered by a judge. The Shared Parenting Intiative would not change that.

Children do have rights, and if a child is scared of one of the parents for good reason the courts would still have plenty of latitude to consider why the child is scared and whether or not that is a basis for denial of custody.

So who exactly is the presumption of joint custody helping? The children? The primary parent? It seems to me that the only person the presumption of joint custody is helping is the parent who didn't do any of the parenting labor. It seems to me that the secondary parent gets to mess with the lives of their children and ex-spouse.

Secondary parent? I cannot help, considering what I have read of your unfortunate relationship with your father, that you are speaking of fathers when you say the "secondary parent."

Tell me this: Why should a father who is loving and not neglectful or abusive or in any other way unfit be considered secondary to the mother? You may want to project your unhappy experience onto every other divorce situation that occurs, but the truth of the matter is that most fathers are not abusive or neglectful and have a keen interest in seeing their children.

You talk of the secondary parent being able to "mess with" the lives of the child and the primary parent. Tell me, what is stopping the primary parent now from using custody of the children to "mess with" what you call the "secondary parent?" Nothing.

That's got to change. You yourself have admitted that the optimal situation for a child is to have both parents involved in his/her life. So why then do you support a system that discourages the "secondary parent" from acting as a primary parent?

I suspect that it's because your father wasn't good to you, and so you think that all fathers in a divorce aren't good to their children.

I think the premise of joint custody is that both parents have a "right" to their children. I don't think you do. I think as parents, it is your responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the child, not what makes you the most comfortable. And I think the law should reflect that.

Again, you yourself have indicated that you believe having both parents involved in a child's life is the optimal situation. If you truly believe that, why on would you support a system that encourages single-parent parenting?

Again, I think you're letting your personal situation and certain pre-conceived notions cloud your judgment.

 
At 12:28 AM, Blogger Goddess Cassandra said...

I am passingly familiar with custody: and joint physical custody does exsist (one of my classmates growing up was a child of it).

If a divorce is acromonious, it does make the couple unfit parents. You either find a way to not fight in front of the children, not bash the other parent in front of the children, and come to some sort of consensus on how to raise the children, or one of the parents will be removed.

Divorces are not always hard: some of them are quite amicable, some of them are the better of the two options (living in a crappy marriage or divorce) and the Shared Parenting Initiative does use the children as a weapon: the spouses HAVE to be in contact with each other. There is no escaping their association. That means if someone is abusive, they get an avenue to continue being abusive.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to be a non-custodial parent who loves his child but doesn't get to be a father to that child because the mother has custody and uses it in a vindictive manner?

I imagine just as hard as a father who would like to be able to be able to take care of his kids better but can't because the child support payment is late again.
And I love how it's a "father" getting screwed over by the courts and his ex: you have no pretention about what you think the scenario is, do you? Just bitchy women trying to scam the fortune that is child support from poor men. Yep: that's it: can't trust them women folk.

Again, your solution to this is to grant one fit parent custody over the other fit parent simply on a whim?

What "whim" are you refering to? The courts go to great lengthes to determine who the primary caregiver is. It is true that it goes to the mother more often than not, but that's because, more often than not, the primary caregiver IS the mother. It's not just a matter of who spends the most time with the child, it is also things like "Who does the child go to when they need advice?" "Who makes the doctors appointments?" "Who goes to the parent-teacher conferences?" "Who goes and gets the child when they are sick at school?" This isn't just pulled out of the sky.

Secondary parent? I cannot help, considering what I have read of your unfortunate relationship with your father, that you are speaking of fathers when you say the "secondary parent."

I did not say fathers, nor did I mean to imply fathers when I made the statement. The language was INTENTIONALLY gender-nuetral. One of my friend has a mother who is a horrible influence on her and her siblings lives: she would be considered the secondary parent. "Secondary" was meant as opposed to "primary".

Tell me this: Why should a father who is loving and not neglectful or abusive or in any other way unfit be considered secondary to the mother? You may want to project your unhappy experience onto every other divorce situation that occurs, but the truth of the matter is that most fathers are not abusive or neglectful and have a keen interest in seeing their children.

Again, I did NOT say father or mother. I said "parent". And I think the standard for "good" parent shouldn't be "Not neglectful or abusive". "Not neglectful or abusive" is the LOWEST standard of parenthood. Who gets custody should be who is the better parent, not who is a not-horrible parent.

That's got to change. You yourself have admitted that the optimal situation for a child is to have both parents involved in his/her life. So why then do you support a system that discourages the "secondary parent" from acting as a primary parent?

That is not true. I think the optimal situation is when a child is loved by as many people as posible who CAN GET ALONG in their lives. If they cannot get along, it doesn't matter if they love them more than life itself: all you'll have is a child stuck in a power struggle between two adults.

I suspect that it's because your father wasn't good to you, and so you think that all fathers in a divorce aren't good to their children.

I would ask you to refrain from silly armchair pop pyschology. My language was gender nuetral: I've seen plenty of horrible mothers just as I've seen plenty of horrible fathers, and I've seen plenty of good mothers and fathers. This post actually has nothing to do with my situation, as both of my parents are "happily" married, and, as far as I know, my father "loves" me.

Again, I think you're letting your personal situation and certain pre-conceived notions cloud your judgment.

Considering your previous statement about fathers, I'm thinking this may be projection.

 
At 8:17 AM, Anonymous rob said...

I am passingly familiar with custody: and joint physical custody does exsist (one of my classmates growing up was a child of it).

Actually, it doesn't at all. Not in ND. In ND one parent has custody, the other has visitation. Perhaps your friend has what is effectively join custody with both parents cooperating, but that is not something that can be enforced under current law.

If a divorce is acromonious, it does make the couple unfit parents. You either find a way to not fight in front of the children, not bash the other parent in front of the children, and come to some sort of consensus on how to raise the children, or one of the parents will be removed.

And yet, that's not how it works. Consider my situation. I got divorced because my ex-wife ran up $10,000 of credit card debt in our name that I wasn't aware of. She was spending money faster than I could make it and had no interest in stopping. So, we got divorced. By default the courts awarded custody to her (since they had to pick one of us) and I got visitation. She now does everything she can to hinder my seeing my daughter.

Is this right? Am I an unfit parent because my ex-wife couldn't control her spending and put us on a course to financial ruin? Because my ex-wife feels vindictive towards me is it right that she deny my child access to her father?

No, it's not right at all. Whatever my problems with my ex-wife, I am still my child's father.

Divorces are not always hard: some of them are quite amicable, some of them are the better of the two options (living in a crappy marriage or divorce) and the Shared Parenting Initiative does use the children as a weapon: the spouses HAVE to be in contact with each other. There is no escaping their association. That means if someone is abusive, they get an avenue to continue being abusive.

Baloney. The Shared Parenting Initiative allows that one parent can be denied custody if he/she is abusive. Period. IF the parent truly is abusive custody can be pulled. Outside of that, yes the parents are still required to maintain a certain level of contact to coordinate visitation, etc. Yes, that will probably be hard, but it is in the best interest of the child to have both parents in his/her life. You've admitted that yourself.


I imagine just as hard as a father who would like to be able to be able to take care of his kids better but can't because the child support payment is late again.
And I love how it's a "father" getting screwed over by the courts and his ex: you have no pretention about what you think the scenario is, do you? Just bitchy women trying to scam the fortune that is child support from poor men. Yep: that's it: can't trust them women folk.


The reality is that custody defaults to the mother in 95% of divorces.

You can accuse me of being biased against mothers or ex-wives all you want, but I sure notice that you don't refrain from implying that most fathers don't pay their child support.

Perhaps, if you're going to accuse me of stereotyping, you should demur from stereotyping fathers.

I mean, it is absolutely hilarious that you mischaracterize my statements right after making an overly-broad statement about fathers and child support.

Again, I think you're letting your personal experiences and biases cloud your judgment on this. If you want to try and win this argument by insulting me or divorced fathers in general go ahead, but it's not going to work. Despite the "deadbeat dad" myth, the majority of fathers have a keen interest in being involved in their children's lives.

What "whim" are you refering to? The courts go to great lengthes to determine who the primary caregiver is. It is true that it goes to the mother more often than not, but that's because, more often than not, the primary caregiver IS the mother. It's not just a matter of who spends the most time with the child, it is also things like "Who does the child go to when they need advice?" "Who makes the doctors appointments?" "Who goes to the parent-teacher conferences?" "Who goes and gets the child when they are sick at school?" This isn't just pulled out of the sky.

You know, mothers and fathers have different roles when it comes to raising a child. Mothers tend to be more nurturing than fathers, I'll admit that, but that doesn't mean that a father's presence in a child's life is any less important.

Have you studied psychology at all? One of the causes of promiscuity in girls is the absence of a strong male presence in her childhood. A girl who grows up without that finds herself needing male attention later in life, and often seeks it out by acting overly sexual.

I could cite more examples, but I shouldn't need them. Again, you yourself have indicated that the optimal situation is to have both parents in a child's life. Why then should one parent be denied joint custody in the absence of any evidence proving that he/she is unfit?

Again, I did NOT say father or mother. I said "parent". And I think the standard for "good" parent shouldn't be "Not neglectful or abusive". "Not neglectful or abusive" is the LOWEST standard of parenthood. Who gets custody should be who is the better parent, not who is a not-horrible parent.

You can't make parents perfect. All you can ensure is that they are not abusive. I'm sorry that your parent(s) sucked. I don't see how that is justification for denying joint custody to parents on a whole, however.

That is not true. I think the optimal situation is when a child is loved by as many people as posible who CAN GET ALONG in their lives. If they cannot get along, it doesn't matter if they love them more than life itself: all you'll have is a child stuck in a power struggle between two adults.

So if a mother and father can't get along one of those two (usually the father) should get jettisoned from the child's life. That's what you're saying, and that's some pretty poor logic.

You cannot protect children from life. All kids are going to have to face conflict at one time or another. The best situationf for a child is to have a father and a mother fully involved in his/her life. Not to have one parent involved and the other parent relegated to no more importance than monthly child support payments.

I would ask you to refrain from silly armchair pop pyschology.

Fine. As soon as you refrain from letting your personal experience color your judgment of divorce situations in general.

 
At 8:48 AM, Blogger Goddess Cassandra said...

And yet, that's not how it works. Consider my situation. I got divorced because my ex-wife ran up $10,000 of credit card debt in our name that I wasn't aware of. She was spending money faster than I could make it and had no interest in stopping. So, we got divorced. By default the courts awarded custody to her (since they had to pick one of us) and I got visitation. She now does everything she can to hinder my seeing my daughter.

Is this right? Am I an unfit parent because my ex-wife couldn't control her spending and put us on a course to financial ruin? Because my ex-wife feels vindictive towards me is it right that she deny my child access to her father?

No, it's not right at all. Whatever my problems with my ex-wife, I am still my child's father.


"Anecdote" does not data make. And I highly, highly doubt that this is the full story: what exactly would her motivation be for denying her daughter her father? Pure vindictiveness? Why? And there are too many gender stereotypes in there: my bs meter is pinging.

Baloney. The Shared Parenting Initiative allows that one parent can be denied custody if he/she is abusive. Period. IF the parent truly is abusive custody can be pulled. Outside of that, yes the parents are still required to maintain a certain level of contact to coordinate visitation, etc. Yes, that will probably be hard, but it is in the best interest of the child to have both parents in his/her life. You've admitted that yourself.

STOP SAYING THAT. I said no such thing. I said that IF both parents can get along, it is the best intrest of the child to have both parents in his or her life. Otherwise, it is not the de facto best intrest for a child to have both parents in his/her life.

The reality is that custody defaults to the mother in 95% of divorces.

The court defaults to no one. You have to prove who the primary caregiver is. And I do not know what the North Dakota statistic is, but nation-wide it's only 70% women who get primary custody, not 95.

You can accuse me of being biased against mothers or ex-wives all you want, but I sure notice that you don't refrain from implying that most fathers don't pay their child support.

I never implied it. The ONLY people I said that I think they don't pay their child support were the people in the flri. Quit trying to put words in my mouth that are not there.

I mean, it is absolutely hilarious that you mischaracterize my statements right after making an overly-broad statement about fathers and child support.

Again, I think you're letting your personal experiences and biases cloud your judgment on this. If you want to try and win this argument by insulting me or divorced fathers in general go ahead, but it's not going to work. Despite the "deadbeat dad" myth, the majority of fathers have a keen interest in being involved in their children's lives.


I find it interesting that you misread my quote. You said "Do you have any idea how hard it is to be a non-custodial parent who loves his child but doesn't get to be a father to that child because the mother has custody and uses it in a vindictive manner?"

My response was:

"I imagine just as hard as a father who would like to be able to be able to take care of his kids better but can't because the child support payment is late again."

In my given scenario, it is a deadbeat mother. You keep trying to claim personal bias, but you know something? My language is nuetral, yours is the one that keeps relying on your personal experience.

You know, mothers and fathers have different roles when it comes to raising a child. Mothers tend to be more nurturing than fathers, I'll admit that, but that doesn't mean that a father's presence in a child's life is any less important

No, actually, I don't know that. I don't support or believe in gender roles. I believe in which parent shows that they actually care about their children: and that's what determining the primary parent does.

Have you studied psychology at all?

Yes.

One of the causes of promiscuity in girls is the absence of a strong male presence in her childhood. A girl who grows up without that finds herself needing male attention later in life, and often seeks it out by acting overly sexual.

But apparently you haven't. There is a coorelation between not having a father and teen pregnancy, but that has not been controlled for other factors (such as poverty) and it doesn't necessarily address sex (there is such a thing as birth control). It's been said before, but it bares repeating: coorelation does not equal causation. And I find it funny that you think women being sexual is such a bad thing.

You can't make parents perfect. All you can ensure is that they are not abusive. I'm sorry that your parent(s) sucked. I don't see how that is justification for denying joint custody to parents on a whole, however.

But you can decide which one is actually doing the work of parenting. And, again, this is NOT about me. I never had to deal with custody or divorce: my parents are still married. This isn't MY personal experience that is coloring my worldview, Mr. I-have-such-a-vindictive-ex-wife.

So if a mother and father can't get along one of those two (usually the father) should get jettisoned from the child's life. That's what you're saying, and that's some pretty poor logic.

Why is minimizing conflict in a child's life seen as poor logic? And it shouldn't be "usually the father". I think it's horrible that women are the primary caregiver a majority of the time because it means men aren't ponying up when it comes to their parenting responsibilities. It doesn't seem that hard to take an intrest in your kids life. (NOTE: taking an intrest means more than "not abusing them").

You cannot protect children from life. All kids are going to have to face conflict at one time or another.

All children will eventually see conflict, but it is best to minimize that at every oppurtunity one has. Why add MORE conflict to a chid's life? And this framing doesn't even begin to address logistics: what do you do with parents that are geographically far away? How is this supposed to work in the practical sense? What are you supposed to do when the parents cannot agree on what is best for the child (such as in cases of religion, schooling, extracurriculars, displine, the list goes on and on).

The best situationf for a child is to have a father and a mother fully involved in his/her life. Not to have one parent involved and the other parent relegated to no more importance than monthly child support payments.

Prove it.

 
At 1:37 PM, Anonymous Rob said...

"Anecdote" does not data make. And I highly, highly doubt that this is the full story: what exactly would her motivation be for denying her daughter her father? Pure vindictiveness? Why? And there are too many gender stereotypes in there: my bs meter is pinging.

So...you're calling me a liar now?

Don't want my personal expereinces with the ND family law system? Fine. All I'm telling you is that under ND law one parent gets custody, the other parent gets visitation.

If both parents are fit, why should either be denied custody?

STOP SAYING THAT. I said no such thing. I said that IF both parents can get along, it is the best intrest of the child to have both parents in his or her life. Otherwise, it is not the de facto best intrest for a child to have both parents in his/her life.

Yet, the current system doesn't encourage parents to get along. It encourages them to fight for custody of their children.

If we approacht he situation differently, saying that custody of the children belongs to both parents by default and that there is nothing to fight over, I suspect that there will be less acrimony.

My response was:

"I imagine just as hard as a father who would like to be able to be able to take care of his kids better but can't because the child support payment is late again."

In my given scenario, it is a deadbeat mother. You keep trying to claim personal bias, but you know something? My language is nuetral, yours is the one that keeps relying on your personal experience.


I did misread your comment, so I apologize for that, but you are hardly neutral.

Unless you consider comments like "these guys just want to get out of paying their damn child support" neutral (see your Grand Forks Fair post).

No, actually, I don't know that. I don't support or believe in gender roles. I believe in which parent shows that they actually care about their children: and that's what determining the primary parent does.

Spare me the feminist rhetoric. What you believe and what is, in fact, reality seem to bear little relation to one another.

There is a coorelation between not having a father and teen pregnancy, but that has not been controlled for other factors (such as poverty) and it doesn't necessarily address sex (there is such a thing as birth control). It's been said before, but it bares repeating: correlation does not equal causation. And I find it funny that you think women being sexual is such a bad thing.

I actually have no problem with women being sexual. I have a problem with underage girls being promiscuous.

But my point was that a father's influence is every bit as important than a mother's, if different in practice and nature.

But you can decide which one is actually doing the work of parenting. And, again, this is NOT about me. I never had to deal with custody or divorce: my parents are still married. This isn't MY personal experience that is coloring my worldview, Mr. I-have-such-a-vindictive-ex-wife.

Being caustic isn't very constructive.

I still don't understand why, in the case of two adequate parents, custody has to be split at all. Your reasoning for this seems to be along the lines of "Because it might be hard for parents to work out visitation and such."

Which plays nicely into your stance on abortion. Having a kid is hard, so just kill it right? Being parents is hard, so just eject one from the equation right?

Why is minimizing conflict in a child's life seen as poor logic? And it shouldn't be "usually the father". I think it's horrible that women are the primary caregiver a majority of the time because it means men aren't ponying up when it comes to their parenting responsibilities. It doesn't seem that hard to take an intrest in your kids life. (NOTE: taking an intrest means more than "not abusing them").

I no you don't subscribe to traditional gender roles, but those roles do play a part in a lot of marriages.

What if we have a marriage where the father works and the mother stays at home and cares for the kids. Then the couple gets divorced. Obviously the mother has been the primary caregiver since she's been at home all the time, but is that fair to the father? (flip the mother father roles around if that makes you feel more comfortable)

Both parents were providing for their children's needs. The mother with feeding, laundry, etc. The father by working to pay for the food and the laundry detergent.

Why, in the absence of evidence as to the unfitness of either parent, should the mother or the father be denied joint custody?

<All children will eventually see conflict, but it is best to minimize that at every oppurtunity one has. Why add MORE conflict to a chid's life? And this framing doesn't even begin to address logistics: what do you do with parents that are geographically far away? How is this supposed to work in the practical sense? What are you supposed to do when the parents cannot agree on what is best for the child (such as in cases of religion, schooling, extracurriculars, displine, the list goes on and on).

Those are problems the parents are going to have to work on together. I know the idea of having to do the responsible thing and actually work at being parents is icky to you, but solving these problems by simply relegating one parent or the other to visitation only status isn't an answer either.

It is in the best interest of the children for parents to find middle ground on these issues, not for one parent to arbitrarily be awarded full custody so that the issues can be avoided.

Prove it.

Prove what? That the current system relegates fathers to no more importance than child support payments?

Consider this: If my ex-wife decides to violate the courts order and withhold my child from me during my visitation I have to hire a laywer, go in front of a judge and beg him to compel her to let me see my daughter. This will likely take multiple hearings and cost me thousands of dollars.

Yet if I miss a child support payment the Child Support Enforcement division will be all over me. Nasty letters. Hits to my credit rating. Withholding hunting licenses. Letters to my employer all sorts of stuff. (Please note, before you post any snide comments) that I have never once missed a child support payment, though I was late once thanks to a check getting lost in the mail).

As for both parents being involved with a child being the best situation for him her, here are a couple of links off the top of my head to some studies that prove just that.

 
At 1:33 PM, Anonymous doubt it said...

rob, i doubt she will ever see anything your way.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home