Conference quark::mennotes

    The PC term "you can't legislate morality" is true in a sense.  No
    amount of laws will generate morality in our society.  No amount
    of police force can enforce the morality of a society.  That control
    must come from within each individual as to what is right and what
    is wrong.  

    We've gotten very much into a space of "every man does what is good 
    in his own eyes".  Nobody is responsible for their own actions because
    everybody is a victim, and when things go bad someone else should 
    foot the bill for the cost.

    fred();

    
    	I personally do not think much of her technique to get the point
    across. I believe it's damaging - perhaps not to an adult with their
    wits about them, but as a technique in general.
    
    	From my education, there are two kinds of shame. One is a "healthy"
    form, which is the kind that gives one his or her sense of limitation.
    As in Clint Eastwood's famous line "A man's gotta know his limitations".
    
    	The other kind is unhealthy or "toxic" shame. This kind of shame is
    debilitating. It's the kind that keeps a man or a woman bound and
    gagged, so to speak. It's the life-damaging kind, where someone who has
    this cannot function in their life, to any degree appropriate to live
    their own life. I have had some personal experience with this kind of
    shame, unfortunately. 
    
    	One of the mysteries of the alcoholic has been understood by
    considering this unhealthy type of shame. Sometimes, when a person
    drinks alcohol, a response can be that s/he becomes "shameless", in
    that s/he's dancing on table tops - and then perhaps turning them over.
    The alcohol is powerful enough to unlock some people from all-binding
    quality of the toxic shame they've been infected with. Of course, they
    wake up the next morning and feel further shame over realizing what
    they've done the night before - and the only cure to that feeling is 
    *more* of the chemical which perpetuates it. So it's cyclic.
    
    	But, where did it first come from? It came from people who, like this
    woman, put it upon another person to facilitate their own agenda. In
    the case of she and her radio show, her agenda is to make pointed how
    "shameless" society has become - and that is perhaps so. But what I think
    she does not realize is that her method is the very same thing as what
    generated it all in the first place! People putting shame upon other
    people to suit their own agenda. Specifically within the parent-child
    relationship everyone has, to one degree or another, growing up in this
    society.
    
    	It's generally known that part of the process of "Recovery" is to
    undo the shaming one has received so that one is no longer impaired
    by it, and then discover the sense of "healthy shame" or "limitation
    instinct" we all have *naturally*. Being the target of someone's
    further implied shameful judgements will NOT help any single person,
    nor the society at large. The most likely way to succeed reforming
    society in this regard is to encourage recovery among people so damaged
    and to stop creating more damaged people.
    
    	Unfortunately, that will require everyone to cop-to what is trully
    their accountability to what's on their agenda. My example would be a
    parent with a whiny unbehaved 5 year old at the checkout line. The
    adult person wants to get all these groceries rung up and get outta
    there, but there's this child holding up the works. A typical
    methodology to deal with this would be to manipulate the child to feel
    emotionally bad about himself (an action I say is analogous to "you mean 
    you're shacking up") over the disruption, so that the parent can
    continue unemcumbered.
    
    	Experiencing this enough, a child will feel bad about him or
    herself whenever s/he wants anything (exaggerating a bit here, but the
    basic idea is correct), while the parent can go about working their
    agenda no longer having to deal with "kid-wants" because those are now
    bound by shame within the son or daughter. The kid has now been
    infected with the beginnings of toxic shame and he/she now has the
    opportunity to get the parent back when s/he's a teenager. By going
    out, getting drunk or high and acting shameless.
    
    	There are other people who can put this together much better than I
    can; try "John Bradshaw" and some of his books/tapes.
    
    	Hope this helps,
    
    	Joe
    

    .2
    
    I don't think anyone, especially myself, would ever propose or condone
    what you refer to as "toxic" shame.  What I am talking about is just a
    basic sense of shame.
    
    A perfect example, once again refering to this program, was a woman who
    called in pregnant.  She calls in and says, "I'm not sure what to do. 
    I've this relationship and now am pregnant with an oops baby and he's
    not sure he wants to get married and have a family."  Well, she comes
    back with, "What do you mean 'an oops' baby.  You've been shacking up
    with this guy, he penetrated your body and now you're pregnent. 
    There's nothing oops about it."
    
    Well, you  could just about hear the wall come tumbling down.  This
    woman knew exactly what she was doing, and put in no nonsense terms she
    was now quite embarassed about her actions.
    
    I think it's way beyond time that we begin to directly address
    behaviors that are generally not acceptable.  Instead of creating an
    environment that "anything goes", we need to create an environment that
    says we will not accept anything that you do.  We understand how things
    happen, but we won't accept it nor make excuses for it.
    
    I think this can be extremely healthy in the long run.  It may be
    difficult immediately, but as people begin to understand there are
    things to be ashamed of, we may get less of that behavior.
    

    What I don't understand is why someone would call up this radio
    personality with a real problem?  It must be obvious that this
    radio person just slams callers in the teeth when they explain
    their problems:
    
    	Caller:  Um, yes, I have a question.  (Oh, excuse me.)
    
    	Radio Person:  Did you just fart?
    
    	Caller:  Um, no, I thought I had the hiccups.
    
    	Radio Person:  Oh, so you belched!  Greeeat.  What's your problem?
    
    	Caller:  Well, I have this girlfriend...
    
    	Radio Person:  You mean your <explitive deleted>....
    
    	Caller:  *sigh*  Well, I wouldn't call her that.  She's my
    		 girlfriend.  Anyway, we were making love last night...
    
    	Radio Person:  You mean you were doing the horizontal mombo,
    		       playing 'hide the salami', eh?
    
    	Caller:  No, actually, we were making love.  May I finish?????
    
    	Radio Person:  Oh, gee, I guess I'm not politically correct
    		       enough for you, YOU BIG LOSER.  <hangs up on the guy>
    
    	Radio Person:  Let's take our next caller, shall we?

    
    re .0
    
    When I grew up, we had what I guess you could describe as a 'sense of
    shame' which kept us youngun's somewhat in line. It was based on a
    common set of values and a common religious background in our neighbor-
    hood.
    
    As a kid, you really couldn't get away with much mischief because most
    of the parents knew each other and would definitely let your parents
    know if you were acting up. And your parents would return the favor.
    
    I can't say I'm worse off for it. But it's not the same anymore; the
    world has turned a few times since those days, and not always for the
    better.
    
    John

    .4
    
    It seems rather apparent from this entry that you haven't ever heard
    the program, nor address the question.  Your privilege.
    
    .5
    
    I think you may have hit on something.  It really was a lot different
    when everyone in the neighborhood took responsibility for what went on. 
    In addition, parents actually would do something if a neighbor let them
    know that their kid was doing something wrong.
    
    Today it seems that parents are very unwilling to accept negative
    information about their kid.  Too many times parents will go after the
    person providing the information as opposed to correcting their kid's
    behavior.  I think a lot of people figure it isn't worth it since the
    parents will probably ignore the information, yell at teh person
    providing it and the kid is going to do something to get back at the
    other person since the parents didn't so anything the first time. 
    Also, in many cases by the time the parents get home from work they are
    too busy, too tired or too indifferent to deal with bad news.
    
    Somehow the positive aspects of a concerned and involved neighborhood
    need to be rekindled.
    

    Maybe you all need to move out of suburbia.  My older neighborhood is
    much the same as the sort I grew up in.  There are plenty of older
    people at home, as well as the fact that we all work different shifts
    and know the kids and each other in the neighborhood.  
    
    

    .7
    
    Your neigboehood is much the same as prior years.  Well, depending on
    when you grew up, maybe it is.
    
    What would ahppen to the elderly person who reported a misbehaving kid
    to the police, parent, etc.  Would this person have no concerns and not
    be bothered by the kid?  Would the kid show up at the person's door
    with the parent(s) and apologize?  would the parent(s) make sure that
    no such similar thing happened again?
    
    I have very serious doubts that any of these are actually true.  If
    your neigborhood is like this, then you are indeed lucky and are in
    that 1% of areas where people actually respect norms of behavior.
    

    It works for us, but I don't live in a suburban wasteland.  I live in
    an older neighborhood with lots of long-term residents, lots of group
    homes, and lots of us who bought starter homes and decided to upgrade
    them and stay here, so we don't have to live with neighbors whose only
    interface to you is complaints to the homeowner's association, locked
    doors and whining about how dangerous the world is.  
    
    I won't say we don't have our problems, but most of them come from
    people who moved into the neighborhood recently and have the
    stereotypical suburban attitude of I come first and I don't want to
    know about Galdys's bad knees, the neighbors leg ulcers, and the other
    neighbor's pregnant daughter and what they need to get by.  if you know
    your neighbors you go a long way in having a neighborhood where people
    aren't frightened to be out in front after dark.
    
    meg

    
    re -1
    
    Your experience is not excluded from suburbia. Many suburban neighbor-
    hoods are the same way. I and my family lived in suburbia - actually
    the 'sticks' compared to what is considered metropolitan suburbia, and
    the neighborhood was full of concerned parents who pretty much shared
    the same views on raising kids. And this was 1982-1993, not 30 years
    ago.
    
    There is nothing implicitly wrong with suburbia, as you imply.
    
    John

Well gee, I've lived in both type of areas, Lawrence Ma and 
Londonderry NH. I've found people are the same everywhere.
Apparently that's news to some.

daryll

    Just heard another discussion on the radio program I referenced in the
    base note.  This one is a hoot.
    
    A woman decided she wanted to move from Chicago to California. 
    Unfortunately she was pregnant at the time.  The Baby's father had a
    court order entered to prevent the mother from taking the baby out of
    state.  the order was indeed issued.
    
    There are several groups complaining about a restriction on her
    freedom.  The response was that if you want to keep your freedom from a
    man, don't allow a man you are not married to deposit a baby in your
    body.  Once you do, then he has an interest in that baby as well.
    
    The clincher was when she really hit the nail on the head with the
    double standard being used today.  simply put, it was that we expect a
    man to support and care for the babies he creates and if he doesn't
    he's a deadbeat dad.  If he wants to take care of the baby and raise it
    properly then the mother's freedom is being taken away.
    
    This is going to be classic.
    

Re: .12

Disgusting.  And some people think we're living in a free country.

>    The response was that if you want to keep your freedom from a
>    man, don't allow a man you are not married to deposit a baby in your
>    body.

I strongly disagree with that viewpoint.

				-- Bob

    One of the double standards I find most outragous is:  When it comes
    to Custody, visitatiaion, any say in how the child is to be raised
    it is HER child, but when it comes to "child support" it is HIS
    child. 
    
    fred();

    
    re .13
    
>>    The response was that if you want to keep your freedom from a
>>    man, don't allow a man you are not married to deposit a baby in your
>>    body.
>
>I strongly disagree with that viewpoint.

    I don't know exactly how the statement was intended, but it _should_
    be true under a certain point of view.  Making a baby, accidently
    or not, should entail a certain loss of "freedom" for _both_ parents
    to support and care for the child, and to ensure that the child's
    right to have _both_ parents in its life is not impeeded whethere
    the parents are married or not.
    
    Unfortunately there are a lot of groups that think that only one parent
    should lose any freedom.
    
    fred();

Fred,

I believe that the freedom to travel is a basic human right.  Sure, it's
unfortunate if the mother and father live in different states, but I don't
think this should give the father veto power over the mother's decision to
move to California, any more than it should give the mother veto power
over the father's decision to move to Massachusetts.

				-- Bob

    
    re .17

    I believe a child has a basic right to have _both_ parents in its
    life.  If the mother moves out of state, then the mother should take
    resposibility to ensure that the rights of the child is not infringed.
    fred();

    You cannot tag mother for moving in the laws. You can restrict the
    movement of the child. I knew this law existed some 5/6 years ago.
    Donno what the status is today. 
    
    Either way, as said by a former lawyer, 'Its a problem of the late 20th
    century.' Yet, IF the movement is to give children the father figure
    someplace in its life. Moving out of state seems to inflict emotional
    wounds later on in the childs life... 
    
    back to bandages on the bleeding knuckles.
    
    

I think it's reasonable that if the mother has custody of the child and
moves out of state, that the father's support payments should be reduced
to compensate for his additional travel costs, assuming that he actually
does travel to visit the child.  I don't think it's reasonable for the
mother to be forced to live in the same state as the father.

				-- Bob

    Bob, I agree.
    
    Forcing the mother to live in a particular state almost amounts to
    putting her under house arrest.
    

Consider that it is quite common for child custody agreements to prohibit
the custodial parent from moving out of the area without the agreement of
the non-custodial parent.  Is this any different?  Since it would seem that
the father in this case was accepting paternal responsibility, I would hold
that he has a right to prevent his child from being permanently removed from
the area.

					Steve

    
    On place where most "mens rights" groups fall down is to present
    the issue as an issue of "child's rights".  The right of the _child_
    to have _both_ parents as part of his/her life.  If the NCP parent
    neglects or refuses to have contact with the child then that is 
    another issue.  But the forcible separation of a child and his/her
    parent was supposed to have gone out with the Emancipation
    Proclamation.

    Another real problem I lay at the feet of society is that in one
    case the "feminist" movement has been all too successful.  As men
    have been painted as lazy, slobbering, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, 
    _men_ as well as women have come to believe that the father is not a
    necessary part of a family (just keep those child support checks 
    coming).  We are now finding out different.

    fred();

>Consider that it is quite common for child custody agreements to prohibit
>the custodial parent from moving out of the area without the agreement of
>the non-custodial parent.  Is this any different?

It might be different if the custodial parent voluntarily agreed to the
restriction as part of a custody agreement.  I'm opposed to any
court-ordered restriction on the CP's right to live in the state of his or
her choice.

				-- Bob

Re: .23

>    On place where most "mens rights" groups fall down is to present
>    the issue as an issue of "child's rights".  The right of the _child_
>    to have _both_ parents as part of his/her life.  If the NCP parent
>    neglects or refuses to have contact with the child then that is 
>    another issue.

Why is that "another issue", Fred?  By your logic, if it's the child's
*right* to have both parents as part of his or her life, then why shouldn't
the NCP parent be *forced* to have contact with the child?

I believe that there should be a balance between the rights of the child
and the rights of each parent.

				-- Bob

    
    Is not a forcible confiscation of income to support people that you 
    may be forbidden or impeded to have any contact with a restriction
    of "freedom".  One other knock I have on society is the attitude
    that the CP has all "rights" and "freedoms" while the NCP as has
    only the "right" to fork over a sizable portion of income.  The
    same people who will complain about a woman's "freedom" being taken
    away if she sleeps with a guy will tell the guy "hey buddy, if you
    don't want your freedom taken away, then keep your pants zipped".

    fred();

    
>> Consider that it is quite common for child custody agreements to prohibit
>> the custodial parent from moving out of the area without the agreement of
>> the non-custodial parent.  Is this any different?
>
> It might be different if the custodial parent voluntarily agreed to the
> restriction as part of a custody agreement.
    
    That's not always the case.  The court can impose the restriction at
    the behest of the NCP.  But it's not that the CP is prohibited from
    moving; it's that the CP is prohibited from moving the child, or
    that if the CP wants to move the child the subject of custody will
    be re-opened by the court at that time.
    
    Yeah, it's a limitation of some freedoms.  It's also fair.
    
    
    Glenn
    
    

    re .25
    
>Why is that "another issue", Fred?  By your logic, if it's the child's
>*right* to have both parents as part of his or her life, then why shouldn't
>the NCP parent be *forced* to have contact with the child?
    
    It kind of follows on the same lines as your argument for "volunary
    agreement".  One the other hand, maybe he/she should be.  The last few
    times my ex has been in town _I_ have had to be the one to initiate
    visitation.  She, on the other hand, won't pay child support because,
    "She can't see the kids".
    
    fred();

>    One other knock I have on society is the attitude
>    that the CP has all "rights" and "freedoms" while the NCP as has
>    only the "right" to fork over a sizable portion of income.

That's not what I believe.  The NCP should have the right to visit his/her
children, except in where this would endanger the CP and/or children (e.g.
a rapist should have no right to visit his/her offspring).  I just don't
think the visitation rights of the NCP are more important than the CP's
right to travel.

				-- Bob

    
    re .29

>I just don't
>think the visitation rights of the NCP are more important than the CP's
>right to travel.

    There is an old saying that "your right to swing your fist ends at
    my nose".  Since the right to travel infringes on the rights of
    at least two other people, my opinion falls on the right of the
    child (if nothing else).  The very same right that is used to 
    justify the forcible confiscation of the property of the NCP, even
    though he/she may choose to or not allowed to exercise his/her
    other rights (because it is the child's right to have a standard
    of living.....).

    fred();

	  Bob, actually the orders generally state the custodial parent may
     not move _the child_ out of state without permission of the non-
     custodial parent or the court.  This protects the child from being
     arbitrarily deprived of the non-custodial parent's presence by the
     custodial parent.  This regrettable circumstance of arbitrary
     deprivation happens sufficiently frequently that such restrictions are
     part of most divorce orders and decrees.

	  Note there is no restriction placed upon the custodial parent's
     right to move -- just on the custodial parent's right to take the
     child with them.

	  This situation described in .12 is slightly different, as the
     child is currently inside one parent.  This makes restricting the
     parent's movement of the child without restricting the parent's own
     movement somewhat difficult.  However, decisions around custody are
     supposed to be for the benefit of the child, not of the parents.

				     Brian

>She, on the other hand, won't pay child support because, "She can't see
>the kids".

Since she's the NCP she should be forced to pay child support.  If she lives
far away from you the child support payments should be reduced to compensate
for her travel expenses, as long as she actually travels in order to see
her children (it doesn't sound like this happens very often.)

				-- Bob

Re: .31

>However, decisions around custody are supposed to be for the benefit of
>the child, not of the parents.

As I said, I think there should be a balance between the rights of the
children and the rights of the parents.

Anyway, before I get dragged too far into a never-ending debate, I'll
make the following disclaimer: I've never been in a divorce situation and
I've never been married.  I'm the kind of guy who, whenever I read some
outrageous news story about divorce and custody arrangements, say to
myself "There's another reason never to get married".  Divorce is a messy
business that I hope never to experience.

				-- Bob (happily single)

    
    
    >Since she's the NCP she should be forced to pay child support. 

    The court wouldn't do anything because she is "unemployed".  My
    response is, then where are the kids going to stay and what are they
    going to eat if/when they visit ( a real good question for more reason
    than one).  Which she uses to claim that she is not allowed to see the
    kids.  The upshot is that she is not unemployed, she just doesn't want
    to pay child support and will forgo visitation with her kids to justify
    it. (Reminder: I was the one who arranged visitation when it was
    feasable).

    fred();

    If the move to California would benefit the child (by providing the
    Mom with a much better income and providing the child with a better
    home environment in a safer area, etc.) - then does it really benefit
    the child to *force* the child to stay in Chicago no matter what?

    Also, what if the Mom marries someone else?  What if he and the Mom
    become the main bread-winners for this child (with the child support
    being a minor sum, compared to what they're doing)?

    Will the court make the new family stay in Chicago or face having to
    split up?

    I don't think it's fair to force anyone to live in a certain area
    (especially in a big city environment like Chicago.)

    Do think it is fair to denie a child visation from their dad? Do you
    think its fair to stop child support because a CP has taken the child
    away from the NCP?

>    Also, what if the Mom marries someone else?  What if he and the Mom
>    become the main bread-winners for this child (with the child support
>    being a minor sum, compared to what they're doing)?
    
    I guess I should re-visit with my lawyer on this one, the no-move
    limitation in my divorce decree.  Because all of the above also apply 
    to me, as a custodial father.  My freedoms are being restricted...
    
    Glenn
    

    Ok, you guys flushed me out again. 
    
    I'm probably going to go into a long rendition of how it's criminal to take
    the child out of state away from ANY parent. It's absolutly criminal.
    Too bad too sad, You got married, you got divorced. I hate to bring
    this up, but the kid has nothing to do with it. If you want to take the
    responsibility of having a child, then you have to be willing to give
    up a few things along the way. If that means that the child needs to be
    with in traveling distance from the NCP, so be it. We are going through
    this now. SHe took the child out of New Hampshire to move into a slum.
    This is where the child saw many things he didn't need to see at his
    young age, heard things and repeated things that make my hair curl to
    this day. That put the kid more than an hour 1/2 away from his, NCP.
    However, if her support payment was even a day late, the crap hit the
    fan..."so sorry, you're a loser and can't maintain a sense of self
    worth, doesn't mean you make the kid suffer also." so to alieviate the
    problem, NCP offered to take the child for a few months until the CP
    got back on her feet....that was met with much disgust and often nights
    of not knowing where the child was. NO WAY JOSE! if the mother can't
    leave the state, the father can't leave the state. That has been
    re-written in the custody battle we are facing. She has threatened to
    "disappear with his son"..yeah, I'd let her move out of state!NOT!!
    
    If the mother thinks that's restricting her freedom, too bad. You guys
    entered into an agreement when you got married, you voided that
    agreement when you got divorced.However, you made a custody agreement
    when you got divorced...in that agreement, it should ALWAY stipulate
    whether the parent can leave the state. I see it first hand. The kid
    was burnt out from traveling back and forth. For what. So she could
    bust the father conuolies..that was it. She lived in the slums. She
    worked under the table pulling in more than me and my SO make together
    in a week, collecting welfare and AFDC. But she couldn't afford to move
    back to NH so the child wouldn't be commuting back and forth. We could
    have cared less about us traveling, I worked 25 minutes away from where
    she lived, so I picked him up...she said no no no, "your associate" is
    not to pick him up anymore. Yeah, that was for the kid right! She spent
    all day driving around town with him then shuffling him off here and
    there. The last place we want him is in a car, increasing his chances
    of getting hurt.
    
    I see first hand what over an hour of commuting one way does to a
    child. It is totally unhealthy for them..And after all, in a marriage
    that has ended in divorce, the only thing you should have between you
    is the child and the child's best interest, not your petty differences
    and "your denying me freedom crap"...if you remove a child from a NCP
    by moving out of state, your denying that parent their child. Just
    because a woman births a child doesn't give them "ultimate rights" over
    the father, I doesn't mean they love the child more, worry more or work
    harder at bringing up the child. A parent is a parent. Doesn't mean one
    loves more than the other. 
    
    Try given a life times worth of love and affection in two weekends a
    month. How would some of the custodial mothers feel if they had to give
    their child up to the father and only see them every other weekend. 
    Our answer was, "how do you think i'm going to survive with out him
    around, you can't have him for more than four days, that's all I can
    deal with"......now she may loose him for more than that because she
    was thinking of herself, not her son. 

    Half hour commute isnt as bad as a 1.5 or a 2.5 as some I know. I use
    to blast from Merrimack NH to Kennybunk(sp) Maine. Meet mine at the
    Burger King there, give her money, collect Eva, hop in truck and zoom
    home that friday night. Kinda 3-3.5 hour up and back cause I would slow
    down the return ride. 99 miles one way from Nashua/Merrimack. Wonder if
    I could write a song about that. 
    
    

    I remember driving in pouring rain that turned into black ice. As I
    came back from a Maine run. I was zooming along rt 101, there was
    construction work being done on the Merrimack bridge that 101 cross's.
    And there was a bunch of cars in a tangle. There was spot lights and a
    crane with its hook over the side trying to fish out a car that went
    over and crashed into the ice. Nasty ride, glad it wasn't me....
    
    

    It's still possible that a move 'out of state' would be better for a
    child, though.

    If it meant the child *leaving* a slum, and moving to an area with
    better schools, better neighborhoods, more financial stability for
    the child's custodial parent, etc.

    It seems a bit short-sighted for a court to decide that the right of
    the non-custodial parent (to see the child) means more than the child's
    right to a better life elsewhere.

It's pretty hard for me to imagine any circumstance in which a child's
life would be better for losing regular, daily contact with a loving
parent.  In fact, impossible.  I question the priorities of anyone who
places financial gain ahead of parental involvement.

tim

    In this case, 'financial gain' means a better life for the child
    (i.e., better neighborhood, better schools, better opportunities
    to pursue activities that would benefit the child.)
    
    I guess I would question the priorities of a non-custodial parent 
    who might say, "No, s/he has to stay in the slums because it makes 
    it easier for me to visit with him/her."
    

    it also seems odd that if the cp is only providing 'slum' living
    conditions, but the ncp could provide a better home, that custody
    would not be granted to the ncp if pursued.  afterall, it it gives
    the child a better standard of living and better opportunities.....

    Ok, let's say that the child isn't currently living in a slum.
    
    Let's say that the child lives in a nice apartment in a big city
    where it isn't safe to go outside (and where the best schools are
    too expensive.)  The non-custodial parent lives in this big city,
    though.
    
    So the child has the opportunity to move someplace where s/he can
    engage in many outdoor activities and go to a great school, etc.
    
    Is the child's benefit more important than the feelings of the
    non-custodial parent?

    
    
    I grew up on a dust-bowl farm in S.E. Colorado.  One of eleven kids.
    We probably would have been financially richer if Mom had taken us
    all somewhere where we could have lived off welfare/food-stamps, but
    there _are_ worse things than growing up "poor".  The Menendez(sp)
    brother's family seemed to be fairly fixed financially.
    
    fred();

    reply .47
    
>    Is the child's benefit more important than the feelings of the
>    non-custodial parent?
    
    More acurately, do the benefits to the child offset the loss of
    a parent?
    
    fred();

    Which is more important:  the benefit to the child or the feelings
    of the non-custodial parent?
    
    If moving out of state would be better for the child, is it in the
    best interests of the child to require that the child live near the
    non-custodial parent?
    

        re .50

>    Which is more important:  the benefit to the child or the feelings
>    of the non-custodial parent?
>    
>    If moving out of state would be better for the child, is it in the
>    best interests of the child to require that the child live near the
>    non-custodial parent?

    Let's examine a corollary to that argument and ask if an NCP can
    provide a better life (even after child support) should not then,
    Custody of the child be shifted to the NCP?

    fred();

    No, I don't think children should go to the highest 'bidder'.
    Money should not be the deciding factor about who gets custody.
    
    Once a custody decision has been made, though, if the child's
    immediate environment could be made a lot better by moving out
    of state (and I'm suggesting that the 'out of state' environment
    is better than the non-custodial parent could provide in the
    current state) - then why not let the custodial parent and the
    child move?
    

    
>    No, I don't think children should go to the highest 'bidder'.
>    Money should not be the deciding factor about who gets custody.
    
    Why then should money be the deciding factor to allow the mother
    to move out of state?
    
    fred();

    Once custody has been decided, if the child had an opportunity for
    a better life in another state (which would be better than either
    parent could provide in the current state), then why not let the
    child have a better life elsewhere?
    
    Both parents live in a big city, for example, but the custodial
    parent has an opportunity to move where she and the child could
    afford to live in a real house (for a lot less than it costs
    to rent an apartment in the big city.)  The child would have a
    lot more chances to be involved in outdoor activities, etc.
    
    Why wouldn't the non-custodial parent be happy for the child to
    have this opportunity?

    
    re .54
    

>    Once custody has been decided, if the child had an opportunity for
>    a better life in another state (which would be better than either
>    parent could provide in the current state), then why not let the
>    child have a better life elsewhere?
    
    And after custody is decided, circumstances change that the NCP 
    would now be able to provide a better life, why should not custody
    be changed?
    
>    Why wouldn't the non-custodial parent be happy for the child to
>    have this opportunity?
    
    Why would not the CP be happy for the child to have more opportunity?
    
    fred();
    
    fred():

    and how does one decide that living in a bigger or nicer house or
    having more after school activities outweighs the loss of the 
    relationship the child has with the ncp? (assuming a constant and
    strong relationship has been established and maintained)
    
    I'm outta here, but one thot:
    
    Have Fred and his wife ever thought of joining Suzanne and her
    husband for dinner?  If not, I think we should have a drive to
    make this happen :-)  Who wants to volunteer to tape the session?

    If money were the most important thing involved in custody decisions,
    rich people could go 'shopping' for children in poor neighborhoods
    and take away any child they happened to like.  I'm not talking about
    custody decisions.
    
    I can easily imagine a situation where the child's immediate (custodial)
    family would provide a better life for the child elsewhere.  Why not
    let the family go?
    
    If the father happened to have custody, the same question applies.
    If the child would have better opportunities with the custodial parent
    elsewhere, why not let the family go?

    
>    Have Fred and his wife ever thought of joining Suzanne and her
>    husband for dinner?  If not, I think we should have a drive to
>    make this happen :-)  Who wants to volunteer to tape the session?
    
    Actually, there out of the four of us would probably get along ;^).
    fred();

    RE: .58  Fred
    
    > Actually, three out of the four of us would probably get along ;^).
    
    Don't be so hard on yourself, Fred.  :)
    
    Actually, I logged a support call with your group 6 years ago and
    you answered the call.  I found out (to my great surprise) that you
    actually sounded pleasant and human.  :)  (And you helped with the
    problem!!)

    
    re .57
    
>    I can easily imagine a situation where the child's immediate (custodial)
>    family would provide a better life for the child elsewhere.  Why not
>    let the family go?
    
    And I have been involved first hand in a situation where the NCP could,
    and has, provided a better life.  Why not let the custody change?
    
>    If the father happened to have custody, the same question applies.
>    If the child would have better opportunities with the custodial parent
>    elsewhere, why not let the family go?

    I have tried to address my notes generically as CP and NCP.
    
    fred();

>    Once custody has been decided, if the child had an opportunity for
>    a better life in another state (which would be better than either
>    parent could provide in the current state), then why not let the
>    child have a better life elsewhere?
    
    Anything is possible, on a case-by-case basis.  Often the courts
    have to decide these cases, which they generally will do based on
    the family situation in the here and now, and not on hypotheticals 
    around what might happen at some time in the future.  And sure,
    it might be true that the child will have a better life elsewhere.
    
    Maybe, just maybe, this judge in Chicago made a decision on what
    is best for this child, much to the outrage of some, including 
    perhaps the mother.  "What is best" does not necessarily mean
    "what Mom decides".  The issue as described in the original note
    is whether or not the pregnant mother has the inalienable right
    to move out of state with the unborn child.  My opinion is that
    she doesn't, or at least that she might have to return with the 
    child at some time if that's the better environment, in the eyes 
    of the court.
    
    
    glenn
    

    RE: .51  Glenn
    
    > Anything is possible, on a case-by-case basis. 
    
    Ok, this is what I wanted to know.
    
    Thank you.
    

    
    The answer is that this is another gigantic double standard.  The
    courts will allow divorce on a whim without regard for the relationship
    of the child and the NCP.  If it gets into court the judge will usually 
    allow the CP to move without regard to the relationship of the child
    and the NCP.  But CHANGE CUSTODY!, regardless of the opportunity of
    the child and/or the relationship of the child and the NCP and all the 
    victim-feminist groups within a 1000 miles will call for the judges 
    dismissal because he's a male chauvinistic pig.

    fred();

I know what financial gain means.  My point is that frequent, regular
parental involvement is more important.  Better to live in a slum with
two parents then in suburbia without one.  It's a simple value
judgement: love is more important than money.  

tim

    Deciding custody based on money alone is tantamount to giving the
    child to the highest bidder.  
    
    Most people wouldn't give their children up to movie stars to adopt
    simply because these other people have more money.
    
    Once the child is in a family situation, though, I'd like to think
    that the courts will make decisions about where the family can live
    on a 'case by case' basis.  Glenn says they do.  (Good.)
    

    
    >> Anything is possible, on a case-by-case basis. 
    >
    > Ok, this is what I wanted to know.
    
    I guess what bothers me is an immediate reaction such as "this sounds 
    like a law for the Dad" when as you argue later in the hypothetical 
    it's as likely as not (without having the facts) that the child is 
    better off in Chicago.  What's your opinion of a pregnant mother's 
    "right" to move with the child, uncontested?
    
    Glenn
     
                      

    
>    Deciding custody based on money alone is tantamount to giving the
>    child to the highest bidder.  
    
    Then why is it ok to allow a child to be separated even further
    from it's NCP parent simply for financial gain?
    
    fred();

    Once the custody has been decided, then the family (parent and child)
    want to live the best way they can, for the child's sake.
    
    If this better life is elsewhere, why not let the family go?
    

    >    If this better life is elsewhere, why not let the family go?
    
    I see.  If the CP can provide a "better" life elswhere, then the 
    NCP should "take it like a man", but if the if the NCP can provide
    a better life, well,  once custody is decided, all emotional and
    legal rights to the child are forever severed.   Hmmm, seems like there's
    something wrong with this picture.
    
    fred();

Again, this isn't a comparison of what's better for the child(ren) over
what's better for either parent - custodial or non.  It's quite
focussed: what's better for the child(ren) - financial gain or ongoing
parental involvement with BOTH parents.  I say it's no contest.  I think
a custodial parent who chooses to move far away from the non-custodial
parent for reasons of financial gain, irregardless of the
rationalitation that the child(ren) will benefit by it, is selfish and
deserves to have their custodial status re-considered, if not simple
revoked.

Such a move is not in the best interest of the children, no matter how
much financial gain is involved.  Find a better way - a less selfish
one, perhaps.

If two parents are otherwise equally qualified and willing to assume the
responsibility of custody, but one has better finances than the other, I
see no problem with custody being awarded to the better "heeled" parent.
 Why not?  The child stands to benefit, all things being equal.  The
fact that women would tend to be less favored, as opposed to the current
situation where they tend to be more favored based solely on sexism, is
imho more fair.  At least there would be a decent reason for the choice,
and not simple gender bias.  Maybe fewer women would have such a
cavalier attitude about visitation and involvement of BOTH parents...and
such sexist attitudes about the sincerity of men as parents.

tim

    'All emotional and legal rights' aren't severed simply because a child
    lives at a distance from a parent.
    
    Some children (and some parents) travel great distances to visit each
    other.  In some divorced families, it's simply unavoidable (because
    better 'opportunities' can come up for EITHER parent.)
    
    I'm not talking about money here.  I'm talking about the child's
    living environment with the custodial parent.

    re .71
    
    
>    I'm not talking about money here.  I'm talking about the child's
>    living environment with the custodial parent.

    So am I 
    
    fred();

|    'All emotional and legal rights' aren't severed simply because a child
|    lives at a distance from a parent.

Not all.  But most.
   
|    Some children (and some parents) travel great distances to visit each
|    other.  In some divorced families, it's simply unavoidable (because
|    better 'opportunities' can come up for EITHER parent.)

Just because it happens doesn't make it right.  I don't think it is.
   
|    I'm not talking about money here.  I'm talking about the child's
|    living environment with the custodial parent.

What's the difference?

tim

    RE: .70  Tim

    > I think a custodial parent who chooses to move far away from the 
    > non-custodial parent for reasons of financial gain, irregardless 
    > of the rationalitation that the child(ren) will benefit by it, 
    > is selfish and deserves to have their custodial status re-considered, 
    > if not simple revoked. 

    If you're being consistent, then I'll bet that you also believe that
    a non-custodial parent who moves away should be denied custody COMPLETELY.
                                                            
    You would probably support a child's decision to refuse to visit such
    a parent, right?  (We had a note awhile back about a child being put
    in jail because she refused to fly to see her father.)  I bet you
    support her position, right?

    > If two parents are otherwise equally qualified and willing to assume the
    > responsibility of custody, but one has better finances than the other, I
    > see no problem with custody being awarded to the better "heeled" parent.
    > Why not?  The child stands to benefit, all things being equal.

    Why not give your child to a rich movie star, right?  A lot of movie
    stars are qualified to raise children.

    > The fact that women would tend to be less favored, as opposed to the 
    > current situation where they tend to be more favored based solely on 
    > sexism, is imho more fair.  At least there would be a decent reason 
    > for the choice, and not simple gender bias. 

    Being the 'highest bidder' for a child is not a decent basis for a
    custody decision.

    Women get custody most of the time because society uses women's 'more
    important' role in the home as an excuse to keep things unequal for
    women in the workplace.

    Up until this century, men were pretty much guaranteed custody of
    children because women without husbands had no chance at all of
    making it in the world.  Custody models changed in the early part
    of this century when it was argued that a nursing mother had a closer
    physical/emotional bond with a young baby than a father did.

    If we went back to a situation of custody going to the person with
    the most money, children's emotional needs would be LOST as the couple
    battled to 'outdo' each other financially.  (How's that for selfish?)
    Also, it would give our male-dominated society an ever bigger reason 
    to keep things unequal in the workplace.

    
    re .73
    
>What's the difference?
    
    Whatsthematterwithyou Tim, don't you know a father could not _possibly_
    provide anything for a child other than money.
    
    fred();

    RE: .73  Tim
    
    >> I'm not talking about money here.  I'm talking about the child's
    >> living environment with the custodial parent.

    > What's the difference?
    
    You may not realize this, but the 'cost of living' varies GREATLY
    in different parts of the country.
    
    Where I live, you could buy a pretty spectacular home for $200,000.
    In some parts of the country, $200,000 doesn't buy much.

|    If you're being consistent, then I'll bet that you also believe that
|    a non-custodial parent who moves away should be denied custody
|COMPLETELY.
                                                            
1.) there's nothing consistent about that.  In fact it's irrational.

2.) I think it's really cute how you put words in my mouth, and then argue
with yourself.  Comical, but not much of a debating tactic.

3.) Try to pay attention.  Just respond to what I actually say.  I said,
paraphrasing myself so that perhaps this time you'll get it: all other
things being equal, the parent with the better finances has a better
argument for custody.  Focus on the "all other things being equal" part.
Ignore gender.

|    >> I'm not talking about money here.  I'm talking about the child's
|    >> living environment with the custodial parent.
|
|    > What's the difference?
|    
|    You may not realize this, but the 'cost of living' varies GREATLY
|    in different parts of the country.

Oh, I see.  Then it really is bout money.  That's what I thought.

Thanks,

tim

    If we ever go to a custody model where the richer parent wins, then
    I hope that no one will ever DARE suggest to a woman that she spend
    years of her life 'at home' raising kids.  It would put her seriously
    behind in the race for the almighty dollar.
    
    Women might tend to marry poor men so that they could get custody
    in case of divorce (even if it meant that the family would never
    do very well in general.)          

    RE: .77  Tim
    
    >>> I think a custodial parent who chooses to move far away from the 
    >>> non-custodial parent for reasons of financial gain, irregardless 
    >>> of the rationalitation that the child(ren) will benefit by it, 
    >>> is selfish and deserves to have their custodial status re-considered, 
    >>> if not simple revoked. 
                                       
    >> If you're being consistent, then I'll bet that you also believe that
    >> a non-custodial parent who moves away should be denied custody
    >> [actually, I meant 'visitation' here] COMPLETELY.
                                                            
    > 1.) there's nothing consistent about that.  In fact it's irrational.
    
    Stop playing into my hands like this, Tim.  (I knew that you'd think
    it was horrid for a custodial parent - i.e., woman - to move away,
    but that you'd also think it was perfectly fine for a non-custodial
    parent - i.e., man - to move away.)

>    Women get custody most of the time because society uses women's 'more
>    important' role in the home as an excuse to keep things unequal for
>    women in the workplace.
    
    So these divorce-court judges are actually in with the 
    male-dominated agenda for the workplace?  Surreptitiously, as 
    an appeasement thing, to keep us distracted from the injustices
    in sex discrimination?
    
    Women get custody most of the time because they want it more, in 
    general.  Plain and simple.  But when that's not the case, I'll
    posit that the many injustices where the child's best interests 
    are not served occur simply because the court takes the easy way
    out, and not for political purposes. 
    
    glenn
    

>    Being the 'highest bidder' for a child is not a decent basis for a
>    custody decision.
    
    If so, then a better standard of living is not a reasonable basis
    for breaking up a family. (Where "family" is here defined as two
    households comprising CP+child and NCP+visitation rights.)
    
    As long as the NCP has visitation rights, the set of CP, NCP, and
    child should be viewed as a continuing family (albeit disjointly
    located) with continuing responsibilities to protect what's left of
    the "union".
    
    Whether the CP and NCP view each other as part of a unit, the child
    generally can be expected to view itself as part of the sets
    CP+child and NCP+child. It's not clear that a "better standard of
    living" is sufficiently better for the child to offset loss of one
    of its "family sets".
    
    On the other hand, when reading these notes, it's beyond me why
    anyone would want to have children in the first place.
    

    Paul, it's cute to see this discussion defined in terms of Set Theory.
    
    Thanks.  :)
    

    As much as people in this society move for better opportunities for
    their families [and let's face it, anyone with KIDS spends most of
    their money - or nearly ALL their money - paying for things that have
    to do with family life], I'm finding it hard to imagine being ordered
    by a court to live in a particular state.

    We always, always, ALWAYS moved because it would be better (ultimately)
    for my son's future.  I can't imagine being in a situation where I was
    forbidden by law to make my son's future better.

    As I said in another topic someplace, the smartest thing I ever did was
    to refuse to go after child support for my son.  We did much, much, MUCH
    better without it.

    >>> If you're being consistent, then I'll bet that you also believe that
    >>> a non-custodial parent who moves away should be denied custody
    >>> [actually, I meant 'visitation' here] COMPLETELY.
    >                                                        
    >> 1.) there's nothing consistent about that.  In fact it's irrational.
    >
    > Stop playing into my hands like this, Tim.  (I knew that you'd think
    > it was horrid for a custodial parent - i.e., woman - to move away,
    > but that you'd also think it was perfectly fine for a non-custodial
    > parent - i.e., man - to move away.)
    
    Actually, no, it _is_ inconsistent and illogical.  That a CP should 
    not automatically be allowed to move away with child and therefore 
    deny a willing NCP reasonable visitation does not then imply that 
    some other NCP who chooses to move away from the child should be 
    _completely_ denied _any_ visitation.  I would argue that the 
    motives and desires of the first NCP are much more admirable, but,
    no, the denial of any visitation to the less responsible NCP does 
    not at all follow.  Not only does it not follow, but in practice
    it'd be completely wrong, for the child.
    
    So then you take the next leap, which was to equate pointing out
    this inconsistency with believing that the second NCP's actions are 
    "perfectly fine"...
    
    glenn
    

    RE: .84  Glenn

    > Actually, no, it _is_ inconsistent and illogical.  That a CP should 
    > not automatically be allowed to move away with child and therefore 
    > deny a willing NCP reasonable visitation does not then imply that 
    > some other NCP who chooses to move away from the child should be 
    > _completely_ denied _any_ visitation. 

    You're not paying attention, so you have no way to know what's logical
    and what isn't.

    Tim ranted on about how utterly 'SELFISH' the CP would be to move away
    (etc., etc.), and even suggested that this should be grounds for the
    CP to lose custody.

    If it's this horrible for one parent to move away from the other parent,
    then it must be every bit as horrible for the other parent (the NCP)
    to move away (for Tim's position to be consistent.)

    > I would argue that the 
    > motives and desires of the first NCP are much more admirable, but,
    > no, the denial of any visitation to the less responsible NCP does 
    > not at all follow.  Not only does it not follow, but in practice
    > it'd be completely wrong, for the child.
 
    In other words, the NCP is not being 'utterly SELFISH' for moving
    (and does not deserve the wrath of the courts for doing so,) as far
    as you're concerned.

    This was my point.

    > So then you take the next leap, which was to equate pointing out
    > this inconsistency with believing that the second NCP's actions are 
    > "perfectly fine"...

    It's not consistent for someone to find it horrid and selfish for
    one parent to move, but NOT horrid and selfish if the other parent
    moves.

    If either parent moves, the end result is the same:  the child has
    less opportunity to see the NCP.
    
    Explain to me how it can be WORSE for one parent to move than it would
    be for the other parent to move.
    
    Surely you aren't suggesting that the most important consideration here 
    is the feelings of the NCP (such that, if the NCP voluntarily moves away 
    from the child, it's not as bad since the NCP made this choice.)

>    As much as people in this society move for better opportunities for
>    their families [and let's face it, anyone with KIDS spends most of
>    their money - or nearly ALL their money - paying for things that have
>    to do with family life], I'm finding it hard to imagine being ordered
>    by a court to live in a particular state.
    
    Not only is it not hard to imagine, it's the way it works, all the 
    time.  Such as in my own case, for example.  It'd be just too easy 
    for me, as the provider of my children's primary residence, to
    unilaterally decide that my kids would be better off in _my_ 
    better opportunity elsewhere.  And so the court decides, as it 
    does in any aspect of custodial dispute.
    
>    As I said in another topic someplace, the smartest thing I ever did was
>    to refuse to go after child support for my son.  We did much, much, MUCH
>    better without it.
    
    But this is unrelated, or at least should be.  Your ability to move
    away from the other parent should be independent of what child 
    support you're getting.  It should be dependent on the willingness 
    and capability of the other parent.
    
    glenn
     

    Glenn, do you honestly believe that it's not as bad for the NCP to
    move away from the child as it would be for the CP to move the child
    away from the NCP?

    Is this correct?

    If NCPs are not *FORCED* to live in particular states (as part of
    the custody/child_support) agreement, then these rules are clearly
    meant for the benefit of the NCP and not the child.
    

    >> Actually, no, it _is_ inconsistent and illogical.  That a CP should 
    >> not automatically be allowed to move away with child and therefore 
    >> deny a willing NCP reasonable visitation does not then imply that 
    >> some other NCP who chooses to move away from the child should be 
    >> _completely_ denied _any_ visitation. 
    >
    > You're not paying attention, so you have no way to know what's logical
    > and what isn't.
    >  
    > Tim ranted on about how utterly 'SELFISH' the CP would be to move away
    > (etc., etc.), and even suggested that this should be grounds for the
    > CP to lose custody.

    I am paying very close attention.  You said that it follows that the
    (indeed selfish) NCP should lose all visitation.  That's illogical.
    There's a difference between custody and visitation.  A big difference.
    
    > If it's this horrible for one parent to move away from the other parent,
    > then it must be every bit as horrible for the other parent (the NCP)
    > to move away (for Tim's position to be consistent.)
    
    That's fine.  Both are "horrible", but neither lose complete contact 
    with their children.  That's wrong.
    
    >> I would argue that the 
    >> motives and desires of the first NCP are much more admirable, but,
    >> no, the denial of any visitation to the less responsible NCP does 
    >> not at all follow.  Not only does it not follow, but in practice
    >> it'd be completely wrong, for the child.
    >
    > In other words, the NCP is not being 'utterly SELFISH' for moving
    > (and does not deserve the wrath of the courts for doing so,) as far
    > as you're concerned.
    
    This is the problem with these "debates".  I said _exactly_ what I 
    meant, which was that the NCP should not be denied visitation.
    Somehow that gets translated into "the NCP is not being selfish".  
    Even when I explicitly commented on the NCP's less-than-responsible 
    actions.
    
    Parents who fail to take a responsible role in their children's 
    lives where possible are selfish.  Parents who deny other parents
    a responsible role in their children's lives where possible are
    selfish.  Period.
    
    
    glenn
    

    
>    Explain to me how it can be WORSE for one parent to move than it would
>    be for the other parent to move.
>    
>    Surely you aren't suggesting that the most important consideration here 
>    is the feelings of the NCP (such that, if the NCP voluntarily moves away 
>    from the child, it's not as bad since the NCP made this choice.)

    I didn't say that it is worse for one parent to move than the other,
    but I can see instances where that would be true.  If the NCP simply
    never was much of a parent in the first place, then maybe everyone
    is better off.  Yeah, so he's "worse" for not being much of a parent,
    as opposed to choosing to move.  But the point is not to make 
    character judgments, CPs versus NCPs, men versus women.  The point
    is that if both parents are responsible, willing and able, then the 
    child should be allowed significant access to both, if at all possible.  
    And if that means everyone has to live in the same state, so be it.  I 
    personally don't believe that the sacrifice in taking a less lucrative
    job versus the best opportunity is so great.  Hey, when you become a 
    parent, you take on major responsibilities...
    
    glenn
    

    RE: .90  Glenn
    
    > I am paying very close attention.  
    
    Not close enough, obviously.
    
    > You said that it follows that the (indeed selfish) NCP should lose 
    > all visitation.  That's illogical.  
    
    I didn't suggest this.  (I'm not in favor of ANYONE being required
    by law to live in a particular state, so I'd be the last person to
    deny anyone anything simply for having moved.)
    
    It's not illogical to ask a question about what someone else thinks. :)
    
    > There's a difference between custody and visitation.  A big difference.
    
    I was looking for Tim to agree to punish the NCP for moving since he
    seemed so hot on the idea of severely punishing the CP for moving.
    
    Apparently, the NCP is not punished in any way for moving.  
    (This was my point.)  :)
    
    > That's fine.  Both are "horrible", but neither lose complete contact 
    > with their children.  That's wrong.
    
    The $64,000 question:  Is the NCP required by law to live in a particular
    state (in custody/child_support situations) - or not???

    In this case involving the pregnant woman in Chicago who wants to
    move to California...
    
    Could she have filed suit to force the man to stay in Chicago if
    he'd been the one who wanted to move to California?
    
    Should she be allowed to control where he lives for the next 18 years?

    If the woman cannot control where the man lives for the next 18 years,
    then you do realize that this law about forcing the child to be near
    the NCP is to give the NCP his "money's worth" for child support
    payments (and is NOT a matter of 'what's best for the child'.)

    
>       -< Let's have a legal ruling here. Are NCPs FORCED to stay put?? >-
>
>    If NCPs are not *FORCED* to live in particular states (as part of
>    the custody/child_support) agreement, then these rules are clearly
>    meant for the benefit of the NCP and not the child.
    
    It ain't either parent that is forced to stay in a given location.  
    It's a free country.  It's parent _with_ child, from the other parent.  
    No, it is indeed illogical to believe that such restrictions are meant 
    only for the benefit of NCPs, if NCPs are not likewise forced to stay 
    in state.  You can't force someone to be a (totally) responsible 
    parent.  You can force someone to be a responsible parent if they 
    intend on maintaining custody of children.
    
    And again, these rules which you claim only benefit NCPs are, in this
    day and age, quite common in practice.  You're bucking the tide on
    this one...
    
    glenn
    

    The way you describe it (where the NCP 'controls' where the CP
    can live with the child) may be quite commonplace, but it's
    still a one-way street.

    All the stuff about the benefits of keeping the child near the
    NCP, etc., is really a matter of making the CP+child do what
    the NCP wants them to do (when it comes to where they can live, 
    at least.)   If the NCP wants to move, apparently, the courts
    won't lift a finger to stop it.  The child has to adjust to it,
    that's all.

    > No, it is indeed illogical to believe that such restrictions are meant 
    > only for the benefit of NCPs, if NCPs are not likewise forced to stay 
    > in state.  

    If the restrictions were meant for the children's sake, then NCPs
    would be forced to live near their children.  (They aren't.)

    The law isn't *exclusively* for the benefit of the NCP, but it's
    certainly overwhelmingly for the benefit of the NCP.  If it were
    regarded as being so undeniably crucial for children to be near
    NCPs, then NCPs would be forced to stay near them.  (They aren't.)

    > You can't force someone to be a (totally) responsible 
    > parent.  You can force someone to be a responsible parent if they 
    > intend on maintaining custody of children.

    Rubbish.  SOMETIMES, the most responsible thing for either or both 
    parents to do is to move to where the good jobs can be found (to insure 
    the children's futures) or to where the children will be the safest. 
    How stupid for the laws to tell a CP that she can't go to the place 
    which would help insure her children's futures while not caring one 
    whit if an NCP does this very thing.

    > And again, these rules which you claim only benefit NCPs are, in this
    > day and age, quite common in practice.  You're bucking the tide on
    > this one...

    It's still a one-way street when it comes to an NCP being able to
    *control* where a CP+child 'set' can live.

    I think it goes way 'over the top' for someone to rail and rail and
    rail about how horrible and selfish a CP would have to be to want
    to move away from an NCP, while NCPs can pretty much come and go
    at will.  It reveals a lot about the true dynamics of this situation.

    Tim, if I catch you before you come unglued - I want to remind you
    that I was looking for you to be consistent in your desire to punish
    an NCP who tried to move away (since you seemed to want to punish
    a CP for trying to do this.)  Don't get too tangled up in the words
    we've used to express all this.

    If you are just as angry at NCPs who move away and you do want to
    punish them, good for you.  (I guess.)  :)

    Although I know it's awful when divorced parents live in different
    states, I'm still having a rough time with the idea of forcing a
    CP *or* an NCP to live in a particular state.  Even if it is quite
    commonplace, it sounds like it could be used in cases where the 
    child(ren) would be better off if the CP+child(ren) were allowed 
    to move.

    Your mileage may vary...      <----  Understatement of the year. :)

    
    Nazi Germany was the master of propaganda.  Before WWII they put out
    some of the best propaganda in the World.  As America entered the
    war the Nazi propaganda films were confiscated because certain
    officials believed that showing to Americans would be detrimental
    to the war effort. 

    The American government also had another problem.  Prior to Pearl
    Harbor Americans were very anti-war.  For a big part, Americans
    just did not believe that people like the Nazis actually existed,
    let alone controlled a country.  So Franklin Rosevelt asked Frank
    Capra, famed movie director of such films as "Mr. Smith Goes to
    Washington" and "It's a Wonderful Life", to make some American
    propaganda films to explain to the American public just what 
    kind of people America was going to war with.

    In a stoke of genius, and over the objections of many officials,
    Frank Capra made his American propaganda films by....showing
    the German propaganda films and explaining "Yes America there
    really are people out there that think and act like that, and here's 
    what they are bragging about doing".  It worked.  

    fred();

    .47 >Is the child's benifit more important than the feelings of the 
        >non-custodial parent?
    
    What a cruel and heartless thing to say. You mean that children have no
    feelings for thier ncp father? Some will grow up and emulate them
    someday. So you cannot always divorce the asshole, he might grow up in
    your arms. 
    
    So, lets see....
    
    -we have no feelings
    -we always have lots of money, execpt we drink it, or buy motor cycles.
    -we drag our knuckles
    -we should not be allowed to see our children
    -	should always be tossed into jail cause we are evil
    -	we should stop whining about not seeing our children and take it
    like a man... I rather have cheese with my whines.:)
    -we drag our knuckes allot
    -
    -
    -
    -
    

    .56 I would love to fly out and tape that session!!:) Execpt I might
    need a kevlar vest and a bomb proof cammera!!:)
    

    .44
    No Suzanne, she moved from a quiet nieghborhood INTO a slum. You need
    to read for comprehension, not for defense. Her life was calm quiet and
    very condusive to a childs life, before she moved. She quit her job
    VOLUNTARILY, because "I want to stay home with my son". She wasn't
    interested i that when she was hounding her EX with no intervention,
    then I came along and suddendly her life stunk. What made her flip out we
    have yet to figure out. But none of it has been beneficial to the
    child. And if the NCP is willing to remove the child from that situation, 
    why on earth would you deny your child a decent life.
    
    

    .41
    
    George, 
    
    Yeah the ride from my work was a 35min , the ride to the house was
    another 40 minutes. That equals about a hour to hour and half on a good
    day. The point is, the child was paying the price because she opted to
    quit her job and move into a dependant situation when her situation was
    a far cry from dependant to begin with. 
    
    
    If the child can life a comfortable life with the NCP ( not wealthy by
    any means, but comfortable enough to keep the child well fed, clothed
    and have a safe roof over his head) why shouldn't the custody change.
    What makes the mother the "ultimate" house hold for the child.
    
    someone asked previous...why not CHANGE the situation. We are currently
    going to court for just that, sighting her moving 7 plus times in under
    a two year time frame and her lack of stable environment over a course
    of time that has cause some health problems for the child. 
    Yeah, moving seven times in under a 2yr time frame was "IN THE CHILDs
    BEST INTEREST"......NOT!
     

    There are times when it is advisable to remove the child from the
    custodial parent. I don't see that it is or should be engraved in stone
    that when custody that only the parent named is and only will be the
    parent with full custody. If the Custodial parents situation changes
    and the NCP is willing and quite able to take over the situation, the
    so be it, it should all be IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. If the
    parent is thinking of the child, it shouldn't be hard. If it would be
    beneficial for the CP to get back on their feet, to give up the child
    for a period of time and have visitations then what is the problem. Or
    are there other motivating factors that when the situation gets very
    hairy scary that the CP is NOT WIlling to think of the child, and
    thinks only of how it impacts them to release the child to the NCP?
    
    Financially, well, the only reason we have a more comfortable life
    style is because she spends like a drunken sailor. She takes off for
    weekends to go to foxwoods and has her child support stupidly cashed in
    CT. She signs over her checks to two or three different parties to get
    the check cashed. Since the custody suit, she has finally taken the
    child to the dentist, after a year or more of pleading. She has finally
    gotten a bank account. She has finally gotten a job and is living in a
    decent place. She was court ordered to quit smoking because that was
    causing the child health problems. After three years of pleading I
    might add...why wouldn't you quit smoking if you knew that was hurting
    your child. We did and we don't see him but everyother weekend. 
    We don't even care if she keeps smoking, just not around the kid.
    
    REcently she started again with the moving him around. Now it's day
    cares. She has moved him three times since May. Yeah, he understands
    stablility.
    
    I don't understand either why the courts wouldn't get the custody
    changed. We are going for it, but as we've been told many many times, 
    the custody rarely gets changed unless you can prove her a drug
    addicted suicidal, homicidal prostitute..funny huh, the NCP is
    scrutinized more than the CP......disgusting.
    
    
      

    > The law isn't *exclusively* for the benefit of the NCP, but it's
    > certainly overwhelmingly for the benefit of the NCP.  If it were
    > regarded as being so undeniably crucial for children to be near
    > NCPs, then NCPs would be forced to stay near them.  (They aren't.)
    
    That's your opinion (that such orders are overwhelmingly for the 
    benefit of the NCP).  And even if it is undeniably crucial for 
    children to be near both parents, this is a free country, and such 
    a restriction would clearly be unconstitutional.  But where both 
    parents are willing participants, such restrictions on the 
    movement of the child are commonly practiced.  Apparently without 
    presenting a constitutional issue, and maybe even with some 
    success, for the good of the child.
    
    >> You can't force someone to be a (totally) responsible 
    >> parent.  You can force someone to be a responsible parent if they 
    >> intend on maintaining custody of children.
    >
    > Rubbish.  SOMETIMES, the most responsible thing for either or both 
    > parents to do is to move to where the good jobs can be found (to insure 
    > the children's futures) or to where the children will be the safest. 
    > How stupid for the laws to tell a CP that she can't go to the place 
    > which would help insure her children's futures while not caring one 
    > whit if an NCP does this very thing.
    
    And SOMETIMES not.  Sometimes the most responsible thing is to stay
    put.  Which is what I said, the court _can_ impose this "responsibility" 
    on a parent _with_ child, and it happens commonly.  If you feel that 
    such a judge's decision is "stupid", so be it.  I vehemently disagree.
    
>    I think it goes way 'over the top' for someone to rail and rail and
>    rail about how horrible and selfish a CP would have to be to want
>    to move away from an NCP, while NCPs can pretty much come and go
>    at will.  It reveals a lot about the true dynamics of this situation.
    
    We can rail and rail about either (which I haven't, so the indignation
    and suggestion behind this "true dynamics" are lost on me-- hey, I'm 
    a CP, with a no-move restriction) but it's totally irrelevant.  You
    can't force an individual, _without_ child, to live anywhere.  That's
    America.
    
    And there is no hard-and-fast "law", other than what might pertain 
    to what a judge can permit on a case-by-case basis.  In the original 
    discussion you likened the mother's detention to being placed 
    under "house arrest".  If the father in the case is a willing,
    providing, responsible parent, I could just as readily say that
    the mother leaving the state with the child without any  
    recourse to the father whatsoever amounts to "kidnapping".  
    And in fact kidnapping is a charge that can be imposed on 
    parents who flee in violation of custody orders.
    
    CP, NCP, joint custodian, whatever; they're just labels.  Individual
    custody orders define the parent/child relationship.  To be a "CP"
    does not give one unfettered, unlimited rights with regard to the 
    child; that's just the way it is.  No-move orders do exist, and I 
    personally don't see that there's anything wrong with that.
    
    glenn
    

    rep .59
    
    >    Don't be so hard on yourself, Fred.  :)
    
    Actually I was thinking that once my wife saw Dan I'd probably have
    to whup up on him to keep him from stealing her away. ;^}.
    
    fred();

    RE: .106  Fred
    
    >> Actually, I logged a support call with your group 6 years ago and
    >> you answered the call.  I found out (to my great surprise) that you
    >> actually sounded pleasant and human.  :)  (And you helped with the
    >> problem!!)
    
    >>> Actually, three out of the four of us would probably get along ;^).
    
    >> Don't be so hard on yourself, Fred.  :)
    
    > Actually I was thinking that once my wife saw Dan I'd probably have
    > to whup up on him to keep him from stealing her away. ;^}.
    
    It's impossible to imagine why you'd want to make such disrespectful
    statements about your wife *AND* about an exceptionally valuable
    member of your team who has never been anything but helpful and 
    astonishingly brilliant in the work you share.  One of your team
    members has told me that they call him "The Powerhouse," in fact.
    
    Your team should whup up on you.

    Well, I haven't read any of the other replies this morning (I only
    skipped to the end so I could 'bow out' of the convervation before
    the worst arguments close it again.)  I couldn't help noticing
    Fred trying to cut his team's throat, so I made one last comment
    about that.
    
    Anyway - peace to everyone.  These things are tough to talk about,
    but we're not enemies.  We're fighting because we're all moving
    closer to being equal partners in our species.
    
    These things will all be settled as we move forward.
    
    Take care and best wishes to everyone who has been through tough
    personal times (via divorce, etc.)
    
    Suzanne

    reply
    
>    It's impossible to imagine why you'd want to make such disrespectful
>    statements about your wife *AND* about an exceptionally valuable
>    member of your team who has never been anything but helpful and 
>    astonishingly brilliant in the work you share.  
    
    Well, since people with degrees are automatically so much hansomer,
    smarter, stronger, etc than us poor slobs that had to drop out to 
    go support families, the only thing us Neanderthanls have to protect 
    the virtues of our women is violence :^}.
    
    >One of your team
>    members has told me that they call him "The Powerhouse," in fact.
    
    Pssst!  Maybe they weren't talking about customer support. ;^}
    (Just kidd'n', Dan).
    
    fred();

    Suzanne, 
    
    
    Yes, it is to be stipulated that neither the CP or the NCP can move "X"
    amount of distance. In our suit, neither can move. This is for the
    benefit of the child, not changing school, building a solid foundation
    and most of all, building a sense of stability and trust that someone
    is ALWAYS there, mom or dad. So yes, both parents would be subject to
    the same stipulations. We moved, we moved 10minutes down the road to a
    bigger house with a big room for the child. A child that doesn't live
    with us full time, or part time, just week end time. But we stayed in
    the same distance, no, closer distance and accessability. We have
    stayed put, because the child is most important. 
    

    In a similar vein, my ex moved to Maine. Was making $12.00 hour locally
    in the late 80's, and was making $4.50 in Maine. The choice was to live
    in an apartment in the Nashua or Manchester area that she owned, or a
    mobile home in Maine. 
    
    AS we all know that there is no such thing as a job beneith us, that
    all jobs are important. And that home doesn't have to be the home with
    the lovely picket fence. It can be a row house in Manchester or a slum
    in some other town or a country moble home. 
    
    But in the same line of defence. Removing a child or children from the
    family area, where the ncp father lives, or the extended family, I
    cannot see justifiable in many cases.

Suzanne,

I don't think I can keep up with you when you suggest that I'm thinking
something, based upon your own personal extrapolations on what you think I
said, often mistakenly.  I'm not going to try to interrupt the resulting
argument that you seem to be having with yourself.  It's pointless.

I think that the children's welfare must be paramount.  I think that the
first priority should be for children to have regular and frequent contact
with two loving parents.  When one parent or the other interferes with
that, I think they are making a grave error, probably for selfish motives. 
The temptation to rationalize, therefore, is powerful.  In addition, and in
particular when children get a little older, it is injurious to the
children to force them to move to a new, remote location and thereby take
them away from an otherwise familiar and (usually) comfortable environment.
Socialization is an important, even critical aspect of adolescent
development, and relocation is highly contravening to effective
socialization.  There are always exceptions, and I see no point to debating
them here.  I'm pursuing the general case.

Therefore, a custodial parent has no right to unilaterally decide to
relocate away from a non-custodial parent, and thereby deny the children
their relationship with one of their two parents.  Doing so should call
into question the custody of the children, particularly since in nearly all
cases the stable, secure environment which should be presumed to already
exist will be severely disrupted.  "Stable" can be defined first in terms
of having both parents available, and then in terms of the children's
familiarity and comfort with the existing environment, including their
socialization.  Also, take note that none of this has anything to do with
the relative comfort or affluence of either parent.  Their
needs/wants/aspirations are secondary, by definition.  They are parents
first.  Keep in mind, here, that I happen to BE a custodial parent - I have
three teenagers.  I'm not exactly taking sides based on gender.

Similarly, a non-custodial parent should not relocate without good reason,
since they would also be denying their own children their right to a stable
family life - two parents.  To deny all visitation for an NCP who chose to
relocate, however, is vindictive and counter-productive.  I've never once
even implied that punishment, much less a crime, was involved in either
circumstance.  To date, it is perfectly legal to be selfish, provided you
do no material harm to others.  I'm not sure what should or even could be
done to prevent a selfish NCP from abandoning their children, aside from
pitying them all.

I think the difference in perspectives here is that I'm not looking at this
in terms of the duality of a conflict between divorced parents, despite my
own recent personal experience with this subject.  In fact, I'm making
every effort to ignore the parents completely.  The focus is on the
children.  If we stop selfishly looking at which parent - cutodial or not,
male or female - will have an advantage - will "win" - and instead look at
the impact of any decision on the children only, then the rules of what is
right and what is wrong should be much easier to see, and perhaps agree
upon.

tim

    
    re .112 tim
    
    Well said.
    
    fred();

    Fred, Dan has never made a disrespectful comment about you (in
    private or in public.)

    He didn't just 'get a degree' - he was the Valedictorian of his
    large High School class, and he received scholarships.  His
    father was a steel worker who dropped out of High School in the
    9th grade to support his own mother and sister while he finished
    growing up.  Dan and his three siblings are all very distinguished,
    decent, well-educated people (with honors and scholarships, etc.)

    Aside from being exceptionally nice, Dan was considered a 'star'
    when he was at MIT (even considering the caliber of students there.)
    He won a national programming competition on the MIT team, etc.
    
    Every man in the world would be lucky and privileged to be as smart
    and as nice as he is (if such a thing were possible.)

    re .115
    
    So much for trying to have a sense of humor around here...
    fred();

    Fred, when 'the guys' start making disrespectful comments about
    your wife or daughter in the next locker room that you visit, 
    come back and tell us if they were just being funny.
    

    As for everyone else, I'm still not reading most notes in this topic,
    so you won't be getting any responses from me.  (I did see my name
    fly by as I was 'next unseening', so it's possible that some of you
    have addressed me.)
    
    See you later.
    
    Suzanne

    re .117

    I usually have a fair sense about whether someone is serious or just
    kidding around.  Even when they put smiley faces on their notes or
    not....

    fred();

    It probably makes a huge difference whether or not the person has
    earned enough regard from you to be entitled to kid around with you 
    by making disrespectful remarks about your loved ones.

    
>    Fred, when 'the guys' start making disrespectful comments about
>    your wife or daughter in the next locker room that you visit, 
>    come back and tell us if they were just being funny.
    
    Rule 1 of the locker room:
    NEVER! NEVER! NEVER! start a fight when you're naked. <8^).
    
    fred();

    
    re .120

>    It probably makes a huge difference whether or not the person has
>    earned enough regard from you to be entitled to kid around with you 
>    by making disrespectful remarks about your loved ones.

    More like, whether I respect their opinion enough that I really
    give a *bleep*.

    fred();

    RE: .122  Fred
    
    >> It probably makes a huge difference whether or not the person has
    >> earned enough regard from you to be entitled to kid around with you 
    >> by making disrespectful remarks about your loved ones.
    
    > More like, whether I respect their opinion enough that I really
    > give a *bleep*.
    
    If the disrespectful locker room talk came from people who actually
    WORK with your wife or daughter, it might give you pause, though
    (especially if they were willing to publish their remarks in a forum
    where they all work.)
    
    Let it go.

    
    Heck, even George knows that us real-cave-dudes are too busy in the
    locker room comparing each other's "manhood" and plotting new ways
    to abuse our wives and kids to spend time "diss-ing" each other (:*).

    B'sides, if you start a fight when you're naked, you may experience
    that "sense of shame" (see how this fits back into the subject)
    when the cops come haul your naked **s off to the hoosegow.

    fred();

    naked rules of the locker room:
    #2 Never look at a guys penis and say how small or large it is.:)
    #3 Never tell another guy, whist naked, naughty things about his
    wife.:)
    #4 Read rules 1-3.:)
    
    

    ...you may, whist naked, bash each others ex'wives.:)