Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

In Illinois they have pretty much the same thing.  When I moved out
here to Colorado, I knew my ex would start trouble saying that she
wasn't receiving the child support on time, so I voluntarily sent in
a request for garnishment because I was covering my butt.  This way
if she tried anything, I could not be held in contempt of court since
Digital would be handling it and the courts recognize the fact that
there could be short delays but at least it was coming out of my 
check.

HOWEVER, once my ex got wind of this, she contacted her lawyer and 
they filed through the courts a MANDATORY garnishment. Talking about being 
insecure!!

There is also another gotcha in Illinois that states if I remarry
and my new wife is employed, then they can count her salary in determining
the rate of child support that I would have to pay.  If my ex EVEN 
thinks about doing that, my wife and I have agreed to get a divorce
and just live together.  Talking about unfair laws....


Kenn

    
    	This happenned to me, as well.  At the initial divorce agreement,
    my ex- requested that I voluntarily have the garnishment.  Mass.
    law does not require garnishemnt, unless one misses four consecutive
    payments.  I have been thinking seriously about this, and I feel
    I may have made a mistake.  For various reasons, my ex- has been
    preventing me from seeing my children on weekends, and I'd prefer
    to have the option of NOT sending a check when this happens.  I'd
    rather have the power to say, "You want the money, you let me see
    the kids", and let HER go through all the trouble of forcing the
    issue.
    
    	Instead, I will now have to put a motion before the Court to
    stop the garnishment.  I believe I'll be successful, but it's just
    a pain.  I never should have agreed to it in the first place.
    
    	Just my $0.02
    
    	McQ
    

    RE: -1
    So, what'd happen?  Your wife refuses (for whatever reason) to let you
    see the kids. 
    
    You hold back child support.
    
    This pisses your wife off more, and she calls the court.
    
    The court says "go to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200"
    
    You lose.  Your kids lose.  Everybody (except your ex) loses.  
    
    Why *use* your kids.  Just because your ex is using them?  Think about
    what this is DOING to them.  She can rationalize with them...explain
    that dad can't see them and they may accept that.  THen she tells them
    dad isn't sending support anymore.  It fuels the fire, and YOU lose.  
    
    bummer.
    
    tony

    I talked to my PSA the other day.  Seems she said the Federal Govt. is
    mandating the garnishment of wages IN ALL STATES.  There is a
    grandfather clause...it will apply only to new rulings.
    
    In Texas, where I got my divorce, my lawyer had the court mandate that
    I make weekly payments (the decree specifically spells out the dollars
    and cents, which was originally figured on a percentage basis of my
    income).  The court also mandated that I send my checks to the CHILD
    SUPPORT AGENCY in San Antonio, who record each payment, and forward
    (same day) the payment to the ex.  Now there is a legal record of
    payment that cannot be contested in court...  she can never accuse me
    of not paying unless I actually don't.
    
    Of course, being the nice guy I am, for several weeks (befor I moved
    out of state) I gave the check to her personally.  I mean, I was there
    in the house, visiting the kids, and it seemed silly to mail the check
    just so's some clerk in a govt. office could tabulate it and send it ot
    her.  After all, I *trusted* my ex's integrity!  ANd since I still had
    the cancelled checks, she'd never complain.
    
    Well was THAT a mistake!
    
    Even though I have a cancelled check for EVERY WEEK SINCE THE DIVORCE,
    she threatens me with suit because the AGENCY has no record of the
    payment!  According to her, they say I am about $1,600 in arrears.  
    
    Needless to say, that sucks.  
    
    tony

    
    Is there an age where the child support monies may be paid directly
    to the child, and not the custodial parent?  Granted, you wouldn't
    want to send a $100 check to a 12-year-old, but what about when
    a kid is in college and could use the money?  Right now, I have
    serious doubts as to how much of my support payments have a "trickle
    down effect" on the children.  At some point in time, as long as
    I'm obligated to pay should my kids go through college, I would
    like to help them out directly to ensure that the money is in fact
    being used for their benefit, and not going toward my ex's new
    sofa or Carribbean Cruise.
                  
    Anybody know what the possibilities are?
    
    -Dick
    

	Tony,

	As long as you have documented proof, the cancelled checks, you
	should make copies of them and send them in so that they will
	see she has received payment.  DEFINITELY, keep records of any/
	all child support payments.  My ex pulled a fast one on me
	right after I moved out here saying that I owed her $550 which
	I had paid her with a money order and the court did not have
	record of it.

	Well, she didn't think I would go through the trouble, but I 
	contacted the place where I got it because I couldn't find
	the copy.  They have to keep records of it just in case money
	orders get stolen.  They went back on the day I bought it, we
	found the serial number on it, and I contacted American Express
	to get a copy of cancelled money order.  A week later, plus
	$5 for copy, I received it.  I made a copy of it, went to the
	court house with both copies and had the child support division
	NOTORIZE both of them with their seal, and had it placed in
	my folder.  When my ex threatened me again about it through
	her lawyer, I called her lawyer and told her that it was 
	recorded.  (My ex knew NOTHING about it.  I had planned it!!)

	End result - Egg on both ex and lawyer's faces!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Dick,

From what I can gather from Illinois law, I have to pay until the children
are 18 and living at home.  If they move out, then the child support is
SUPPOSE to go down, if the other one stays home.  

I'm not obligated to pay for college but I'm going to try.  Unfortunately,
I've had to tap into their college money to keep my ex off my back or
else I would have had to file bankruptcy. It tore my heart up to do it, I 
had no choice.  

If your children are not residing at home while attending college then
you should be able to send the money directly to them, BUT, you already
know the courts.  They'll do what ever they want to do to make your
life more miserable. 

Kenn

   RE: -3

   I'm assuming that you are referring to the part of my ex being 
   entitled to my wife's salary also.

   Don't you think that's TOTALLY unfair?  After all, what does my
   current wife have to do with my ex?  Not a damn thing except she
   has to live with the misery that my ex cause's us.  After all
   I am trying to establish a new life of my own.  

   It seems to me that the majority of ex's (men and women alike) don't 
   want their ex spouse to succeed in life after divorce.  Here we
   are trying to make a living again, only to have it destroyed by
   one vindictive person.  Believe me, it has almost cost me a 
   second divorce because it can be financially ruining.  I want to
   give my wife everything she wants including security but it's
   pretty hard when you have a law like Illinois's hanging over our
   heads.

    I just talked to the director of the Child Support Registry in San
    Antonio, through which agency I make my weekly child support payments. 
    It was a VERY enlightening conversation.
    
    My ex wife is threatening me (when the occasion or mood suits her) with
    court action based on the fact that I made several direct payments to
    her (about eleven or so) which consequently do not show up on the
    agency's record.  I called the director specifically to advise them
    that my son is no longer receiving payments...and was advised in return
    that no "official" notification of that event is required.  He
    explained that as soon as the children reach the age of 18, the
    "computer" reduces the expected payment amount by the appropriate
    amount, and since Patrick is now 21, my account shows a large "over
    balance" in payments to the ex.  
    
    So, I guess they won't throw me in jail when I visit there next month.
    8*)
    
    tony

    What a mess you people go through!  I am sooooo lucky.  Re. .8,
    I don't know why an ex would want the other ex to fail.  I want
    my ex to succeed.  The more he succeeds, monitarily, the more my
    daughter benefits.  He can take her more places and provide a better
    life when she is with him (which is all summer and all school
    vacations). He is taking her to California in June after school
    ends to see his father.  If he didn't do well in his job, he couldn't
    do that, or if I made his life miserable, may be he wouldn't do
    that.  I can't afford to take her the places he does, and it does
    hurt, but I would rather have hurt feelings that keep her home and
    away from some experience she will remember always.
    
    I know several single mothers who have their support checks thru
    the Probation Dept. here in NJ.  These are extreme cases; one of
    my dearest friends had to find her ex first and then had his wages
    garnished, and the second friend has such irregular payments and
    so many excuses she had his wages garnished also.
    
    Perhaps if someone explained this from the child's point of view
    to the "nasty" ex it might sink in.  Hope springs eternal.
    

    What is the garnishment process?  Specifically I'm concerned about the
    Massachusetts-New Hampshire situation, but general info would help.
    
    If my ex decides to garnish my salary for whatever reason,
    
    1.  Do I receive any advance notice?
    2.  Do I have an opportunity to plead my case before garnishment is
        granted?
    3.  How does Digital respond to this?  Is there any Personnel
        action/concern?
    4.  If my ex and I both live in Mass. but I work in NH for Digital,
        does that muddy the waters any?
    
    Thanks for enlightenment
    Karen
    

    
>>    1.  Do I receive any advance notice?

        It depends.  Usually you will be notified by the court that 
	a garnishment has been granted against your salary.  I received
	advance notice from the courts, went to Illinois, tried to 
	fight it and won to some degree.

	As far as Digital notifying you, well it depends when the 
	garnishment takes place.  If the date is in the future, yes
	you will get a notice marked PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL in BIG RED
	letters.  If the court order states immediately, then your
	check will most likely be short, and then you will receive
	notice.

>>    2.  Do I have an opportunity to plead my case before garnishment is
        granted?

	The only time you have is if the court notified you of a 
	hearing.  Unfortunately, believe it or not, if someone is
	trying to garnish your check they have to give notice BUT
	they will wait until they are close to the deadline, then 
	they will notify you before you have time to respond or
	can do anything


>>    3.  How does Digital respond to this?  Is there any Personnel
        action/concern?

	Pesonnel does not get involved, only finance.  Reason being
	is that it is a COURT ORDERED GARNISHMENT so they have to
	abide by the law of that state in serving garnishments

>>    4.  If my ex and I both live in Mass. but I work in NH for Digital,
        does that muddy the waters any?

	None what so ever. (Unless Mass. has different rules)  No matter
	what state you reside or work in, a garnishment is a garnishment.
	What ever the court says to be garnished, Digital has to abide by
	it.  The only ways to stop the garnishment are:

	A)   Appeal through the courts and hope to get a court order
	to stop garnishments.  (In order for DEC to stop a garnishment
	is that they need another court order to STOP it)

	BTW, appeals to court orders are quite expensive.  Just hope
	that you get advance notice.  If I requested an appeal because
	of a judge's ruling, then lawyers usually require approx. $2500
	in advance

	B)  Leave Digital


   Hope this helps.  It's not the prettiest picture but who said they
have to be fair??

    The garnisment of wages is a national law.  Generally the court will
    only award garnishment (unless you don't show up for court) if
    you are several months in arrears.  In most states, the district
    attorney's offic is now required to handle the case and charges
    a nominal fee.  If you want to fight it, then you have to get
    and pay for your own lawyer.  If your ex is on AFDC, then welfare
    will do it for them usually at no charge.
    
    On the other hand, if your visitation is being violated.  You're
    on your own.  
    
    fred();

    
    There is no automatic garnishment in NH.  My ex has an account at the
    DCU and every Thursday the support payment is deposited directly into
    her account.  My DCU statements are proof that she got the money.
    
    Re: a second wife's income being counted.
    
    If I were the second wife I would tell them what they could do with
    their law and refuse to submit any financial information.  Law or no
    law.
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    re: -1
    
    Steve...I felt a DCU direct deposit account for Child Support payment
    was SAFE, too.  But, my lawyer said NO.  He spoke of a case in Houston,
    where the wife sued her ex for back payments.  He produced cancelled
    checks for the payments.  She claimed they were GIFTS and not the
    payment.  
    
    She won.
    
    He paid again.
    
    DCU deposit records cannot be counted on as PROOF the payment was made!
    
    tony

    
    Re: .16
    
    Houston is in Texas.  They may have a specific law as to what
    constitutes proof of payment.  I am not saying that here in New
    Hampshire that it would be different, but just that you can't go by
    what happens in another state.
    
    If he produced cancelled checks what would a Texas court want. 
    Probably there is very specific law in Texas and the judge had no
    choice.
    
    Steve
    

    .8 Wanna real laugh guys! My soon to be X has a brother. And this dude
    has a problem in life, he is going to jail for no child support
    payments in the last two years. And she lives with kids in N.J. and he
    lives in Ma. This lad has not had a steady job in his life, and is not
    interested either. And as soon as I found out were my SO was living I
    was paying $$$! What does this say, you can get what you want if you
    work for it. And he has worked for his rewards. Guess his next
    girlfriend isn't gonna be a girl either. This brother-out-law is also
    into beating on the wife and thats why she took off. Funny about a
    week after mine bolted she calls and gives condolunce. Good kid, too
    bad we both made the same mistake.
    
    George

    I am not sure if automatic garnishing is the law in Mass, but most of
    the people I know that have been divorced in the last 3 to 4 years had
    the child support payments garnished from thier paychecks.  The money
    goes to the Family Services Dept..  The hitch here is that if any
    payments are missed, or they think you have missed, Family Services 
    jerks you right in.  The ex doesn't have to do a thing.
    
    Bob

    Baring the fact that you have a job. I have an ex-brother-outlaw who
    evaded the Peoples Republic of Ma for 2 years before his ex finally
    cought the lad by his short hairs. And it was because she was
    persistant. Other than that, I guess if your sneeky or sleezy enough, 
    you could get away with murder. But that doesn't help you if you love
    your children and you want to see them. 

This is copied from 167.5:
    
    At any rate I learned something that was new to me:  if a CP is a
    welfare or public aid recipient a wage garnishment is AUTOMATIC.  ANY
    OTHER CP can get a wage garnishment simply by asking the (in
    Massachusetts) Department of Revenue.  As of 1995 wage garnishment will
    be automatic in ***ALL*** child support cases!  Yes, that means for
    *everyone*!
    

    re: last
    Then DEC will have to revise its policy.  At the present time, DEC will
    not garnish wages unless a court order naming Digital specifically
    requires it.
    
    Also, I seriously doubt that DEC will automatically garnish wages from
    employees whose divorces are in states other than the PRM.
    
    
    tony

		I got my divorce this spring and wage garnishmnet is
	standard procedure now, the court would really like to know 
	if not why not, because since you've got to pay why have the 
	hassles. They simply send give it as a court order and digital
	deducts it.

re: last couple,

Yup, Digital gets it as a court order (dime a dozen, no brainers for the judges)
and the deductions begin.

J.

    Sounds like they're doing it wrong.  The question should not be "Why
    not garnish his income?", but "Why garnish his income."  Whatever
    happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?  How many of us would stand
    for having his income garnished for his Visa bill as a matter of
    course?
    
    	I'm glad I don't live in the PRM!
    
    larry

    I repeat my last... re wage garnishment.
    
    Having your wages garnished is the same as saying "you can't be trusted
    to fulfill your obligations... therefore we will assume that
    responsibility for you."
    
    I gave up being a child years ago. 
    
    I would (and AM) fight garnishment in court!  I resent to the utmost
    the implications and the impersonalizations that accompany wage
    garnishment.  I don't need my ex-wife telling the kids "your dad's
    wages are garnished because the court says he can't be trusted"... 
    
    That's a bunch of crock!  And it is UNACCEPTABLE FOR ME!  
    
    Wage garnishment is not a convenience!  It is a penalty!  It is MY
    PRIVILEGE AND MY RIGHT TO SIGN MY OWN NAME TO EVERY SINGLE CHECK I SEND
    TO MY KIDS!  And I refuse to allow this company to do it for me!
    
    
    tony
    (who is REALLY HOT on this topic!)

>                                  <<< Note 8.26 by ESMAIL::BEAN "Attila the Hun was a LIBERAL!" >>>
>
    
  stuff deleted .......
   
>    tony
>    (who is REALLY HOT on this topic!)

One does get that impression Tony, your points are valid.

    I guess there are a lot of ways to look at this.  I explained to my
    kids that garneshing my wages was almost automatic by the courts and
    that I didn't mind.  When my ex told my kids that I wasn't paying
    the support I simply explained to them that the money is being
    automatically deducted from my check every week.  I went on to tell
    them that I expected (the ex) to make those kind of accusations and
    it is simply a matter of showing the deductions on the pay stub to
    prove she is lying.  
    
    I don't look at it as a negative thing.  I never have to worry about
    the ex claiming she lost the check, the check never came, I changed 
    the amount or any other lies.  It comes out every week, no muss, no
    fuss, no mailing or delivery problems.
    
    I do understand the reason that this (garnishing the wages) upsets 
    some people.  I must admit I objected at first, but it didn't take 
    long for me to see the positive side of it too.  I guess you can 
    fight it, but the bottom line is that the courts are going to make 
    it universal.  I don't think it is an entirely negative thing.
    
    Just my thoughts on it
    
    Bob 

    Re. 8.26
    
    Tony, I really agree with you.  Especially when the "reason" presented
    to the judge was totally false (in my case).  I considered it a slur on
    my integrity.  However, I very quickly learned that the judge could
    have cared less.  In spite of my lawyer's argument that the request was
    "procedurally deficient" and that there was no basis for granting the
    motion the judge did it automatically.  I guess that Digital will
    change its policy since in 1995 it will be automatic throughout the
    U.S.  That's what the Constitution says, isn't it: "guilty until
    overwhelmingly proved innocent"?
    
    Steve
    (frustrated and angry, but who's given up on this one)

		I understand the emotions, but the courts aren't making
	character judgments on idividuals. Withholding of payments, late
	payments etc. are simply statistically very high, and are not
	legal, and the court doesn't want to waste it's time dealing with
	these matters again and again. Automatic wage garnishment is simply
	the courts view of a proven effective way to lower problems in 
	general-including case loads. There is no guilt or innocence involved
	the payment is owed, so why so the method of payment become so upsetting.
		The ex using it against you by saying that it was done that
	way or otherwise daddy wouldn't pay simply isn't true and if said
	to your children, you can simply tell them the truth. 
		My wife's ex "deliver's" the check-almost never on time and it's
	always a game. The court can't be bothered to figure out who will and
	who won't try to use the payment as a weapon.  It doesn't want to waste
	anybody's time and money with a required second appearance, nor trying
	to figure out whose a good guy and whose a bad guy. 
		This way you don't have to deal with the emotions that go with
	forking out all that money either, at least not as much.

re: .30,

Yes, the anger hurts the most, but it is not easy to ignore while a revenge
seeking ex corn holes you up your butt!

    Actually it isn't the garnishment that I mind so much as the:
    
    1) Excessive "child support" awards.  Men being forced to live
       in absolute poverty to "support the kids".  I'm not saying
       that the kids should not be supported, but the "guidelines"
       used by most states these days are rediculous.  The NCP has
       a right to live and eat too!
    
    2) The lack of accountability.  It's a real anger generator
       to pay out all that $$$, then have your kid call you for more $$
       because "mommy can afford", or have the kid show up for visitation
       in rags because mommy's using the "child support" to party with.
    
    3) The extreme bias in awarding custody.  Court's *assume* the mother
       is the best parent.  The father gets custody only in *extreme* 
       cases.  
    
    4) The near impossibility of getting any enforcement of visitation
       rights of the children and NCP.  While they'll chase you to hell
       and yonder for the "child support".
    
    5) The right to due process.  *Automatic* garnishment IMNSHO is a
       *VIOLATION* of my right to due process and my right to be 
       innocent until proven guilty.
    
    fred();

    -.32 (CSC32::HADDOCK) mentions the near impossibility of father's 
    receiving custody.  (Sorry, I can't find the DO key on this new 
    keyboard, so I can't extract your exact words.)
    
    Just yesterday I read a statement claiming that this wide-spread belief
    is not true; that fathers _generally_ don't want or seek custody, but
    in the cases where they do, they receive custody a majority of the
    time.  (I can't remember the exact number, but 70% sticks in my mind.)
    
    I'm not taking either side in this issue; I'm just looking for the
    truth.  Does anyone here have research available to back up the claim
    that it's nearly impossible for a father to gain custody?
    
    Regards,
    Karen
    

    Karen,
    
    	That 70% number is gotta be way out of whack. But I will find out.
    And remember that maybe 70% is based upon a very small presentage of
    folks who even think of attempting it.

	I agree 1000% with 32 on all issues except number 5. Like it or not
 	they do have the right. 
		But the bias against fathers is tremendous. I had an expesnsive
 	very experienced Boston lawyer during the confrontational stage(he
 	was a SHARK!!!) and another very experienced lawyer (less intimidating
 	for a calmer period) and they ALL say they same thing. If the mother
	wants the kids (assuming traditional home where father was a jerk
	and let the wife not work for the benfit of the children). He
	has not one chance in hell of getting custody in any manner shape or form
	unless the wife agrees.
		The support payments operate on the assumption that the
	children's "lifestyle" should be maintained. Money is the worst
	way to try and solve the problems of the children. 
		The sexual bias is very very strong against the man, in
	a divorce he is guilty until the wife is proving to be an absolute
	total jerk. 
		
	

		The bias is so strong that a man's lawyer will never file
	for custody unless he already has a very strong case. So 
	yes I believe that 70% OF THE TIME THAT MEN FILE THEY GET THEM.
		The real question is how many would file if all things being
	equal they had a 50% chance of getting them.... 
		

    	How many fathers would love to have custody but can't afford the
    $20k required to fight for it?  A father usually has to prove that the
    mother is unfit; if BOTH parents are fit parents, the default is to the
    mother and it's very expensive for the father to even try.
    	The 70% of fathers who get custody are a very small subset of the
    number of fathers who would like custody....

    Plus factor in this common practice. Is that the mom will and usually
    gets her attorny at either the cost of the dad and/or at the cost of
    the local goverments. Hence one might as well try pee-ing into the wind
    for a more warm, satisfing experience. For your reaching for a deeper
    pocket of money with the local govs than out of your own pocket. Never
    mind facing the real bad news that you gotta pay for hers, yours, and
    the child. Gee. Sounds like a set up to fail. No wounder that there are
    a number of dads who do a cut and run.

RE:                      <<< Note 8.30 by GLOSSA::BRUCKERT >>>
<                    -< The anger is what hurts the most!

 >-
    
    OK..Let's take a look at this reply.....
<
<
<		I understand the emotions, but the courts aren't making
<	character judgments on idividuals. Withholding of payments, late
<	payments etc. are simply statistically very high, and are not
<	legal, and the court doesn't want to waste it's time dealing with
<	these matters again and again. Automatic wage garnishment is simply
<	the courts view of a proven effective way to lower problems in 
<	general-including case loads. There is no guilt or innocence involved
<	the payment is owed, so why so the method of payment become so upsetting.
    
    Actually, the court is not making character judgments, but, by it's
    action, may well be "infering" that those character judgments made by
    other (who brought the court action in the first place) is correct, and
    they support the judgment.  
    
    Yes, delinquent support is excessive.  And certainly, something should
    be done to ensure those kids get the support they need.  It's an
    emotionally charged issue... but they are taking the EXPEDIENT road...
    as opposed to the RIGHT road... to correct the problem.  You do not
    rehabilitate criminals by throwing the whole society in jail!  Wage
    garnishment is merely an expedient way for this society to transfer
    responsibility for its inability to correct a real problem onto the
    shoulders of yet more innocent and uninvolved bystanders... our
    employers.  Instead of addressing those who cause the problem, the
    courts are increasing the load on the whole of society.  Why should DEC
    or any other employer be FORCED to carry the additional burdon of
    administering an employees financial problems.  Years ago, before
    garnishment became the vogue, and befor the government stepped in and
    took an employer's RIGHTS away from him, an employer could
    DISMISS/FIRE/TERMINATE the employee for this sort of neglect.  And I
    think that's how it ought to be now!  I bet the threat of losing your
    job for not living up to your obligations would be a pretty good
    incentive to a lot of "dead beat dads".  

    As to "why is the method of payment so upsetting?" part of your
    reply... well, I just invite you to re-read some of the previously
    noted objection.  Those are very, very real reasons.  And they are very
    very valid!
    
    <		The ex using it against you by saying that it was done that
<	way or otherwise daddy wouldn't pay simply isn't true and if said
<	to your children, you can simply tell them the truth. 
    
    You obviously have not experienced this.  If it were just a matter of
    calling the kids and saying "it ain't so" then there wouldn't BE a
    problem.  But, do you have ANY idea what sort of trash my ex (or any
    number of other noters here) fills my kids minds with?  Read my poem
    "Lament for my lost children".  Those are real fears and feelings.  Our
    ex's don't just "tell" these kids things... they BRAIN WASH them.  And
    when you are 2100 miles away, and you can't even get the kid to come to
    the telephone, because they are so upset over what they fear mom will
    do to them if they dare to "take sides" with daddy... well, my friend,
    your polite "you can simply tell them the truth" won't quite cut the
    mustard.  
    
    
<		My wife's ex "deliver's" the check-almost never on time and it's
<	always a game. The court can't be bothered to figure out who will and
<	who won't try to use the payment as a weapon.  It doesn't want to waste
<	anybody's time and money with a required second appearance, nor trying
<	to figure out whose a good guy and whose a bad guy. 
<		This way you don't have to deal with the emotions that go with
<	forking out all that money either, at least not as much.
<
    What do you mean "the court can't be bothered to figure out".  It's
    their JOB to figure these things out!  Support payments are a matter of
    record.  We have registry receipts, we have cancelled checks, we have
    court orders!  
    But, you're right to the extent the court SHOULDN'T have to figure
    these things out.  
    
    I think NCPs who withhold payment of support payment for ANY (and I
    mean exactly that... ANY, ANY, ANY!) reason... are in the same category
    as those CPs who manipulate the innocent little kids they are charge
    with, and who interfere with visitation.  It is WRONG to withhold
    payment.  It is ILLEGAL to do so.  It USES the KIDS as a weapon... not
    the money!
    
    
    tony

    re .32
    
    In Colorado, only 1 in 10 of the *contested* cases goes to the father.
    And any lawyer will tell you that unless you have one DYNAMITE case
    you are wasting you money to even try for custody.  
    
    Just because a father doesn't try for custody, doesn't mean he don't
    care.  No money to pay the lawyer,  discouraged by the lawyer,
    believes "it will be better for the kids if there is no fight, 
    believes "maybe she'll come around if I'm nice to her", and still
    in shock that the sweet little thing that he loved and married has
    become a vindictive b%%ch, are just of few of the reasons.
    
    fred();

    I looked up the source of what I was trying to repeat from memory in 
    .32:
    
    Published in the Boston Globe 11/6 and in the Sentinel Enterprise
    (Fitchburg/Leominster, MA) the same day (reproduced here without
    permission):
    
    "About 20 divorced fathers who claim the court system discriminates
    against them in child custody cases rallied at the Statehouse on
    Tuesday in support of one whose protest included a bread-and-water
    fast....
    
    "In front of the Statehouse, the picketers erected an 8-foot wooden
    scales that represented what they called a typical court custody case. 
    The scales were tipped heavily in favor of mothers....
    
    "Rep. Susan Schur, D-Newton, who sponsored the legislation establishing
    the state's system of child support and enforcement, said the fathers'
    claims are 'nothing new.'
    
    "'I've heard many complaints from both men and women, and the problems
    seem inherent in divorce cases,' she said, adding that a recent Supreme
    Judicial Court study showed that men usually don't get custody of their
    children because they don't seek it.  When they do seek it, Schur said,
    men gain custody more than 70 percent of the time...."
    
    FWIW.
    Karen 
    

    
>    Just yesterday I read a statement claiming that this wide-spread belief
>    is not true; that fathers _generally_ don't want or seek custody, but
>    in the cases where they do, they receive custody a majority of the
>    time.  (I can't remember the exact number, but 70% sticks in my mind.)


On second thought this may be true.  Why fork out $20-50k when you are going
to lose anyway.  The only ones that will try are ones that have great case.
It took me two years to get custody for my oldest son.  And it was touch
and go until she lied on the stand and the judge caught her.  This was after
she had been convicted of selling drug and check forgery.

I have two other sons that is with my second ex that really shouldn't be 
with her but I am too bankrupt money wise and emotionly to even think about
going for custody.  I had my heart tore out and jumped up and down by the
long arm of the law while the other arm was picking my pocket.  

If I had it to do over again I would have had my tubes tied when I was 11.

-darryl

I found this out on the USENET and am posting it here in response
to  .33.  It is interesting to note that the author of this message
is a woman currently attending Stanford and she is very involved
with fathers rights.


From: shedevil@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chani of the Desert)
Subject: Re: The Statistics That People are Ignoring
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.150021.7301@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford Law School
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 15:00:21 GMT

This is not directly on point...but I just wanted to mention that there
has been a new study released VERY recently..well, it's not entirely
released..it's at press now...but I have some excerpts from it because
one of the professors involved in the study is teaching a class that I
am taking right now.
 
Based on a sample of almost 1000 divorcing couples in San Mateo county
in the mid-late 80's, the overwhelming majority of mothers ask for, and
receive, the custody arrangement they really want.  Conversely, many
many men do *not* ask for the custody arrangement they really want, they
ask for "less".  So that men who want sole custody will ask for joint,
men who would like joint physical will ask for "only" joint legal, or
sole custody to the mother.  
 
Actually, I think many of the people who read these groups probably
already knew that, but the researchers were *very* surprised by some of
their findings.  They were most suprised, it seems, to find out that of
all in the sample, in only 9% *all* of the cases did the father have a lawyer
where the mother didn't.  "All" cases meaning including those both where
the mother had a lawyer, and the mother did not.  This was suprising to
them because the hype in this country is all about the imbalance of
power and how "men always have lawyers, while mothers don't..so mothers
get screwed in court".  Again, those in the trenches already knew
better, but those not in the trenches didn't, and were suprised.

    Many men who walk into their lawyers offices also are not up on basic
    stuff of whats the differnce of joint physical, physical, and joint
    legal custody. Hence, they are cornholed agian by the person they pay
    to administer justice.

    re:.33
    
    I totally disagree with any and all statements made concerning fathers
    getting custody of children. In my situation (and I have read an
    interview column and still have it) I was told directly by a judge in
    his chambers with his index finger pointed directly at me , " don't
    even try for custody, because you are not going to get it "... Now,
    where is it said or written that my sons mother is a better parent than
    I ? This article I mentioned deals with a few judges that were
    interviewed and stated that fathers don't apply, don't fight for, or
    don't want custody.  This is pure crap. I wanted custody. I STILL WANT
    CUSTODY... I will never give up either. At present, I have "Joint Legal
    Custody" which isn't worth the paper it's written on. My "EX" treats
    the continued case as ".. you only have visitation ", If this is so,
    why am I denied visitation ALOT ?  One other thing I have heard of but
    not sure of is Should boys go with the father (more often depending on
    age) and girls with the mother ? There are things that mothers can't
    explain to boys but fathers have a difficult time on a part-time
    basis.. This also applys to girls and their mother, there are things
    that mothers need to discuss with daughters as apposed to fathers.
    
    I would like some input on this one, please...
    
    If my sons (ages 9,6) want to come live with me now as apposed to the
    court not allowing such a change until their 12-14 years old, shouldn't
    their mother let them come and she become the ncp ?  
    
    
    Doug

    Doug is like many other fathers. A visitor in the life of his children.
    This is why many dads also walk away. What real rights to the children
    does he have. Besides paying for child suport? What influences does he
    have when it really comes down to making a decision in the rearing of
    the children? The ex's beu's have more visitational rights to the
    children than the father does. More influence to their rearing that the
    real father does. And like many men, who really do give a sh*t about
    their children, get, at best, to be a convient babysitter to the
    children. This whole thing seems like a chapter out of a Charles
    Dickens novel.... A tragidy of the 20th century.

    RE: 8.40
    
    AMEN, FRED!!!
    I don't know what the exact stats are for Mass. but I can tell you from
    personal experience that you're right on the money for **ALL** of the
    rest of it!!!!!
    
    And I especially liked your characterization that I've ">>>"!!!
    
    > In Colorado, only 1 in 10 of the *contested* cases goes to the father.
    > And any lawyer will tell you that unless you have one DYNAMITE case
    > you are wasting you money to even try for custody.  
    >
    > Just because a father doesn't try for custody, doesn't mean he don't
    > care.  No money to pay the lawyer,  discouraged by the lawyer,
    > believes "it will be better for the kids if there is no fight, 
    >>> believes "maybe she'll come around if I'm nice to her", and still
    >>> in shock that the sweet little thing that he loved and married has
    >>> become a vindictive b%%ch, are just of few of the reasons.
    
    Ain't it a B*TCH to have to pay for your lawyer, her lawyer, and all of
    the other expenses and then be told that your chance of getting the
    kids -- even 1/2 time -- is about as good as hell freezing over?!?
    
    Steve

    Maybe I'm dense, but if a father CHOSES, for whatever reason(s), not to
    seek custody, does he have a valid basis for protesting later?
    
    This file has several examples of fathers who have essentially told the
    court systems and the lawyers to go hang by representing themselves or
    by seeking alternative counsel and WINNING custody.  Granted, they MAY
    be the exception--or they MAY be the proof that a father who
    wholeheartedly seeks custody can win it 70% of the time.
     
    Please understand, I'm not putting down anyone here for believing the
    lawyer or the judge that said, "You don't stand a chance."  Remember,
    I'm a noncustodial mother, a pariah in my family and my society from
    the day I decided not to ask for custody of my children.  What I am
    trying to do is learn the TRUTH, as opposed to the subjective claims
    made by custodial mothers/non-custodial fathers/non-custodial mothers/
    custodial fathers.
    
    And I'd tend to believe a "Supreme Judicial Study" sooner than I would
    tend to believe statistics put forth by any women's or men's
    organizations, no matter how sympathetic I am toward their cause.
                                                                     
    Karen

    Karen, to quote MY lawyer (in Mass.): "men have a snowball's chance in
    hell of getting custody of the children in this state unless there is
    OVERWHELMING evidence that the mother is unfit.  Even prostitutes and
    convicted drug using mothers have been found fit."  So I would have to
    say that at least here in this state it's a real uphill battle.
    
    >> This file has several examples of fathers who have essentially told the
    >> court systems and the lawyers to go hang by representing themselves or
    >> by seeking alternative counsel and WINNING custody.  Granted, they MAY
    >> be the exception--or they MAY be the proof that a father who
    >> wholeheartedly seeks custody can win it 70% of the time.
    
    My lawyer said that he would estimate that it (custody) would cost $20K
    to $30K and that the chance of winning would be under 5%.  He also said
    that many judges look at such a request as only a ploy to reduce the
    child support payments and therefor only make it worse/tougher on the
    claiment.
    
    My $ .02
    
    Steve
    
    

    
>    And I'd tend to believe a "Supreme Judicial Study" sooner than I would
>    tend to believe statistics put forth by any women's or men's
>    organizations, no matter how sympathetic I am toward their cause.

The study can correct!  But it is so limited that it appears that fathers
get a fair shake, when they don't even come close.  The problem is if they
admit the fathers aren't treated fairly then the system would be overload
forever.  It could take 10 years to go to court.  I would bet a months
pay (less child support) that if the court system was reformed to treat
men and women equal 75% of the fathers that don't have custody would go
back to court.  The court can't handle the case load of new cases, how could
it every hand all the new cases and 75% of the old cases.

My first lawyer told me when I as to fight for custody:

	"It will cost over $20,000 and you are going to lose"

He was only half right.  It did cost me $20,000, but we had the battle on
my terms, not hers, and most of the fighting was outside the courtroom.
A man's best weapon is time.  After 5 years fighting I got custody of my two
kids.  I can't say that I would do it again.  I lost too much of myself in
that fight.  My second ex has custody of two other boys.  Anytime that I
think about trying for custody, I feel like crawing into a corner and hiding.
I may try at some point, but I have to know that I am going to win.

-darryl

    
    re:.49 
    
    Karen,
    
    Would you tend to believe a "Supreme Judicial Study" sooner than
    believing 10-1,000 fathers talking to first hand about what they were
    told ? Studies can be conducted to achieve "wanted results". Come ask
    me if I want custody (physical). YOU BETTER BELIEVE I DO.  I'm also
    linked in with "DEAD BEAT DADS", WHICH I AM NOT. I pay support and do
    not have any problems doing so (except the amount is outrageous) but
    let's look at being denied visitation and other issues. Want to bet my
    sons would be better taken care of with me ???? NO, I didn't think you
    would want to.............
    
    p.s.  My wanting custody of my sons in NO way has any thing to do with
    me not having to pay support......... I ASSURE YOU ....
    
    
    my few words on the subject,
    
    
    Doug

    Karen,
    
    	If the father doesn't get custody, because he was shafted. Woundn't
    you go back and fight like hell to make it fair? Esp when your going to
    become a visitor, not a parent, in your childs life?? When you are
    making a handsome wadge and living like a pauper? When the ex's beu has
    more visitation rights than you, the parent?? Doesn't there seem to be
    something out of whack here? 
    
    Telling the system to go hang itself?? Yes, if it is blaintly unfair.
    Isnt that what the womans movement is all about? Wasn't that the same for
    the blacks of the 60's? What of Gaundi? What is wrong with fixing a
    problem with the system? This is America, it is our right and duty to
    fix what is wrong. Apthy will only make things worse, it wont go away
    if we do not take the bulll by the horns. We are not a bunch of
    rastis-rasputins, we are people who reallly care for our children. To
    call us anything else is blaintent sexist-lies.
    
    Pease

 >   Maybe I'm dense, but if a father CHOSES, for whatever reason(s), not to
 >   seek custody, does he have a valid basis for protesting later?
    
    
  In NH, if a father willingly gives up custody, normally the only chance
he has to change his mind, is if the children are in imminent danger.
This was decided in the Supreme Court in Webb v. Knudson.  Mr.
Knudson was awarded custody of the children, but the court then
changed custody to the mother.  Rolph Knudson then spent over
a half of a million dollars getting his children back.  The court
ruled that custody cannot be changed just because of the conduct
of a parent unless that conduct puts the children in danger.  I'm
not sure what conduct the case refered to.  I, on the other hand
was able to get the custody issue re-opened after I willingly
allowed the ex to have physical custody even though I was not under the
impression that my daughter is in imminent danger.  I had based my
decision to allow her custody on the fact that she would give me
visitation equal to almost fifty percent of the time.  She was re-married 
before the divorce was final and moved out of the area.  I took her
back to court and the case was re-opened because of her bad faith
conduct(fraud) in arriving at the custody decision.

I am convinced that had I been emotionally strong enough to represent
myself from the start, I would have gained custody as I was the parent
who was feeding, bathing, clothing and providing social activities
for the child.  The evidence was just so overwhelming that a judge
simply would not have been able to rule in her favor no matter how
biased he/she may be.  I was able to illustrate to the guardian ad
litem that the ex would drop off our daughter with me and take off
to destinations unknown with her boyfriend for up to four days at a
time.  The guardian, in his report, said that there "was a positive
element" to this action because "in no way has Julie impeded Gary's
access to Jen."  There were numerous other things in the report that
showed bias, but this is the one that sticks in my mind because the
gender bias is so clear.  Anyone want to take a guess what would have
happened had I been the one who abandoned my parenting responsibilities
on numerous occasions?

>    And I'd tend to believe a "Supreme Judicial Study" sooner than I would
>    tend to believe statistics put forth by any women's or men's
>    organizations, no matter how sympathetic I am toward their cause.

  My attorney played a strong role in trying to convince me that men do
not get custody unless the mother is COMPLETELY UNFIT.  I couldn't accept
that as fact although I'm sure many men do and continued on until I thought
we had reached an agreement that was fair to my daughter, but was not what
I considered to be the best situation for her.  I was simply worn out
financially, emotionally, and the events had taken a toll on me physically
as well.  But I doubt my battle would be counted in those figures because it
didn't get to the point where we actually had a custody hearing.  So I think
that figure may be slanted because of the way that they calculated the result.
I think many men may want custody initially, but are talked out of it by their
attorney, the guardian, the ex's attorney etc... before it actually gets to
court. My guess is that they probably only counted those who made it to court.
If they made it that far without settling, chances are good that they
had a very strong case and were well aware of their rights.  The other
thing that must be taken in to account is that contested cases only
made up less than 10% of the total cases according to the last statistics
I saw.  I also would not put much emphasis on studies put out by groups
that have an agenda (even though the fathers rights group I belong to has
a membership that is fully one-third women), but unfortunately many
legislators do.  There is overwhelming evidence that men play a much more
important role in the development of the children, but those facts do not
get heard.  Mostly, I believe this is due to the fact that money equals
political clout and the people who would like these facts publicized
(divorced dads) normally do not have any money or are so glad to have the
divorce over that they distance themselves from the issues to forget the
pain they have felt.  Take a look at our current system that is based on
the "tender years doctrine". Also look at California, a state that had some
progressive divorce laws, but then went back to their old ways based on one
study by Judith Wallerstein.  She studied 60 wealthy families in Marin County,
had no control group and concluded that the standard of living for women
drops 70% when a divorce occurs.  There are studies that are contrary to
these two, but the people who have the clout do not wish to recognize
them.

Regards,
Gary

re. -.50 (GEMVAX::BRACE)
    > Karen, to quote MY lawyer (in Mass.): "men have a snowball's chance in
    > hell of getting custody of the children in this state unless there is
    > OVERWHELMING evidence that the mother is unfit.  Even prostitutes and
    > convicted drug using mothers have been found fit."  So I would have to
    > say that at least here in this state it's a real uphill battle.
    
So, you believed your lawyer; but did you say "go for it anyway?"

I'd guess your lawyer was right--in Massachusetts (and probably every other
state in the U.S., it IS an uphill battle.  First you have to overcome your
lawyer's objections, then you have to face a (possibly/probably) hostile
judge, not to mention your employer who might not look too kindly on all the
time you'll have to take off from work to win custody, then, if you win, 
even more time off to take care of sick children/school programs/doctor's 
appointments, all of which are considered the "mother's" duty in our 
society.  

And it costs-- dollars and emotions and time and ill will and the 
possibility of causing the children even more hurt.  

It seems to me the question a father has to ask is is, "Is it worth it?" 
If the answer is yes, I can't imagine not seeking custody with every ounce 
of energy and every resource I could muster.

If the answer is no, then I'd have to stop licking my wounds publicly
and get on with my life, making the best of the raw deal I've been dealt!

    > My lawyer said that he would estimate that it (custody) would cost $20K
    > to $30K and that the chance of winning would be under 5%.  He also said
    > that many judges look at such a request as only a ploy to reduce the
    > child support payments and therefor only make it worse/tougher on the
    > claiment.

George Rauh, if you don't mind my asking, how much did it cost you to win
custody of your daughter?  You represented yourself, right?  Would you
consider yourself an example of a father who (1) wanted custody enough to
fight for it and (2) was unwilling to pay the going rate using a lawyer and
(3) decided to take matters into his own hands?
    
I'm wondering: do lawyers perhaps tell fathers this as a TEST of their
commitment to seeking custody? 

re. -.51 (IMOKAY::wagoner):
    > -< You still don't get it. >-

No, I don't; but that's why I'm questioning and following-up on the
answers here.  I'm trying to get it.  Perhaps you feel I'm too slow
to learn?
    
    >The study can correct!  But it is so limited that it appears that fathers
    >get a fair shake....

I presume you mean "The study can be correct!"  And while some readers might
think it shows fathers' getting a fair shake, I see it as merely saying that
70% of fathers who seek custody get it.  What I'm trying to uncover is if
there are ways to get more fathers who want custody (really want it--because
it's the best thing for their children.  Not just to lower their child 
support payments or get back at the ex or put on a good show for their 
friends) to understand they'll have to take on the "system," but, for the
sake of their children, it's worth it.

    > It did cost me $20,000, but we had the battle on
    > my terms, not hers, and most of the fighting was outside the courtroom....
    > After 5 years fighting I got custody of my two
    > kids.  I can't say that I would do it again.  I lost too much of myself 
    > in that fight.

So, you fought and won?  Regardless of the cost, you won?  When you say,
"I lost too much of myself in that fight," do you mean it's not worth
whatever the cost to win custody of your children?  (I'm not asking the
last question in a baiting way.  I'm sincerely interested in your answer.
After all, I'm a mother who decided, for whatever reasons, that winning
custody of my children wasn't worth it.  So I didn't join the battle.
And believe me, there's a lot more social cost for a mother to reach
this decision than there is for a father to reach it.  I'd guess the
emotional cost is approximately the same for either party.)

    re. -.52 (GIAMEM::DALRYMPLE):

    >  -< talk to fathers then read the studies >-

Through this forum, I'm doing the former.  I'm also interested in learning
about other studies that have been conducted in this area.

    >Would you tend to believe a "Supreme Judicial Study" sooner than
    >believing 10-1,000 fathers talking to first hand about what they were
    >told ? 

Yes, I would.  A Supreme Judicial study at least suggests to me that an
unbiased group is doing the research.  10-1,000 fathers (or 1,000,000
fathers, or even 1,000,000,000 fathers) can tell me what they were told.
But for the most part they haven't been able to tell me WHY they were told
that.  And they certainly are not objective on the subject.

    >Studies can be conducted to achieve "wanted results". 

Exactly the point I was making.

    > Want to bet my
    > sons would be better taken care of with me ???? NO, I didn't think you
    > would want to.............

No, but not because you're a father rather than a mother.  I wouldn't want
to bet because I don't know you and I don't know your sons or their mother
or your situation.  I do know that I DID bet my future and my children's 
future on the belief that their father would be better able to care for 
them than I would, and thus made the difficult decision not to seek custody 
in our case.  So if you're trying to tar me with the sexist brush, it just
won't stick.
    
    > p.s.  My wanting custody of my sons in NO way has any thing to do with
    > me not having to pay support......... I ASSURE YOU ....
    
Believe it or not, that reasoning never crossed my mind, and never would
have.  I happen to believe that fathers can be just as good at parenting
as mothers can.  I also believe that when it comes to parenting, the 
individual's personality is much more relevant than their sex.

    re. -.53 (AIMHI::RAUH):
    >If the father doesn't get custody, because he was shafted. Woundn't
    >you go back and fight like hell to make it fair?

I wouldn't, no.  Because I'm not the father.  Maybe your question should
be "If the father doesn't get custody because he was shafted, shouldn't
he go back and fight like hell to make it fair?"  And then my answer would
be sure, if it's in the best interest of the children, but not if it's
to get back at his ex.

    >Telling the system to go hang itself?? Yes, if it is blaintly unfair.
    >Isnt that what the womans movement is all about? Wasn't that the same for
    >the blacks of the 60's? What of Gaundi? What is wrong with fixing a
    >problem with the system? This is America, it is our right and duty to
    >fix what is wrong. Apthy will only make things worse, it wont go away
    >if we do not take the bulll by the horns. We are not a bunch of
    >rastis-rasputins, we are people who reallly care for our children. 

I believe you've misunderstood the point I was making.  I was applauding
those of you who have told the system to go hang itself when you knew it
was blatently unfair.  I'm trying to encourage others of you to do the 
same thing
	WHEN IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN INVOLVED
	and 
	WHEN YOU REALLY CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN.

    >To call us anything else is blaintent sexist-lies.

I hope you don't think I'm among those who tell sexist lies.  I hope
that this rather long reply has layed to rest any concerns along those
lines.

Karen

p.s.  My work schedule doesn't normally allow me to spend this much time
noting.  If I'm delinquent in replying to resonses to this note, please
be patient.  I am interested.  But Digital doesn't pay me for noting.    

Re: .32,

>    1) Excessive "child support" awards.  Men being forced to live
>       in absolute poverty to "support the kids".  I'm not saying
>       that the kids should not be supported, but the "guidelines"
>       used by most states these days are rediculous.  The NCP has
>       a right to live and eat too!
>
This is one point the courts seem to over look, can the NCP live after he/she
has been corn holed by the system. Interesting enough, in Ontario, if you assume
the family debits as part of the deal, they ignore the fact that you must pay
for these debits. They child support is based on what you make and certain
expenses, but ignore the debits such as loans, legal costs etc. you have taken
on. Park bench anyone?
    
>    2) The lack of accountability.  It's a real anger generator
>       to pay out all that $$$, then have your kid call you for more $$
>       because "mommy can afford", or have the kid show up for visitation
>       in rags because mommy's using the "child support" to party with.
>
My son came with shoes one day that were falling apart and torn open
above the toes. When I returned him, I commented on the fact, next time he came
with new ones.
   
>    3) The extreme bias in awarding custody.  Court's *assume* the mother
>       is the best parent.  The father gets custody only in *extreme* 
>       cases.  
>
If you have left the matrimonial home and your ex has the kids, good luck trying
to get custody after the fact. It seems that possession is 9 tenths of the law.
    
>    4) The near impossibility of getting any enforcement of visitation
>       rights of the children and NCP.  While they'll chase you to hell
>       and yonder for the "child support".
>
The vary same programs that are suppose to enforce suport and custody, do
nothing to enforce the visitations. They only support the CP and do squat for
the NCP's enforcement problems.
    
>    5) The right to due process.  *Automatic* garnishment IMNSHO is a
>       *VIOLATION* of my right to due process and my right to be 
>       innocent until proven guilty.
>    
>    fred();
>
It would appear the CP has the right to due process, the NCP does not, the CP's
word is not questioned and taken as truth, so the NCP is railroaded and punished
first and then due process is allowed. By then, it is all to late for the NCP.

John

    Karen,
    
    	I got my child for the mother took up residence with a self
    admitted child molester. And the game was to:
    
    1. Prove that he is.
    2. Prove that he was living with the ex and daughter in a one bedroom
    apartment.
    
    I was able to prove both on both counts. This included hanging out in
    alleys and in cars that had little heat at 2am in the morning. He, the
    beau, worked a blue colar job. And left between 3-6am to drive for a
    rubbish pick up service. Taking pictures with a 35mm shooting 3200
    speed film. Did this for my Christmas holiday time..... It snows and
    rains and does all kinds of nasty stuff to a mind who wants nothing
    more than to give a little girl a good home, a safe home....
    I would go home after doing a 10 hour day, feed self, go to bed, get
    up at two to go hang out. Trying to avoid the cops. If cought, I could
    be hung as a nazi spy. The ex also lied about the beau living there
    too, under oath on interogs.
    
    	I had to find out who the self admitted child molesters ex was,
    find out if this was a lie, if it was all fab. She gave me an
    affidavid. Stating that the beu was into step daughters and step sons
    as well. The rest is history. The rest isnt worth taking up space on
    the disk for at the moment. 
    
    	Your right. If it is for revenge yes then the child should go with
    the stable parent. But what if I had not done what I had done? I have
    another friend who is going thru the same heart burn with his daughter
    and ex. Just as many others who are. Your womans notes file is filled
    with this sort of crappie. Of children being molested. What would have
    happened if I got cought doing what I was doing with the pics? Before I
    had gotten the rest of my duck in line?? Many men have been cought
    doing this to be hung out by a judge who though that these men were
    loony as a toone.
    
    Thanks for your suport Karen. It is finally over. She is home. And we
    are about to share a good life together.
    
    George

    Sorry to get off on a tanget for the moment. Anyhow, someone could
    easly construe any one for any reason as revenge. My mission was not
    for that. I did a series of personal test before I moved on this to
    rest any thought of such. Revenge is a two grave game. One for your
    victumn and one for yourself. 

> It seems to me the question a father has to ask is is, "Is it worth it?" 
> If the answer is yes, I can't imagine not seeking custody with every ounce 
> of energy and every resource I could muster.

  The question is "What is in the best interests of the children?"
Unfortunately, you've got to take your own biased opinion (if you're
a dad), play God with your children's future and answer that question
for yourself.  Having that biased opinion, you may come up with the
wrong answer, but nobody else will give you the right answer because of
the myth we have all been brought up to believe. 

> If the answer is no, then I'd have to stop licking my wounds publicly
> and get on with my life, making the best of the raw deal I've been dealt!

  A better solution would be to stop licking your wounds and get out there
and do something for society and work towards getting things changed.

>  George Rauh, if you don't mind my asking, how much did it cost you to win
>  custody of your daughter?  You represented yourself, right?  Would you
>  consider yourself an example of a father who (1) wanted custody enough to
>  fight for it and (2) was unwilling to pay the going rate using a lawyer and
>  (3) decided to take matters into his own hands?

  I in no way downplay George's effort to get custody of his daughter.  In
fact, George is my biggest supporter in my effort to get custody of my
daughter, but some time ago, I posed the question elsewhere in this file,
"Does anyone know of a single case where the father got custody simply
based on the fact that he was the better parent, in other words, what is
in the best interests of the child ?"  Since there was silence, I assume
the answer is an emphatic no.  If the male wants custody, he will get it
when the other party makes a serious mistake or the court gets caught on
a costitutional issue.
    
> I'm wondering: do lawyers perhaps tell fathers this as a TEST of their
> commitment to seeking custody? 

No, the thing lawyers do to test commitment is say, "I will need a $20,000
retainer before taking on any custody case because of the complexity of
the family law involved."

> After all, I'm a mother who decided, for whatever reasons, that winning
> custody of my children wasn't worth it.  So I didn't join the battle.
> And believe me, there's a lot more social cost for a mother to reach
> this decision than there is for a father to reach it.  I'd guess the
> emotional cost is approximately the same for either party.)

Yes, the social cost is much higher for women.  My own ex stated she would
have given me custody had it not been for the social stigma attached to 
doing so.

> Through this forum, I'm doing the former.  I'm also interested in learning
> about other studies that have been conducted in this area.

I would also encourage you to attend some fathers' rights groups meetings
if you are really interested in learning about what goes on.

> or your situation.  I do know that I DID bet my future and my children's 
> future on the belief that their father would be better able to care for 
> them than I would, and thus made the difficult decision not to seek custody 
> in our case.  So if you're trying to tar me with the sexist brush, it just
> won't stick.
    
I applaud you not only for your decision, but for the courage it must take
to say that in an open forum such as this notesfile, given that such a
decision is still considered taboo in our society.  Now if we can only 
talk you into being a spokesperson for childrens' rights...

Regards,
Gary

    > -< You still don't get it. >-

> No, I don't; but that's why I'm questioning and following-up on the
> answers here.  I'm trying to get it.  Perhaps you feel I'm too slow
> to learn?

Sorry, I didn't mean that as a personal attack upon you.

> So, you fought and won?  Regardless of the cost, you won?  When you say,
> "I lost too much of myself in that fight," do you mean it's not worth
> whatever the cost to win custody of your children?  (I'm not asking the
> last question in a baiting way.  I'm sincerely interested in your answer.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.  By the time that I got custody my son
was so messed up he was almost a hopeless case.  He has been sexual abused,
beat up and many other things.  We have ended up sending him to boarding
school because he was so wild we couldn't do anything with him.  Just as
an example while he was at school him and two other boys left school without
permission and stole a van.  My son wasn't driving thank goodness.  The oldest
of the group was only 12 years old.

So sometimes even when you win you lose.

-darryl

    Karen,
    
    	In answer to your questions:
    
    	1. I wanted custody. And felt that it was a just casuse. For my
    daughter was being dragged from the marrital home to another mans abode
    to another mans abode. And that sleeping on a couch at each abode
    doesnt constatute a good home enviorment to the one that she was
    dragged from. Dragged from in the name of motherhood?
    
    	2. I started out with an attorny. Did two of the little slime
    balls. Costly people to keep. Esp when I am footing the bills, hers,
    mine and ours were mine. Such is fairness in our court system. 
    
    	3. No did not take matters in my own hands. When I was getting 
    stabbed in the back I dumped for they were not doing as I had
    instructed them to do. As in, when you ask an attorney to file for
    grandparent visitation and the attorny says no. YOU fire them.
    
    	4. The fact that my ex was "living" with a self admitted child
    molestere was the only way I could possibly get custody. Any other
    thoughs were just that. Entertaining....... To say that there is
    fairness and justice for men in the courts is a hollow jesture of
    justice. 
    
    In many reguards, I guess I decided that I was just as important to my
    daughters life as her mother. And I could not see her (daughter) being
    in a situation that might cause her harm any longer. I am the gardian,
    I helped bring in this child to this world as much as the mother. It
    takes two. And sorry to say, only one of us was really thinking of what
    is best for the child. I cannot phantom the thoughs of turning my head
    from the problem and waking away. I knew the ex's live in beau before
    she met him. I replace the beau at a wedding that was the ex's friends.
    I was the best man replaced. For the bride wasn't too keen on this man
    being a good rep of the family friends. The game was to prove my case
    and win it.

    You know, I really commend and have much respect for you, George,
    after reading this.  I really do.  I'm sure you could have just
    shaken your hands free of the responsibility like plenty of others
    have done.  You said you love your child and it shows.
    

    to rep to 8.62.. I talked with george tonight A hell of a guy.. he
    tried to wake me up tonight and i thank him.. but now you have to look
    at the lifestyl of you and this woman you decide to try and spent the
    rest of your life with and look at the beautiful kids ( 2 boys) you
    made out of love.. together..... and say to your self .. which hurts
    like all hell... and say who is the children going to be better with..
    i'm 23years old going through one of the sh*t eating divorces i have 2 
    wonderful boys  timothy and nicholas.. WHO I LOVE WITH EVER ONCE OF
    LOVE I HAVE FOR ANYONE.. No one will take that from me and it eats my
    heart out to even think about anything bad that my children might face
    down the road..( WITHOUT ME...) In order for you to even think about
    going for coustody you have to convince yourself why...?? are you
    doing this are you truely doing this for your guys or are you doing it
    for revenge.( I will be doing it becuase  of love my children and I
    want the best for them.. And I'm The best for them...) I said it in
    front of god that this is the woman I will love forever.. I do I still
    do.. (she had an affair..) her guilt is keeping us apart.. That is what
    i truly believe.. She wnats to go out with her friends she's dateing
    already shes going out.. I still where my wedding ring..( sorry george
    can't take it off yet..) ( kick me huh..? ha)i want my children very
    much.. I really do.. But you get really scared facing the fact that
    this woman you love and who loves those boys as much as you.. who takes
    really good care of them.. just like you..  says she wants a divorce
    then you both have to decide (what is best for them) I feel I am And I
    bet she feels she is..( so what the hell do you do when you know she is
    as good as you)( would someone please tell me that..)Kim Who i love
    very much had an affair with my second oldiest brother.. he who is 30
    smokes pot and is an an alchie.. Don't get me wrong i love him.. but
    what he did scared me for life.. And what she did scared me.. I want 
    her back even after all of that.. Sh*t happens and it will always
    happen But together...( Is this what would be best for the children?)
    I believe togther we can have a wonderful life togther but she has to
    grow up and face she made a mistake.. I did to.. if we can't be togther
    who will they be better off with..( someone who really doesn't know
    what they want out of life.?)
    Or someone who gave there hand in marriage for life. who knows what they
    want a family life and these 2 treasures to grow up winners with
    knowledge that you can teach them and what you can try to provide for
    them knowing this is what you worked so hard for..( I think i answered
    my own question) ( me...) Now the fear of lossing them someone hurting
    your wife..( I still refer to her as my wife..) ( becuase in my heart
    she is..)(no court or study or anyone will take that away from me..)
    and I will not..... say no for kim to visit our children if I receive
    custody if I don't receive custody I know she will... she has already
    done it.. why.. Well i think she feels i'm a threat.. I have nothing to
    fear from her becuase if i receivce custody I welcome her maybe becuase
    i know what i want out of life a mother and my 2 boys.. the mother
    meaning her.. if i can't have her then I truley really don't want know
    one else.. ( for life without the first love is truely life without
    love.)( I feel that many of you might disagree but then again... )
    i'm young and follishly in love with my true love.. And if you were to
    me kim.. you would really like her..( If i were still with her i'd
    introduce you to her..) well this reply is mixed.. just like my head..
    I'm going to start going to fathers united.. Just becuase I like to
    talk.. I would like to get karens thoughts on this.. You really get my
    mind working  with some of your not entres..I can't help but notice
    allot of ncps/cps  ex spouses who are really ( sorry to say) loosers
    who after someone put Not surebut fought for 5years.. to get there
    children.. That is allot A year has played hell on my mind.. I can't
    image 5years.. But who knows maybe mine might go that length.. God
    please don't let it.. I interested in the thoughts people have as they
    are going through this living hell.. What do you think of this woman
    who in my case wants the divorce for all the wrong reasons. who you
    love with all you love.. then you have to fight this woman you love
    (just to get equal time with your children..)This makes not damn sence
    to me.. I can see if I was a bum or a druggie or a drunk or pretty much
    a looser.. but I'm not i know where i want to go in life and thats up..
    and up with my family..  Icould go on all night.. and try to understand
    people and why they do these things to the one who loves you the
    most..but the disk space would be no more.. So I also have to go to the
    womens notes file becuase i have to try to find out how i'm pressuring
    this woman and hounding her..if any guyshave a clue let me know.
    ( define pressuring/houding) George hope to be at the viking..I will
    try.. see ya.. and look forward to meeting you in person...
    As far as my boys go.. I'm trying to make the right decision for my
    guys.. and I with gods help I will..and then we might look into the
    future and see the mirrors of time change the future upon us again and
    again...(which means there is no set future becuase the past will
    always come forth and change the future again..) good or bad.. theres
    no changing it..
    thank you and by the way  i'm no chinse cookie.
    Thank you
    regards
    	-dennis. 
    	ps. to all who have to make these choices.. good luck and I hope
    	everything works out for both side eventually becuase I feel the
    couple still have to have a working.. friendship for the wellbeing of
    the children.. no matter how bad..( Mom is only mom.. and dad is only
    dad)( no one replaces.. no one should try to replace only try tohelp)
    
    	

    -dennis, hang in there.  Your note is full of the love you feel, both
    for your sons and your wife, and of the hurt you're experiencing.  Your
    note isn't clear about how far you are into the divorce process; you
    mention a year.  Is that a year since you discovered your wife was
    having an affair or a year separated or a year divorced?  Believe it or
    not, time does heal some of the hurt and puts much of the frustration
    into perspective.  How much time varies from one couple to another, but
    the process is definitely facilitated by striving to complete the
    surgery with as little cutting as possible and then getting on with
    your separate lives.  
    
    I wish I had some words of wisdom that would help, but 10 years after 
    the split, I still agree with the friend who told me, "I wouldn't wish a
    divorce on my worst enemy.  It's the most painful experience I've ever
    been through."  I hope you can gain some strength from the knowledge
    you're not alone.
    
    As for your question about what to do if you think both you and your
    wife would make good parents:  it takes a special relationship and
    special people, but if you two qualify, joint custody with the boys
    living with both of you could be the answer.  There are a number of
    possible arrangements I've seen discussed in this file and elsewhere,
    where the children spend approximately the same amount of time with
    both parents, who have made the commitment to remain within easy
    commuting distance of each other.  It can work.  It's not easy.  But I
    still believe it's the best answer for adults who have decided they can
    no longer live together, but who sincerely want to preserve the
    "family" for their children.
    
    You've already made a good start by getting in touch with experienced,
    supportive individuals.  Just try not to get bogged down in the
    she-did-me-wrong-and-i'll-never-forgive-her cycle.  After an
    appropriate period of mourning, it's necessary to put that hurt aside
    if you're to get on with YOUR life and the future of your sons.
    
    Karen
    

    .62
    Thanks! It was a long cold night. 

    
    Well my youngest now has graduated from High School and will turn 18 on
    Aug 21.
    
    I contacted the Family Services here in Worcester MA and they informed
    me that all I had to do was fill out this particular form and send it
    to them.
    
    I did this June 22.  As a follow up I called Family Services and asked
    them if we were all set.
    
    She looked up my records and said, all set here as we closed you out
    last year and sent along your records to the Mass Dept of Revenue, oh??
    
    So I asked if Mass Dept of Revenue was informed of the pending end of
    my support payments. And where is this Dept of Revenue, "Well right
    across the hall"!
    
    "What you have to do is to come up here to Worcester go into the Probate
    Records dept, get your file, take a copy of the paperwork and bring it
    to the Dept of Revenue".
    
    Well I went to Worcester, and yes everything is right in the same
    building, same floor.  I took pictures of exactly what I had sent to
    Family Probate, and hand carried it to the Dept of Revune..
    
    The Dept of Revenue says, "Where do you live?" I live in Milford. "Well
    you have to go to the Milford Branch"!  GRRR...
    
    Go to Milford and finally get to talk to someone, but Mr Server is on
    lunch and I need an appointment..  Look lady all I want to do is drop
    off this paperwork...?!
    
    Fine, I drop of the paperwork and will follow up with them Monday.
    
    Cal  
    
    

    Sometimes little minds get a big rush out of using their desk as a
    wepon of power. It behoves me no end to see this sort of crappie used
    on someone.
    
    I was very fortunate, I had to look up someones divorce record(s) once
    and was not sure of where or if. I asked about the other county seat
    and where. Not only did I get clear directions, but when I got there
    the paperwork was pulled ready for me to sign and pay for copy's. Guess
    its how you talk to them. Talk to these people nice and sweet, ask
    about the weather, the sad fact that we are all inside in stead of out
    in the fine weather. And if its snowing, talk about being in a warm
    tropical climate and basking on a beach. That usually will help you get
    where your going with out feeling like the desk has been shoved up your
    tushie.:)

    Greetings to all fellow NCPers.  Just found this notesfile; glad to see
    it.
    
    RE:  .66.  Cal, you mentioned your youngest was soon to be 18 and
    therefore entitling you to some modification in your support order.
    Can I assume your other children are older, and you have had to do
    the same previously?  
    
    Was the court willing to make modifications?
    
    My oldest turns 18 next month and will be emancipated.  This leads me
    to think I might be able to get some support relief, but I am
    approaching this hesitantly.  Hesitantly for several reasons:
    
    	1.  I'm not sure of the current rulings.  I have heard that Mass.
            is now saying it costs just as much for one, as it does for
            two.
    
    	2.  I'm really not sure which department to see.  I DO NOT have
            the money to go through the legal system with a lawyer again
            (and even if I did have the bread, they've milked me enough).
    
    	3.  I really am terrified of the ex and the system.  Having been
    	    skewered time and again, I don't want to step into a situation
    	    she can come back on me with for even more money.
    
    By way of additional info:  The ex is VERY well off in her own right,
    and the support payments are all gravy.  The children would not be hurt
    by any reductions.
    
    I realize this is a personal matter, so any area I'm asking about which 
    would be considered an infringement, and therefore not calling for 
    response is certainly understandable.
    
    - bill