Log In Sign Up

Parental Rights


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
April 28th, 2007, 09:35 AM
lschultz's Avatar Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 341
So Alec Baldwin was talking about taking up a career in fighting for a fathers right to custody of his kids. Do you think fathers are short changed when it comes to getting full costudy of his kids? Should mothers always get first dibs assuming they have been proven a fit mother? It seems to me that is usually the case...the kids always end up with the mother and the father gets weekends...Do you think thats the way it should be? Why or why not?
__________________
mama to


Kayden Alaina Brian
Reply With Quote
  #3  
April 28th, 2007, 09:56 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,780
The person who has done most of the work in raising the kids, should get the kids. If dad has been the one feeding, dressing, comforting, making sure homework is done, taking kids to school and activities, etc, then dad should get the kids. If mom does all that, mom should get the kids. If they both do a fairly even amount of childcare tasks, they should get joint custody.

I think if there are two working parents, they should get joint custody.

I think if there is one working parent and one stay at home parent, the stay at home parent should get custody. Not on the basis of gender mind you (it makes no difference if we are talking about a stay at home dad, or a stay at home mom), but because that person's life revolves around the kids and to seperate a stay at home parent from their kids would be traumatic; it would be like stealing someone's life work.

The stay at home parent is usually the one who has made the big sacrifices, such as sacrificing career/school so that they can be with the kids, so they should get the kids. The other person should still get to see the kids, but they should not get primary custody.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #6  
April 28th, 2007, 10:12 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
However, I disagree that if there are two working parents, that there should be automatic joint custody. I believe in this circumstance, the one who is most fit (in ALL aspects -financially, emotionally, physically, etc.) should get sole custody.[/b]
I disagree with the bolded.

The person who has done most of the parenting "work" should get the kids IMO. Not the person who is most "fit". What does that mean anyway? How can it be determined who is more "fit", who is the better parent or whatever?

If there are two working parents that have split the childrearing tasks, they should have joint custody. If there are two working parents and dad does most of the childrearing tasks, dad should get custody. Mom does most of the childrearing tasks? Mom should get custody.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #8  
April 28th, 2007, 10:16 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,780
As far as I can tell, there is no way to determine "most fit". Someone is either "fit" or "unfit". Typically though we would be talking about two parents who are both "fit".
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #9  
April 28th, 2007, 02:53 PM
rdhdtrue's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: St. Louis MO
Posts: 5,202
Send a message via Yahoo to rdhdtrue
Quote:
So Alec Baldwin was talking about taking up a career in fighting for a fathers right to custody of his kids. Do you think fathers are short changed when it comes to getting full costudy of his kids? Should mothers always get first dibs assuming they have been proven a fit mother? It seems to me that is usually the case...the kids always end up with the mother and the father gets weekends...Do you think thats the way it should be? Why or why not?[/b]
My experience, again my nose, but I tried (actually to my determent) to make things calm, cool, and even during the divorce that HE asked for. I gave him 1/2 of everything (even though I was a stay at home Mom on his suggestion). My goal was to make it as least stressful on the boys as possible.

It did not work because he was still an a**hole after the fact and I was dumped with a lot of crap (money loans and such). I still have the piece of mind that anything the boys have negative to say about the divorce was not my doing. He took me back for child custody two years later because I moved without letting him know, even though he moved twice before that the same way.

I would give the advice to any woman divorcing to get everything they can because in the end it is the survival of the fitest (sp?).
__________________
Miss Dani has Hurler's Syndrome (MPS1) and had a Bone Marrow Transplant 11/09/2006. Check out how she is doing here http://danicaboni.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
April 28th, 2007, 05:49 PM
*Leslie*'s Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,083
Send a message via AIM to *Leslie* Send a message via Yahoo to *Leslie*
I think it is a load of crap that the courts get to decide all of this. Normally it isn't them looking at what is best for the child, but just stamping a paper to send you on your way. I don't feel that joint custody should be given right off hand because a mother (for example, nothing sexist) should not do all the raising of the child only for the father to come around 4 months later demanding his joint custody rights. It would not be good for the child or anyone involved for that matter, the father wouldn't know his child and vice versa, stress on both, etc. Of course there are some cases where it works out, and it is normally cases where the father was involved from day one, and only after the birth did things not work out.... But in those cases there is already an established relationship which should not be disrupted. So simply handing joint custody to both parents at the time of birth I think is crazy and I'm glad we don't do that here in the states....
oh yeah and it just kills me that of all people Alec Baldwin wants to talk about giving fathers more rights!!!!!! too funny~
__________________

<3 August 1st, 2013
<3 November 21st, 2013
<3 October, 19th 2014



Reply With Quote
  #12  
April 30th, 2007, 10:08 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
So Alec Baldwin was talking about taking up a career in fighting for a fathers right to custody of his kids.[/b]
I'll save that for another debate but will answer the rest.

Quote:
Do you think fathers are short changed when it comes to getting full costudy of his kids? Should mothers always get first dibs assuming they have been proven a fit mother? It seems to me that is usually the case...the kids always end up with the mother and the father gets weekends...Do you think thats the way it should be? Why or why not?[/b]
I think it should always be joint custody if both parents want to be involved unless there is an extreme reason not to.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
April 30th, 2007, 10:22 AM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
Quote:
oh yeah and it just kills me that of all people Alec Baldwin wants to talk about giving fathers more rights!!!!!! too funny~[/b]
He is not rallying for giving father's more rights, he is bringing about awereness regarding parental alienation. He and Kim Basinger's divorce has been dubbed the ugliest in Hollywood. She is currently facing 12 seperate charges of contempt in regards to parental alienation. He has stated that in their divorce decree, in regards to the joint custody, that is supposed to have the right to first refusal, meaning if KB has a job, or an appt or any other situation where she needs Ireland to be in someone else's care, AB is supposed to be given the first option. She has ignored this several times and has refused to allow AB visitation with his daughter. He has since spoken out about the call and stated how sorry he is, that he took his anger and frustration with his ex wife out on their daughter. He has acknowledged his mistake and taken responsibility for it.

Quote:
Do you think fathers are short changed when it comes to getting full costudy of his kids? Should mothers always get first dibs assuming they have been proven a fit mother? It seems to me that is usually the case...the kids always end up with the mother and the father gets weekends...Do you think thats the way it should be? Why or why not?[/b]
Yes, I think in most cases that custody will automatically default to the mother. I agree with Michelle, if both parents are invested in the relationship with and the well being of the child, as they should be, then their needs should come second. Equal joint custody is in the best interest and it is what should be sought by parent's who truly want to put the best interest of their child above all else.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #14  
April 30th, 2007, 05:48 PM
*Leslie*'s Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,083
Send a message via AIM to *Leslie* Send a message via Yahoo to *Leslie*
[quote]
Quote:
oh yeah and it just kills me that of all people Alec Baldwin wants to talk about giving fathers more rights!!!!!! too funny~
He is not rallying for giving father's more rights, he is bringing about awereness regarding parental alienation. He and Kim Basinger's divorce has been dubbed the ugliest in Hollywood. She is currently facing 12 seperate charges of contempt in regards to parental alienation. He has stated that in their divorce decree, in regards to the joint custody, that is supposed to have the right to first refusal, meaning if KB has a job, or an appt or any other situation where she needs Ireland to be in someone else's care, AB is supposed to be given the first option. She has ignored this several times and has refused to allow AB visitation with his daughter. He has since spoken out about the call and stated how sorry he is, that he took his anger and frustration with his ex wife out on their daughter. He has acknowledged his mistake and taken responsibility for it.
Quote:
Wonder what their right of refusal actually states. Is there a time limit on it, what if Kim was running to get gas and left their child with the nanny, other sibling, whatever..... right of refusal isn't always cut and dry, so i'd be interested to know what their right of refusal actually states.

Quote:
Do you think fathers are short changed when it comes to getting full costudy of his kids? Should mothers always get first dibs assuming they have been proven a fit mother? It seems to me that is usually the case...the kids always end up with the mother and the father gets weekends...Do you think thats the way it should be? Why or why not?
Yes, I think in most cases that custody will automatically default to the mother. I agree with Michelle, if both parents are invested in the relationship with and the well being of the child, as they should be, then their needs should come second. Equal joint custody is in the best interest and it is what should be sought by parent's who truly want to put the best interest of their child above all else.
How do we judge and who is to judge whether a parent is invested..... I guess I am not putting my childs best interest at heart because when I got papers saying her deadbeat father wanted joint custody I went and hired the best lawyer in our town..... we got to court and he said well I just want one day a week for a couple of hours, I just put all that other stuff there because my lawyer told me too..... shows how much he cares huh? how invested is that....
__________________

<3 August 1st, 2013
<3 November 21st, 2013
<3 October, 19th 2014



Reply With Quote
  #15  
April 30th, 2007, 05:55 PM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
Quote:
Wonder what their right of refusal actually states. Is there a time limit on it, what if Kim was running to get gas and left their child with the nanny, other sibling, whatever..... right of refusal isn't always cut and dry, so i'd be interested to know what their right of refusal actually states.[/b]
No, it wasn't gas trips, it was weekends. Again, she is facing 12 charges of contempt of court for parental alienation. He was not informed and, aside from that, has also been refused regular visitation of his daughter.
Quote:
How do we judge and who is to judge whether a parent is invested..... I guess I am not putting my childs best interest at heart because when I got papers saying her deadbeat father wanted joint custody I went and hired the best lawyer in our town..... we got to court and he said well I just want one day a week for a couple of hours, I just put all that other stuff there because my lawyer told me too..... shows how much he cares huh? how invested is that....[/b]
Quit making this personal.
Quote:
if both parents are invested in the relationship with and the well being of the child,[/b]
Stop trying to twist this as though I was speaking to you, specifically, or your case.

edit to fix quotes
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #16  
May 1st, 2007, 09:32 AM
*Leslie*'s Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,083
Send a message via AIM to *Leslie* Send a message via Yahoo to *Leslie*
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
Wonder what their right of refusal actually states. Is there a time limit on it, what if Kim was running to get gas and left their child with the nanny, other sibling, whatever..... right of refusal isn't always cut and dry, so i'd be interested to know what their right of refusal actually states.[/b]
No, it wasn't gas trips, it was weekends. Again, she is facing 12 charges of contempt of court for parental alienation. He was not informed and, aside from that, has also been refused regular visitation of his daughter.
Quote:
How do we judge and who is to judge whether a parent is invested..... I guess I am not putting my childs best interest at heart because when I got papers saying her deadbeat father wanted joint custody I went and hired the best lawyer in our town..... we got to court and he said well I just want one day a week for a couple of hours, I just put all that other stuff there because my lawyer told me too..... shows how much he cares huh? how invested is that....[/b]
Quit making this personal.
Quote:
if both parents are invested in the relationship with and the well being of the child,[/b]
Stop trying to twist this as though I was speaking to you, specifically, or your case.

edit to fix quotes
[/b][/quote]

The only reason I used a personal example is because it's hard to say things like if the parent is invested, when we don't really have a true definition of what invested is.... who is to decide that? What if the parent becomes invested 12 years down the road? the thing is, a parent cannot give one hoot about their child, pick them up for visitation and leave them with a babysitter the entire time, and damage the child by not showing up, and yet the courts just stamp a paper and so go on.... I know you weren't gettting personal with me, I hadn't even posted my experience before you typed. I'm just showing that using subjective terms to say whether a parent gets joint custody is a hard thing to do.... I'm not offended, because every case is different. That's why I think the whole automatic joint custody thing is a crock. In these kind of debates it can be pretty hard to have an unbiased opinion if you've never BTDT, so maybe me telling why I felt the way I did explained it a bit better...... If you have never had he government decide when and where your child would be on certain days then it's hard to understand... and I don't wish it on anyone, it isn't as black and white as some people seem to think it should be... there is a whole lot of grey area when it comes to raising your children as a single parent with an uncaring parent on the other end.

ETA: I have very little knowledge of the Alec Baldwin case. But we cannnot assume that Kim withheld his visitation for only selfish reasons.... Your ex has to be pretty much an ax murderer to not get any rights.... but what if your child is coming home telling you they are being abused? We certainly don't know the whole story here, and I imagine this voicemail incident wasn't the first. I can't even imagine as a mother sending my DD with someone I thought was or may harm them..... She may very well be alienating for selfish reasons, but we must not assume that... contempt charges simply meant she broke the court order, it doesn't state why.
__________________

<3 August 1st, 2013
<3 November 21st, 2013
<3 October, 19th 2014



Reply With Quote
  #17  
May 1st, 2007, 09:35 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
If you have never had he government decide when and where your child would be on certain days then it's hard to understand... and I don't wish it on anyone, it isn't as black and white as some people seem to think it should be... there is a whole lot of grey area when it comes to raising your children as a single parent with an uncaring parent on the other end.[/b]
The real problem is the "uncaring parent" is usually viewed that way when it's not the case at all. That's why the government, who is unbiased, looks into it. Where the system fails, 9 out of 10 times, is that the system is based on who can afford to pay the lawyer the longest.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
May 1st, 2007, 09:38 AM
*Leslie*'s Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,083
Send a message via AIM to *Leslie* Send a message via Yahoo to *Leslie*
Quote:
Equal joint custody is in the best interest and it is what should be sought by parent's who truly want to put the best interest of their child above all else.[/b]
I am the "parent" you speak of. So yes I am lumped into that category. It's not personal, but rather a broad statement, since you said "parents" we can only assume that you mean parents of children who are faced with having to make that decision. and how do we know that joint custody is what is in the best interest of the child. Many times this isn't the case.
__________________

<3 August 1st, 2013
<3 November 21st, 2013
<3 October, 19th 2014



Reply With Quote
  #19  
May 1st, 2007, 09:38 AM
Super Mommy
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 542
In the case of my ex he absolutely should NOT have gotten any type of custody. And he did not exercise the visitation he was awarded.

In the case of my dh, God forbid we ever divorced, it would really be a tough one. We are both 50/50 involved. We even take turns dropping the kids off at daycare. It is a true partnership.

And actually, we had a discussion the other week about this. And we both know that even if we did not love eachother and feel made whole by the other we've seen what divorce does to children. We would literally stay together for the kids.

E
__________________
"Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan



Reply With Quote
  #20  
May 1st, 2007, 09:41 AM
*Leslie*'s Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,083
Send a message via AIM to *Leslie* Send a message via Yahoo to *Leslie*
Quote:
Quote:
If you have never had he government decide when and where your child would be on certain days then it's hard to understand... and I don't wish it on anyone, it isn't as black and white as some people seem to think it should be... there is a whole lot of grey area when it comes to raising your children as a single parent with an uncaring parent on the other end.[/b]
The real problem is the "uncaring parent" is usually viewed that way when it's not the case at all. That's why the government, who is unbiased, looks into it. Where the system fails, 9 out of 10 times, is that the system is based on who can afford to pay the lawyer the longest.
[/b]
How can you say "usually" Unless we are in the homes of all of these parents how do we truly know..... From the outside looking in things can be a lot different.... I know from my situation my DD's father has seen her 6 times in 7 months. He then totes pictures in his wallet and says look at my daughter to any one that will listen. He never has bought her clothes, diapers, wipes, nothing. and the government hardly looks into it. As long as they don't have a big criminal record they automatically get normally standrardized visitation... i think it is totally unfair to say that most residential parents have unfounded thoughts on uncaring non-res's. eta: with the number of deadbeat parents we have out there, we sure do have a lot of uncaring parents. Because I think it's mighty important to support your children both mentally and financially.
__________________

<3 August 1st, 2013
<3 November 21st, 2013
<3 October, 19th 2014



Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:59 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0