IAP Political Forum

After finishing a tough court case I want to to ask you guys what you think should take precedent.

1) A custodial parent has the right to move with the children. Financial stability for the parent is financial stability for the child(ren).

2) The child(ren) deserves the right to see both parents regardless of what is in the best interest of the custodial parent.

A lot of political grudge matches have been showing up between Father's Rights groups and NOW(Nation Organization of Women) fighting over this very issue.

My case is finished and I won. So I am not looking for legal advice but it was an interesting journey to get knowledgeable enough to win in family court.

I would say number 1, but only after gaining permission from the court after the judge or whomever appropriate hears both cases by both parents.

That's kind of a tricky one.

When I was young my mom moved across the country. My dad was a little upset that I could only visit a few times a year instead of every other weekend, but he knew that it was a good career move for my mom and that it would benefit me to see more of the country.

He didn't complain, and just bought me plane tickets when I wanted to come back to visit. TBH, I have no idea how it would have played out if he tried to get an injunction from her moving me away.

IMO, it's normal for people to move around, and as long as the move isn't too extreme (out of the country) I don't see a problem with it as long as there is still regular visitation. It's best for parents to work together and consult each other for this kind of stuff, but that doesn't always happen.

Too often, kids end up being used in shoving matches between ex's. My parents despise each other, but I was lucky enough that they both had the good sense to communicate and it never went to court. It takes two to tango though, and a one sided dialog go's nowhere, so unfortunately not enough situations are like mine was.

Thats generally the way it works here in California. The custodial parent has the presumptive right to move, but still must seek the permission of the court to make sure the move isn't an attempt to alienate the other parent.

 

Tough one to answer.  I know you can't just up and move, or you can risk the ire of Family Court. 

And number two is a non-sequiter to me.  It is not at any point nor should it ever be about what is best for either parent.  It is about what is best for the children.

Congrats on your win though.  It seems like it was a long time in coming, and a far tougher battle than it should have been.

Thanks! I never thought I would win till I started looking into it. I always thought courts favored mothers but that isn't the case anymore.

I am not an expert on it. But I would say a court would like to see the two scenarios happen without mutual exclusivity.

That is to say, they would like to see the custodian parent making financial progress(because as you say it will benefit the child) but they would like the child to be able to see the other parent as well.

I think it just comes down to reasonabless and common sense in the end.

Yes, congratulations on winning your case. :)

I think filing for a divorce is proof that both partners are equally unsuitable to be parents.  Legal rights over one's children are a legal privileged that ought not to be considered 'inherent'.

Divorce is harmful to children.  End of sentence.

If the marriage has no minor children, it is a non-issue.

Do you have any kids?  If so I am wondering at what point the value of non-divorced parents might overtake the harm done by hostile environments, constant fights, and in extreme cases abuse? 

Obviously.

I think that is kind of naive, sometimes one parent goes off the deep end; drug abuse, alcohol abuse, physical violence. The other parent isn't "at fault". Separating or divorcing the other parent may be in the best interest of the child.

Yes, but doesn't that show that the one non-deep end parent was chosen by the other?  Does that not show really bad judgement unsuitable for raising children with?

Statistically speaking, divorce with children under 12 is harmful to children.  They end up with significantly statistically higher lifetime rates for alcholism, drug abuse, prison, suicide and their own divorces.  This is caused by witnessing their parent's divorce.

I'm only floating an idea here.  I'm not married and I have no children (I am a child of divorced parents).

Too often divorce is spoken of as something that is only of concern to the two people in a marriage and those people speak of what is "good for the children".  That's bullshit.  Statistically speaking, most children are better off remaining with fighting parents than with divorced parents.

Ergo, I conclude that divorce is done by adults who put their needs ahead of the needs of their children.  That is disreputable in my books.

Indeed, it is to be noted that my viewpoint cannot be expressed in the poll choices. 

Dormouse, the reality is, people have kids, every animal reproduces, including humans. Some humans can't get along no matter what they thought going into a 'marriage' (a concept created by humans). Do you suggest that 'fighting parents' stay together until one of them kills the other in the heat of an argument? Is that really better for the kids?

Statistically speaking?  Yes it is.

I'm just approaching the topic rationally.  The longterm statistics say that divorce (any and all of it) is quite harmful to young children.

That's a fact.  You can deny this fact, or ignore it like everyone else who wants to justify their own divorce, but I choose not to overlook this inconvenient fact.

I'm not preaching anything and I'm not campaigning to ban divorces.  I'm just calling a spade a spade.  Pretending that divorce is not harmful to children is just silly.  I'm not going to help salve anyone's conscience about their own divorce by going along with "everyone's doing it these days" bullshit.

Adults are seeking their own interests even if it harms their own children and I don't see why I should have to ignore that or pretend otherwise.

No one has a right to live a guilt free lifestyle.  All actions have consequences.

Your cavalier attitude about the subject suggests that you have no actual experience. 

Any fool can tell you that coming from a happy two parent household is better than one with strife and a single parent.  But you oh so blithely ignore if it might be detrimental to a child to be in a two parent household that is conflicted.  Without coming out and actually saying anything, you seem to imply that all parent should stay together.  This would seem to me to be against all common sense.  But since you say very little while actually typing plenty, I am just guessing at your motives and agenda.

Yes, all actions have consequences.  Care to address some more incredibly obvious points for us?   ::)

You mean logically or rationally? You obviously have feelings about it. I do not pretend that divorce is not harmful, but I think it's way less harmful than a child watching his own parents physically or verbally abuse each other constantly. No one deserves that. Either way children learn what they live.

My parents divorced as well, but it was before I had a memory of them ever being together. So I don't think it was as traumatic, but even children with both parents living together have problems. Of course it would be a wonderful world if everyone got along and everyone stayed married and raised their kids amazingly well, but we don't live in that world. The population keeps increasing and with more people comes more problems and more divorce.

Statistics do not support your assertion here.

Children of divorce have much higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, depression, prison time and divorce than the average population.  In many cases, the higher rates are 3 or 4 times the average (not just some slightly marginal increase of risk).

And of course the 'average' includes all those kids of drunken/fighting parents who didn't divorce.  If they were ending up in prison and having sky-high alcoholism, drug abuse rates or suicide rates, then that would be relevant, but apparently there is no data out there saying that.

Like I said, I'm just going with the facts here.  The facts are that divorce, if children under 12 are present, is more harmful to children than non-divorce.  This statement does not need any special qualifiers to make it valid.  It is a naked fact.

Personal anecdotal evidence does not negate statistical averages.

99% of child-sex abusers are male.  Are you a male?  Do you sexually abuse children?  You saying "no" doesn't negate the key point that 99% of child-sex abusers are male.

I would be very interested to see these statistics that you are referring to, as well as some evidence that divorce is the only cause for the higher rates of 'loserness'. It could well not be isolated at all if you consider that more than half of marriages end in divorce. The higher that ratio becomes, the more likely that everyone is a 'product of divorce'.

With all due respect, then you should research the topic.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.  Nor do I care if you are convinced that my opinion is correct or wrong.  The thread asked a question and I gave my opinion upon the topic.

If you don't like my opinion, don't agree with it, want to reject it or whatever, that's fine by me.  I have no need to "prove" anything here since I'm only stating my opinion.  Feel free to reject it.  I don't have any need to 'win' any discussion or prove any point.

Indeed, on this topic I expect the vast majority to just ignore my point since it is 'inconvenient'.

Or maybe because they don't believe it?

They, or anyone else, is entitled to their beliefs. 

Far be it for me to interfere with that.  I don't quibble about their religious beliefs either.

Why even post anything at all? :)

Same reason as everyone else.  To share my opinions and to read about or inquire about other's opinions.

I have no need to 'win' any discussion and no need to 'prove' that I'm right about anything.

Occaisonally, I may engage in a discussion seeking to influence others to look at something differently.  But if others choose to ignore what I say, or discount it, that is their perogative.

Funny thing about statistics that you have not provided and I am supposed to go find... is that they may not be entirely accurate. That's all I'm saying. Yes divorce is harmful. Your assertation that divorce is more harmful than one parent murdering the other is ludicrous.