Life isn't fair.

2wolves: Life isn't fair.

Neither is divorce court. In some places it's actually cheaper and easier to just off the ex rather than deal with the family court bullshiat.

2wolves: Life isn't fair.

True, but it's rarely ever unfair in my favor.

Let me ask you this: If Elian Gonzales' father had drowned in the ocean and his mother was asking for custody, do you think it would have even made the news?

Nothing a decent sniper rifle can't handle.

if they have to stay, so does everyone else dammit!

studebaker hoch: Nothing a decent sniper rifle can't handle.

Unless it's a Bosnian sniper -- those guys are total slackers.

If the biatch won't let you see the kid, fark it. Leaves more time to drink, Fark and watch sports.

I don't see a problem here.

2wolves: Life isn't fair.

and these guys dont see why they should have to take it. In other circumstances they would be given hero tags

can I open a US chapter?

/got screwed
//had custody, lots of illegal things happened
///crack whore biatch now has my child

Degenz: If the biatch won't let you see the kid, fark it. Leaves more time to drink, Fark and watch sports.

I don't see a problem here.

You're either a lazy troll, or have never had children.

Kid should be with his mother | Everybody knows that
What can a father do but babysit sometimes.

I'm So Happy That I Can't Stop Crying


/don't agree, just the first thing that popped in my head

There is a US Chapter. Less organized though. A bit more scared of post 9/11 snipers.

These guys are heroes, especially for this particular campaign which harms no one and is directed specifically against one person in government who should be willing to listen to them.

Anyone willing, in the name of civil disobedience to undertake a civil protest and to risk prison, and possibly tasing and even post 9/11 sniping is a farking hero in my book. I wish I had those balls.

(Also those abs.)

These guys deserve a hero tag. If I got divorced and had my child taken away, I think I would go crazy.

X_Rated_Shennanigans:You're either a lazy troll, or have never had children.

Sigh. Sometime in the past month it seems, "troll" became the favorite word on FARK. FARK used to be so much more fun when people could be snide and snarky and behave like anonymous assholes without having people call them trolls. Yes, even when they are purposefully trolling.

It's much better, and funnier, and makes you less of a humorless dick, imnsho to just grade people on their troll-fu than to actually call them trolls.

Wow, and I thought all britIsh guys were homosexual nanny-state supporters.
Guess there's still a few that aren't. Amazing

RoyBatty: Sigh. Sometime in the past month it seems, "troll" became the favorite word on FARK. FARK used to be so much more fun when people could be snide and snarky and behave like anonymous assholes without having people call them trolls. Yes, even when they are purposefully trolling.

It's much better, and funnier, and makes you less of a humorless dick, imnsho to just grade people on their troll-fu than to actually call them trolls.

In that case, I give him a 3/10. Not funny or original, just slightly provocative to those of us who know the joy of fatherhood.

Lusiphur: These guys deserve a hero tag. If I got divorced and had my child taken away, I think I would go crazy.

Yes. That is precisely what happens to good people when they don't get to see their kids.

Divorce. Depression. Death.

How many of these activists have assault convictions. Hmmm.

Though their organization's founder has already said that a history of violence shouldn't be considered for custody. Good thing too, or he wouldn't have been allowed to have contact with his kids again.

/parents have too many rights

Pedge: 2wolves: Life isn't fair.

and these guys dont see why they should have to take it. In other circumstances they would be given hero tags

they are heroes - hariet harman is a biatch (and a feminist), fathers4justice are probably my favourite pressure group - they are very good at picking their moments and places

X_Rated_Shennanigans: RoyBatty: Sigh. Sometime in the past month it seems, "troll" became the favorite word on FARK. FARK used to be so much more fun when people could be snide and snarky and behave like anonymous assholes without having people call them trolls. Yes, even when they are purposefully trolling.

It's much better, and funnier, and makes you less of a humorless dick, imnsho to just grade people on their troll-fu than to actually call them trolls.

In that case, I give him a 3/10. Not funny or original, just slightly provocative to those of us who know the joy of fatherhood.

Yes, thank you, I agree with you 100% on this.

(And I also know the joy and fun of a good snarky snide troll and that's why I enjoy FARK.)

"This isn't about individual men. It's about the right in law for fathers to see their children."

This. Epic This

My ex remarried and my son is a little confused. So she told him he should be happy that he has a full time father...and a father that was there when he was born.

So according to her...I am just the father that was there at his birth and nothing else. (other than the monthly check...I guess).

/Biatch

Lusiphur: These guys deserve a hero tag. If I got divorced and had my child taken away, I think I would go crazy.

THIS.

Happened to me, took me 9 years to get my kids back when my wife left me for a coke dealer. Every day was like hell, and the courts treated her like she was some poor waif with a "problem", never mind that my home was safe, warm, healthy and drug-free. Once they realized that she still wasn't going to clean up after the 4th time they forced me to pay for her rehab (on top of child support), the judge in her Great Wisdom decided to grant me the right to be a dad.

Roy Batty, there's nothing wrong with asking for a superior troll effort than that exhibited here. Though perhaps you're just subtley trolling!

If not, you're the real humorless asshole on here!

Oh, and these guys are heros. Women's rights have gone too far, frankly. There needs to be equality. Prosecutions for false rape, false molestation charges, with extremely long prison sentences. It's a much more common crime than the actual rapes, at least by many educated guesses, and it's just as heinous.

Custody, support, abuse, all those issues face men more harshly than women, thanks in part to idiotic men who think there's something macho about ignoring when you get screwed over.

2wolves: Life isn't fair.

Life sucks, buy a helmet? Oh, that would be the marriage helmet where in case of divorce one has a right to "lifestyle I'm accustomed to" alimony (see Paul McCartney's divorce fiasco), unregulated child support (kid in rags, mom in new suv/designer shoes) and that handy "he touched MY kid in their private parts! MOLESTER!!11" way of getting custody. Look up the McMartin preschool case in CA and Fells Acre case in MA for a primer on the current witch hunt which has bled in to the family courts and society in general.

Then there is the court sponsored fraud aka paternity fraud. State mandated altruism to raise another's child. The Navarro case in CA being a good example of the state going after a guy who had never even lived with the mother let alone been married to her.

And the greatest of them all, the "in the best interests of the child" mantra. Thats led to male statuatory (or otherwise but underage is more typical) rape victims paying their rapists child support. One example being the Alexander Shire case in Michigan.

Of course, women have suffered under "life isn't fair" too in family courts. The difference is, they've rallied in the past 40 years to "equalize" the system, often preying upon chivalrious males to "do the right thing". Unfortunately, they've taken the pendulum and swung it to the complete opposite of where it was during the "evil patriarchy" days.

My big thing is that if a man impregnates a woman, and does not want the child, they are still financially responsible -- for the next 18 years.

If the woman does not want the child, they have the right to terminate and are off the hook.

The fathers seem to have no say over the control of their wallets.

I don't care what your issue is.

If you crawl up on MY house and make trouble, I am going to have you thrown in jail for trespassing.

/trespassers will be shot on site
//and you better hope I'm wearing my glasses when I get mah gun
///get off my lawn, while yer at it
////icy hot slashies

PinkoLeftist 2008-06-08 02:43:41 PM
Then there is the court sponsored fraud aka paternity fraud. State mandated altruism to raise another's child. The Navarro case in CA being a good example of the state going after a guy who had never even lived with the mother let alone been married to her.

...who the what now?

Googled for "Navarro paternity fraud". Went WTF.

nunia

English government ministers tend not to stock up on illegal firearms.

amanogowa: My big thing is that if a man impregnates a woman, and does not want the child, they are still financially responsible -- for the next 18 years.

If the woman does not want the child, they have the right to terminate and are off the hook.

The fathers seem to have no say over the control of their wallets.

THIS

It's assinine that fathers bear all the financial responsibility and none of the "choice".

Worth noting that this kind of crap is a major reason why men are marrying less often than they used to. The legal system and our society rewards lazy women if they get married, and punished men generally (and it's not always so good for ambitious women either).

Don't get married unless you really really mean it. I have been to so many weddings where plainly this wasn't the case. In fact, I'd say all of them.

aneki: amanogowa: My big thing is that if a man impregnates a woman, and does not want the child, they are still financially responsible -- for the next 18 years.

If the woman does not want the child, they have the right to terminate and are off the hook.

The fathers seem to have no say over the control of their wallets.

THIS

It's assinine that fathers bear all the financial responsibility and none of the "choice".

Actually, the male has the choice not to impregnate anyone, either through abstinance, vasectomy, or condom use. If you don't like those options, I completely understand, but you have then made your choice that getting a little something-something is worth the risk of pregnancy.

That being said, I applaud these dads for their struggle for father's rights, and deplore the current wave of paternity fraud that compels men to pay support for children they can prove they did not father biologically.

FarkingSean: Lusiphur: These guys deserve a hero tag. If I got divorced and had my child taken away, I think I would go crazy.

THIS.

Happened to me, took me 9 years to get my kids back when my wife left me for a coke dealer. Every day was like hell, and the courts treated her like she was some poor waif with a "problem", never mind that my home was safe, warm, healthy and drug-free. Once they realized that she still wasn't going to clean up after the 4th time they forced me to pay for her rehab (on top of child support), the judge in her Great Wisdom decided to grant me the right to be a dad.

Glad it worked out for you in the long run. This guy (new window) is an old aquaintance of mine.

I hear of way too many cases where dads are screwed by the courts, and I hate that there IS such a bias. Not all mothers are gleaming angels of wholesome nurturing, and not all dads are lazy deadbeats.

My husband and I were on the brink of divorce at one point (thankfully, we had access to marriage counselling which really did save us), and I was entirely prepared to let him have our son every other week, once he was weaned, and for his entire days off prior to him being weaned (with pumped bottles of milk). He's an awesome dad, and our little guy would be crushed not to have him be a huge part of his life.

Thing is, despite me being entirely prepared to do that, had we gone to court in a divorce, I'm sure he'd have been granted weekend visits at best if I didn't request otherwise. The cards are stacked against fathers, and it sucks.

/Mom
//Best friends are guys who've been through the crap with family courts
///Hero tag for F4J - read a lot about them.

EngineerBoy: Actually, the male has the choice not to impregnate anyone, either through abstinance, vasectomy, or condom use. If you don't like those options, I completely understand, but you have then made your choice that getting a little something-something is worth the risk of pregnancy.

Ah yes -- vasectomy. Getting a potentially irreversible surgery as a young man (ignoring the fact that many doctors and insurance companies refuse this procedure on young men due to the irreversible chance) is a great choice to preventing babies.

I guess I was not aware that condoms have been made 100% effective, too. Last I checked, even when used correctly they can fail.

Lets also ignore the fact that some married men do not want children -- are you saying they need to be abstinent?

All I am saying is that men should have a voice in a major decision that can and possibly will cost them thousands ( if not millions when you factor in interest ) over the next 18 years.

Presumably both partners agreed to the preventative measures, so why can only one party make the follow up decisions?

No, seriously. WTF?

"The argument that won the case was that the DA already knew that he was not the father, they had DNA evidence to prove it and they were still going after him," said Ferrer.

If Navarro's ruling was considered a victory, it was only partially so. Navarro must make peace with money paid out in the years before paternity was disestablished. Offering reimbursement on money paid would violate the Bradley Amendment, a federal law that prevents the retroactive modification of child support orders. States must adhere to the Bradley Amendment, or lose federal welfare and child support funding."

"Congratulations Mr. Navarro. You have proven you are not the father and that you were the victim of paternity fraud all these years."
"Thank you your honor."
"You may now stop making child support payments."
"Good. So, what about the thousands of dollars I've already paid to this fraudulent woman?"
"...What about it?"
"I want it back!"
"No, you see, I can't retroactively modify a child support order, even if it never should have existed."

And it gets better...

Good for these guys. I know when I had to deal with the system here in the US, it was a sham. The ex went in, lied about me, and it was accepted as the truth on a platter, with no proof at all. She got full custody and even though she's never prohibited me from seeing him, it's still a bunch of bullsnot. It's come to a point now though, where I'm moving across country and I'd like for my son to visit me for a month over this summer (at my expense no less) and she's flatly refusing, so I'm going to end up going to court to try and get someone to see some sense. As my son's father, I have exactly ZERO say in his life and what he does.

Sadly, I think the court is going to see "spending every day in daycare" as a better option than "spending time with dad in california"

/rant

In my opionon too many parents are under the mistaken impression that custody is somehow about them. There are too many mothers and fathers who belive that they 'deserve' custody or have certain rights regarding their children because of something or other.

The truth is that ideally such things should always be about the children first, second and last. Children are not property. They are not some sort of thing that you can own or be awarded like a medal. Custody decisions are not supposed to be fair to parents they are supposed to be about whats best for the children.

MidnightSkulker: I hear of way too many cases where dads are screwed by the courts, and I hate that there IS such a bias.

I feel the worst is when a man is order to pay child support, and later proves the child is not his, but still must pay.

/Glad you are such a great woman, btw, and reasonable about custody.

Family court is probably the only place where men, rather than women, are at a disadvantage. See how it feels?

Ishidan: No, seriously. WTF?

"The argument that won the case was that the DA already knew that he was not the father, they had DNA evidence to prove it and they were still going after him," said Ferrer.

If Navarro's ruling was considered a victory, it was only partially so. Navarro must make peace with money paid out in the years before paternity was disestablished. Offering reimbursement on money paid would violate the Bradley Amendment, a federal law that prevents the retroactive modification of child support orders. States must adhere to the Bradley Amendment, or lose federal welfare and child support funding."

"Congratulations Mr. Navarro. You have proven you are not the father and that you were the victim of paternity fraud all these years."
"Thank you your honor."
"You may now stop making child support payments."
"Good. So, what about the thousands of dollars I've already paid to this fraudulent woman?"
"...What about it?"
"I want it back!"
"No, you see, I can't retroactively modify a child support order, even if it never should have existed."

And it gets better...

At least he got to stop paying -- there are many cases where it is not in the child's best interest to have the real father pay -- so they keep making sugar daddy pay.

X_Rated_Shennanigans: You're either a lazy troll, or have never had children.

True on the former (lazy but no troll), dead wrong on the latter. Went through the whole child custody sham years ago. Wasted too much money on lawyers and too much time on activism that took away from my kid.

It is what it is. If she won't let you see the kids just pay the bill and let the kid grow up and make his/her own choice about having a relationship with you. In so many cases the level of adversity involved in getting justice is detrimental to your kid's best interest. Plus you look like a pussy fighting with your ex.

Calling me a troll on this is teapot/kettle territory.

It's true that men seem to get the short end of the stick when it comes to children in modern society. The women's liberation movement has worked hard for decades to achieve equality. Now we're seeing problems from overshoot in certain areas, and undershoot in others.
I agree totally on the child support thing. If a woman decides to be a mother, then a man should get to decide to be a father. Perhaps we could arrange some sort of contract for child-raising. One or both parties can sign it to declare their intention to raise the kid, with all the accompanying time and financial commitments, and then child support can be demanded from either party if they ditch the contract.
Men shouldn't be allowed to force women to carry a baby they don't want, and women shouldn't be allowed to trap men with babies they don't want.

I fully support these guys.

And the situation seems really farked in America, with unreasonable child support rulings and all that. I wonder if it's as bad here in Sweden. I hope not, but I'm going to look into it. Reasonable child support is fine, but no way I'd pay half or 3/4ths of my income. I wouldn't be able to go on living and working, and then I wouldn't be able to pay anything. How's that in the interest of my potential child?

This is one of the reasons I don't want kids. I had to deal with divorce and I hated it. I don't plan on getting divorced, but if it happened then I don't want the kids to go through what I went through.

UnrepentantApostate: Men shouldn't be allowed to force women to carry a baby they don't want, and women shouldn't be allowed to trap men with babies they don't want.

Excuse me, you are going to have to leave. Fark is no place for rational, logical ideas.

spidermann: can I open a US chapter?

/got screwed
//had custody, lots of illegal things happened
///crack whore biatch now has my child

There's already a Canadian chapter so go right ahead.

I'm so sick of hearing the whiny dads-don't-get-a-fair-shake folks. They're probably the same people who think that dads shouldn't have to pay child support if they don't want to spend time with their kids.

I know that there are some cases where dads get farked over during a divorce- so do some mothers. I think this is the exception rather than the rule.

When I left my ex, I signed over everything- house, vehicles, furnishings, pensions, assets...- so that he would sign an agreement giving me full custody. If I hadn't done this, he would have used the boys (aged 6 and 1 at the time) to try to keep controlling me. I left with 2 kids, 1 suitcase, and an agreement from him to pay $100/week child support. It's been 11 years, and I've never seen any child support.

I think my situation is way more common than the "OMG daddy doesn't get to spend more time with junior" situation.

Ms Harman, who is Minister for Women and Equality

Strangely enough, there's no Minister for Men and Equality.