If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Two and a Half Men star Jon Cryer ordered to pay $8,000 in child support for a son 96% in HIS custody   (fathersandfamilies.org) divider line 160
    More: Weird, Jon Cryer, child support, child custody, so emotional  
•       •       •

6292 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Feb 2013 at 11:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-07 02:14:51 PM

dmars: So, it should be OK for a father to not have a job as long as the mother con provide a place for him to live when he sees his kid? Are you suggesting that their is no bias in this case? Are you arguing that a bias is OK?


I hope you aren't implying that he is paying because he is a man and the court wouldn't put a burden like this on a woman if it were a man who had sole custody and mom was wealthy...

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

Child support should only be for supporting the child. IE food, clothing, medical bills and any other expanses that the child incurs. If a parent can't provide for themselves and their own basic needs in the long term(disregarding disabilities or other extraneous factors)  then they do not deserve custody in any manner.

You are entitled to your opinion I suppose but that is not currently the way it works.
 
2013-02-07 02:19:40 PM

people: dmars: So, it should be OK for a father to not have a job as long as the mother con provide a place for him to live when he sees his kid? Are you suggesting that their is no bias in this case? Are you arguing that a bias is OK?

^^^

Society has a hard time flipping the genders in family court.  The overall institutionalized gender bias in family courts is atrocious.


That hasn't been my experience in recent years ( and I a referring to my divorce and my two friends, we all ended up with joint custody). Many people don't understand the criteria the system uses in making it's judgement especially when it comes to custody. One of the strongest factors is who is the primary care giver, with the rational being if there has to be primary custody it is best if the parent that generally took care of the child is granted that custody. In most households dad works and mom stays home or works less than dad. It looks like gender bias but it isn't.
 
2013-02-07 02:29:44 PM

jst3p: browntimmy: jst3p: not5am: Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of?

Yes, for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread.

This isn't chlid support, it's "Pay 100% of another person's expenses plus plenty more than is needed to babysit your kid for a couple hours a week" support. You think she's too busy not raising kids to find a job?

It is child support. What I think is irrelevant. I think my ex wife/co-parent should get a better job so that I don't have to pay 12k a year in child support despite the fact that I have them 50% of the time according to our agreement and in reality much more often than that.

As was stated by someone in this thread, who sounds like a lawyer,  Child support payments can be used in securing and maintaining a suitable residency for whatever visitation the court allows. And it can be used to maintain the people who are to be providing support to the child, in this case the mother.I find this entirely reasonable and as a percentage of total income he pays much less than most parents, even ones who have the majority of the custodial time.


It would be interesting to see her $13,000/month expenses. Granted, I'm not living out in California, but $13,000 would easily pay for all of my families bills, food, clothing, and leave me with a couple grand to spend how I want or save. Hell, I could do that on $8000, so there has to be something she's doing that's wasting money, because she can't possibly be spending $8000 on the kid. Some of that money is either going to property taxes or mortgage or something, because without his income, she'd lose the house that he helped her buy. I'm going to assume that her house is way to big for her and her new husband, and it also doesn't say if he 'helped' pay for it or if that really means 'he paid cash to provide her with a home, even though he didn't need to.'

Is she buying lots of fancy clothing? Paying lots of handlers to make her feel like a super special celebrity, even though she hasn't done anything since 2005? She eating out every day? Lots of memberships and a fancy car? I'm just really curious to see what someone who doesn't work and doesn't take care of her kids can spend 1.5X my yearly income on, because apparently this working bullshiat is for the dogs. I swear to god, I will rewire my physiology so I can squeeze out a crotch fruit, and then get an actor to pay me so they can take care of said crotch fruit.
 
2013-02-07 02:31:19 PM
Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.
 
2013-02-07 02:35:19 PM

voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.


http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.
 
2013-02-07 02:35:20 PM

voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.


only other story where the woman paid alimony/child support i remember correctly was brittany spears and kevin federline. that is one lucky bastard.
 
2013-02-07 02:38:59 PM

Celerian: jst3p: browntimmy: jst3p: not5am: Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of?

Yes, for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread.

This isn't chlid support, it's "Pay 100% of another person's expenses plus plenty more than is needed to babysit your kid for a couple hours a week" support. You think she's too busy not raising kids to find a job?

It is child support. What I think is irrelevant. I think my ex wife/co-parent should get a better job so that I don't have to pay 12k a year in child support despite the fact that I have them 50% of the time according to our agreement and in reality much more often than that.

As was stated by someone in this thread, who sounds like a lawyer,  Child support payments can be used in securing and maintaining a suitable residency for whatever visitation the court allows. And it can be used to maintain the people who are to be providing support to the child, in this case the mother.I find this entirely reasonable and as a percentage of total income he pays much less than most parents, even ones who have the majority of the custodial time.

It would be interesting to see her $13,000/month expenses. Granted, I'm not living out in California, but $13,000 would easily pay for all of my families bills, food, clothing, and leave me with a couple grand to spend how I want or save. Hell, I could do that on $8000, so there has to be something she's doing that's wasting money, because she can't possibly be spending $8000 on the kid. Some of that money is either going to property taxes or mortgage or something, because without his income, she'd lose the house that he helped her buy. I'm going to assume that her house is way to big for her and her new husband, and it also doesn't say if he 'helped' pay for it or if that really means ' ...


I agree that this is one of the flaws in the system, there is no oversight to determine that the money is spent in the best interests of the child, but no system is perfect.

One thing that annoys me more is that child support is not deductible. I should get to deduct it and it should count as taxable income for her, which is the way alimony is treated. I pay income tax on that 12k then give it to her. Meanwhile she gets an EITC and gets more in her "tax refund" than she had withheld all year.
 
2013-02-07 02:39:29 PM

not5am: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

only other story where the woman paid alimony/child support i remember correctly was brittany spears and kevin federline. that is one lucky bastard.


To be fair, this was after she fired him as a dancer so they could hook up and he filed for "unemployment."
 
2013-02-07 02:40:35 PM

jst3p: That hasn't been my experience in recent years ( and I a referring to my divorce and my two friends, we all ended up with joint custody). Many people don't understand the criteria the system uses in making it's judgement especially when it comes to custody. One of the strongest factors is who is the primary care giver, with the rational being if there has to be primary custody it is best if the parent that generally took care of the child is granted that custody. In most households dad works and mom stays home or works less than dad. It looks like gender bias but it isn't.



Ok. Ill bite  How is it not bias.
 
2013-02-07 02:41:09 PM

jst3p: dmars: So, it should be OK for a father to not have a job as long as the mother con provide a place for him to live when he sees his kid? Are you suggesting that their is no bias in this case? Are you arguing that a bias is OK?

I hope you aren't implying that he is paying because he is a man and the court wouldn't put a burden like this on a woman if it were a man who had sole custody and mom was wealthy...

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

Child support should only be for supporting the child. IE food, clothing, medical bills and any other expanses that the child incurs. If a parent can't provide for themselves and their own basic needs in the long term(disregarding disabilities or other extraneous factors)  then they do not deserve custody in any manner.

You are entitled to your opinion I suppose but that is not currently the way it works.


You do realize that she lost custody when she went batshiat insane and only has visitation rights.

So, just because something is currently the way that we do things then fark it I guess right? Glad we didn't follow your example with slavery, women's suffrage, etc.

If you look at cases as a whole then yes there is a bias against the male gender, how do you not have a problem with this? I am not saying in every case it should benefit the father over the mother, In cases where the father doesn't even want custody and his arrangement through out the marriage was the wife stays home and he furthers his career then some supplementation is warranted. It isn't cut and dry and it seems like our court system treats it that way and I think it needs to stop.

I am lucky enough to be in a healthy divorced relationship and we are still partners when it comes to raising our son, but I could have been farked over so easy. My wife's lawyer was trying to convince her to get as much money from me as should could(which isn't a lot) which she declined, no child support(we split all his costs), full joint custody and we live a half a mile apart. I couldn't have divorced a better woman. Other guys that I know aren't that lucky and have to pay child support while the bitter ex still refuses their court ordered visitation and getting the court to enforce that shiat is a damn nightmare for them.

That is the way it currently is, but in my opinion it isn't good enough and needs to be changed.
 
2013-02-07 02:41:32 PM

not5am: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

only other story where the woman paid alimony/child support i remember correctly was brittany spears and kevin federline. that is one lucky bastard.


Hallie Berry was ordered to pay 20k a moth too, I think.

It isn't as uncommon as you might think.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142637/More-women-U-S-payin g- husbands-alimony-child-support-before.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html
 
2013-02-07 02:43:38 PM

people: jst3p: That hasn't been my experience in recent years ( and I a referring to my divorce and my two friends, we all ended up with joint custody). Many people don't understand the criteria the system uses in making it's judgement especially when it comes to custody. One of the strongest factors is who is the primary care giver, with the rational being if there has to be primary custody it is best if the parent that generally took care of the child is granted that custody. In most households dad works and mom stays home or works less than dad. It looks like gender bias but it isn't.


Ok. Ill bite  How is it not bias.


Because the decision isn't made because of the gender, it just happens more often than not that the mom is the primary care giver. I work in IT, we have zero women on our unix admin team, a few on other teams in our department. We aren't biased against women it is just that very few women apply and are qualified.
 
2013-02-07 02:46:23 PM

jst3p: it just happens more often than not that the mom is the primary care giver.


I'm going to skip statistics here.

Your argument gives, collectively, women the choice to either to take custody or not take custody.

Dad is forced to pay child support.

This is all the argument I need.  I don;t even need to talk about the disparity in women paying for men's child support when the father is the primary.

Thats it.  Bias.
 
2013-02-07 02:54:25 PM

jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.


Umm, the court awarded custody of the boys to Federline. YOU couldn't be more wrong.
 
2013-02-07 02:54:27 PM

dmars: You do realize that she lost custody when she went batshiat insane and only has visitation rights.


Irrelevant.

So, just because something is currently the way that we do things then fark it I guess right? Glad we didn't follow your example with slavery, women's suffrage, etc.

I am not saying that at all, I am saying that most people, yourself included apparently, don't understand the basis of these decisions and in lacking that understanding all you can see is that it must be bias.

If you look at cases as a whole then yes there is a bias against the male gender, how do you not have a problem with this?

Because I disagree that it is gender bias. It is bias in favor of who spends the most time with the child, who happens to be mom more often than not. That does not mean the courts favor women.


 I am not saying in every case it should benefit the father over the mother, In cases where the father doesn't even want custody and his arrangement through out the marriage was the wife stays home and he furthers his career then some supplementation is warranted. It isn't cut and dry and it seems like our court system treats it that way and I think it needs to stop.

I am lucky enough to be in a healthy divorced relationship and we are still partners when it comes to raising our son, but I could have been farked over so easy.


So the fact that you weren't but think you could have been is further evidence of systemic bias?

My wife's lawyer was trying to convince her to get as much money from me as should could(which isn't a lot) which she declined, no child support(we split all his costs), full joint custody and we live a half a mile apart. I couldn't have divorced a better woman. Other guys that I know aren't that lucky and have to pay child support while the bitter ex still refuses their court ordered visitation and getting the court to enforce that shiat is a damn nightmare for them.

I don't know your friends or their situations but and maybe your state is different but I have been involved in or party to custody issues in three different states and that shiat wouldn't fly here. Colorado is very focused on it being in the best interests of the kid to have access to both parents. More and more states are coming down on both dead beat parents and on parents who deny court ordered visitation. The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.
 
2013-02-07 02:55:53 PM

puckrock2000: jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.

Umm, the court awarded custody of the boys to Federline. YOU couldn't be more wrong.


Fair enough, I misread what was posted.
 
2013-02-07 03:02:17 PM

jst3p: dmars: You do realize that she lost custody when she went batshiat insane and only has visitation rights.

Irrelevant.


How is that irrelevant. John Cryer has primary custody. Kevin Federline has primary custody.

Kevin should get child support since his ex was unable to care for the children when she had custody.

John Cryer's ex gets child support since she was unable to care for the children when she had custody.

You don't see a difference here.
 
2013-02-07 03:02:57 PM

people: jst3p: it just happens more often than not that the mom is the primary care giver.

I'm going to skip statistics here.

Your argument gives, collectively, women the choice to either to take custody or not take custody.



Not at all, first of all it isn't "my argument", it is what is currently believed to be in the best interests of the child and the basis for the decision. Secondly, if the couple decides that dad stays home and she is the bread winner the court would decide in favor of the father.

In addition this is only applicable where primary custody is awarded. More and more research is showing that it is not detrimental to the child to spend equal amounts of time in both parents home (some conditions apply). More and more often shared custody is being awarded/

Dad is forced to pay child support.

The non-custodial parent with the larger income pays child support, the gender doesn't matter.

This is all the argument I need.  I don;t even need to talk about the disparity in women paying for men's child support when the father is the primary.

Show me a case where the father has custody or even joint custody, the mother has greater income and she does not pay child support, then you will have a point. Show me more than one and you might have a valid point.

Thats it.  Bias.

But not gender bias.
 
2013-02-07 03:06:50 PM

dmars: jst3p: dmars: You do realize that she lost custody when she went batshiat insane and only has visitation rights.

Irrelevant.

How is that irrelevant. John Cryer has primary custody. Kevin Federline has primary custody.

Kevin should get child support since his ex was unable to care for the children when she had custody.

John Cryer's ex gets child support since she was unable to care for the children when she had custody.

You don't see a difference here.


It is the same rationale that requires me to pay child support. Parenting time is only one factor when determining how child support is calculated. The other is income disparity. I have 50% custody but because she made 14k last  yearI still pay child support. The reasoning is that it would be detrimental to the kids to live with me half the time on the golf course and then go to the ghetto to live with mom.

I don't particularly like it, but my kids benefit so I accept it.
 
2013-02-07 03:07:49 PM

jst3p: evidence of systemic bias?


You know, 100 or so years ago, the law gave the father custodial rights because they were paying for he  material support.

These rules are routinely bashed for being sexist and biased. Why cant we just use your argument above. Its about who pays the material support, right?  Don't use a current legal practices to mask and justify gendered bias in the court.

Men cannot bear the biological stresses and costs of pregnancy and child birth.  We work to support this process, especially in a country like the USA which is terrible on maternity leave.  We work as part of this process We work more hours.


Secondly, as part of the dual income families today, households, today, with dual income have less expendable income than single family incomes just 40 years ago.  A series of laws have been passed to maintain material support at the expense of the (most often) male income.
This is to the point where, while most dads pay their child support,  the vast majority of the dead beat dads are flat broke and destitute.

Tell me how fathers would not like the first option to choose whether they want custody or not and to have the women subsidize this right - a priviledge enjoyed by women
 
2013-02-07 03:10:27 PM

jst3p: Show me a case where the father has custody or even joint custody, the mother has greater income and she does not pay child support, then you will have a point. Show me more than one and you might have a valid point.


This is the easiest argument I have ever had

First google search

First hit
E. For cases initiated between 1989 and 1992,94.5% of mothers with primary placement are awarded child support awards while only 41.9% of fathers with primary placement are awarded support awards. (Table 14)
 
2013-02-07 03:16:12 PM
I am always boggled at the lack of dignity some people have when they think their ex-spouse should pay for for everything like they were a child just because the relationship ended. Be a grown up. Have some respect for yourself.
 
2013-02-07 03:19:15 PM

jst3p: dmars: So, it should be OK for a father to not have a job as long as the mother con provide a place for him to live when he sees his kid? Are you suggesting that their is no bias in this case? Are you arguing that a bias is OK?

I hope you aren't implying that he is paying because he is a man and the court wouldn't put a burden like this on a woman if it were a man who had sole custody and mom was wealthy...

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

Child support should only be for supporting the child. IE food, clothing, medical bills and any other expanses that the child incurs. If a parent can't provide for themselves and their own basic needs in the long term(disregarding disabilities or other extraneous factors)  then they do not deserve custody in any manner.

You are entitled to your opinion I suppose but that is not currently the way it works.


Did you even read the link you posted? They charged her child support because he has custody. In Cryer's case, they are charging him child support while he has custody. If anyone should be paying child support, it should be Cryer's ex.

This is why men should never get married or have kids. The family courts are a god damned joke.
 
2013-02-07 03:19:33 PM

FunkOut: I am always boggled at the lack of dignity some people have when they think their ex-spouse should pay for for everything like they were a child just because the relationship ended. Be a grown up. Have some respect for yourself.


Nah.  Now drive away in your divorced dad old old car to the divorced dad apartment. Enjoy the sharp statistical increase in suicide rates.
 
2013-02-07 03:20:22 PM

people: jst3p: evidence of systemic bias?

You know, 100 or so years ago, the law gave the father custodial rights because they were paying for he  material support.


I would like to see some evidence of that. I did a quick google but cant find anything on child custody from 100 years ago.  I did find that in 1910 the prevailing problem seemed to be fathers abandoning their families:

1910: The Uniform Desertion and Non-Support Act
The Uniform Desertion and Non-Support Act was approved by The National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws in 1910. It was initially adopted by 24 jurisdictions and made it a crime to for a husband to willfully abandon or neglect to provide support for children under the age of 16.

These rules are routinely bashed for being sexist and biased. Why cant we just use your argument above. Its about who pays the material support, right?  Don't use a current legal practices to mask and justify gendered bias in the court.

Men cannot bear the biological stresses and costs of pregnancy and child birth.  We work to support this process, especially in a country like the USA which is terrible on maternity leave.  We work as part of this process We work more hours.


Secondly, as part of the dual income families today, households, today, with dual income have less expendable income than single family incomes just 40 years ago.  A series of laws have been passed to maintain material support at the expense of the (most often) male income.
This is to the point where, while most dads pay their child support,  the vast majority of the dead beat dads are flat broke and destitute.


Tell me how fathers would not like the first option to choose whether they want custody or not and to have the women subsidize this right - a priviledge enjoyed by women


I am not quite sure what you are getting at here but the fact is the court doesn't care much about being fair or unfair to mom or dad, they care about what is best for the kid. The courts aren't gender biased, but when it comes to custody and what is in the best interests of the child maybe nature is.
 
2013-02-07 03:21:11 PM

jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.


You couldn't be more retarded. Read your own link moron.
 
2013-02-07 03:21:47 PM

people: jst3p: Show me a case where the father has custody or even joint custody, the mother has greater income and she does not pay child support, then you will have a point. Show me more than one and you might have a valid point.

This is the easiest argument I have ever had

First google search

First hit
E. For cases initiated between 1989 and 1992,94.5% of mothers with primary placement are awarded child support awards while only 41.9% of fathers with primary placement are awarded support awards. (Table 14)


Unless you can demonstrate that those fathers who were not getting child support had an income that was less than the mothers you have not made your point.
 
2013-02-07 03:22:59 PM

jst3p: people: jst3p: Show me a case where the father has custody or even joint custody, the mother has greater income and she does not pay child support, then you will have a point. Show me more than one and you might have a valid point.

This is the easiest argument I have ever had

First google search

First hit
E. For cases initiated between 1989 and 1992,94.5% of mothers with primary placement are awarded child support awards while only 41.9% of fathers with primary placement are awarded support awards. (Table 14)

Unless you can demonstrate that those fathers who were not getting child support awarded custody had an income that was less than the mothers you have not made your point.

ftfm

 
2013-02-07 03:24:03 PM

umad: jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.

You couldn't be more retarded. Read your own link moron.


Yeah, I didn't read what I was responding to properly. My bad, it happens.
 
2013-02-07 03:26:16 PM

jst3p: I did a quick google but cant find anything on child custody from 100 years ago.


Ploop ploop.

Here you go.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/agunn/teaching/enl3251/vf/pres/hurvitz .h tm

jst3p: I am not quite sure what you are getting at here


its easy

1)  Women, collectively,  have the choice for primary custody.

--
Two income families. Both incomes pay for hosuehold.

2) Divorced dad does not have the choice.  He has to now pay for the old share of the household, with scraps left for the new life.

One gender has the choice.  One gender does not.

This was flipped and legally institutionalized, and not a damn person is trying to justify that as not sexist. The legal foundation for todays gendered bias in the courts is why its institutionalized gender bias in the courtroom.
 
2013-02-07 03:27:12 PM

jst3p: In most households dad works and mom stays home or works less than dad.


Here is also a big problem that does lead to the bias.

You assume the mother is more fit because she is the "primary caregiver". Most father's HAVE to have a job. That doesn't make them less of a father.

In my case, my ex wife was stay at home before and after our son was born. The thing was she wasn't a very good mother early on and lucky for me that has changed.

I would get up for work and take our son to her grandmothers, who watched him while I worked, then I picked him up after work at take him home. This went on for about two years because she just wasn't willing at the time to care for our son, which some of that had to do with depression issues. She got over that and became a great mom but it was too late for the marriage. If we did have to fight over custody at the end, because of that assumption that you stated, I would have had a harder time gaining custody then she would have. That is just the truth of the matter.

Some of the instances you have mentioned are good strides in equal rights for fathers, but overall, I think men are not treated fairly in courts when it comes to custody.
 
2013-02-07 03:28:50 PM

jst3p: Unless you can demonstrate that those fathers who were not getting child support had an income that was less than the mothers you have not made your point.


I'm not going to do that

Your problem is you are hiding behind the law that is forms the justification for gendered bias.

Want me to ask you to do that for the laws 100 years or so ago, when it was person providing primary supportthat got custody?
No, the law sucks.
 
2013-02-07 03:29:30 PM

jst3p: You know, 100 or so years ago, the law gave the father custodial rights because they were paying for he  material support.

I would like to see some evidence of that. I did a quick google but cant find anything on child custody from 100 years ago.  I did find that in 1910 the prevailing problem seemed to be fathers abandoning their families:


I found this link, which is pretty interesting reading:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Child%20Custody%20in%20t he %20USA%20(Page%201%20of%205).htm

In Roman, and later in English common law, children were viewed as the property of the father, who had a legal obligation to protect, support and educate his children. Fathers had the right as well to sell their children, and to enter them into enforced labor. In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of circumstances. Several major historical trends converged to weaken this paternal presumption in the late 1800's, including society's increasing focus on children's welfare, and the effects of the industrial revolution. As fathers increasingly sought work beyond the farm or village, mothers remained at home as primary caretakers. The resultant division of family responsibilities into wage earner and child nurturer influenced subsequent custody decisions. The paternal preference was gradually replaced by a maternal preference, based on the "tender years" presumption. The tender years doctrine (intended to apply to children under age 6) was originally invoked to determine temporary custody arrangements in English law, giving mothers custody of infants only until they were ready to be returned to the father. But by the 1920's, the maternal preference for custody in English and American law, regardless of the child's age, became as firmly fixed as the earlier paternal preference, and was encoded in statute in all 48 states.

So, yeah it looks like since 1920 or so women have been awarded custody.
 
2013-02-07 03:29:34 PM

dmars: You assume the mother is more fit because she is the "primary caregiver". Most father's HAVE to have a job. That doesn't make them less of a father.


This
 
2013-02-07 03:32:35 PM

jst3p: In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of circumstances.


There you go.
 
2013-02-07 03:36:28 PM

people: 1)  Women, collectively,  have the choice for primary custody.

--
Two income families. Both incomes pay for hosuehold.

2) Divorced dad does not have the choice.  He has to now pay for the old share of the household, with scraps left for the new life.

One gender has the choice.  One gender does not.

This was flipped and legally institutionalized, and not a damn person is trying to justify that as not sexist. The legal foundation for todays gendered bias in the courts is why its institutionalized gender bias in the courtroom.


Because it is believed that the if custody needs to be awarded it is in the best interests of the child that the award goes to whoever spent the most time with the child. This isn't because courts hate men, it is because the court is only concerned in what the child's needs are.
 
2013-02-07 03:38:13 PM

people: jst3p: In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of circumstances.

There you go.


To be fair, I don't think going back to treating women and children like property is the way to go either.

Let me ask you something, if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?
 
2013-02-07 03:43:14 PM

jst3p: would like to see some evidence of that. I did a quick google but cant find anything on child custody from 100 years ago.  I did find that in 1910 the prevailing problem seemed to be fathers abandoning their families:


http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/254/mcnefram.html

It was in the 1800s, so 150 years ago, but it did happen
 
2013-02-07 03:44:04 PM

jst3p: in the best interests of the child


jst3p: if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?


Lets be clear. A one size fits all rule that biases againt men is not the way to determine this.

jst3p: if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?


I can tell you what it isn't.  A one size fits all rule.

Perhaps they could have a place, where they review the information.  In that place, there would be paid professionals there  on each side to give those arguments.  Also there would be a person who's job it would be to look over that information and weigh it out on a case by case basis, with out the constraints of these one size fits all rules.
 
2013-02-07 03:44:51 PM

dmars: jst3p: would like to see some evidence of that. I did a quick google but cant find anything on child custody from 100 years ago.  I did find that in 1910 the prevailing problem seemed to be fathers abandoning their families:

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/254/mcnefram.html

It was in the 1800s, so 150 years ago, but it did happen


damn see it was already taken care of, it shouldn't have been that way either, but it was just as bad in the pre 1970's when dad's where automatically "weekend dad" with no say so otherwise
 
2013-02-07 03:47:56 PM

jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.


This would only be similar if Brittney had full custody and was still paying K-Fed the child support.
 
2013-02-07 03:49:08 PM

meanmutton: jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.

This would only be similar if Brittney had full custody and was still paying K-Fed the child support.


It's been covered about five times now, but thanks for the input
 
2013-02-07 03:50:21 PM

people: Perhaps they could have a place, where they review the information.  In that place, there would be paid professionals there  on each side to give those arguments.  Also there would be a person who's job it would be to look over that information and weigh it out on a case by case basis, with out the constraints of these one size fits all rules.


There would still have to be some basis for the decision, some factor that is compelling enough to favor one parent over another. More states need to be like Colorado.


In Colorado, child custody is determined by the best interests of the child. The court uses several factors to determine the best interests of the child, including:

The child's wishes
Each parent's wishes
The child's relationship with his/her parents and other influential persons
The child's adjustment to school, home and community
The mental and physical health of all involved parties

Joint Child Custody in Colorado
In Colorado, a judge prefers to award parents joint custody

where parents are given frequent and continuous contact to the child.
However, court in Colorado will not grant custody to a parent who presents a physical or emotional danger to the child.
 In making a determination for joint custody, a Colorado court will consider:

Whether the parents have the ability to make decisions jointly
Whether each parent's relationship with the child is encouraging and loving
How the custody split will affect the encouragement of frequent and constant contact with each parent
 
2013-02-07 03:51:17 PM

jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.


Hey dumbass, your link doesn't say what you think it says!
 
2013-02-07 03:53:51 PM

jst3p: people: jst3p: In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of circumstances.

There you go.

To be fair, I don't think going back to treating women and children like property is the way to go either.

Let me ask you something, if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?


A perfectly equal and even split, except in cases of abuse or neglect.
 
2013-02-07 03:56:27 PM

people: jst3p: in the best interests of the child

jst3p: if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?

Lets be clear. A one size fits all rule that biases againt men is not the way to determine this.

jst3p: if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?

I can tell you what it isn't.  A one size fits all rule.

Perhaps they could have a place, where they review the information.  In that place, there would be paid professionals there  on each side to give those arguments.  Also there would be a person who's job it would be to look over that information and weigh it out on a case by case basis, with out the constraints of these one size fits all rules.


It really should be done on a case by case basis. That being said, the world isn't fair. Men get screwed in divorce/custody hearings because courts like to automatically award custody to the women. On the other hand, women get screwed financially by the fathers of their kids all the damn time. In my family, which I realize is an anecdote and not evidence, I have three boys who were absolutely and completely abandoned by their dads. I have one boy who was absolutely and completely abandoned by his mom. I have another boy whose parents divorced and whose deadbeat dad refuses to pay child support while concurrently trying to block the boy and his mom from leaving the state to greener pastures. (Fortunately, the judge told him to pound sand.) I have a relative who truly wants to be involved in his son's life, but his girlfriend (now ex) moved to another state and took their kid. He doesn't want to make waves for fear that she'll revoke all access to their son. And I have another family member who has two kids and doesn't give a flying fark about them. His parents do (one of whom was the little boy abandoned by his mom I mentioned earlier), so his kids are still definitely part of our family, despite his uncaring attitude. And my maternal grandmother died when my mom was a little girl.

So, the world ain't fair. Women get screwed by men, men get screwed by women. The thing is, the courts don't give a fark about the parents, they care about the kids. They don't care that dad is getting screwed by the ex-wife if it means the kid gets the best chance possible in life. It's the kid that matters, not the parents.
 
2013-02-07 03:56:46 PM

jst3p: In Colorado, child custody is determined by the best interests of the child. The court uses several factors to determine the best interests of the child, including:

The child's wishes
Each parent's wishes
The child's relationship with his/her parents and other influential persons
The child's adjustment to school, home and community
The mental and physical health of all involved parties


Do they have unicorns in Colorado?

How does that work out in practice?


.
 
2013-02-07 03:58:43 PM
people: jst3p: In Colorado, child custody is determined by the best interests of the child. The court uses several factors to determine the best interests of the child, including:

The child's wishes
Each parent's wishes
The child's relationship with his/her parents and other influential persons
The child's adjustment to school, home and community
The mental and physical health of all involved parties

Do they have unicorns in Colorado?

How does that work out in practice?


Works fine with my ex and I, but it isn't always easy.
 
2013-02-07 03:59:22 PM

meanmutton: jst3p: people: jst3p: In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of circumstances.

There you go.

To be fair, I don't think going back to treating women and children like property is the way to go either.

Let me ask you something, if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?

A perfectly equal and even split, except in cases of abuse or neglect.


Except what if that's not in the kid's best interests? What if the dad lives in one neighborhood and the mom another? Should the kid have to split time between schools? What if the dad lives in a crappy school district and the mom a good one? What if the kid has special needs that are more readily addressed by living full time with one particular parent? What if the kid has medical needs and one parent is a doctor or nurse while the other is not?

You're trying to make it equitable for the parents, which is commendable, but it's really about what's best for the kid.
 
2013-02-07 03:59:51 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Men get screwed in divorce/custody hearings because courts like to automatically award custody to the women.


Suck it up, guys.

Mike Chewbacca: On the other hand, women get screwed financially by the fathers of their kids all the damn time.


The vast majority of men are not deadbeats.  A large percentage of the ones that are are basically destitute.

Mike Chewbacca: It's the kid that matters, not the parents.


Lets stop favoring the woman, then.
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report