Boston Globe Editorial on Divorce and Parenting
“Charles Kindregan, a law professor at Suffolk University, soundly argues that a presumption of joint legal and physical custody could handcuff judges who should be free to consider the best interests of children on a case-by-case basis. ‘You don’t need a presumption when you have facts,’ Kindregan says. The relevant facts include children’s age, temperament, emotional development, and medical needs, as well as how parents get along and how far apart parents live from each other. A judge looking at an infant will have to make very different decisions than a judge looking at a teenage boy.”
“Dad can see the infant or young child an hour or two a week if mom allows it. Men don’t have the temperament for children. We might give good old dad a chance when his kid is a teenager. The kid will already be damaged from growing up without a father and the father-child relationship may be strained or non-existence from limited contact and negative talk from the mother. It’s okay for dad to spend time with the kid as long as they live within 1,000 miles of each and mom is not unhappy about the visits.”
The Globe editorial and the expert it quotes are out in left field. There is absolutely no reason why a father should be kept away from his baby or toddler under normal circumstances. This is the kind of discrimination that men deal with every day in America. If courts want to take rights away from fathers, then fathers have the right to be free. Naturally, you won’t see the courts go in that direction. Changes must be made. Why?
Fathers are not indentured slaves to an ex-wife in the name of children. Yet, the popularity of unconstitutional federal law among divorced mothers and feminists has brought this attitude of disdain towards men to its current reality. The Bradley Amendment and all unconstitutional Title V law must be repealed. This should be a Presidential election issue!
How is it that a mother who seeks to eliminate the father is acting in a child’s best interest?
Helen Grieco “views the rise of fathers’ rights organizations in the 1980s-and the accompanying increase in custody disputes as bargaining tools-as a direct response to ‘the demand of the women’s movement for greater child support, which ended up costing fathers more money.’ What a skewed statement. Father’s rights as a movement has accomplished very little for the rights of fathers because of intense and brutish opposition over the years. The future of the movement shows some hope for restoring the rights of fathers. This is 2008, not the 1980s or the past. Clearly, Ms. Grieco feels threatened by any opposition, let alone the fact that parents have Constitutional rights too.
One parent better than two?
“While it is true that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children’s best interests,” Rep. Shirley Bowler (R-River Ridge)” and the bill’s supporters ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn’t it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it?”
Why shouldn’t a father consider his pocketbook as important. Apparently nobody else does beyond a tool for exploitation. A father has become a tool for money extraction without consideration of human and civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. When it comes to the court system, legal argument and parents, isn’t it ALWAYS about the money? Does anyone ever discuss the balance of human and civil rights in the equation? The rights of parents are rarely considered in legislation because money and “children’s rights” is government empowerment. The current public obsession of legislators is the “interests of children” over adults. The reality is that this is wrong and unfair. Civil rights have clearly been distorted by socialist-leaning agendas in their struggle for power, not for the true benefit of anyone else. The Bradley Amendment and Title V fits neatly into the current agenda of many politicians. Unfortunately, many “former feminists” have become governors and have established themselves in political positions to ply their views on an unsuspecting American populace. The happy beneficiary of this monetary abundance and expense is usually the custodial parent via the “ever-important” rights of the child.