Dad spends $100k and counting trying so save his kids

In a case that has dragged on for years, a Missouri Family Court judge seems to be doing his level best to ensure three young children end up in the custody of the wrong parent. Hanging over the case is one question: “Why?” I refer to the biological parents in this case as “Jack and Jill.” Jack has never been in trouble with the law, while Jill is the violent, drug- and alcohol-addicted, drug-dealing, ex-convict mother of his children.

Full article here

Other related articles can be found at the following links:

NY overturns Family Court decision to bar level 3 sex offender from his kids

Domestic violence debate still rages nearly a year after murder-suicide

Why is abortion illegal for men but not women?

Modern feminist narcissism and the sperm bank

Men's Rights Online (Child Custody Issues)

I realize that discussion of these issues has a tendency to get heated, but it doesn't have to. Let's try to keep it civil, logical, and as emotionally detached as possible. Might be a good idea to keep a copy of your 25 Rules of Disinformation handy too in order to sort the wheat from the chaff, even in our own commentary.

I was going to try to keep the thread focused on just the one case alone, but this is such a large issue that it will inevitably stray off into many areas of gender relations and how they pertain to the courts and our society today.

So in that vein I also submit this short video...

reply to post by CobraCommander


A lot of it has to do with race. Look at the race of most white knights and feminist man-haters(the ones that are bigoted in action). Most of them are either Scottish, Irish or of English origin.

Another factor is that the Deep South has long been the refuge of ultra rightist women. These people don't care about the children at all. All they care about is making sure the mother receives child support aka vagimony.

Heck look at the biggest White Knights on this website and surprise surprise they are from areas that are either heavily Anglo or heavily Scott-Irish Ulsters.

One could argue nature vs nurture(maybe Anglo Scott-Irish Ulster men are genetically inferior to Anglo Scott-Irish Ulster women? Stranger things happen in nature. And their ultra macho white knighting is a manifestation of the fact they are inferior. I work in a customer service type job and time and time again Anglo Scott-Irish Ulster men[especially from the South] show extreme deference towards their women. And the women act in an off-putting manner. Any gal's here ever work customer service and get stuck with a chauvinistic guy asking for directions refocus on a male employee instead blatantly? That is kind of how they act.).

Either way it is messed up.

We need an ERA amendment to protect our rights. because do you know what Supreme Court Justice Scalia said a few months back? It isn't unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of gender. It wasn't directed at women(even though the paranoid feminist's thought so). It was directed at men. Men who where raped by women and then later entrapped in slavery, and other issue's where men are treated like second class citizens or slaves for the benefit of women.

Excellent thread.
I think you know my stance,on child support and the system.

The one Story that gets me is the man spending 100k . Hes spent WAY too much money to fight this. There had to have been a Lawyer or Attorney in his State that was well versed in this type of custody hearings. Even if you find proof of an EX doing drugs,it better be solid. They offer counseling through the State,Treatment programs,etc.......and are willing to KEEP someone on those programs,chance after chance. Second,He could have easily hired an investigator,to see if she was buying drugs,or on drugs. A simple anonymous call,a few choice words,maybe say HUGE amount of drugs involved,and another strike against her. You get enough of those,and a Judge WILL have to look at the evidence.Not to mention REAL charges,and maybe prison time.


Star and Flag!

reply to post by sonnny1


The mother was well known to police, a repeat offender. His lawyers kept dropping him because he refused joint custody. Also...

While relying upon the less-than-stellar court-appointed expert, Jack said, the judge ignored the opinions of several highly-respected physicians at a renowned area medical center. Those physicians examined Jack’s children for signs of sexual abuse and/or molestation and, afterward, advised against allowing the children to be returned to the locations where the incidents of alleged abuse took place or to associate with those who had allowed the abuse to occur (i.e., the children’s mother and her associates).

reply to post by CobraCommander


Unfortunately,he should have played within the system,and taken Joint custody. Easier to get PRIMARY placement,when you do.Trust me on that one. It sucks men have to be forced to be used by the system,and the kids suffer as a result. He could have saved himself alot of money. Money that would have went to a real investigator,that could have pointed the police the right way. Most P.I.'s are ex-police,and have friends in the force. My investigator had my EX's drug house watched for a week. Mom decided to go there,and 10 minutes latter was being arrested,with her drug dealer. Pure bliss to have my EX walk into a child custody hearing,wearing ORANGE overalls......... BTW,that cost me 5 large,and worth EVERY penny.

reply to post by korathin


Forty years of unchecked Feminism has achieved Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s goal of “eliminating” clearly defined gender roles that define a family, stabilize society and have been in place for thousands of years.

The cost to almost every aspect of our society is staggering.

Women now can get “pit-stop” divorces where husbands and fathers are ejected from the home as swiftly as pit crews remove worn tires from a racing car. New tires are added, the gas tank is filled in a flash, and she’s off again, this time with the kids in tow, leaving fathers in a cloud of dust, unable to see their kids, usually due to a bogus restraining order. She, off to her next conquest never having to worry about paying because it’s daddy’s speed pass she swipes at the pump.

It’s no wonder some 20 million American children are fatherless.

What an unbelievable shame.

What a tragedy.

“The feminist notion that women should be independent of men, followed by affirmative-action/female quotas in employment, tended to carry out the goal stated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated.” These feminist ideas and practices demean marriage by discriminating against men and also against fulltime homemakers.” -Phyllis Schlafly — The Cost to Taxpayers of Missing Fathers





The real cost of Feminism: Fatherless children, poverty, unemployment, crime and taxes


I think you hit the nail on the head.

reply to post by korathin


I'm not really convinced that is this has anything to do with race. More of culture. That can run along racial lines to a large degree, but I really don't believe that race itself has any bearing here.

I do agree with your take on Scalia's comments though.

I am a feminist and I don't apologize for being a feminist, because feminism also gave me the right to vote, hold a job and own property. Anti-feminists want to blame feminism for custody disputes. That makes no sense to me. Both parents are responsible for the children, but who is going to look after them? Will the father have the means to stay home and look after the children? If he does then, sure...let him go at it. If he's going to be a full time employee...I don't understand how he could raise a child on his own. Explain how a child will get the proper care when their only parent is working full time. It doesn't seem like it would. Why deny them the other parent that would be willing to look after them in that case?

It appears like you're overlooking the child's rights in this.

Originally posted by laiguana
I am a feminist and I don't apologize for being a feminist, because feminism also gave me the right to vote, hold a job and own property. Anti-feminists want to blame feminism for custody disputes. That makes no sense to me. Both parents are responsible for the children, but who is going to look after them? Will the father have the means to stay home and look after the children? If he does then, sure...let him go at it. If he's going to be a full time employee...I don't understand how he could raise a child on his own. Explain how a child will get the proper care when their only parent is working full time. It doesn't seem like it would. Why deny them the other parent that would be willing to look after them in that case?

It appears like you're overlooking the child's rights in this.

edit on 16-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)

To begin with, and I should have stated this in the OP, there is a distinct difference between the different concepts that are too easily all rolled into one label today, feminism. There is a world of difference between feminism of a hundred years ago, and feminism of today. You have your equal rights, the war is over. Modern feminism is a movement that has outlived its purpose, at best, but more to the point, has become a socio-political movement which actually destroys the TRUE power of the feminine. A woman trying to be a man is not feminism.

As far as both parents being responsible for the children, that only goes so far as what a parents rights are. If a parent has no rights, then they should neither have any responsibility, outside of some criminal act of course which civil penalty might be justly applied.

As far as choosing one parent or another, yes, a father is just as capable of being a single parent as a mother, if not more so. After all, it is not already the man who is providing to begin with, even when he does not have custody? Short of that, many single mothers ALSO work full time jobs, but as you yourself point out, that is not in the best interest of the child either.

So what is the solution? To end single parenting to whatever extent possible. Feminism on the other hand, promotes broken homes, it does not mend them.

reply to post by laiguana


And just one other quick point here. Your post seems to reflect the flawed logic that woman should have custody by default, when clearly the lead story of the OP refutes that. Feminism would leave the children staying in a home with a drug-addicted prostitute being sexually abused by her Johns rather than in a stable home being cared for by a hard-working father. This man should not have had to spend a dime to get sole custody, yet after who knows what trauma the kids have suffered over several years, and a hundred grand later, he is still fighting.

reply to post by CobraCommander


I disagree, and don't think the children should remain in a hostile environment. I would think it would be best for the children to stay at home with a parent that is actually there to look out after them, be it their mother or father. So your assumption would be wrong. I don't know any other 'types' of feminism. The feminism that gave women basic rights is the only feminism I know, and I'm thankful for the efforts of those women before me.
Nonethless, anytime I see a custody dispute...the most consideration should be given to the children's well being. If the mother proves to be incapable then I see no dispute. Not all parents are fit to be parents.
However, I don't see the correlation between feminism and gender bias in custody disputes. This is more about societal bias against a man's ability to look out after a child, which to me has more to do with how society still encourages the constraints of gender roles (usually by those who are over 50). Feminists would be happy if men would be more willing to look out for their children, like this dad.

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

I disagree, and don't think the children should remain in a hostile environment. I would think it would be best for the children to stay at home with a parent that is actually there to look out after them, be it their mother or father. So your assumption would be wrong. I don't know any other 'types' of feminism. The feminism that gave women basic rights is the only feminism I know, and I'm thankful for the efforts of those women before me.
Nonethless, anytime I see a custody dispute...the most consideration should be given to the children's well being. If the mother proves to be incapable then I see no dispute. Not all parents are fit to be parents.
However, I don't see the correlation between feminism and gender bias in custody disputes. This is more about societal bias against a man's ability to look out after a child, which to me has more to do with how society still encourages the constraints of gender roles (usually by those who are over 50). Feminists would be happy if men would be more willing to look out for their children, like this dad.

You take a very naive stance on the true nature of feminism. I suggest you read some of the more nitty gritty links that I have posted under the lead article of the OP.

Now although I do agree with you that the children should live with the best parent that is up to the job, I can see that you are already indoctrinated into the more negative aspects of the modern feminist mindset with this statement...

If the mother proves to be incapable then I see no dispute.

Incapacity of the mother should not be the defining point which a man can have custody of his children.

Now this may surprise you too, but the truth is that MOST fathers would rather have custody of their children. Sadly, political feminism and it's societal constructs prevent that in most cases. Usually it begins with a false claim of domestic violence...

www.mens-rights.net...

reply to post by CobraCommander


Wrong...This is not a feminist issue, this is an issue of having the children be under the care of a dedicated parent. Even if the mother does not have the financial means because she has dedicated her time to the children, is willing and able to do so.... I don't see the argument in this. They need their mother and/or father to raise them.
The results in these custody disputes would probably change if the father refused to work a fulltime job and made it his endeavor to dedicate time to his children. Leaving them with nannies or strangers isn't going to cut it.
So...I'm not buying the idea in which you claim men are being discriminated against on an unprecedented basis. Perhaps in this case it would seem so, and I would agree, but on average? I highly doubt it. I don't know about you, but I've seen a number of cases first hand where the man will take off and not care to know anything about his kids....As is the case with a friend of mine who never knew who his father was until his mother passed. His father never made that effort to be one until then, but he still blames his mother for that.
If a man is willing to be a father and willing to spend most of his time with his children; that ought to be the deciding factor, not how many hours he worked to give send them to Disney Land. What makes the most importance in a child's life is who was there for them through out a day by day basis. It's not just an occassional thing. Parenting is a full time job.

reply to post by laiguana


If it is not a feminist issue, then explain to me why women get the children by default, and a man has to spend over a hundred grand to keep his kids away from a crack-head hooker who takes up with child molesters.

reply to post by CobraCommander


I don't think it should be by default, like I've already said. She cannot look after the kids at all, she cannot be a good mother to them by keeping them in a hostile and dangerous environment. The answer should be obvious.
It certainly does not have to do with feminism...It has to do more with society's views on gender roles. Because she's their mother, certain people, by default, may think she is the only one able to provide dedicated parenting, despite that she cannot given the circumstances. I really don't see how feminism comes into play here. Feminism isn't about taking away rights from anyone. That would include the children's rights to live in a safe home.

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

I don't think it should be by default, like I've already said. She cannot look after the kids at all, she cannot be a good mother to them by keeping them in a hostile and dangerous environment. The answer should be obvious.
It certainly does not have to do with feminism...It has to do more with society's views on gender roles. Because she's their mother, certain people, by default, may think she is the only one able to provide dedicated parenting, despite that she cannot given the circumstances. I really don't see how feminism comes into play here. Feminism isn't about taking away rights from anyone. That would include the children's rights to live in a safe home.

As I said earlier, you take a very naive view of feminism today.

Yet while you say in one breath that it has nothing to do with feminism, in the next you admit that many people believe that a woman is a more dedicated parent, which is far from the truth. When you talk about society's views on gender roles, you are talking about feminism (or lack thereof in the "movement.")

Modern feminism tells us that a woman alone is the ideal parent, with no need of a man (aside from his paycheck of course) while she carries on a career and puts her litter in daycare.

Originally posted by CobraCommander
As I said earlier, you take a very naive view of feminism today.

There's only one feminist movement that I'm aware of. It has nothing to do with taking away the rights of children. What you're referring to is something militant and feminism is not militant.

Yet while you say in one breath that it has nothing to do with feminism, in the next you admit that many people believe that a woman is a more dedicated parent, which is far from the truth. When you talk about society's views on gender roles, you are talking about feminism (or lack thereof in the "movement.")

It doesn't have anything to do with it. People as much as the court system are more likely to side with the mother when it comes to custody disputes because of interpreted gender roles given by society. Which is where the father goes to work and the mother stays at home and raises the children.

Modern feminism tells us that a woman alone is the ideal parent, with no need of a man (aside from his paycheck of course) while she carries on a career and puts her litter in daycare.

This is false...there is no modern feminism. Feminism does not deny the rights of a child to have a father. It would be ideal if both parents equally participated in a child's life. Still..you seem so attached to the idea that feminism is to blame that you're over seeing the underlying issue.

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Wrong...This is not a feminist issue, this is an issue of having the children be under the care of a dedicated parent.

This case is about who is better fit to take care of the children: a father that has had no trouble with the law and is doing everything in his power to keep his kids safe, or a mother that:

...has attempted suicide more than once, been arrested dozens of times, been imprisoned several times and, when not behind bars, continues to hang out with known drug dealers, prostitutes and other felons, according to court records, police reports and other official documents...

Feminism has zero to do with anything concerning this issue. This issue is about who is better capable of giving these children a better life. Is your stance so narrowly feminist that you can accept that a mother that lives that lifestyle would still be a better parent than a father that has to work for a living?

/TOA

I dont mean to poke fun at anyone, but I thunk that a certain poster is very young and unaware. Sadl, what we are seeing in her posts, is "initiation."

She believes in everything that is "good" about feminism as she is being indoctrinated.

It truly scares me, because I have young ladies in my own family following that path. Subconsciously believing that subjugating men is the answer, that homes without fathers is the answer.

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Wrong...This is not a feminist issue, this is an issue of having the children be under the care of a dedicated parent.

This case is about who is better fit to take care of the children: a father that has had no trouble with the law and is doing everything in his power to keep his kids safe, or a mother that:

...has attempted suicide more than once, been arrested dozens of times, been imprisoned several times and, when not behind bars, continues to hang out with known drug dealers, prostitutes and other felons, according to court records, police reports and other official documents...

Feminism has zero to do with anything concerning this issue. This issue is about who is better capable of giving these children a better life. Is your stance so narrowly feminist that you can accept that a mother that lives that lifestyle would still be a better parent than a father that has to work for a living?

/TOA

edit on 17-6-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that..you're just so filled with bias and misogyny that you aren't even able to properly read my posts. Try reading them next time.