A small victory in our family

[Rof L Mao Esq]

I just got this email from a nephew, and I'll let it do the talking:
----------------------
"I know many of you have been thinking about and praying for me regarding the child custody case heard in (deleted) court last week. The judge did not rule on the case at the time, but has sent a rough draft of his order to (deleted) and I's attorneys today. There are still a few details we will work out, but here are the basics (should answer most of the questions many of you have)...

• We are both fit and proper parents (haha, that's good.
• We will be awarded joint legal custody. (This means we must both be involved in major decisions for all three of the kids.)
• During the school year (the mother) will be awarded primary physical custody meaning they live with her primarily and she is able to make day-to-day decisions regarding the kids. During this period I will have secondary custody every other weekend. If the kids are out of school on a Friday or a Monday on my weekend they will be with me on that day off.
• During the summer I will be awarded primary physical custody meaning they live primary with me and (the mother) will have secondary custody every other weekend. (The mother) gets two weeks within the summer to have the kids for vacation.
• We will split the holidays.

There are other little stuff in the court order with requirements around being provided school info, medical info, phone calls, etc.



I am very thankful for the decision by the judge. He truly tried to make everything as equal and fair as he possible could have been asked given the circumstances of our situation (particularly the distance). While I would have been ecstatic with having primary custody of the kids, the judge has made sure the doors are wide open for me to be as involved as possible in the kids' education, extra circular actives, and just their lives in general.


It's been quite the ride over the last 14 months, as it will continue to be moving forward, but I thank you for standing with me and praying with me throughout this entire process.
---------------
It's never perfect, but joint custody is rare enough given the myth that men want nothing to do with our kids, and/or are unfit to care for them. Truthfully I think most men who give up want nothing to do any more with their kids' mothers, which I know is true in this case. This marks the third time in a quarter century that a woman has abducted children away from a man in my family, and this is the best outcome yet, such as it is.

[Marx]

That's a large improvement over some of the usual situations rendered in courts.

[Celtic Druid]

These small success stories help to rouse similarly deflated fathers to aspire towards better days for themselves.

[The Possible Human]

It is indeed a decent court ruling. It remains to be seen if the mother will comply with the court order and not interfere with the custody arrangements.

[haute macabre]

These victories are why we must all keep fighting for the men that don't have a chance.

[Traveler]

Well, it seems congratulations are in order for your nephew, and family in general.
This *is* good news...let us know how it turns out!

[FloatyBoaty]

Being a father isn't bad news; modern marriage is though...

[That Nordic Guy]

Congratulations! with your victory I do sincerely hope that this is just the start of a global change!

[Rof L Mao Esq]

Thanks for all the great comments.

My nephew is twice the man I am and he'll handle it fine. His mom passed away years ago, before this was done to her grandchildren. When I attended her funeral it was in the middle of the seizure and withholding of my son, whom she was never to meet, God rest her soul.

I know what my sister thought of that, and of when my brother's "wife" did the same thing ten years earlier. As a mother and grandmother herself I know she was strongly against women running away to Mommy with the kids, though her own husband's perennial career problems certainly (in different circles than she ran in) would have qualified for the "I don't like how this feels" rationale women so commonly use for breaking up their children's families.

This is a point that is commonly missed about maternal abduction: when a woman seizes children and takes off for her mother's house (that's almost always where they go, what if we started prosecuting the old bat?), in effect she is deciding unilaterally who her children's family is and who is not. The kidnapping, and defending it tearfully and melodramatically in court, are statements for the record that the man who conceived her children is no good, essentially that they come from bad seed. Once the ruling granting her sole custody is in effect she has a legal excuse not to let her kids ever have any contact with half their own family, the grandparents, cousins, nieces and nephews et al that the father brings to the children's life. In saying that she personally disapproves of one man she is granted the power to amputate half her children's heritage in a single stroke. Not only do they not know the man who fathered them, but anything about his people.

This makes her own kids strangers in the house in a way, because they are the only ones at all the get-togethers and reunions of her clan who have this other pack of banned and unspoken-of evildoers as relatives, and they are not allowed to know anything about or discuss their own people among those who were complicit in severing them from their families.

In most cultures, the lineage and standing of the father's family is paramount, one of the cornerstones of the legitimacy of the relations that produced the children. Removing at a whim every vestige of children's paternal heritage and identity is a way of stealing their souls and embarking on a life that reduces their coming from a man's proud and supportive family to a scolding comment that precedent says she is bound to make daily for the next forty years: 'you're acting just like your father', an epithet thrown routinely in their faces that says they are only half-real, half-human, half-worthy, half-loved.

Even if women perpetrating these abductions aren't reasoning it out personally with PC feminist rationale, taking children out of their paternal families still strikes a blow for that unholy cause, because it stacks the prejudice against the value of men further by saying: a child only needs one extended family, not two, and Mommy will give them all the identity they need.

[FloatyBoaty]

This is a point that is commonly missed about maternal abduction: when a woman seizes children and takes off for her mother's house (that's almost always where they go, what if we started prosecuting the old bat?), in effect she is deciding unilaterally who her children's family is and who is not. The kidnapping, and defending it tearfully and melodramatically in court, are statements for the record that the man who conceived her children is no good, essentially that they come from bad seed. Once the ruling granting her sole custody is in effect she has a legal excuse not to let her kids ever have any contact with half their own family, the grandparents, cousins, nieces and nephews et al that the father brings to the children's life. In saying that she personally disapproves of one man she is granted the power to amputate half her children's heritage in a single stroke. Not only do they not know the man who fathered them, but anything about his people.

A person can only have one guide. In ancient times girls were given as wives for a reason. The girl was no longer a part of her birth household but that of her husband. The man took her as his.

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

This makes her own kids strangers in the house in a way, because they are the only ones at all the get-togethers and reunions of her clan who have this other pack of banned and unspoken-of evildoers as relatives, and they are not allowed to know anything about or discuss their own people among those who were complicit in severing them from their families.

In most cultures, the lineage and standing of the father's family is paramount, one of the cornerstones of the legitimacy of the relations that produced the children. Removing at a whim every vestige of children's paternal heritage and identity is a way of stealing their souls and embarking on a life that reduces their coming from a man's proud and supportive family to a scolding comment that precedent says she is bound to make daily for the next forty years: 'you're acting just like your father', an epithet thrown routinely in their faces that says they are only half-real, half-human, half-worthy, half-loved.

I've even seen this happen when both parents were around, though more subtly.

[Rof L Mao Esq]

According to my ex, and when she told me this she obviously thought she was saying something reasonable and adult, her way of dealing with it is to never mention me or my family at all, and leave it up to my son (who barely knows any of us because of this) to pursue these relations or not.

Yeah, right.

Anyone know a fourteen-year-old who is going to make a priority of contacting people who are strangers to him? Especially when he's the only kid his age on the planet that doesn't have his own cell and laptop and email and skype and facebook page, all of which he has been banned from so that he won't contact any of us independently?

But, she'll just leave it up to him to decide.

"After all, We ARE the Queen..." Lady Jane

[julie]

I came from an environment (before I met the MRM) where men didn't get shafted in the family court. The first week I learned of the online MRM a friend of mine got online and told how he got full custody of all 5 children 20 odd years ago. It upset some MRAs.

But, .....he was a hands on father (which many MRA then weren't) and he asked the judge to stop the courtcase so he could change the baby and give her something to calm her down. The judge said as soon as he finished, "Give him the kids".

A few of my single fathers (in our group) can't understand how come MRAs are more bothered to muck around pushing their weight around instead of getting on with the court case, but then most men who don't get a fair trial aren't interested in the kids, but rather telling the mother how to do life.

The reasons some men are going to court is because 1) they don't like the fact their ex has another man around the children 2) the mothers aren't staying home but going out 3) they have heard men are looked down upon so they go to court to make sure they have a say in their children's lives and 4), 5), 6) all sorts of petty stuff.

When I first started writing on men's sites, fathers would email me and tell me I was speaking crap about the family court for they had no trouble.

.............. Anyways, men have their day in New Zealand today and.......

They have made major changes to the family court and they've made sure everything is focused on the children, because that hasn't been happening. Lawyers tell me of their cases and say they think parents should grow up and start being responsible parents.

Along side the changes, these leading men have lots of resources going out to teach parenting to both mums and dads.

I have heard also from MRAs exes and their children who don't paint a nice picture of men online. I don't care much (just try and support them) for I realise men are still children as women are still children. Many youth think adults are idiots just as we thought until we became one, lol.

Both men and women need to put the children first..... and research on how kids turn out is going to influence where we go.

I know solo parents aren't the main reason for kids getting into drugs and crime. It's kids coming from families where the children go between mum and dad and other family members.

[felixblue]

Thanks for posting this julie. I do not doubt that the stories you tell here are true recollections, but it does largely confirm what I always thought of the FC scenario. They fail to appreciate the concerns of the father as he seeks to safegaurd his children from the behaviour of the mother, (slagging around) and the only way a father can succeed in court is if his ex is not doing the "traditionally expected" duties of a mother, and he is.. The most "feminised" parent gets the kids!

Your last paraghraph doesnt actually make sense if you think about it.. The 2 sentences are basically about the same scenario.. It is solo parenting that creates the latter scenario. Besides which no one truly "raises kids solo".. That would be pretty impossible if you consider the logistics of it..

Putting the children first is fine in theory, but in practice, who knows what is best for the kids?

I don't think then courts have a fucking clue.. Liarwyers and the other parasites there put their own interests first..

The whole business of having one parent effectively head the "statist" family defined by the court, is merely to provide a reference point for the state agents who deal with the family. Mothers tend to be more compliant to statist shite, and allow more statist shitesters to be employed, while keeping the "more productive" father at work rather than at home so statists will always prefer that outcome.. (max the tax revenues in..)..

I'd say anyone who is considering going to court, should realise that the battle has already been lost and simply not go there.

There is no victory in the anti family court.

[wh666]

Sounds like your nephew got a good deal there dinohip. Congrats!

However, not to rain on the parade, but just being honest, it doesn't sound very joint at all:
- He only gets his kids full time for 6 out of 52 weeks a year (assuming your summer holidays in the US are 8 weeks? We only get 6 weeks in the UK), so the woman gets full time custody for over 7 times longer per year than he does. The song is "once twice, three times a lady", not seven. So the courts are essentially saying here that a man is so worthless, seven women are worth one of him? How on earth is that supposed to be joint?
- Both of them only get every other weekend? So for most of the year, he only sees his kids for a day or two every fortnight as if he were some criminal? He might as well go and get locked up, he'd probably see his kids more that way!
- Other holidays to be discussed/split? Yea, we can all see how those discussions will go! Wave goodbye to ever being able to see your child's smile on christmas/thanksgiving or their birthday.

[Rof L Mao Esq]

"most men who don't get a fair trial aren't interested in the kids, but rather telling the mother how to do life. "

That sentence can stand in the corner for a while until it learns the errors of its ways. I'll let common sense, precedent, and the legions of dads who know and do otherwise finish that argument for me.

But, as usual Julie, you make a lot of other good points, so I'll provide some topics for further debate here.

When custody is actually in dispute, judges and lawyers both promote adversarial proceedings and assume adversarial outcomes. That's why the statutes are so full of specific guidelines that seem to presume neither parent is particularly qualified and needs the whole village to raise the child, or as they say in Canada, "we co-parent."

If we're dealing in generalizations (which after all are the bread and butter of the blogosphere), it may be fair to explore the notion that more women than men are in favor of seeking the state's assistance by at least going through the motions of compliance with its edicts about children, and the MRA argument seems to suggest that those edicts themselves presuppose that they are designed for single moms and not dads. Moms go to court looking for a supportive Big Sister in the state, while dads come by summons naming them "Respondent" (the civil equivalent of the criminal "Defendant") and are on the defensive before they walk through the metal detectors and get those hostile looks from the cops who have already read the docket and know exactly who and what they are.

And so the cliche of the antagonistic blowhard father making an ass of himself in court is both by design and self-perpetuating. When the unwritten law is that how a man acts in a courtroom is the sole measure of his fitness as a parent, things that admittedly are culturally disapproved of in male nature (like defending ourselves and our children when attacked) play against us every time, and right on cue. The burden of proof is so steadily assumed to be on a father's shoulders, the mandate being that if he doesn't want the court to rubber-stamp sole custody for the mother by tradition and default, that he is expected to argue with effect otherwise or sit quietly while awaiting sentence. Men have a tendency to be skilled at neither when we are in the right to begin with and no one believes us.

When a mother takes the children it is with the underlying assumption that she is acting on property rights. When a father sees that she has taken them, the natural response is to an assault on both his and his children's civil rights. Their reasons for being in court at all are totally different, and the entire proceeding is designed to address the property issue and not the civil liberties ones. As parental abduction is an incarcerable felony in most states, justice has already been outraged for a man by the fact that his argument belonged in the hands of a prosecutor trying a felony kidnapping case that never took place, and he has to make it in a civil custody case where he is expected by everyone in the building to lose.

To respond to the above quote I opened with, telling a woman how to do life isn't really the issue. But the law says that she ought to do as many as five years, and that leaves a dad in need of a court's support. When we don't get it (THIS JUST IN it doesn't bring out the best in our public demeanor to be made defendants ourselves when we should be in the legally respected role of witness for the prosecution.

Where feminism comes into play has nothing to do with how judges and lawyers actually feel about what is best for children. They look down their little aristocratic noses at all these trashy peasants coming through their workplace who can't live like they do, in the rarefied air of country-club marriages and office-party adultery and three-martini lunches, and send the kids off with their moms to clear the docket for more interesting cases. Most divorce rulings as written are verbatim legal boilerplate, plus particulars wrought by a mere codifying of conversations held ex parte over drinks and meetings in chambers between people who are all colleagues and daily coworkers.

Simply put, they want these cases off their hands, and the single mom scenario is their path of least resistance. A man seeking otherwise is then not only a defendant but a procedural saboteur in their eyes, a spanner in the works. The success of feminism here is decades old, as by the mid-60s successful lobbying to expand the welfare state in favor of mothers blazed for the courts that very path. One man arguing against decades of tradition and "common knowledge" has to even first convince his own counsel to argue for custody, and the dime-a-dozen initial consultation generally includes something to the effect, for men, of "don't even try."

The genius of feminist agitational strategy has been not so much to change the custody laws themselves, but the academic and professional atmosphere the practitioners of law must rise through and operate in. By making it political suicide and a career destroyer to look too deeply into the accountability and reliability of the politically safe single mother cult, they pull a monstrous act of blame-shifting onto innocent men who don't have a clue how deeply the deck is stacked against them and actually think wanting to be good fathers will help them in court.