Ha Ha, Merry Christmas..
"Mr. Clark, I have reviewed this case very carefully," the divorce court judge said, "And I've decided to give your wife $775 a week." "That's very fair, your honor." the husband said "And every now and then I'll try to send her a few bucks myself!".
Monday, December 17, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
.
.
It aint my fault
I know a woman, I was married to her until "death do us part", who got a divorce. I guess she didn't like that part. Anyway, needless to say, she escaped. Michigan, like every other state, allows "no fault" divorce. If the other spouse is opposed to the divorce, that alone is an irreconcilable difference, justifying the divorce, ha ha. This is the greatest invention in the world. Take all the money both spouses have, when that runs out tap their families for a while. The attorneys get rich. The courts get rich. The children suffer.
Just so you understand the basics, a no fault divorce simply means a spouse just wants a divorce. She (oops, sorry) I mean the spouse who wants the divorce simply fills out the forms and the ball gets rolling. A fault divorce would be when one spouse points a finger and says our marriage is shot because of him, uhh, that person I used to be in love with enough to stay married for a dozen years and make 5 beautiful babies with. Divorce is cool if you are a woman with children. You can lean on the system in a million ways and do quite well for yourself. I know a woman who gets all her and the kids food for free, she gets daycare for free, medical and dental benifits for free, etc. Did I mention that she gets to keep all of her income and most of mine, sorry, her ex-spouses money (tax free). Criminy, these women are smart. They get it all. This is the best part... Live in a state or county where you get most of the time with the kids. More money, yay.
That's right, the less time the dad actually gets to see of his kids, the more it costs him. Didn't I tell you this was a great invention. Fault, no fault, what is the difference? It is going to continue to happen. If the women continue to benifit like they currently do it will get worse. If the women didn't have so much to gain from a divorce, if it wasn't so profitable, maybe a few more children would see both their mother and father every day. If the attorneys and the court systems didn't make so much money from divorces maybe they would encourage people to try to stay together.
Children need time with their dads!
Please click on the link here and read/react to the plea from me and all the children, present and future, who suffer from broken homes in Michigan.
http://helpchildrenofmichigan.createfreeblogs.com/30/Help+the+Children+of+Michigan.html
I thank you for the tens of thousands of children and fathers this bill will help out in the future.
Many states already see the value of equal parenting time and start that way right out of the chute with a divorce. Michigan needs desperatly to catch up with the times.
Please click on the link here and read/react to the plea from me and all the children, present and future, who suffer from broken homes in Michigan.
http://helpchildrenofmichigan.createfreeblogs.com/30/Help+the+Children+of+Michigan.html
I thank you for the tens of thousands of children and fathers this bill will help out in the future.
Many states already see the value of equal parenting time and start that way right out of the chute with a divorce. Michigan needs desperatly to catch up with the times.
DADS HAVE TO PAY SO THE COURTS GET THEIR MONEY !?!
WHAT?
Does that sound crazy or what? Extremly sad but true.
The fathers are tapped for as much child support as possible because every dollar paid in child support brings in money to the courts. Dads don't get fair parenting time because.. more time with their children = less child support. Less child support collected by the courts system ("friend" ($) of the court) equals less federal dollars being handed to the courts. We can't have that. Don't worry about what the dad can afford. Max out the time for the kids with the mom and you can go right to the TOP of the "chart" and max out out dads child support. Carey Roberts said it better when he said.. "It's those incentives that have made the system so destructive to families." and better yet when he said.. "If fathers are awarded 50% custody of their children, they owe little or nothing in child support. If no child support dollars are channeling through the system, then the federal money dries up. This creates an inducement for states to keep children away from their fathers as much as possible." WOW. Read his excellent article here.. http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/070814 .
This is exactly what Carol Rhodes, former officer for the Friend of the Court, told us in her speech. She was often reminded by her superiors that "we are the friend of the court, not the friend of the family". She talks about how they were to maximize payment from the dad in order to generate revenue for the court. Her speech is here.. http://www.youtube./watch?v=LOC58c-Ibdk . After leaving the corrupt Friend of the Court she wrote a book titled FRIEND OF THE COURT ENEMY OF THE FAMILY.
So how broken is a system that gets fed its dollars by hurting the children? By breaking the fathers? What a vicious cycle it creates. Everyone has heard at least some of the shocking statistics of how children that are victims of divorce suffer. How much more likely they are to have all types of troubles in their lives not suffered by children that have married parents. Also how much worse off the fatherless children fare in life, and, how much better off the children of divorced parents are if their father is active and present in their lives. The system takes the kids away from their dad for the money then crys when the kids without fathers do bad things.
Hmm.
Would 50/50 parenting time after a divorce help these troubled kids out? You bet! Make them better citizens, have a better shot at life? Yep! Would it help the dads out? Umm Hmm! Would they get to be a larger part of their childrens lives, have more time for learning/teaching/love ? Yes Sir! Would dads get to be "dads" and not just a child support payor?
What a concept.
WHAT?
Does that sound crazy or what? Extremly sad but true.
The fathers are tapped for as much child support as possible because every dollar paid in child support brings in money to the courts. Dads don't get fair parenting time because.. more time with their children = less child support. Less child support collected by the courts system ("friend" ($) of the court) equals less federal dollars being handed to the courts. We can't have that. Don't worry about what the dad can afford. Max out the time for the kids with the mom and you can go right to the TOP of the "chart" and max out out dads child support. Carey Roberts said it better when he said.. "It's those incentives that have made the system so destructive to families." and better yet when he said.. "If fathers are awarded 50% custody of their children, they owe little or nothing in child support. If no child support dollars are channeling through the system, then the federal money dries up. This creates an inducement for states to keep children away from their fathers as much as possible." WOW. Read his excellent article here.. http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/070814 .
This is exactly what Carol Rhodes, former officer for the Friend of the Court, told us in her speech. She was often reminded by her superiors that "we are the friend of the court, not the friend of the family". She talks about how they were to maximize payment from the dad in order to generate revenue for the court. Her speech is here.. http://www.youtube./watch?v=LOC58c-Ibdk . After leaving the corrupt Friend of the Court she wrote a book titled FRIEND OF THE COURT ENEMY OF THE FAMILY.
So how broken is a system that gets fed its dollars by hurting the children? By breaking the fathers? What a vicious cycle it creates. Everyone has heard at least some of the shocking statistics of how children that are victims of divorce suffer. How much more likely they are to have all types of troubles in their lives not suffered by children that have married parents. Also how much worse off the fatherless children fare in life, and, how much better off the children of divorced parents are if their father is active and present in their lives. The system takes the kids away from their dad for the money then crys when the kids without fathers do bad things.
Hmm.
Would 50/50 parenting time after a divorce help these troubled kids out? You bet! Make them better citizens, have a better shot at life? Yep! Would it help the dads out? Umm Hmm! Would they get to be a larger part of their childrens lives, have more time for learning/teaching/love ? Yes Sir! Would dads get to be "dads" and not just a child support payor?
What a concept.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
I LOVE THAT LOGO!
It warms my heart and makes me cry.
Check out this shocker...
UK Survey: 1 in 4 children do not consider their fathers as immediate family
Amazing but not surprising--a press release from the UK shared parenting group Families Need Fathers said "1 in 4 children do not consider their fathers as immediate family": "BBC Newsround’s 35th Anniversary Survey has found that 1 in 4 children do not consider their fathers as immediate family. Although this figure is alarming, Families Need Fathers are not surprised by these findings - the number of children who don't see their fathers as part of their immediate family is broadly the same as the number who live in lone-parent households. Children who are growing up not living with their fathers are hardly likely to think of them as close family. "John Baker, FNF Chair, said of the survey’s result:
"'This is an example of how society’s continued marginalization of fathers is affecting children’s perspectives on the roles of men and women as parents. This is a real wake up call for the country and our politicians.'"
Amazing but not surprising--a press release from the UK shared parenting group Families Need Fathers said "1 in 4 children do not consider their fathers as immediate family": "BBC Newsround’s 35th Anniversary Survey has found that 1 in 4 children do not consider their fathers as immediate family. Although this figure is alarming, Families Need Fathers are not surprised by these findings - the number of children who don't see their fathers as part of their immediate family is broadly the same as the number who live in lone-parent households. Children who are growing up not living with their fathers are hardly likely to think of them as close family. "John Baker, FNF Chair, said of the survey’s result:
"'This is an example of how society’s continued marginalization of fathers is affecting children’s perspectives on the roles of men and women as parents. This is a real wake up call for the country and our politicians.'"
WHO IS ABUSING WHO?
Women still get away with the age old abuse tactics.
Here is a little story about a prince, his princess, and their lovely little children.
It really happened in a small town not so far away, not too long ago.
The story repetes itself on a daily basis across this fair land.
Remember, not all stories have happy endings.
Read it and get angry.. http://fathersparentingtime.createfreeblogs.com/23/A+Womans+Guide+%28How+to+Squash+a+Father+in+a+Divorce%29.html
For a better idea of what was happening in the story read the entry below titled the silver bullet. Powerful stuff man, scary!
Women still get away with the age old abuse tactics.
Here is a little story about a prince, his princess, and their lovely little children.
It really happened in a small town not so far away, not too long ago.
The story repetes itself on a daily basis across this fair land.
Remember, not all stories have happy endings.
Read it and get angry.. http://fathersparentingtime.createfreeblogs.com/23/A+Womans+Guide+%28How+to+Squash+a+Father+in+a+Divorce%29.html
For a better idea of what was happening in the story read the entry below titled the silver bullet. Powerful stuff man, scary!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)