"I refused to settle for becoming a 'Disney Dad'"
So says Alec Baldwin in discussing his new book, A Promise to Ourselves: A Journey Through Fatherhood and Divorce.
The book tells of Baldwin's fight with the California family law system. In an interview with ABC news, he states:
I am glad Baldwin wrote this book, perhaps this topic will get some attention because he is a celebrity. But it makes me think that if Baldwin had such problems with the system with all his fame and money, what chance does the average joe have?
The book tells of Baldwin's fight with the California family law system. In an interview with ABC news, he states:Many readers, especially the attorneys and other professionals who play integral roles in the family law system, will automatically dismiss this book as nothing more than the grumblings of a bitter and angry man. Rather than falling prey to a corrupt system, they will say I am the victim of my own poor choices who brought all this on myself by marrying the wrong woman, hiring the wrong lawyer or through my own boorish behavior. ...
I agree that I did make things worse for myself. Foolishly, I walked into a courtroom with the expectation that I would be given some equitable rights regarding my daughter. I ignored the less than subtle message that tells non-custodial parents, especially fathers, to abandon such hopes and face the realities of this system. Walk away, we're told. Accept your fate as your penance for the poor choices you've made. Write off this failed family as the price of learning difficult lessons. The longer you hold out for what should be the right of every parent, the more expensive and painful the process becomes. ...
I had a contentious divorce because I wanted a meaningful custody of my daughter. I refused to settle for becoming a "Disney Dad," one whose role is nothing more than outings to theme parks once or twice a month. Instead I wanted to share the joys and responsibilities of raising my daughter. I wanted to be a real father, and the system punished me for that. Ultimately, I refused to give in..
I am glad Baldwin wrote this book, perhaps this topic will get some attention because he is a celebrity. But it makes me think that if Baldwin had such problems with the system with all his fame and money, what chance does the average joe have?
posted by Helen at 11:13 AM
78 Comments:
As long as Baldwin is still a shill for the dhimmicrats, he's feeding the very same party which betrayed him the most.
One more stupid choice.
answer? almost done unless they are prepared to give up everything.
it sucks.
Pete,
Yes, wouldn't it be nice if Baldwin came out against laws like the VAWA that Biden wants to expand to give free lawyers to women to fight for custody against fathers like Baldwin who end up in court without rights, hope or justice on their side? But fat chance of that.
It sort of reminds me of the current financial mess. Democrats played a large role in causing the problem and then play dumb when problems in the system become apparent--and with the help of the media, the public is fooled. I doubt Baldwin has the guts in Hollywood to go against the Democrats who pass laws and develope programs that hurt fathers. Just take a listen to Obama talking about cracking down on Dads, that'll help....
Reading Baldwin's article, my divorce experience came back to me in one big flood.
Like him, my contentious divorce was contentious not over money and other such things, but because I insisted on, as Baldwin put it, "meaningful custody of my" two boys.
For the crime of pushing for shared parenting of two boys that I was just as much a parent to as my ex, I was punished to the tune of over $30,000 in legal fees (mine and hers alike), and received even less than standard visitation because the judge wanted to send a message or whatever.
Thus a fellow who had been with his children each and every day, who had regularly fed, clothed, bathed, changed diapers, and read bedtime stories to his children, was reduced to having a maximum of one week in spring, a week in the fall, and 4 weeks in the summer.
And to top this all off, I was ordered to pay 25% of my gross income and had to foot the entire $10,000 / year visitation bill myself.
The media made Baldwin look like an ass, but I had nothing but sympathy for the guy (despite his inappropriate reaction) when he blew up at his daughter, because I know how he's feeling.
Visitation is pre-meditated parental alienation; it cannot be helped.
And divorce isn't going anywhere because too many people profit from the destruction of families and the assignment of control of children to mothers only. Vultures from both sides of the political isle both feed and feed off the system...democrats and the bar lobby keep divorce going, republicans ensure that it is as nasty as possible with their notions that only mothers are fit parents when a marriage dissolves, dads are merely walking wallets.
Although the "best for the children/tender years" argument is used as justification for giving primary custody to mothers, the real reasons are quite different. The real reasons are the heavy bias in favor of women throughout our legal system.
As you and Pete said, it would be a tremendous help if Baldwin came out against VAWA, Biden's lawyers, etc.
What chance does the average joe have? It's quite simple, really. Don't get married, and you'll be fine. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
I wish I had something to say that could change this stuff.
I was lucky. I was able to have and raise my kids. But that is only because the spouse was certified. It still broke me though.
Baldwin blew it. Men can't make mistakes in this arena. I can't understand though, why the judges take it personally, against men anyway. Regardless of their own sex. And, as we all know, the only winners are lawyers. And the person you end up hating the most over it, is usually your own lawyer. Outright opposition is easier to understand than treachery.
Lawyers are not interested in "justice" and "fairness" and abstract goals like the "good of society".
They are interested in making a good living in as easy a way as possible and thats typically ALL they are interested in-- protestations to the contrary can usually be met with the "listen to the words, trust the behavior" admonition.
Actually , it is amazing any "justice" ever gets done-- its theoritically said to be a by product of lawyer-entrepeneurs all seeking their self -interest and representing folks. Of course , illegal behavior--both criminal and tortious -- happens to regular people on a regular basis and there is no remedy for it. There is no real deterence--- because one can almost never attract the interest of the lawyer-entrepeneur.
He will represent you ONLY if its a slam dunk and there are deep-pockets to be emptied on the other side and a sizable profit for him. Otherwise, forget it.
Its amazing how lawless our society is because of the privatization of justice-seeking in the hands of lawyers who are totally self-seeking.
Any other solution-- beats me...
Laywers look at cases like surfers look at waves-- no reform can be expected from this bunch. Unless it puts money in their pockets.
Nothing will change until a few lawyers and a few wives who are being difficult during a divorce get shot. Unfortunately, short of tragedies like tihs happening, noone will take a good, balanced, and a critical look at the way divorce and family laws have become for men.
This comment has been removed by the author.
TO: Alec Baldwin, et al.
RE: Heh....
....as the famous line from Bruce Willis in Die Hard reads...
Welcome to the PARTY, pal.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[More rapes are perpetrated in a court of law than on the streets of America. -- CBPelto]
TO: All
RE: IF....
....and this is a BIG IF Alec Baldwin is truthful and honest in his expressions in this book...
....he'll do something significant:
[1] Come out in public for the McCain-Palin ticket.
[2] Repudiate NOW.
Otherwise, he may just as well fulfill his promise to move to England, and to heck with him.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste....and apparently makes for good book sales, too.]
I guess it depends where you live. I live in a state where joint custody is presumptive. In fact you would be amazed at how little money my ex son-in-law pays my daughter to help her raise their son. I know I am amazed at how much time my ex s-i-l gets in visitation with an infant that really needs his mother. How much input he has into major decisions and Oh, yeah, did I mention that he treated her like s***t on any given day and finally beat her up.
A quick weekend in the county jail, a brief anger management course and he has all the rights in the world. Just move to Kansas.
Sorry Helen, you just lose me on this poor dad stuff. I live every day with a court system that doesn't protect mothers from mean, sick, violent men.
Once again I am so friggin' glad my daughter's mother deserted us and I could file in absence.
[Religion is such a good shield against hypocrisy Jim and Tammy.... No... Swaggart... No... Poppoff, Oral, Tilton....... Oh hell, I guess religion doesn't shield against hypocrisy.]
if Baldwin had such problems with the system with all his fame and money, what chance does the average joe have?
It depends on what you mean by "average joe." Compared to Baldwin's money, I was certainly an average joe. I still owe money from the adventure I had with California's family Court system, ten years ago. But Baldwin, compared to my tenacity, lack of illusions, and tough creativity is probably the "average joe," which is probably why I mostly won and he had to write a book about how he lost.
It's not money you need to be equal in the eyes of California family law, it's mostly mental toughness. You especially need to throw away immediately an illusions that the system is going to try to be fair to you. You're fighting a battle, and no one is going to look out for your interests (or those of your children in their father) except for you. No one is your friend. Every appeal to your own sense of justice, or fairness, or responsibility, is a sneaky "Tokyo Rose" attempt to weaken your will. I think most men do poorly in the Court system partly because they expect the system to take pains to be "fair" to them, to ask their point of view, to look for the evidence they have to give, to put the brakes on any runaway trains of injustice that might run you over. Most men seem to think the system (and their opponents) put some value on them as fathers, and fail to realize that, while they (the Court and their opponents) may value men and fathers in some abstract sense, they do not value you in particular at all. The best possible outcome as far as they're concerned is if you shoot yourself dead the day you receive the summons.
It's a foolish misreading of the purpose of the law, perhaps drawn from too much TV watching. The purpose of family law is not justice but merely to forestall bloody violence. What the judge wants more than anything else is for you to be out of his courtroom and never come back, and for him never to read about a sad case involving your name where CPS was called too late. That's it. They don't care otherwise about "justice," to the extent they ever did as naive new judges. Once you realize that, you can do OK. You're not without leverage, especially if, like Baldwin, you've got the money to tie stuff up forever and a day. Although, it must be noted, if your kids aren't on your side, you've no hope at all.
Honestly, I don't think the Court could do much better at divining the best interests of the children. They're only human. What the legislature could do, however, is put powerful incentives in place for husbands and wives -- the people who really do know the children -- to settle that stuff reasonably.
Just for example, under California law a small change in custody percentage can equal a big change in child support money. That makes people fight over custody in order to get or pay more or less money -- which is appallingly stupid. What were those dumfuk lawyers in Sacramento thinking? It's one more case of failing to think through the incentives that the law sets up for people.
Or the legislature could just make 50/50 custody splits a rebuttable presumption, like they do with asset division (in California), and then specify that the first and most important criterion for adjusting that split -- and for adjusting child support -- is which parent is more accomodating, cooperative, and courteous to the other. Give people motivation to cooperate, and it's amazing how well they do.
I don't hold the whole mess against the judges, but I do hold it against the legislature, which in California is corrupt, ignorant, and quite often malicious, and over and over again fails to ask themselves, when they write some theoretically lovely law, how real people will react to it in the real world. One more reason why I always vote against anyone running for public office if his profession is lawyer, no matter who is opponent is.
Zaplito apparently lives in some alternate universe.
I'm tired of whiners.
All of the comments above are whines.
Our youngest son - 34 - was married a couple of weeks ago.
We, his parents, are approaching 40 years.
His Aunt and Uncle are well beyond 30 years
His brother is at about 15 years.
His Mother and Father-in-law are also over 30 years of marriage.
It takes a hell of a lot of work to stay married.
Quite whining.
As gratifying as it may be to blame the lawyers for all this, and lawyers can be pretty bad, the real problem ultimately is not the lawyers.
The real problem is the laws and the judges.
Oh, wait. The laws are written by legislatures. Judges are elected or appointed by an executive. Both legislatures and executives are VOTED.
So who votes? The people.
Face it. We have the system we have collectively sought. It's possible to change it, but don't blame the lawyers for working with the laws and judges that WE voted in.
William said
"Zaplito apparently lives in some alternate universe."
Enlighten me.
The main problem with the custody system is people who alienate the children from one of their parents. People who have to be admonished by the judge to quit bad-mouthing the parent. People who think the rules don't apply to them. People who go on relentless jihads and try to get the parent fired from their job so they won't be able to retain an attorney. People like Sarah Palin, and those who support her.
Can we think of any such people?>
zaplito --
"I live every day with a court system that doesn't protect mothers from mean, sick, violent men."
He means that, while you experienced a terrible situation, your statement doesn't describe the court system in general. That's all.
richard --
So, a father that threatens death and tazes a child shouldn't lose a job in law enforcement?
It takes a hell of a lot of work to stay married.
Quite whining.
Sod off.
It takes two to make a marriage. It only takes one to make a divorce.
You're just plain ignorant because it hasn't happened to YOU.
Yet.
Your son is still young.
I suppose there are many "universes".
I know mine, what I went through. And at all costs, I raised my kids. No one can expect the whole story of any one individual in a thread on a blog.
I do hope, with all sincerity, that william goes through what my kids and I went through, and then comes back here and "whines".
Exactly, Zapolito - your experience can only be charitably described as "Ancedotal."
And we only have half of the story there; It'd be very interesting, methinks, to have the situation from your ex-s.i.l.'s point of view.
I suspect Princess is leaving a few things out of what the parental unit receives as far as information. Or the PU is in denial about a few things.
Or a bit of both.
And zaplito, I understand your point of view. I have two beautiful, wonderful daughters, as well as a great son.
Should a boyfriend / husband go off the deep end and batter either of them, I will rip his head off and crap in it.
Chase the lawyer,
1. Immediately begs the question by proclaiming moral equivalence-- both sides are guilty of using the children as weapons, he says...
women/their lawyers must be much better at this-- and/or the law much more responsive to their efforts-- because women win 90 + % of custody disputes.
2. Which side to you think case -the- lawyer represents-- He doesn't tell us what he tells his male clients-- because he has virtually none ! The money in most divorce/custody cases is in representing the women because men typically have produced most of the assets the lawyer hopes to secure for himself and his client and because the system guarantees women will almost always win.
3. Then chase tells us that all every man wants is reasonable visitation-- real men don't really want custody or joint custody-- just let them see Dick and Jane every other weekend and Dad will be fine.
Why a trip to the zoo is all Dad wants.
Perhaps a weekend at Disneyland. A snowcone and posing with Mickey ! Oh Boy !
Dad doesn't want to be a parent. He just wants to see Dick and Jane every once in awhile.
Thanks for illustrating the sexist assumptions of the legal system so nicely, chase.
4. Chase the lawyer also needs assistance in inductive logic-- you never see men contesting custody because they have been told it is expensive and futile... so the only ones that fight like hell are those who have legitimate concerns about the safety of their children. Its call drawing a conclusion from a biased sample.
Haven't we done this before.
5. Then chase recommends that his clients-- the females -- abuse men who want custody of babies by showing up on a random evening, with no notice , and demand their husband take care of the baby while she parties. Not a message of conciliation .
6. Please chase, what advice to you give all your male clients, fathers seeking custody... you remember, that wealthy guy you represented last year who owned the Mercedes dealership chain... whose wife was a crack dealer and a hooker, who had the children selling dope and turning tricks... that was a real tough one to win, requiring your best adversarial skills, but the Dad prevailed... and you added onto the house....
Wow , Moms just tell men they are indeed the father of their children( thank you, dear)...
that their children really do need them ( thanks again, honey. Wow , I had no idea that I counted ! )...
then tell them you will be nice about visitation...
and men will go away !
Well, they have to, because thats all they can ever expect to get anyway under the present system.
William, I'm a dad that tried to keep his family together and tried to make it happen. It *is* hard work, and and can be worth fighting for.
No thanks for your preachiness and calling Dad's that get screwed "whiners". You're little microcosm of your family does not represent all of the cases in the world. Sometimes, the best intentions and efforts are not enough.
In my case, my wife did not want to work at it. While I was working to try to keep things together, she was undermining any efforts for me to do so. From her perspective, she wanted out and my efforts to keep it together only frustrated her more because I was making it harder for her.
But she wouldn't file, wouldn't move out. Eventually, I moved out and I had to file.
Then she wanted to keep the house and my equity in the house until the kids were 18. And she wanted to keep the kids with her with me only seeing them every other weekend. Like hell!
It was a three year long battle, but because the kids had spent 1/2 of the time with me during that time, the court let that custody schedule stand, and it was a struggle, but I did get most of the equity paid out to me and she refinanced the house. It cost us close to $30,000 between the two of us. It was the most asinine way to spend that kind of money. We started off with a mediator, but she became totally passive aggressive and did everything she could to avoid that. To bad, we could have spent about $2000 between the two of us, split things 50/50 and BOTH ended up with a lot more money for ourselves and our kids.
Once, in a fit of anger because I was insisting on a 50/50 split, my wife (at the time) said to me, "You know, the courts always favor the mother." So I made sure that the court knew that I was very involved in my kids lives and I made sure that I had established a split schedule when I moved out for the benefit of my kids and I held firm on it. I provided my lawyer with report cards showing the steady (or improving) grades as proof that it was working out well.
It's been a while, since the divorce was final, but the ex-wife remains a bitter and angry person. She's always trying to "buy" the kids by giving into their whims and showering them with stuff, and it's costing her dearly. She thinks that it will make the kids love her more than they love me, but the kids realize that they're being bought. She works overtime sometimes to cover her expenses which she can't control, and the kids resent that she's always "too busy". And her parents are doing a great job of alienating the kids from her, because they constantly badmouth me in front of them.
So I agree with some of the other advice here: Don't assume you're going to get a fair shake in court. You have to be your own advocate and be an advocate for your kids ahead of trusting anybody else with that job (lawyers, judges, etc). Do not trust social workers, they appear to most definitely favor the mother with their recommendations. Do everything to stay involved with them prior to, during and after the divorce. Anything that you "give up" in the interim could become part of your final judgement. If I had moved out and waited for the courts to give me shared physical custody, I am sure I wouldn't have gotten it. Good thing I insisted on splitting the week with my wife.
TO: Oligonicella
RE: [OT] Religious People
"Religion is such a good shield against hypocrisy Jim and Tammy.... No... Swaggart... No... Poppoff, Oral, Tilton....... Oh hell, I guess religion doesn't shield against hypocrisy." -- Oligonicella
No. Claiming one is 'religious' is not proof they ARE 'religious'.
As some Wag put it, around 2000 years ago, "A tree is known by its fruit."
So has Swaggart or any of those others you mentioned 'got religion'? Obviously they have a problem with that. Don't you think?
Well....maybe you don't....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If it talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.....]
TO: William
RE: Well....
"We, his parents, are approaching 40 years." -- William
You are indeed blessed. Keep up the good work.
RE: Whining?
Since when is telling the truth 'whining'? Or are you suggesting that there is no such thing as 'divorce'? And that all the courts are 'fair'?
A comment earlier YOU were saying someone ELSE lived in an 'alternate universe'.
Sounds like you were 'projecting'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Reality is what happens when you least expect it.]
Nothing will change until a few lawyers and a few wives who are being difficult during a divorce get shot.
The only change that will bring is to make it more difficult, perhaps impossible, for men to get a fair shake in divorce.
Oligonicella, you don't actually know what went in that family any more than I do, but we both knpw that Auntie shouldn't be bad-mouthing daddy in front of her nieces and nephews, even if Jesus shouted instructions to her from atop the dinosaur he was riding.
I think William's philosophy can be summarized as follows:
"Nothing bad is ever going to happen to me because I am better than others here."
William, I have never gone through a divorce, but I believe that good people can get caught up in a divorce. There is no reason to call people who are pointing out the huge tilt in the system "whiners". I think you could see, if you think about it, that the issues involved are not minor.
Chase the Lawyer:
You don't seem to argue very well for an Important Lawyer. Are you sure you're licensed?
It infuriates me when the children are used as weapons. And they are. By women much more than men. By the system, mainly. That is what I have seen, and experienced. Your mileage may vary.
Once again, all I can really say, is, take a week off of work. Spend it in the last row against the back wall in a local divorce court. See for yourselves, especially if you have not personally experienced it already.
Marriage is not worth what I went through at the end, that destroyed my reputation in my small home town at the time, and financially until my end of times. There is not a woman so beautiful or wonderful to chance coming any closer than a pre-determined safe distance (for me). I consider married women "safe", but never stop to speak with any woman unless in a public place, or at least without a couple "witnesses".
Yeah, I know.
But that's how it is.
"There is not a woman so beautiful or wonderful to chance coming any closer than a pre-determined safe distance (for me). I consider married women "safe", but never stop to speak with any woman unless in a public place, or at least without a couple "witnesses"."
------------
More and more men are getting into that mode. I knew a guy at work who, after a false accusation of sexual harassment, would make sure that his office door was wide open if any female was in his office so that his secretary could hear what was going on.
That may also be a good idea for men who haven't been accused of sexual harassment - yet.
You guys make me laugh, in a good way sometimes. When reading comments on a message board, bear in mind you are always getting only one side of the story. Some women and men are bad people. Not all women and men are bad people. Some courts are unfair, some aren't.
Considering I live in a nice liberal blue state, our courts have become increasingly balanced and I see men getting custody of their kids all the time, so I'm not exactly in tune with unfair court systems.
However, I had an eye opening experience out west this summer. I met a woman, age 24, who had been divorced from a husband whom she married at 17. She was from the ultra-conservative state of Idaho and she was also LDS. She had 2 small children age 4 and 7.
If she had won the lottery she would have been worse off. Basically, the Idaho courts granted her mountains of child support, alimony and, best of all, a 4 year college education. I don't know what happened to the exhusband but he clearly wasn't in the picture anymore, except for writing those checks.
But, wait, it gets better. That wasn't enough for her so she found herself a replacement daddy (my friend's friend) who was busy moving her and her kids into his house, so she could pocket more of her ex's money. Mind you, she was a pretty young morsel who could bat her eyes with the best of them and her new boyfriend was in his 40s.
I was more than willing to ignore this woman, but with her passive aggressive victimlike behavior she was hell bent on manipulating our group and her new baby daddy was insistent that every single one of her impossible needs be met as a priority. This harlot completely upended our plans. I got so upset with her that my friend had to physically restrain me from telling her off, and I so wanted to tell her off.
Her best bet is to avoid me in the future, these women give all of us a bad name. In contrast, an acquaintance of mine signed her divorce papers here on Friday, I'm sort of anxious to see what happened. Her husband has a very demanding job on the weekdays, I think they were talking about him getting custody of the kids on all weekends and she is getting some child support.
Richard, I have seen a lot of half assed comments on the web, but calling yours half assed would be an insult to assess all over the world.
Alec Baldwin's divorce troubles are Governor Palin's fault?
You sir, are a mental case.
Trey
Alec Baldwin is a flaming ass. Really, he is a poor excuse for a human. While I have some empathy for his children, I can muster none for him.
Still, maybe the idiots who care about what idiots from Hollywood have to say will pay some attention and do something good by mistake. But it is a shame that we are trying to catch some crumbs falling from such a putz.
Trey
Chuck --
"Claiming one is 'religious' is not proof they ARE 'religious'."
Standard cop out. If the claim of religiosity is meaningless, so is the claim of lack thereof.
richard --
The two things I mentioned were admitted to by the 'oficer'. Spin some more. I'll bad mouth any son of a that issues death threats. You think he should keep a job as a police officer?
The reason Baldwin had to write this book is likely the recorded message he left on his daughter's answering machine. While there were those who tried to play up the message and use it to demonstrate that Baldwin was an unfit father, I think he came across more upset and vindictive. Still the recording is quite awful. Now he's got to try and garner some sympathy.
I think Soccer Dad got it. This is just a cover. But, it could prove useful.
Trey
While the laws don't help, the main problem is that society has ordained that men can't have it all. Women can. Men can't. That's because men are almost universally looked upon as the breadwinner, the provider. Women, and women alone, are the primary parent and nurturer. The underlying bias in family law court -- despite the abolition of the Tenders Years doctrine in most jurisdictions -- is that mother automatically gets custody.
Men, especially, see how unfair it is that women can move in and out of the workforce at will and make as much or more than their husbands while men are seemingly incapable of being viewed as the primary parent. Men are supposed to go to work, period.
In order for this to change, men in general are going to need to demand that they can "have it all," too. The problem with that is, most men won't. Perhaps too many men are not interested in being the primary or even an equal parent. Perhaps men need to concentrate on their jobs to keep ahead, to provide for their family. So when it comes to custody questions, men get screwed. They are still considered just the breadwinner -- although they are not forced to pay far more than is necessary in most instances (and everyone knows this money often lines mother's pocket -- she's often scamming two or three guys for child support at the same time, sitting around on her fat ass all day), and the men lose virtually all contact with their children.
That's called "male privilege."
Correct typo:
While the laws don't help, the main problem is that society has ordained that men can't have it all. Women can. Men can't. That's because men are almost universally looked upon as the breadwinner, the provider. Women, and women alone, are the primary parent and nurturer. The underlying bias in family law court -- despite the abolition of the Tenders Years doctrine in most jurisdictions -- is that mother automatically gets custody.
Men, especially, see how unfair it is that women can move in and out of the workforce at will and make as much or more than their husbands while men are seemingly incapable of being viewed as the primary parent. Men are supposed to go to work, period.
In order for this to change, men in general are going to need to demand that they can "have it all," too. The problem with that is, most men won't. Perhaps too many men are not interested in being the primary or even an equal parent. Perhaps most men need to primarily concentrate on their jobs to keep ahead, to provide for their families. So when it comes to custody questions, men get screwed. They are still considered just the breadwinner -- although they are now forced to pay far more than is necessary in most instances to support the children they are not allowed to see (and everyone knows this money often lines the mother's pocket -- she's often scamming two or three guys for child support at the same time, sitting around on her fat ass all day living off the child support), and the men lose virtually all contact with their children.
That's called "male privilege."
"But it makes me think that if Baldwin had such problems with the system with all his fame and money, what chance does the average joe have?"
The answer: not much chance.
I volunteer to help low-income people through a community legal clinic. That experience ratifies what I already knew: family law is in dire need of reform. People's supposed rights are trampled routinely on the basis of money.
Most Americans cannot afford a lawyer -- and never will be able to. Why, then, if we claim to care about justice, do we mandate that only lawyers can provide legal help in family law issues? By so doing, we mandate that most people receive no legal help at all -- effectively teeing them up for spouses who can afford legal help. As a result, family law proceedings often magnify existing inequities in relationships, based on who controls the money. Whoever controls the money gets the legal help and comes out better.
Rather than mandating that only lawyers can help (when most people can't afford a lawyer), wouldn't it make more sense to license non-lawyer providers who meet licensing requirements regarding expertise and ethics?
I serve in my State Legislature, and I've worked to make the legal system better for average Americans. Any guesses which group routinely opposes measures to empower the people?
Lawyers.
TO: Oligonicella
RE: [OT] Problems...
"Standard cop out. If the claim of religiosity is meaningless, so is the claim of lack thereof." -- Oligonicella
....reading English? Or understanding logic?
Clinton claims to be a centrist. But is she? No.
So what one claims vs. what one does is the critical aspect. Something I guess 'progressives' don't understand or refuse to accept because their inability to think or discuss matters in a rational manner.
Good-bye, buckie....
...you've been identified.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Liberals aren't. Progressives won't.]
TO: Soccer Dad & TMink
RE: The Story Behind the Story
"I think Soccer Dad got it. This is just a cover. But, it could prove useful." -- TMink
Indeed. This makes a LOT more sense. He's trying to justify himself while maybe working through some of the feelings he's experiencing at the same time.
And, yes, it could be VERY useful, as it will highlight his experiences to a lot more people than read this blog.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The truth will out, one way or another.]
TO: steve u., et al.
RE: Good Luck
"Rather than mandating that only lawyers can help (when most people can't afford a lawyer), wouldn't it make more sense to license non-lawyer providers who meet licensing requirements regarding expertise and ethics?" -- steve u.
Good idea, but the lawyers want their hammer lock on the business. Just like the doctors want theirs.
It's like the good ole days of the Roman Catholic Church before the Reformation, the priests dictated the meaning of everything to the people and the people had to accept it.
And if you tried to tell people that what the priesthood was telling you was wrong.....guess what happened to you....
The same will happen here, as they have laws against practicing law or medicine without the proper recognition from the latter-day popes of law and medicine.
It's one of the ways they maintain their high pay-grades. Too much competition would lower that.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[All professions are a conspiracy against the laity.]
Chuck,
At some point, an informed electorate can make changes. It has been an uphill battle in my state, but we have made a few changes, to empower individuals to handle their legal affairs w/o lawyers. Before more meaningful changes can occur, more people need to be educated about the good -- even superior -- services that non-lawyers can provide.
For example, accountants can handle legal advice on tax issues much better than lawyers can (looking at price, quality of work, convenience, and defalcation rates). Looking at the same factors, non-lawyers can handle real estate conveyancing much better than lawyers can. When these stories are elaborated, people understand.
In this age of accessible information, monopolies are being challenged everywhere. Why not the legal monopoly?
In my state the law mandates mediation on issues of custody. Lawyers only get involved if the couple can't come to a mediated agreement. It is generally seen as advantageous to work out an agreement rather that take it before a judge.
I am happy to see a rich liberal eat the fruit of his labor, and be left with a nasty taste in his mouth. I am glad his money and fame were for naught. I hope it burns him, every day, for the rest of his life. But more, I hope that he sees the role he and his ilk have played in creating the bed he now sleeps in.
As for writing the book, my guess is it misses the points completely. He only discusses the emotional leavings correctly, but these are already known and are of no import as to root causes or means of change. Anything else he has to say is stilted by the insane attitudes of Hollywood and excess. I will not be reading it. Just, as I have stated, hoping.
Oops, I must add this. I will pray he learns and changes, and maybe even becomes constructive. My cynicism comes from the fact that getting a camel through the eye of the needle is no simple task, and he is a very large camel.
chuck --
"....reading English? Or understanding logic?"
Yeah. That's why I sometimes find your tags laughable. Jim, Tammy and crew are just as religious as you are and while you may wish to distance yourself from them, you cannot deny they believe in God. Hence, they have religion whether you like it or not.
Zaplito,
Mediation can be helpful. But when parties fail to voluntarily resolve issues through mediation, the inequities still exist in your state between the represented (the monied -- or at least subsidized -- party) and the unrepresented (the non-monied party).
Most lawyers don't specialize in family law; therefore, they know very little about it. Yet, in our current broad-but-shallow licensing regime, they are fully authorized to handle family matters. Non-lawyer, family law specialists would know much more about family law than the average lawyer. And, since intelligence is not limited to lawyers, such non-lawyer specialists could be expected to be every bit as good as family law lawyers. That's how it works in other areas of law where, upon a showing of proficiency, non-lawyers are allowed to provide legal services (e.g., patents, taxes, and disability benefits).
Every time I read a post like this and the comments it generates, I thank God for the woman I found 32 years ago this November. Truly a Proverbs 31 woman she is; "price beyond rubies" doesn't even begin to cover it.
If I had to start out all over again (and, Lord willing, I never will), I really don't know what I'd do.
No wedding ring without a steel-reinforced and bulletproof prenup, though -- that's fer dang sure.
You see, Oligonicella, the question of whether a trooper should keep his job or not is a matter for the proper authorities to decide. Where Palin screwed up, big time, was to bad mouth the trooper in question to his children. The judge told her not to do that, and she went on doing it anyway.
That's the kind of behavior that needs to stop.
TO: Dr. Helen
RE: [OT] Blogspot....
....STINKS! When are you going to get a REAL blog going?
Sheesh....ten minutes of replying to steve u.'s 2:38 PM, September 29, 2008....
...LOST because Blogspot 'hiccuped'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Having been erased, The Blogspot comment you seek, Must now be retyped. - Haiku Error Msg]
The radical feminist goal to dismantle the traditional family is almost complete. Get your Little Red Books out and start memorizing those songs for the communal dining halls!
Meanwhile, us MGTOW's will be laughing from the wings. Come join us, guys, there's plenty of room!!
The American Dream is a myth. Don't listen to the people who are trying to suck you into lives if indentured servitude. There is no more meaning in the American family. There is no reason to work your fingers to the bone just to die of stress seven years younger than your spouses. All children are wards of the state. There is no independence in the American Dream. The Romance Industry and the media are trying to convince you that slavery is freedom. Don't believe them!! Opt out, and start living!!
Richard, what are your sources that prove what you are saying? I would like to check them out once you give them to me.
Trey
Cham wrote:
"Considering I live in a nice liberal blue state, our courts have become increasingly balanced and I see men getting custody of their kids all the time, so I'm not exactly in tune with unfair court systems."
Cham, I'm not attacking you, but do you have any data re: Maryland courts to back this up?
I'm inclined to believe you about the woman-slanted nature of courts in red-states, but my experience with blue states (California) indicates that liberals are no better in their treatment of soon-to-be-divorced men in courts.
To William, respectfully sir, no amount of "working on a marriage" and "stop whining men" will stop of a woman from unilaterally shattering it. No amount of macho chest-beating from you will change that fact, either.
The men in your family--you included--are beating the odds. Congratulations. But don't think that just because you are lucky that the rest of us are a bunch of whiners for detailing how we got screwed in family court.
Chuck
you have the correct number of syllables for Haiku yet not compact enough.
Seeking comment Blogspot erased;
time and typing to be doubled. Damn.
BTW my state has also dropped the presumptive "tender years" provision from the divorce and custody statutes. It is a red state too.
Elusive wapiti:
I don't have any data at my finger tips at the moment but Helen had another thread a few months ago about common law marriages, and in the comments section there were some links regarding how different states handle common law marriage and divorces. I started doing some reading on these links and realized that a woman is much better off getting divorced in Utah, Idaho, Nebraska or Kansas than in my own state where a spouse won't get alimony and will only get temporary and limited financial assistance if there is a huge discrepancy in income between spouses. I have no idea what goes on in California.
I'm not a big believer in alimony or massive child support checks. Now remember, I'm the liberal here. I've never been married nor do I have any kids. I pay my own bills and bother no one. I have seen, on more than one occasion, a young mother pull out a calculator and start computing what she thinks she is going to get in child support if she divorces her husband. The sport of the game is to get rid of the husband while she is still young and upgrade. This way she gets the child support, her income from her job and, ideally the income of the new and improved husband.
My attitude on the matter is go ahead and try that. This state is set up so that the child support coming in won't even cover the daycare expenses of the kids. This whole maneuver has absolutely nothing, NOTHING, to do with feminism. This has everything to do with opportunism. If states would just stop the alimony and cap the child support payments with the divorces you'd see more fathers gaining custody, shared or primary, and maybe a plunge in the nation's divorce rate among families.
TO: Richard
RE: Bad-Mouthing the [Step] Father?
"Where Palin screwed up, big time, was to bad mouth the trooper in question to his children." -- Richard
'His' children? Offspring of HIS loins?
The child he tasered was not of his genes. So, since the divorce, it's not HIS child.
What was the blood-relationship to him of the children Palin 'bad-mouthed' him? Blood or law?
RE: The 'Judge'
"The judge told her not to do that, and she went on doing it anyway." -- Richard
My opinion on this is going to depend upon the answer to the item I addressed immediately above.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. steve u.....
I generally agree with you about the technology angle.
However, I had a lot of details and aspects that I am not particularly inclined type in AGAIN after BlogSp[l]ot blew them all away.
P.P.S. This sorry system tried to do it to me AGAIN! Fortunately, I learned from my previous experience and captured the bloody comment to Richard and steve u. before attempting to hit this god-foresaken system's 'publish' button.
Zaplito
You are talking about legal terms--- legal terms don't have any content. They embody policy choices. They allow the decisonmaker to do what he wants to do according to the prevailing political ideology and then throw out a few legal incantations that make it look like he was actually evaluating the evidence in a neutral way.
A 'presumption' legally, is a fact that the court accepts as true, with no need to prove it is true. A pretty nice advantage to have. The "conclusion" embedded in the law is not reached on evidence in this case, its just an assumption that courts have decided to enshrine as TRUE. That is obviously scary.
The effect of a presumption is to shift the burden of proof to the opposing party... so men are presumed-- BY THE LAW-- not to be fit custodial parents until they can prove they can be while a woman is presumed to be the fit custodian, solely because she is a woman !
Presumptions on factual issues can be merely prejudice written into the law obviously and thus are odious.
The official "presumption" in favor of women was officially eliminated because it cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny-- it violates men 's civil rights on its face to make such assumptions soley on the basis of gender.
But courts know how to reach the same conclusion-- they just avoid using the prohibited language.
SO eliminating the offical presumption in the law is meaningless... courts will continue to reach the same results, just avoid that bad language.
Its easy to test-- just survey the % of cases women win with the official presumption and without it-- there will be no significant difference.
Courts just implement policy choices and then dress it up in bullshit legal jargon that makes it look like they actually were fair and equitable and evaluated all the evidence in a neutral way. That almost never happens.
" Mediation"-- oh , God
the ones directing the "mediation" are not neutral parties-- they are hard-boiled anti-male zealots . Why else would one go into such a horrible line of work if not-- usually-- to implement one's political ideleogy.
When a man walks into a "family law" situation with all its feminist apparatchiks, he is the n***** and it is 1955-- no, 1855-- in Mississippi.
Hence, Baldwin's image of feeling like he was chained to a pick-up and dragged through the streets by the legal system-- makes a lot of sense. He's right.
Women-- both feminists and normal women who benefit form their activism-- have taken over the legal system and use it to screw men-- its that simple.
This is not physics.
I pity the kids (like my own) who actually have Disney dads. My ex has chosen to live in another state. He visits or the kids visit him about once a quarter. They aren't fooled by his gifts (bribes) and know they're way down on his list of priorities, after the new job, new girlfriend, "new life". It's really sad. Fortunately, we never fought about custody because my kids are in their teens and chose to live with me. We don't fight about money any more because I quit talking about it with him and hired an attorney. Even then my ex was passive aggressive--not turning in required documents on time, etc. We ended up actually going to trial and wasting money on things we could have easily worked out ourselves if he'd been slightly rational and cooperative. Everything came out about 50/50 in the end anyway. What a waste of time and money.
I feel sorry for the dad's who get ripped off by the court. IMHO, we should go back to "fault" divorce and we'd all be better off. The "leavees" wouldn't have to hope for a sympathetic judge and the "leavers" could get out faster.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cham wrote:
"If states would just stop the alimony and cap the child support payments with the divorces you'd see more fathers gaining custody, shared or primary, and maybe a plunge in the nation's divorce rate among families."
Personally, if child support had to exist at all I'd like to see it tied to the real cost of supporting a child(ren). As it stands right now, and as you allude to, it's a cash cow meant to buoy a woman's standard of living at the expense of her ex husband. That crap is unjust.
Divorce is an evil that's been around almost as long as marriage. It ain't going anywhere. I'm gladdened to see that a self-described liberal such as yourself supports shared parenting...which incidentally results in much lower divorce rates.
Regarding feminism, we can debate about whether feminism has much to do with high child support awards and the like. And I think that you and I would agree that red states are just as bad or worse when it comes to alimony and child support awards than blue ones.
But I do think that libs and feminists alone propagate a culture of single-motherhood-by-choice-by-any-means-necessary; this culture, when coupled with red-state proclivity to shelter women from the consequences of their own choices, puts men in a bad way.
In the matters of child custody, visitation, and "support", the travails I endured as a 110+% father make The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad look like child's play.
Don't nobody tell me that this Society abhors bigotry, torture. and slavery - not to mention child abuse.
The best thing about opting out altogether is that these arguments don't mean anything to me. I could care less who wins custody of kids, because I don't have any, and never will. I don't have a wife, either. I am an indentured servant to NO ONE.
I am here to tell ALL MEN that you are better off NOT GETTING MARRIED and NOT having kids. Statistics and probability in these matters weigh heavily against your future happiness. In fact, the numbers say that there is a 70% chance that you will be absolutely miserable.
Don't listen to people who tell you you have a moral obligation to be in a relationship and/or to propagate. These people (more often than not women) have a vested interest (i.e. your paycheck) in sucking you in to support their game. Forget it. Walk away. Have a good life. Let the species dwindle down to nothing. It's not your responsibility. Live a life free of the shackles of societal approval and the legal system. BE YOUR OWN MAN!!
metalover30
The advice of "opting out" is not realistic... men are going to marry and have children... its really hard-wired into the genes that they replicate themselves.
Some very small percentage of men can opt out comfortably-- but for the vast majority, thats not a viable 'solution".
Creating more a equitable system is the way...
What's a MGTOW ?
Metalover, yes, you don't have kids but you still, monetarily, have a vested interest in who gets the kids if you are worried at all about money. As I have stated here before, boys that come from fatherless homes commit a much greater number of crimes than other demographics. If you have ever been mugged, robbed, burgled, or maimed by anyone chances are it was a male who grew up without a male role model.
Once the crime has been committed the collective "we" get to pay for the police involvement, prosecution, judgment and incarceration. It adds up and it adds up fast. I don't really care if childless people get divorced, but we would be doing society a big favor if we make divorces where there a children as painful as possible.
"The advice of "opting out" is not realistic... men are going to marry and have children... its really hard-wired into the genes that they replicate themselves"
----------
I made a conscious decision not to get married. The divorce rate does not tell the whole story; many men who stay married are not happy, it just beats the alternative (divorce or suicide).
----------
"What's a MGTOW ?"
----------
Men Going Their Own Way.
It's starting to become a concept.
----------
I agree with Metalover30.
With the current laws and with the current entitled attitude of (American) women, you are entering into a slavery contract if you get married. If you decide to do so, make sure that you have an equitable master.
I prefer not to have a master, so I won't be marrying.
And here was my "happily married" uncle:
25 years of marriage and he was dishing out advice left and right. You have to work on a marriage. You have to communicate. You have to each give 75%, not 50%.
After a few beers, he would elbow me and tell me that "he's got her trained", so there would never be a divorce.
So now, after the divorce, she gets alimony, of course, because she's a dumb-shit who always was unable to work, and she obviously spent some of his money on breast implants. She now has a very ... odd ... figure, kind of like a girdle model back in the 1950s. Except a little fatter. She hits on everything that moves in a kind of desperate way.
I'm so sorry that I'm not making huge, huge, huge payments every month to a pig like her (while she watches Oprah and the View). I don't know who thought up the family law system, but they may have had a screw loose.
tmink:
"richard" is on rotation, nothing more. His turn at the blog.
I made the mistake of marrying a Kim Basinger clone just like Alec's ex-wife.
Incredibly beautiful and vacant as humanly possible regarding intellect, ethics, empathy, emotional depth, and values.
Narcissistic beyond belief.
But I was young and foolish and she was good in bed in a kind of amateur way.
Post-divorce, I've met several great women and I have learned that it is better to emphasize smart over beautiful.
Smart girls understand that beauty is temporary. Beautiful girls believe they will be alluring forever.
Now if you encounter a smart beautiful girl, you better run!
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
米克綜合論壇豆豆聊天情色a片下載一葉晴貼影片av127QQ美美色情文學網aa的滿18歲影片捷克 論壇大眾 論壇ng綜合論壇台灣情色網論壇熊貓成人圖片亞洲風暴情色論壇hilive tv免費電影小魔女成人貼圖曼雪兒免費小說美女情色視訊聊天室免費影音視訊聊天室sogo情色論壇 - 成人色情論壇微風成人短片區小魔女自拍天堂亞洲禁果影城熊貓貼圖嘟嘟成人網飯島愛寫真集圖片0401免費影音視訊redtube影片下載咆哮小老鼠QQ美美色情文學網QQ美美色色網QQ美美色網QQ便利聊天室QQ美美色情小說QQ美美色情遊戲QQ便利AV - 美美色網影片咆嘯小老鼠 成人影片論壇咆哮小老鼠成人分享論壇癡漢俱樂部色情 遊戲網友自拍貼圖區plus論壇Plus28論壇0204movie免費影片uthome視訊聊天室play104遊藝線上痴漢俱樂部情人節阿性玩美女人 免費影音秀 - PlayGirl麗的線上小遊戲色情熟婦dvd影片無名相簿密碼破解後宮電影院入口無限討論區pro論壇艾噹洛學院情色圖貼愛情國小 交友聊天室後宮視訊情色網sogo情色論壇性愛影音聊天室台中人聊天室躺伯虎聊天室最新院線電影免費下載區VAN698網路電視台玩美女人視訊聊天網任天堂NDSL遊戲下載自拍美女聊天室77p2p影片網愛田海綿寶寶小遊戲megarotic a片下載女人色色網xvediox 免費成人頻道小高深情聊天室絕色成人影城kk777視訊俱樂部正妹交友ggooav1688影音娛樂網85cc免費影片38ga成人sexdiy影城sexdiy影城sexdiy影城網路視訊聊天美女工廠貼圖區☆♀ 網愛bbs ☆♀ 免費下載成人短片夜激情成人聊天室激情網愛聊天-成人視訊聊天室☆♀ 夜激情成人聊天室 ☆♀臺灣情色論壇色情豆豆聊天室85cc免費影片本土自拍寫真情色典獄長激情網愛聊天★外公外婆聊天室★色情豆豆聊天室色美媚部落格☆♀ 080辣妹聊天室 ☆♀ 網友自拍,真實自拍貼圖★外公外婆聊天室★亞洲情色視訊交友視訊美女★視訊聊天交友★☆♀ 激情網愛聊天 ☆♀ ★外公外婆聊天室★★影音視訊聊天情人網★aa影片下載城男人尋夢園聊天室★影音視訊聊天情人網★免費線上漫畫免費線上漫畫免費線上漫畫免費線上漫畫免費線上漫畫免費線上漫畫免費線上漫畫免費小遊戲免費小遊戲台灣人的驕傲聊天區小潘潘成人無碼片新中台灣聊天室★網路視訊聊天室★成人視訊聊天室※0509免費 視訊聊天秀※1007免費視訊聊天秀免費視訊 聊天室網愛聊天室※免費檳榔西施摸奶影片※免費視訊聊天★華人影音視訊聊天情人網★小潘潘成人無碼片線上交友網影音視訊聊天室☆♀ 自拍偷拍影片 ☆♀真愛宣言聊天室
情色視訊台灣kiss情色文學彩虹性愛巴士情色交友情色論壇聊天室ut情色網麗的情色小遊戲台灣情色網情色遊戲情色小遊戲情色小站情色影片情色貼片金瓶梅影片交流情色漫畫38ga免費a片情色文章情色圖貼天堂情色網情色網站情色自拍情色圖片
Post a Comment
<< Home