Children Should Default To The Mother
Submitted by PortlandOregon on Sat, 04/18/2009 - 01:52
The communal nature of parenting leads to conflict. The rule should be that children default to the mother’s custody, and fathers should not be forced to pay child support.
(Child support encourages mothers to cohabitate with other men who are less likely to challenge the mother's authority over the child.)
If the mother can’t take care of the kids, then the father should have custody. If he has custody, the mother will likely return to the marriage.
This plan is based on the Roman tradition of paterfamilias which was the foundation of that society, except that this plan also recognizes mothers rights and therefore will stem any feminist backlash.
»
The government has no
The government has no business intervening in the family period unless there is a crime committed. Never get a marriage license why make the state a 3rd party to the marriage? This is why they think they have jurisdiction over your marriage and family and even the kids schooling etc. Why in the world do you need permission from the state to marry or take vows?
If you want things legal use power of attorneys and private contracts.
-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Hey
I'm not getting married till I am established as a sovereign individual and own every toy,house,and car.
Anyone want to enlighten me on how to avoid my woman running off with my kids.
Hypothetical mind you this is California we are speaking of in this post.
Basically she takes off with her new lover and takes the kids as a steady paycheck. She doesn't get a job and utilizes the child support for her outlandish drug habit and partying. I still buy my kids their clothing,food, and misc. things. Yet she retains full custody. Oh and she kicked me out of the house we purchased for the kids sake. Even though she drops them of at my one bedroom I am sharing with my brother who let me in.
How does one avoid that situation. There must be laws that can stop her from destroying the family. It amazes me that one person can be so destructive to so many.
Women in this day and age...Wait...Female sheep in this day and age are selfish,conceited,greedy, and hate love. They want to have fun period. When a man becomes a father he knows that everything he does is for the children. Female sheep on the other hand can't stand this because his attention is on bringing home the bacon and feeding his babies. So the woman runs off with a fun guy. Someone who has commitments that he doesn't care about or is without.
Female sheep are told they must have fun and be independent. Screw men. Thats all there good for is a lay.
The Jewish Tradition ....
1. Custody of all children under the age of six is to be given to the mother;
2. Custody of boys over the age of six is to be given to the father;
3. Custody of girls over the age of six is to be given to the mother.
Thus, the mother presumptively is given custody 72% of the time when the rules are strictly applied. The Talmud (Ketubot 59b) also indicates that these ideal rules of child custody presuppose that both the mother and the father desire custody of the children and both are financially capable of custody. Jewish law, however, rules as a matter of law that mothers (at least upon termination of the marriage) are under no legal obligation to financially support and maintain their children, whereas fathers are under such an obligation.
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/childcus3.html
This is incredibly
biased and lacks the simple fact that women have rights.
Every single parent should owe child support, regardless of their sex. So what if women bring other men into their home. This only hurts one person, the husband that was discarded. This concept is based on a woman being a mans' property. Blues Clue, she isn't, she has rights and liberty just like the father.
Child support pays for children, it doesn't encourage a woman to cohabitate with other men, she does that for companionship and sex, not because of child support.
Children should default to the parent best equipped to take care of them sex not being an issue. Men and Women are equally able to care for children and pay for children.
This post is beyond backward. A mother will not return to the marriage if the kids live with the father, she'll move on a start another family just like the father does. If anything most single parents don't have time to move on. Too busy being both parents.
If the mother or father
start another family they should be prosecuted for polygamy.
if they are divorced
there is no crime
wow.
nicely put.
Portland is baaaaaaaaaaaack
I should have known it was you spouting your commie garbage. How do you find time away from your commune to post here?
Democracy is not communism.
Gather all the citizens of your community together in the public square and vote with raised hands. No delegates. No secret ballots. Swiss style. New England style. You'll be surprised how reasonable and temperate the people are when the controlled media are powerless to manipulate opinion.
Democracy is not a CNN poll.
"The Constitutionalists were guileful traitors whose attendance at the Philadelphia Convention was kept secret for an entire generation. Their document served to leave the "door" of America unlocked and ajar, so that the country's foreign enemies could surreptitiously re-enter in the days and years following the supposed War of Independence. The hypocrisy and duplicity of the Federalists is directly responsible for the present rise of fascism and advent of the New World Order. We consider these men little more than British agents, because King George himself - the man who declared eternal war on America - could not have done as much damage to America as their actions wrought."
http://www.taroscopes.com/miscellanous-pages/weapons-additio...
hmmm taroscopes...
you can learn about taro cards..mysticism...and of course how the Constitution that we are fighting for is actually the main tool of King George and now the NWO...
Looks like crap, smells like crap, acts like crap...it's probably crap.
I don't know about this
solution but I think the state likes interfering with families and pitting the men and women against one another.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Marriage in a Free-Society is anti-thesis to the Roman model
Who "forces" the "rule." Obviously it would be gov't in your model.
In a free-market there are no hard fast rules just contract law / mediators.
Neither the Church nor the State can bind -- Unless it's in the contract.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
This thread has hit a
This thread has hit a nerve..my own divorce was final march 12 2009. We agreed to joint custody, no child support payments from either party.We have both agreed to maintain the home that the kids have grown up in since they were born regardless of which parent lives there. at the moment it is myself but with the economy the way it is my job is not stable and may be force to relocate. My ex husband has he's own business and will move in to the home if relocation becomes an issue. He currently lives a block away picks the kids everyday, we have tried to cause as little disruption to their lives as possible. We were married 20 years together 25 he filed I did not, midlife issues in my opinion, we did not hire lawyers ,we agreed to a settlement between ourselves. We our better friends today then we have been in years.Our kids say we are the only people that can get divorce in the afternoon and have dinner together that night.
RIGHT …
… in the tenders…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkBiUSwy-68
… for all who relate.
I haven’t posted yet on this thread that hits so close to home. In fact, because it hits right on family jewels, I cannot even focus enough to want to read other’s opinions ( though the saying goes that when they've got you by them … you must PAY attention). And that is usually where the attention is focused – PAYING.
You two parents are the only ones, whose right and duty it is, to have a joint say. ( If you default, the responsibility to be assumed by respective extended family.) And each are never entitled to more than equal tenants in common right and obligation, once such joint tenancy is dissolved.
I don’t want to debate why fundamental rights are not debatable. The alternative is living hell to all those who have been through it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1aWfjBpD5I
It’s WRONG for all concerned. The only who have any legitimate interest to merit concern are FAMILY.
The premise for your mature resolution should never admit impediments from arrogant outsiders, even well meaning, but inevitably, with little understanding.
It’s A Matter Of Principle …
… not policy.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/75229#comment-806819
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45842#comment-456513
Fundamental Right And Responsibility Of Raising Your Children
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/82435#comment-894965
Scrupulous regard for the private realm of family life must never be surrendered.
The biggest problem I see with your plan
is you start with marriage. The state starts destroying the home the first time the child steps into kindergarden till they graduate from school. Read this book http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc2.htm it explains a lot. But I will still put in my two cents.
Ever since I was in school they taught us that money is what makes you happy, they taught us to hate hard work and responsibility, and they many things that directly contradicted my parents. On top of this they told us how smart we were when we knew nothing, how strong we were when we were weak, taught us popularity made you a good leader. Encouraged mocking, discouraged politeness. Taught us sex with pornographic pictures when we could not even understand how to talk to people, respect people, or lead people, but we were obviosly ready for sex because we were twelve and the school wouldnt teach us something they didnt expect us to use right. They taught us if it feels good do it, but if it involves discipline it is bad. They taught us to look out for number one, and with the divorce rate where it is obviously a lot of people are.
Personally I am trying to retrain myself to not act the way they trained me to act. I am twenty three and for all these reasons and several more I am not ready for marriage but with this training I am probably ready for a divorce (and yes I am still single, going to be that way a while)
Money turns women into parasites
I'll agree with you on that. And people would have a lot easier time figuring out where the kids would be better off if there weren't dollar signs in the mother's eyes.
Being a woman does not mean the person is automatically...
...a better parent. It should be based on who did the lying, cheating or stealing which led to the dissolution of the marriage. The person who kept faith with the marriage vows should get custody. But the problem is that too many people think the way you do. If we insist on getting the government and laws involved in marriage, which they should not be, then enforce it like a contract. That is how a divorce petition is dealt with, why not the marriage? Whichever "partner" in the marriage partnership who fails to live up to their end of the contract, that person loses custody and pays child support. In Texas, today, only 3% of men get custody of the children! It is called sex discrimination. Nationwide it is about 45% of the time that men get custody. But in Texas, the courts assume that because a person is female, they are automatically a better parent.
Marriage was created to give legitimacy to children.
She can have kids by another young stud, but those kids would not be legitimate and therefore not protected by the state.
And, as a polygamist, she would lose her right to vote.
As a female, I agree entirely!
(and hope for change in Texas!)
------
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips
There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. (but I want you to pay for it, like it or not!) --Barack Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
We are so far from being a species
that has attained even minimal levels of morality, I think the freedom movement uses its energy best to stick to fundamentals: trying to share the simple concepts that initiating force against another is not ok.
If we could begin to get a noticeable segment of the populace in agreement on that, we could move forward to more tricky, nuanced problems.
I understand we will be challenged to provide realistic solutions, but the very most difficult -- such as internal family relationships should be approached with extreme care
NoFault Divorce has destroyed the American Family
No doubt about it. The 6 lawyers in California who came up with nofault divorce did so as a means to generate more divorces and therefore more income for lawyers. The Social Security Laws which they also helped put in place, created a new class of citizen called a non-custodila parent. For every non-custodial parent that enters the child support system, the federal government pays the states $4 for every $1 spent for the administration of such programs. The divorce industry is another scam by the ABA to redistribute wealth. It has nothing to do with the welfare of the children.
If, the children were the main concern, then 50/50 joint physical custody would be used in every divorce except those where the children may be put in danger. The children were brought into theis world by both parents and those parents are equally responsible for them. Children deserve to maintain there loving relationships with both parents after a divorce but, unfortunately, lawyers want the parents to fight so they can get more time in the courts and bill for more time until one parent gives up.
When I went thorugh my divorce, they tried to make me a weekend warrior and i walked right up to the judge and looked him right in the eye and said " You have 3 choices, you can either put my sons back in my care and custody and tell her to hit the road, give us joint 50/50 physical custody, or, put me in jail and make sure you have the morgue standing by: and I walked out of the courthouse. Her lawyer decided to settle out of court with 50/50 joint physical custody.
Always remeber, if something will cost the state money instead of making them money, then they will back down.
More parents need to stand up to the corruption of the Family Courts.
It;s nothing more than organized crime at its lowest. Hitlers state of the child right here in America
Intersting opinion. The
Intersting opinion. The father is the head of the home and has a duty to be the "natural guardian" only in a married family with children. If they have children out fo wed lock, then the man has no rights, unless he proposes to the woman and reclaims his right as natural guardian. This was the way God intended families to be.
Child support is a topic I have a great deal of knowledge about, Im going after the state right now on this very subject. Child support stems from the 1935 social security act. It was intended to help parents when the spouse abandonded the family. The state allocated an entitlement to help stuggling single families out, as a result, the state would go after the parent that abondoned thier responsibilities for the amount the state paid. today child support has a very distinct meaning, it was defined in a US Supremem court case. child support means, payments from an absent parent. If their is no absent parent or needy family, then child support is not applicable, as you wouldt qualify. Whats happened is the administrative agency has expanded thier authority and roped everyone in this program and applies percentages that exceed what child support and title IV-D are for. I routinley see parents divorce, the judge gives one parent the kids and takes the other parenst money...
1. Why does the court have the power to decided who gets the kids without terminating parental rights???
2. no fault divorce is unconstitutional, its a contract. and either a breach, or agreement to dissolve.
In many case the man or woman who was acting at fault is rewarded. It has had a huge damaging impact on society. so many people dont want to get married and are afraid to have kids because the family is not protected. I guess it proves gods laws are supreme.
my situation
Well, here's my story: My ex-wife decided that she could "have more fun" (her words) if she had an affair and ran off. So she did. She got free legal help from the state to do so, while I had to pay thousands for a lawyer. She was also awarded custody, and I was force to pay child support- even though she ran off with no legal grounds and my son still lives with me more than he lives with her.
The whole "free money and custody" has made a lot of women just run off on their husbands. Why not? You get free money and a kid, no questions asked. And there's not even a social stigma attached. Hell, when my ex ran off with her boyfriend, her friends and family cheered her on.
Now, if I had wanted to have an affair and run off on her, I damn sure know that, as a male, I couldn't have received (1) free legal aid from the state (2) full custody of my son (3) 18% of my ex's income for the next 20 years.
Guy's, I hate to say it, but there's NO point in getting married unless you're deeply religious. All you do is give someone complete and unquestioned power to destroy your life, anytime they want, no questions asked. Power corrupts, as we all know, and I've seen it happen to several women. There is NO justice in the child custody court, if you're a man. Zero.
The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt
I know this all too well...
I've seen it many times first hand. A person displays a firm moral code, preaches to other perked ears the value of loyalty and standing up for principle, and then as soon as they smell any hint of betrayal they themselves betray their codes and stumble into acquiescence to noncompliance with the morality they once so loudly trumpeted. What is the rationalization for this? ...what if Christ himself had said FTW! The ideal here is purpose and perserverence, and a lot of discipline.
Kids are smart they'll usually figure out who or what is righteous. Although they may not yet be able to articulate it, they still know! If they see one parent coasting and the other grinding, they'll gravitate toward the grinding. If they see neither doing either, then they'll end up hating both parents and likely need rehab to clean up the substance problem they used to cope with the latent knowledge that their parents didn't love themselves enough to love their kids. I've seen it happen...
Your last paragraph says it all!
Marriage is turning your whole life over to someone else, with no control over that persons behavior. So many people are insane now. (Besides me, I mean).
Nonsense - it should be on a case by case basis.
Should children be left with crack whore alcoholics instead of the dad who works construction 10 hours a day? Sure, he isn't home much, but odds are he has family or friends that are more normal than the kids' mother.
Sure that is an extreme case, but any case, and there are many, refutes your blanket premise that ALL children should ALWAYS go to the mother. That is nonsense. Sounds like you or someone you know lost your kids and you're pissed off about it. Considering the sentiment of a blanket rule, it strikes me that whomever the mother is in this case, well knows she is in the wrong and the best thing for the kids is not to be with her. Otherwise, there would be no need for the blanket statement which has no evidence behind it.
Actually in Roman Society...
The Children AFTER 5
ALWAYS went to the FATHER.
Statistics show that the safest place for a girl is with her natural father.
Most child abuse especially sexual is by Step fathers AND boyfriends of the mother.
The children should automatically go to the Father. You would find that divorces dropped by 60-70% if this was the case. Women would learn to get along and stop manipulating society and they system to rape and abuse men emotionally and financially.
The absolute safest place for children is to life with their father.
Unless the father , unless there are other circumstances.
Before 5 they go with the Mother. After 5 they go with the Father.
That is the only logical solution.
You aliens are smart
You guys could put some dots on the kids maybe? lol
Explore Orthodox Christianity