If You’ve Previously Thought You Were Your Child(ren)’s Parents…
Have your own psycho ex? Get a FREE Report on "Why Co-Parenting Doesn't Work", or learn how to win child custody with a custody coach.
Think again. The states are and it’s enforced by the courts.
Just when I think I’ve seen everything that could burn me up about my own case, I discover something that sets my blood pressure sky-high all over again.
While preparing my next post along the path of Custody Evaluation #1, I was reviewing the website for our county’s (court ordered) custody evaluation program (I’ll call it CEP for short). Something caught my eye and made me rather angry because while I’ve long ago realized that we are only parents to our children as long as the state/government “allows” us to be, I’ve never seen it posted anywhere as “in your face” as it is on the CEP website. Read it and think about it…
“Most parents sincerely believe they know what is in their child’s “best interests.” What they may not fully realize is that the “best interests of the child” constitutes a legal standard that only a judge will decide.”
Not only is it written in a most condescending “we know better than you do” tone, they flat out tell you - the choices to be made for your children are out of your hands once there is a divorce and custody dispute (if not long before that).
Read it again. Digest it. Tell me how you feel. Most CEPs operate with this mindset. I’d strongly suggest that you not get divorced if you’ve already chosen to get married. All it takes is one high-conflict personality to place the decision making right smack in the hands of the mommy-state.
Your children are not yours. They belong to the state and the state allows you to babysit them with all of the associated expenses. Don’t forget it.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I totally understand the frustration you feel! Even as a step parent it irks me that DH and I have to worry about every decision we make and “how it will look” if we have to go to court. However…
Maybe it is the glass half full part of me, and maybe it is because DH was able to secure primary physical custody of his children, but I really couldn’t imagine what it would be like if there wasn’t some third party out there. No one to be able to file a contempt charge with. No one to consider if your home was the best place for the children to be. The reason the courts are a “mommy-state” is because we live in a “mommy-country”. Without the courts, good fathers like DH wouldn’t even be able to see his children at all, never mind be able to get primary custody. I agree with you that there are still huge biases in the system, and not much accountability, but can you honestly say you would have the opportunity to be as involved with your children’s lives if it was just up to PEW?
I have to agree, though, the way the CEP statement is worded sounds very condescending. I guess with any system structured to protect, there is opportunity for manipulation. Child Welfare Services and even police protection come to mind. Even my step son’s high school has the nerve to decide whether or not an absence is excused or not (a drs appt for illness yes, the days after it takes to recover, no). If he misses school altogether the day counts against him, but if he GOES TO SCHOOL SICK and is sent home by the clinic 2 minutes after he gets there, EXCUSED. So the school is saying, we as parents aren’t capable of determining if our child is sick. (Can’t wait till the next time he is barfing, so we can put him on the bus, and tell him to make sure he stops to say hi to the principal on his way to the clinic!) The sad part is, I’m sure this rule is in place because there are parents out there that don’t think twice about letting their child stay home from school and just writing a sick note like it is not a big deal. And so it makes life harder for the rest of us normal people.
Just as I would not condone getting rid of the police because there are some bad apples that abuse their power, I would also say the family court has a role in protecting children, even though things are skewed right now. I think what you do with your blog, what Alec Baldwin is trying to do with his book, and what all fathers who have been shafted by the system should be doing, is fighting this “good fight” to make sure that the courts do understand what is in the “best interest” of the child. The thought of not having any system in place makes me shudder.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Actually, my disdain goes right to the heart of the matter. The courts and the periphery should absolutely NOT be dictating what constitutes “the best interests of the children” regarding custody of their own according (and with such a condescending tone).
They DON’T know better.
What they can and should be doing is implementing a rebuttal presumption of shared custody (50/50) where two parents are fit and it’s logistically possible.
That would take a LOT of the “fight” out of the custody equation.
If you cannot prove parental “unfitness” or have a provable case for abuse of some kind… PROVABLE… not just the usual and customary unfounded or otherwise unsupportable allegations that make up most of the bullshit that goes on in family court - each parent is equally entitled to be the parent of their children.
No state determination of what’s in the best interests of ANY child absent those criteria. The state doesn’t know better… those that raised the children and love the children and nurture the children do (for the most part).
REBUTTAL PRESUMPTION OF SHARED CUSTODY (50/50). NOW.
Having such in place more than likely would have shaved years and no fewer than 50% of the visits I’ve had to court since 2004. Money saved? Sheesh!
October 14th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Taken out of context, and only reading that single paragraph, it felt more to me like a simplified explanation of an overused phrase (best interests of the child). I don’t believe any court structure that doesn’t view parents as equally important could ever make such decisions, but I also don’t believe many parents can, especially mentally unhinged ones, once they are in “I win, you lose” mode and trampling all over the kids in the process.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Rebuttable presumption of joint custody has been written into the Texas Family Code for well over a decade. Sadly, the words mean absolutely nothing in the approximately 98% awards of “physical custody” to mothers, and the automatic presumption that fathers WILL pay child support.
There are words, and there is action; in Texas, words and action DO NOT match up. The really insidious part is that people (and by “people”, I mean fathers) are fooled by the words… right up until the time that they run smack-dab into reality and then are effectively told to just “shut up and write the check”.
I think every young man, upon reaching puberty, ought to be thoroughly schooled on the harsh realities of the law: screw once — yes even just ONCE — the wrong person, and you are guaranteed to be screwed for life.
And yes “the state” owns your children. Married or not, they absolutely have the final word on everything. The one difference in divorce is that the state’s control of ‘your’ children is explicitly outlined (read the introductory wording of any divorce decree outlining the parent-child relationship - they all state that the children are now under the jurisdiction of that court, until the age of majority or until they have been handed over to a different jurisdiction. It’s right there in writing. Oh, and you can thank your attorney for not having the integrity to point out to you all of the legal implications of what you were signing.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I agree about the rebuttal presumption of shared custody, I thought you were saying that the courts shouldn’t even be involved at all.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
The ultimate wish is for the courts to not be involved at all… but it’s just scary that we are apparently only parents to our children as long as the state says so and on their terms.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
We could all agree that we would like a process that results in the best interests of the children.
But this is the joke…..its already in the law, and mandate of the family courts everywhere. Every judge thinks that is what they are doing (for the sake of this argument I will not assume that they don’t really do it cause of their federal child support money). There is no presumption of 50/50 cause society has yet to recognize that having your father as an active participant in your life is actually in your child’s best interest. Guess what it is more important to the healthy development of your child than the fact that Dad doesn’t know to cut the crusts off the peanut butter sandwich or the fact that they have to learn to live at two houses, or even the fact that they are not “as good” of a day to day parent as Mom (food, homework, bedtimes, etc etc). Seriously short of severe physical abuse what exactly are the specific reasons that support “the best interests of the children” when a father asks for more than every other weekend but this is what he is given?
Without a single change to the law, if the courts understood the true cost of their inane policies, then we would have a presumptive 50/50.
The fathers are getting screwed by the court system but really it is the kids that are getting hurt the most by a factor that is almost immeasurable — this is the final irony of the “Best interests of the children” standard.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I have been told, just yesterday, that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, my PEH is a better provider of my children’s best interests.
This was a judge’s opinion and his judgement was not made based on the weight of the evidence.
I am a parent, and a very good one, but until the courts and this judge in particular, decide so, I have to continue to be a visitor in their lives. I am forced to watch from the sidelines while their lives are being ruined and damaged.
This makes me sick.