- A century to be proud of
- Think about all Coloradans in expansion
- New way of financing government
- A Nation Of Legal Immigrants
- The Hype on, On-Line Gaming.
- Adult children and aging parents
- Big isn't always better
- On the Senate Employee Free Choice Act Vote June 27
- Columnist’s ‘Nonsense about terrorism’ was just that
- McCain down, but don’t count him out
A worrying court decision
This Speakout has not been edited
By S. Johnson, Mead
This was evident to me in a court proceeding last month in Montrose County Court. She and her 4 children have a wonderful opportunity to leave the state of Colorado with her husband. She has 3 children from a previous marriage and has primary custody. The children’s father refused to let them leave the state. He did not file for custody; he just won’t let them leave! Her husband who was transferred with a Corporate merger to the neighboring state of Kansas-better job, more money, better schools, lower cost of living and more opportunities in every way.(And well documented to the courts.) All of this is secured and waiting. She did everything right and through the courts, waited and waited and waited as is the process. This process was long and hard, as she moved in with me (her mother) after moving out of a rented home in Denver. Her husband leased a home large enough for all to live in Kansas while starting his new job.
They commuted the children 1 hour to and from school for one full month. (She receives a whopping $480 in child support for 3 children) She was also in her last month of pregnancy at the time, being remarried to a wonderful man. They have the new baby who now is 1 month old.
Through the corporation they have great health insurance, (something the 3 boys dad never did furnish for them, my daughter worked and provided the insurance) the children are all insured under her husband’s policy. Let me just reiterate this. All children are covered with medical Insurance under this policy; that the step father has, not their father! My daughter gets less than 500 dollars per month of child support! For 3 boys. Her husband is a diabetic and the new baby has a possible metabolic disorder that is manageable but only with good insurance!
Just one of the babies recent tests were over $900.00. You cannot just change health insurance on a whim!
In summary, the judge ruled that she could not take her children outside the state, even though they would make sure via the parenting plan that the Father in Montrose would see them 130 days per year. As has been the rule for the last couple of years.
The Judged ruled that it would be too much of a hardship on The Father here in Montrose to take a few extra hours a few days a year.
Therefore, she needs to move back to Colorado, basically having 2 separate households. The youngest (1 month old) will be separated from his father Now what? Did I really read that right? The Judge is telling my daughter, Ok I will split up your family, you can live with your mom, or just have 2 households. I will put you all in Jeopardy just because of an inconvenience for one. 130 days a year.
But what you do for the other 235 I really could care less...
With all the anguish, money and hardship this has caused I believe the Judge should have considered what really was in the BEST INTEREST of the children. Instead of the best interest of a father who only wants them at his convenience. 130 days a year. Holidays and Summer Vacations and Hunting trips.
Wow! Isn’t that justice- In more ways than one!
R.S. you failed math. The number of cheating men and women is not identical and let me show you why.
Say 50% of all "married" men cheat with single women and about 30% of "married women cheat with single men. Which by the way is pretty close to the reality, not every married man is cheating with another mans wife.
You are right about marriage, women can now have babies without being wed and the father has to pay his fair share of the cost of the child.
Guys should have themselves cut and stop all the complaining when they have to "pay the piper" for their fun.
No one stole their sperm!
Posted by on July 21, 2007 06:29 PM"Well RS, maybe you guys shouldn`t rush into marriage without knowing more about the woman and her character.
In divorce, as in llife, there is unfairness and it has usually been that the men get all the advantages of marriage, then leave with a younger woman and shaft the wife."
These laws are having exactly the effect you suggest; marriage rates are dropping significantly. Births outside marriage are increasing as a percentage; an interesting statistic in the 40th year of women having absolute reproductive choice in Colorado. Given the penalties associated with marriage, I expect the trends to continue.
The stereotype you project is exactly that, a stereotype. Statisticians know that the number of cheating men and women is identical- nothing else is mathematically possible. The potential trophy "wife" being pursued by the older man is most likely also cheating on a young husband or boyfriend. The feminist view that it is only men commiting these evils is bogus; a fact that DNA-based paternity testing has been revealing for some time now. The character of a person changes over time, often dramatically. The better way to avoid being penalized by an overzealous family law system is too avoid the state's entire "marriage" system; enter a private agreement with private enforcement systems - something that is still an option in a free society.
Well RS, maybe you guys shouldn`t rush into marriage without knowing more about the woman and her character.
In divorce, as in llife, there is unfairness and it has usually been that the men get all the advantages of marriage, then leave with a younger woman and shaft the wife.
I still think non paying men should get complete custody, and support for a year or two, and then ask them which is better $40.00 or so per child per week or complete support. Good idea?
Posted by on July 19, 2007 01:14 PM"Most mothers stay home, that is how our society likes it, so that makes sense then to give the kids and the money to support them to the stay-at-home moms. Conservatives always say that one parent should be in the home, not working, and that one is usually the mom."
At one time this was true, no longer. This concept of the "stay at home mom" has been supplanted by economics, and by the law itself. A 2001 law (Senate Bill 01-158) sponsored by Senator Pat Pascoe, made a significant change in Colorado marriage/divorce law. It mandates a formula to be used in the event of a separation between a married couple: 40% of the GROSS pay of the working spouse must, automatically, be presented to the non-working spouse starting with the date of separation. The 40% level is for a couple without children; the formula takes into account additional payment for child support. The worker must also pay the taxes, though the formula uses the higher "gross" pay figure, so will end up with significantly less than half of his own income: challenging when you have just been evicted from your home! Note their is absolutely NO minimum time for the length of the marriage nor for the length of the unemployment of the non-working spouse. With such law, the concept of a stay-at-home-mom is coompletely over- the kids go to daycare.
Charles M. Most mothers stay home, that is how our society likes it, so that makes sense then to give the kids and the money to support them to the stay-at-home moms. Conservatives always say that one parent should be in the home, not working, and that one is usually the mom.
Some moms are scum, but the number of fathers who do not pay any support is a national disgrace.
I do think that the children should go to the father if he is skipping child support. Give him one or two years of complete support, closely supervised by the court, then move the kids back to the mom and jail the father if he skips support again.
I know, I`m just dreaming, but a good many dead beat dads would love to pay support if it means someone else raises the kids and they can go on with their single life-style.
Posted by on July 18, 2007 01:32 PMone reason for limits such as if the father doesnt agree, mom cant take children out of state is the fact that too many womenuse the children as weapons against the father and will use any reason to deny visitation and such and then blame the father for not seeing them so some protections were needed if mothers werent abusing the priviledge of having their children which they should view it as since it is automatic in all states to give the children to the mother because they still think women are more capable than fathers to raise children but as women are just as capable as men fathers are just as capable as mothersand We really do need to get away from the draconian view that only women can raise children backward view of things women only want equal rights in everything but the children where is the logic in that
Posted by charles marx on July 18, 2007 12:51 PMone reason for limits such as if the father doesnt agree, mom cant take children out of state is the fact that too many womenuse the children as weapons against the father and will use any reason to deny visitation and such and then blame the father for not seeing them so some protections were needed if mothers werent abusing the priviledge of having their children which they should view it as since it is automatic in all states to give the children to the mother because they still think women are more capable than fathers to raise children but as women are just as capable as men fathers are just as capable as mothersand We really do need to get away from the draconian view that only women can raise children backward view of things women only want equal rights in everything but the children where is the logic in that
Posted by charles marx on July 18, 2007 12:51 PMI ahve three different kids by three different women, and I don't support any of them.
It's not my fault when women are too dumb to take their birth control.
Don't blame me. Obviously, I have what women need.
I think it's funny when I see a guy fall in love with some skank that I used and abused a thousand times.
In my book, those guys are all suckers.
That's life. Don't hate the playa. Hate the game, baby.
Posted by Thugalicious on July 17, 2007 02:32 PMI have three different kids with three different women, and I don't pay support for any of them.
Don't blame me that they didn't get on birth control. I'm a playa.
Hate the game, baby. Not the playa.
Posted by Thugalicious on July 17, 2007 02:20 PMAlecia, yup, most of the men I know are divorced and only two pay child support without hiding income, taking a low pay job till support amount is set and then getting a better one. Living with a woman who pays most of the household bills.
The divorced or unwed fathers in my family are all responsible men and well loved and respected.
Do you think violent men wear a sign that although they look kind, gentle and caring, they will resort to violence?
forget me, you don`t seem to have much sympathy for women who marry batterers because they should have been what, psychic?
I still think women should leave the kids when they divorce and let the men completely support them.
I had a friend who told her philandering husband that if he left, he and his girl friend could raise the five kids. She also told the GF and that ended that.
And yes she divorced him.
Posted by on July 17, 2007 02:12 PMSharon B, spin it any way you want but...
"Most of the men I know would run screaming from the responsibility and full cost of those children." means that...
most of the men you know are irresponsible.
There is alot of prejudice in your postings. Alot of anti-man attitude. You don't need the strength to put Mr. Wonderful in the hospital. All you need is the strength to say no to a marriage proposal and walk away. Quit blaming your bad choices on the men that you choose.
Posted by Alecia on July 17, 2007 07:38 AM"There is a lot of prejudice in RS`s posting, a lot of anti-woman attitude."
I disagree that it is women who are responsible for the negative incentives being used against marriage and in favor of divorce and family destruction. Indeed, men, women, and especially children are the true victims of a divorce-incentive focused government. It would take an exceptionally strong-willed person to resist the financial incentives provided by state law, especially since they are sold as "entitlements" to the "victim". The destruction of feminine self-esteem is understandable and it is very easy to make that 911 hang-up call and have the man permanently removed from the home while keeping a minimum of 40% of his gross income and the home itself. The trouble comes when she realizes the tremendous error she has made and is unable to correct it because the "justice" system views her as a mere child in need of a level of state "protection". A system that treats her as even less competent than the average foster child. Viewing adult women as equal to their male contemporaries is hardly "anti-woman" and anyone who thinks so needs to examine their own, rather significant, prejudice against women.
Yes, the original column was short on facts, leading many of us to fill in the blanks either from anecdotal evidence or statistical trends. Some have attacked the abandoned father for his low level of child support payments; naive given that the level of payment is established through a governmental formula based upon income. If he had insigificant income before and during the marriage, then perhaps the woman was unwise to marry him and, further, produce three children with him? Perhaps he mistakenly assumed he was a participant in a modern, egalitarian marriage where BOTH parents would be contributing to the financial well being of their offspring? We don't know the facts, but it was obvious the article was biased which often leads people to assume facts based upon experience and the nature of our current society.
Posted by RS on July 16, 2007 11:08 PMAlecia, never said;"most of the men I know are irresponsible".
Mr. Wonderful had a mean streak and a truck driver finally put him in the hospital, something none of his 4 wives had the strength to do.
There is a lot of prejudice in RS`s posting, a lot of anti-woman attitude.
Some of that is in yours too. Yes women can be misogynist.
Anonymous at 8:55,
You chose Mr. Wonderful and then are happy to get away from him, and now most of the men you know are irresponsible. I guess now your a spokeswoman for those whiney women who "can't find a good man."
Ms. Pot, meet Ms. Kettle...
Posted by Alecia on July 16, 2007 01:06 PMRS. Your comments do not sound like the word of someone who worked with broken families.
Did you know 80% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
For $160.00 per kid this father gets his children completely taken care of, even insured. By someone else, who foots the bills that go over that pittance.
I worked with battered women in Glenwood Springs but that does not give me the right to judge this particular families problems.
The men I personally know who do not have custody of their children, shouldn't`t have pets let along kids that depend on them.
Some men get shafted, true. But if more women left the kids behind when they divorced the men would be begging some woman to live with them, or marry them so they can get the kids off their hands 24/7.
That income stream is a trickle compared to the real cost of raising children.
$160.00 a month and you call that an income stream.
Posted by on July 15, 2007 10:59 AMAnonymous poster at 8:55 PM on Friday the 13th,
The statements are based on both statistical facts and my personal experience in human rights work. It is fact that 70% to 80% of divorces are initiated by women; this is even higher with children involved divorce. The comment about “pimping children” results from years of working with foster children; all of them the victims of irresponsible adults. We can oppose this so-called “Adult” behaviour, or accept there will be many more child victims. I applaud men who are responsible enough to demand their rights and responsibilities as fathers – many more need to do so and form alliances with the other victims of entitled women who see men as nothing but exploitation objects.
One solution would be for her to give the older kids to their father. Then leave the state.
Most of the men I know would run screaming from the responsibility and full cost of those children.
RS, all your bigotry is showing. You know nothing about this family. Looks like you were dumped for a "trophy husband" Yes?
Unilateral divorce allowed me to get away from Mr. Wonderful and I love it.
When you know who divorced whom and why , speak out, until then your just another spokesman for the whiny men who got dumped and HAD IT COMMING.
Pimped her children. What a platinum plated jerk
Posted by on July 13, 2007 08:55 PMI understand. I left an abusive marriage 16 years ago with my infant daughter. My former spouse had threatened to sue for custody if I held a job outside of the home or went to college because he didn't want his daughter in daycare. We were also not allowed to travel or move out of the state of Colorado.
I outsmarted him. I earned my degrees via distance learning and make my money from home. One learns to be flexible when stuck in a prison.
These restrictions have caused my current husband and I to lose out of several opportunities as well. I was offered a scholarship to a post-graduate program but had to decline because it was out of state. My husband had to decline a position that paid double his current salary because of the imposition.
It does seem that the men who won't pay child support, carry insurance, or visit their children want to find other ways to control their former spouses. I wouldn't be so frustrated if my daughter had a relationship with her father, she does not.
The law is the law. My daughter has never left the state due to our divorce decree. She's never even seen her paternal grandparents who live in Washington. Everyone loses when people cease to be flexible.
Luckily, my daughter will be 18 in six months. Then we will take a vacation and she can visit her family in Washington. Me, I'm counting down to beginning my life without the restrictions of my former spouse. The control eventually ends.
I understand. I left an abusive marriage 16 years ago with my infant daughter. My former spouse has threatened to sue for custody if I held a job outside of the home or went to college because he didn't want his daughter in daycare. We were also not allowed to travel or move out of the state of Colorado.
I outsmarted him. I earned my degrees via distance learning and make my money from home. One learns to be flexible when stuck in a prison.
These restrictions have caused my current husband and I to lose out of several opportunities as well. I was offered a scholarship to a post-graduate program but had to decline because it was out of state. My husband had to decline a position that paid double his current salary because of the imposition.
It does seem that the men who won't pay child support, carry insurance, or visit their children want to find other ways to control their former spouses. I wouldn't be so frustrated if my daughter had a relationship with her father, she does not.
The law is the law. My daughter has never left the state due to our divorce decree. She's never even seen her paternal grandparents who live in Washington. Everyone loses when people cease to be flexible.
Luckily, my daughter will be 18 in six months. Then we will take a vacation and she can visit her family in Washington. Me, I'm counting down to beginning my life without the restrictions of my former spouse. The control eventually ends.
I understand. I left an abusive marriage 16 years ago with my infant daughter. My former spouse has threatened to sue for custody if I held a job outside of the home or went to college because he didn't want his daughter in daycare. We were also not allowed to travel or move out of the state of Colorado.
I outsmarted him. I earned my degrees via distance learning and make my money from home. One learns to be flexible when stuck in a prison.
These restrictions have caused my current husband and I to lose out of several opportunities as well. I was offered a scholarship to a post-graduate program but had to decline because it was out of state. My husband had to decline a position that paid double his current salary because of the imposition.
It does seem that the men who won't pay child support, carry insurance, or visit their children want to find other ways to control their former spouses. I wouldn't be so frustrated if my daughter had a relationship with her father, she does not.
The law is the law. My daughter has never left the state due to our divorce decree. She's never even seen her paternal grandparents who live in Washington. Everyone loses when people cease to be flexible.
Luckily, my daughter will be 18 in six months. Then we will take a vacation and she can visit her family in Washington. Me, I'm counting down to beginning my life without the restrictions of my former spouse. The control eventually ends.
I understand. I left an abusive marriage 16 years ago with my infant daughter. My former spouse has threatened to sue for custody if I held a job outside of the home or went to college because he didn't want his daughter in daycare. We were also not allowed to travel or move out of the state of Colorado.
I outsmarted him. I earned my degrees via distance learning and make my money from home. One learns to be flexible when stuck in a prison.
These restrictions have caused my current husband and I to lose out of several opportunities as well. I was offered a scholarship to a post-graduate program but had to decline because it was out of state. My husband had to decline a position that paid double his current salary because of the imposition.
It does seem that the men who won't pay child support, carry insurance, or visit their children want to find other ways to control their former spouses. I wouldn't be so frustrated if my daughter had a relationship with her father, she does not.
The law is the law. My daughter has never left the state due to our divorce decree. She's never even seen her paternal grandparents who live in Washington. Everyone loses when people cease to be flexible.
Luckily, my daughter will be 18 in six months. Then we will take a vacation and she can visit her family in Washington. Me, I'm counting down to beginning my life without the restrictions of my former spouse. The control eventually ends.
No sympathy here S. Johnson. You typically left out the rest of the story...there are always two sides. Colorado Courts are notorious for giving the children to the mother regardless of the circumstance of each parent.
While the father may not have provided health insurance, you did not state the reason for the divorce, was he abusive, alcoholic or never there??
Before you attempt to tug on the heart-strings of public sympathy, you should tell the whole story. Too many of us have traveled the road of divorce not to know that emotions tend to squelch the truth in the battle for child custody.
The mother "upgraded" her man and the now dumped father is expected to just give up his kids because of the replacement father's better economic situation? Perhaps Mom should not have taken advantage of Colorado unilateral divorce law and kept the family together in the first place!! Men are not simply disposable, especially if Mom wants to dispose of the man while pimping her children for an income stream from him. The kids have TWO parents, and the father is not just a "wallet" to be drained at the whim of the mother.
Posted by RS on July 12, 2007 07:44 AM