That we live in 2009 and before a father is able to speak in court, he is looked upon as less than the mother? Why does a judge believe that empowering a woman in court by saying "I'm not changing a thing unless the mother says so" belive anything other than how that may hurt an already troubled relationship? Maybe even show her dividends on how not to get along could lead her into sole physical custody?
How does a mother believe that "extreme limitation, or elimination of visitation" will benefit her children or even her, in the long run?
The fear of losing money in child support holds her from allowing me to see my children more than I already do. Let the record show that I already pay more than the state tells me that I need to pay, and now expects me to not see them.
Why are there no term limits on Judges in our court system? Does one person provide that sort of unbiased opinion that lasts through their lifetime? Has anyone experienced it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've always been confused by this as well - I know a man who was given full custody of his children nearly 25 years ago & when ever the topic is brought up people say "wow the mum must have been a real crazy person since women always get custody in battles" . . . guess the tables haven't changed much in all those years :(
ReplyDeleteBeautiful children, hang on in there. Thanks for joining my blog . Read as many as you can , you will be surprised how much support you get----------cottonreel
ReplyDelete