">
> >> Sure;  I think women don't always want men around them, sometimes
> >even the men
> >> they married.   I had a friend who's husband raped two of their three
> >kids.

You have nice friends.



> >> The way she found out was another child reported a rape.  They were
> >divorced.
> >> He was kicked out of the police force and incarcerated.  She left the
> >state and
> >> never tried to collect child support because she didn't want to see
> >him near
> >> her family.
> >> However, not all cases are like that, and it is my personal feeling
> >that> children cannot have too many people who love them.  So if a woman
> >does try to distance a good father from her children, she would not be
acting
> in
> >the best> interests of her children and should be challenged in court.
> >
> >Sometimes they are, but usually not very successfully.  In general,>women
are
> given wide latitude to behave as poorly as they like with>regards to
> interfering with contact between the father and his children.
>
> I think I addressed this before but the fact is that the custodial parent
does
> have a degree of latitude based on children's needs.  If a child has a
school
> performance, if a child is sick, if a child has a field trip or sleepover,
it
> is likely visitation will have to be altered.

A child's father comes first not some silly sleepover or school play you
moron.



> >
> > Why so many men choose roles that are less >than>> that of
primary>parenting
> >> is also a mystery.
> >> >
> >> >It's not really a mystery, given what you use for a
definition>of>"primary>
> parenting"  Both parents can't be home doing the majority of>child
> >care;> someone has to be bringing in the money.

Bingo! That's the primary parent. Without money there would be no parenting
except on the street.




> >> >
>  Well,then if that role is important to him he should marry a woman>who
> supports
> >> that.> I can't speak for you, but when I formed a
partnership with the
other
> >parent of> my three children, we decided from the get-go who would stay
home
> and
> >when.
> >
> >We didn't have that option--both of us had to work.  Fortunately,
we>decided
> to work shifts opposite one another so that our son always had>at least
one
> parent at home most of the time.  Which would have made
> >for an interesting time if a divorce occured--try distinguishing>primary
> parent between two people sharing child care and breadwinning>roles.  But
the
> easy answer is:  my wife would have gotten custody by
> >default, because she was the mother.  "Primary
parenting" really means
> >little.
> >>
> >> I think a real world definition of primary parenting
would>acknowledge>the>
> efforts of the person bringing in the money that allows the>household
> >to>> function, get health care, etc...
> >> >
> >> No.  What you want is a decision based on finances.  The courts don't
judge
> the best interests of children based on who makes the paycheck.

They should and they will.



>
> >>Of course you'd disagree--a real world definition
wouldn't>automatically
give
> women a default advantage.
> >
> >>  The courts want the parenting to continue on as it has,

Then the man gets it since he's the only one who has really supported the
kid.



> >
> >Then the courts would have to force the parents to live together if>that
was
> really the goal.  hehe
> >
> >> to make fewer> changes in the lives of the children as possible.
> (edit)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/8/05 6:36:04 AM ---