Heidi Graw wrote:
> >"MCP"  wrote in message
> >news:B6JId.200824$48.200505{at}fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4017310
> >
> > By David Barrett and Karen Attwood, PA

[...]
> > Parents who ignore child contact orders imposed by the courts will
be
> > forced
> > to do unpaid community work and those who fail to allow former
partners to
> > see their children could also be given curfews.
>
> And does this apply to *both* parents?  Ie. if Dad doesn't show up on
the
> day he's supposed to 'cause his new girlfriend or new wife has
different
> plans for him, Daddy may end up with a curfew?

Great.  Then she could deny visitation for three months straight and
then use the law to bonk him when he doesn't show up for his 7th
scheduled visit.  This will essentially be another weapon that vengeful
ex-wives can use on the men they blame for their failed marriages.  Of
course, no one thinks of vengeful ex-wives when coming up with bad
ideas like this, which is partly why the law doesn't enforce contact
and support with the same fervor.

The more Big Mother Government does, the more she displays her
spectacular incompetence.  We don't want to give this over to big
government, because they'll screw it up, just like they do with almost
everything else they're given.

[...]
> > A mother or father who deliberately makes a child miss a family
holiday
> > with the other parent, for example, will be made to pay
compensation.

Mommy made to pay compensation?  I'll believe that when I see it.

> Heck, I propose where there is chronic and ongoing recalcitrance on
*either*
> parent, the parent whose turn it is to have the children should have
a
> police escort present with a copy of the visitation order in hand.
If the

Good idea if you believe in a big-government solution to the problem,
which by the way is the problem of father push-out.  Of course it would
traumatize the kids and alienate them from Dad, if seeing him were like
being served with a warrant.  But, inasmuch as it is the only way that
the govt can make this work, other than leaving it alone, it is not a
bad idea.  If the govt is going to solve all of our social problems, we
get a police state.

I've some better ideas, though they admittedly are not my ideas.
They're more from Locke, Jefferson, Adams, and the like.  The solutions
are freedom, the protection of natural rights, and the protection of
property rights.  It is also necessary to reconsider what a "right" is.
The State doesn't give out rights; it protects those that the people
already have.

If a woman wants to walk out of a marriage, buh bye, but that doesn't
give her the right to take anyone with her.  Is there such a natural
right?  Does the State protect her rights by forcing the kid to go with
her, or booting Dad out of the family home?  To the contrary, if she
arbitrarily shoves him out of his home, she's violating his property
rights.  If she takes a child out of a stable home where that child is
well cared for, and she drags the child into an insolvent situation,
she's violating the child's rights.

Of course, we'll never go back to fault divorce, so let's be more
realistic.  After the divorce, she has the child.  He has money.  It
sounds cold, but that money is his only leverage.  The State will never
enforce contact, no matter how many failed ideas they recycle.  But if
BMG takes her hands off the matter, then we're back to one side having
the child, and one side having money.  Ideally, they are reasonable
people who come to an arrangement on money exchange and child
visitation, for the sake of the child.  But that isn't how it works, so
he needs some way to ensure continued contact with his child.  He
already has it.

If he agrees to support her in return for visitation, and she knows
she'll be docked for denying contact, the rate of father push-out will
drop like a prom dress.  Of course they call it immoral to link support
with visitation, but how moral is father pushout? (rhetorical)

Or suppose they have joint custody.  If no one is being robbed on her
behalf, she can't afford to raise that child full time.  She needs for
the child to live with Dad sometimes so he can share the cost of
raising a child.  If she interferes with joint custody, she's stuck
with a bill she can't pay.

If, however, Big Mother forcibly transfers his money to her, contact or
not, he no longer has leverage, and we get to the point where visiting
fathers must arrive at the house with an armed escort if they are to be
sure of seeing their kids.

Of course, if govt takes the hands-off approach, the mother can render
herself and her child destitute, and some will do this.  Then you just
transfer custody of the child to the parent who is actually capable of
supporting a child.

This is a novel idea in itself.  Imagine - giving custody to someone
who can afford to have custody.  It is brilliant in its simplicity, but
of course no one in govt has though of it, or admitted they thought of
it, for several reasons.
- It is the nature of bureaucracy to make more work for itself, not
less.
- It is the nature of govt to seek power, not give it up.
- Women would go nuts, and they comprise about half of all voters.

Women don't let moral questions trouble them.  They want custody, and
goddess help any politician who doesn't make sure they get it.
Politicians are equally indifferent to moral concerns, and they'll do
whatever it takes to get elected, even a bad job.

The system we have now is like someone who overdoses on Advil, doing
permanent damage to his liver in an effort to get over his mild
headache.  Better yet, it's like a scene from Sesame Street in which
Ernie tries to drown out a leaky faucet by turning on a radio.  Then he
drowns out the radio with a vacuum cleaner.  It continues until his
apartment is roaring with white noise.  Of course, that was supposed to
be absurd, but family law is not, and family law does exactly what
Ernie did.  When they attempt to solve problems, they give rise to a
new set of problems that they also must solve.  And then another set.
And then another set.  Where does it end?  With the SWAT team
accompanying Dad to his scheduled visitation.

[...]

> Can you just imagine what the kids might think?
>
> "Mommy, why is Daddy showing up with a cop at his side?"

Grist for the mill.  She was trying to alienate the kids from their Dad
anyway.  The police escort would just give her more ammo, so to speak.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/24/05 10:40:52 PM ---