With them its not about chldren's best interest its loss of status and economics. Can you imagine their difficulty trying to explain how they lost custody and the loss of self esteem. It puts them into overdrive to crusade against dads and all men. In some cases they have the nerve to call themselves protective parents when, in fact, they are the abusers. I see some have visited here already.
One of the usual canards they use is child support and it is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. "Dads just want shared parenting because they don't want to pay child support." It is as fallacious a piece of logic as exists. Dads will always pay for the support of their child but when it is shared custody they pay as any normal parent does. It goes directly toward the children not a second or third party.
The opposite is also true and closer to the real heart of the argument. The dead beat mom who may be relying on welfare and child support because she doesn't want to work for a living can't get all the entitlements she has been told she can manipulate out of the system. This really ticks them off even more so than before.
I have been observing Overington's highly biased and sexist reporting for a couple of years now from way up here in Canada and do wonder how she can get away with it. If she was doing this to anyone but men it would be considered racist, hateful, discriminatory and inappropriate. Her editors may well be eunuchs.
If you haven't lodged complaints with the newspaper itself, Mr. Murdoch personally, and ethics groups associated with the media it should occur. I've certainly complained myself to The Australian over the Canada Model article which was a letter, I believe, from a tiny group of radical feminist lawyers in my country who use the same well worn abuse canards as down under. We shoot them down with great frequency when they surface up here and it has to be frequent to dispel the entrenched mythology.
i wish you well and hopefully reason will prevail although I understand you have a socialist government and they are clearly in the feminist camp. Shared parenting is in the best interest of children and sole parenting, particularly by moms, leads to many negative social outcomes. One can see why with some of the comments by them here.MJM
Posted by Ash Patil on November 17th, 2009 | Category: Exploitation of Family Law
Most people on the street would be quite familiar by now with an avalanche of newspaper articles over the past year condemning Australia's shared care laws and suggesting that they put Australia's children at risk of abuse.
These articles have been so effective that most people actually believe that the current research supports this suggestion.
Articles such as " Courts continue to grant access to violent parents ", " Shared-parenting is 'gobbledegook' ", "'Flaws' in John Howard's parenting law" & " Replace shared care with Canada model " have been so one-sided and misleading in their depiction of these laws, that there is a clear expectation in the community that the 2006 shared parental responsibility laws will as a matter of certainty be repealed by the Rudd government.
This avalanche of articles were primarily the work of two journalists, Caroline Overington from the Australian and Adele Horin from Fairfax, who seem to have closely aligned their message with that of Barbara Biggs, a toxic extremist who promotes the idea that men on the whole are sexual predators and inherently violent, and cannot be trusted in the care of their children.
In response to these articles, I have often been asked by members of Fathers4Equality why I have not made important research available to the likes of Caroline and Adele, in order for them to provide more balanced and informative reporting on this very important issue.
And there is an overwhelming amount of credible research to debunk these stereotypes of men and shared parenting promoted by those who have questionable motives in replacing Australia's shared care laws.
For example, recent research from the WA Department of Child Protection (amongst others) has shown that up to 80% of all child abuse occurs in single mother households, research from the Australian Institute of Criminology (amongst others) has shown that family violence is instigated equally by both men and women, a report from Childline in the UK has reported the skyrocketing of allegations by children against women for sexual abuse, and an article in the Wall Street Journal has reported on a German study highlighting the neurological damage caused to children who are raised without the ongoing presence of a father.
Further articles have highlighted the recent national poll in Canada showing 80% support for the replacement of their sole-custody family law model with shared care family laws, or the unprecedented outburst by UK Lord Justice Ward who spoke out against the sole-custody UK family laws by saying that the courts were powerless to help decent fathers to see their children if vengeful mothers stood in the way.
When one was to view all the research in this area on the whole, the conclusion is unmistakable. That there is a foundation of research and broad recognition within the community that sole custody laws are bad for children, and that shared care on the whole is in the best interests of children. In fact, the natural transparency afforded by shared care provides the best safeguards against the risk of child abuse or neglect.
Now, truth be told, I have corresponded with the likes of Caroline and Adele quite extensively in this past year.
So one would assume that given our history, that both Caroline and Adele would be open to reading and/or reporting on vital information on Child abuse and Shared parenting passed on to them by Fathers4Equality.
Given that Caroline and Adele have devoted significant time and effort in writing article after article suggesting that children's welfare is at stake if they have shared care arrangements with their fathers, then as any credible investigative journalist would do, they would cross-reference their conclusions with the latest research and information on these claims.
Correct?
Well, No, not so.
Fathers4Equality have gone out of our way to inform both Caroline and Adele on very important research that critically undermines the premise that shared care is bad for children. At the very least it provides a strong counter-argument to the repeated mantra from these two.
So have they reported on it?
Well, based on the below return receipts from emails sent to both Caroline and Adele on this very important research, not only haven't they reported on it, but they have also refused to even read it. They simply deleted it from their inbox without reading it.
Let me repeat that. They have DELETED, without reading, emails purporting to contain key information on the very topics they have devoted so much time on. And then they proceeded to write further articles on this topic, and done so in selective ignorance of the facts.
Investigative journalism? I think not! Not convinced? Just look at the emails below and ask yourself why they were deleted without being read.
http://www.fathers4equality-australia.org/equalparenting/FiDBlog.nsf/dx/investigative-journalist-or-lobbyist-the-shared-care-debate-in-australia-
Responses
- on 18/11/2009 9:54:08 AMMike Murphy
Oz certainly has its fair share of those who would be considered to be on the fringe of responsible parenthood, moms in this case, who will believe anything about dads or men as long as it is negative. The most vile I have found are those who have lost custody for the very attitudes they show on comment boards
With them its not about chldren's best interest its loss of status and economics. Can you imagine their difficulty trying to explain how they lost custody and the loss of self esteem. It puts them into overdrive to crusade against dads and all men. In some cases they have the nerve to call themselves protective parents when, in fact, they are the abusers. I see some have visited here already.
One of the usual canards they use is child support and it is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. "Dads just want shared parenting because they don't want to pay child support." It is as fallacious a piece of logic as exists. Dads will always pay for the support of their child but when it is shared custody they pay as any normal parent does. It goes directly toward the children not a second or third party.
The opposite is also true and closer to the real heart of the argument. The dead beat mom who may be relying on welfare and child support because she doesn't want to work for a living can't get all the entitlements she has been told she can manipulate out of the system. This really ticks them off even more so than before.
I have been observing Overington's highly biased and sexist reporting for a couple of years now from way up here in Canada and do wonder how she can get away with it. If she was doing this to anyone but men it would be considered racist, hateful, discriminatory and inappropriate. Her editors may well be eunuchs.
If you haven't lodged complaints with the newspaper itself, Mr. Murdoch personally, and ethics groups associated with the media it should occur. I've certainly complained myself to The Australian over the Canada Model article which was a letter, I believe, from a tiny group of radical feminist lawyers in my country who use the same well worn abuse canards as down under. We shoot them down with great frequency when they surface up here and it has to be frequent to dispel the entrenched mythology.
I wish you well and hopefully reason will prevail although I understand you have a socialist government and they are clearly in the feminist camp. Shared parenting is in the best interest of children and sole parenting, particularly by moms, leads to many negative social outcomes. One can see why with some of the comments by them here.
I will put your post in my blogs on top of the world to give it wider distribution.
- on 18/11/2009 1:04:19 AMIan Mc
Its a real shame Ash that the facts aren't being debated but are simply being obscured by these self-interested parties.
And what's with all the personal attacks? This is a forum for discussion not for abusive behaviour.
Girls, if you want to make denigrating comments then do it in your own private forums. This blog is for mature discussion and well reasoned arguments.
- on 18/11/2009 12:45:37 AML. Mont
Caroline is the most honest and wonderful journalist in this country.
She is doing this to help our kids.
Stop whinging and start paying your child support, and leave the parenting to those who really care about our kids.
- on 17/11/2009 5:57:14 PMJill McGee
Reporters like Adele Horin and Caroline Overington know you Father Rights guys like to manufacture your own statistics and cannot be relied upon to provide any type of intelligent recourse. You have revealed too much over the years and have exposed yourselves as the misogynistic bullies that you are. Your time has come to an end and the era of the Fathers rights bullying is over.
- on 17/11/2009 5:53:25 PMCynthia J
I reported my ex for child sex abuse but no one believed me. They all said that I made it up.
Everyone knows that mother's don't make these things up. My boy wet his bed. On the internet it says that if your child wets his bed its because he was sexually abused.
I did not make it up. The doctor and DOCS were jelos of me that's why they said I lied.
If the laws are changed I will get my child back and people will have to believe me.
John Howard was stupid to make these laws. Father's should never be believed.
I left him because he was jelos of me. Now he has stolen my child with the help of John Howard.
Thanks to Caroline and Adele I now know that I will get my son back and stop him from seeing that sex abuser forever.
Thank you girls. Yeah girl power!
- on 17/11/2009 5:36:05 PMFlorin
I can't wait for the old family laws to come back.
Then I will stop my ex from seeing my kids ever again.
Its my right and these shared care laws are bad.
I am the one who gave birth to my kids and only I should be able to decide where they go and what they do.
Hooray for Caroline and Adele. You go girls!
@split -"Your reference also to articles highlighting the poll in Canada I am guessing is the rather biased letter that came from a spokesperson for a "Shared Parenting" association in Canada ie, effectively a representative of a "father's rights" group, hardly reflecting the opinions of all Canadians. That would be like saying Edward Dabrowski, in all his ignorance, speaks for all of Australia (God forbid)."
____________________________________________________
You are correct in that you are guessing. The poll was conducted professionally by a polling firm under the auspices of the MP who is sponsoring the equal parenting bill in Canada. It effectively duplicates one taken back in 1998 during a joint Senate/Parliamentary committee study on shared parenting which resulted in the production of a report "For the Sake of The Children" which was never implemented.
Studies have been done by many reputable scholars on shared parenting outside of OZ and they clearly show children have far more positive outcomes when both parents are in their lives after divorce. It is important when they are doing a week about rotation the parents live close together and which will not interfere with their schooling or friends. As they approach the tween and teen age years friends are far more important than either parent - to them.
My reference to deadbeat moms living off the system applies more to the earlier comments by women with obvious personality disorders. They have only one thing in mind and that is entitlements and revenge. The children are collateral but important pawns to meet their goals. They are not uncommon here in Canada and they have the same views of ownership of children.
You seem to be a more reasonable person who understands children need both parents and I wish there were more moms like you. If there are two reasonable parents then appropriate schedules could be worked out in a more coherent and "best interest"
manner.
I do recommend F4E keep the comments by the earlier posters to show the decision makers the real truth behind those who shriek loudest and who the likes of Overington is cheerleading.
There are no surpises in your article. It goes much further than just demonising fathers as parents. There is a blantant and overwhelming shift in society over the last 5 - 10 years towards anti-male sentiment. Our very government organisataions that are supposed to put children first put the mother first. Watch ninemsn.com.au - almost every day there are multiple anti-male stories. And recently we find a woman who gets off a jail term for two counts of statutory rape.
I worked 100+ hours per week to keep my ex-wife in the lifestyle she demanded (which were damnded by abuse, threats and violence). I did almost all of the housework, cooking, and extra curricular work, whilst she watched TV and spent time with her mother, and what was shocking is that she is not an isolated or extreme case. Her bahaviour is far more common than you might think. To this day she still uses the children as a weapon with which to direct her anger at me. I won my shared care case, after two years and $35,000 and complete and utter financial destruction. I may have got 50/50 parenting, but I lost my career, my superannuation, my assets and my self esteem, but it was worth it. The kids are happier, performing better in school. Any person who thninks shared care is not approapriate is a fool, is blindsided by continual lies and deception of not just caroline and adele, but by key child related organisations in australia (they know who they are!) Anyone who cares about children supports shared parenting.
I should also say that I don't support the bizarre views that children should be subject to sole custody either, nor the anti-male sentiment of some female posters here. However, I do not believe for one moment that it is in a child's best interest to be shuttled back and forth between two houses like an object, particularly not a breastfeeding infant, which is happening more and more frequently, as reported recently by Overington and can be substantiated in the actual case files (Farmer v Rogers is just one example).
The school of thought that says women should "just express" (such as the comment by Edward Dabrowski) or that the father could just use formula, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process of breastfeeding.
Each feed effectively "puts in an order" for the next and it relies completely on the premise of supply and demand. Expressing is not in any way a substitute for feeding at the breast and while it might suffice for a feed or two, it certainly would not allow a woman to maintain supply over a period of days or a week. Some women who breastfeed find expressing excruciating or impossible. Further to this, "comp" feeding with formula would simply cause the mother painful mastitis as the only way to maintain supply is to properly drain the breast. Yes, there may be women who prolong feeding in order to gain an advantage, but I would argue that most do not. Most women breastfeed because of the uncontested health benefits to both child and mother, because it is cheaper and more convenient. Do not make all women and children suffer because of the behaviour of a few - sound familiar? You guys don't all want to be tarred with the same brush because of a handful of deadbeats, so don't do it to us either.
The reason I raise this particular issue is that any reasonable father who had his child's best interest at heart wouldn't try to interfere with this process. Any reasonable mother would accept this sign of respect and do her best to facilitate as much time as practical with the father without compromising the baby's health, or the breastfeeding relationship.
If we want to take this whole thing further, why not find a way to allow men to gestate and breastfeed. I wonder then if they would be so prepared to hand their babies over for extended periods of time, causing themselves pain, discomfort and extreme inconvenience? Come on guys, most of us do it out of love for our kids, not to make your life difficult.
Unfortunately, as we all know, we are often not dealing with reasonable people, as if we were, the courts would not be being asked to decide cases like this. In my humble opinion, any man who would seek 50% custody of a breastfeeding infant (under 12mths of age), or in fact any over nights does not have his child's best interest at heart.
I would just like to point out that there is a very strong anti-female sentiment in many of these sites, unless of course it is reference to current partners who are obviously in favour, or ex partners who simply agree to whatever the father asks for.
I would argue that what is in the child's best interest might not necessarily be what either parent is asking for. Actually, like I said in my previous post, what is in the child's best interest is for the parents to remain together in the first instance. Already in separating at least one parent has put their own interests above that of their children.
I would also like to take the opportunity to object to comments about mothers on welfare. I have found myself in this category as a result of the unplanned pregnancy of another child of our now defunct marriage. My ex is the one who ended it for no real reason, he kicked us out of the house, is paying scant child support, I no longer have an income and am reliant for the first time in my life on welfare. I am an intelligent, educated and mostly reasonable person and I am deeply offended by the comments of one of your posters to the effect that I am a dead beat because of this.
As much as possible, I have done what is in my power to be as reasonable as I can, but for every guy out there who has been wronged, I can assure you that there is a woman or two who is suffering more, simply by virtue of her biology.
Honestly, I do not know what the answers are to this issue, but I do know that slagging women off or accusing all men of being abusers is not productive. Both parents should be involved in raising their children if it is possible. Neither one is more important than the other, but I reject the premise that this makes them equal. Men and women are different and they parent differently. The relationship is a complementary one and one can not readily be replaced with the other as the failure of sole custody has shown us, but that doesn't mean that children need equal time with both parents.
I think your German research article from WSJ was actually about degu pups and voles, not human children and in fact, the researchers themselves cautioned against extrapolating their results to human populations.
Your reference also to articles highlighting the poll in Canada I am guessing is the rather biased letter that came from a spokesperson for a "Shared Parenting" association in Canada ie, effectively a representative of a "father's rights" group, hardly reflecting the opinions of all Canadians. That would be like saying Edward Dabrowski, in all his ignorance, speaks for all of Australia (God forbid).
I have read extensively on this subject and I can safely say that your own representation of "research" is not without bias. Clutching at straws is not a robust way to further your cause. These two women have reported on real cases and real issues that our Family courts are messing up. I have read the actual transcripts of the cases they refer to - have you? So in 20 years time when the real research comes in and we find that we have a whole generation of children with mental and emotional problems related to homelessness, health problems like diabetes from a massive reduction in numbers of children breastfeeding, an inability to bond and form stable relationships, creating even more broken families that the courts have to deal with, will you say "sorry" to us for using our children as guinea pigs and destroying their lives? Sorry, but you only get one chance at life. The research needs to be done first, not the other way around. There have been nothing but debacles and screw ups as a result of these amendments and the wording of them is ambiguous. They are clearly not working.
I would dearly love to know how much parenting John Howard did of his own children to make him such an authority on the subject. Amusingly it obviously didn't win him the votes he thought it would. It is widely accepted in legal and academic circles that the 2006 amendments were not based on research, but simply on pressure from lobby groups (ie men's groups), so I find it a bit rich for you, as a lobbyist to be so prepared to hang these reporters for doing what you perceive to be the same.
Perhaps if more fathers strove for equality in parenting and domestic tasks prior to separation, there would be a lot fewer separations to begin with and then our children could have what they truly deserve - both parents together in the same home. If it weren't so sad, I would probably find the whole notion of men striving for equality to be completely absurd. You want relevant statistics? Check out the Australian Bureau of Statistics HILDA survey and you will find that women still do 76% of the parenting and domestics tasks in Australia, despite often being in paid employment. If you think that is equal, your maths is worse than mine.
It is hardly surprising that we have such major issues when so many men are so focused on self promotion and what their own perceived rights are that they lose sight of what children need and have a right to and they simply resort to attacking women in the process. Incredibly juvenile and not very good role models. So too, the genuine fear I feel when I read some of the nasty, ignorant, vindictive and hateful comments written about women by men in these forums on these sites. Yes, there are some women who write nasty things about men too and I'm not condoning that, I have just found the vitriol and hatred towards women by men to be far more sinister.
It would do many of you good to just grow up and instead of looking for ways to discredit, abuse and denigrate women, try looking for ways to work together for the sake of your children.
After all, you get more flies with honey
It is sad that a power war exists between parents "using" children post separation and divorce to what advantage. For $$$? For property??? To maintain and extended control of a former spouse??? I used to sit sadly and watch my step children checking every car that past by waiting for their weekend once a fortnight sleepover at Dad's home. "Is it Dad"? Anguishing if he happened to run ten minutes late. I was just as saddened to hear that my children became high as 'their fortnightly sleepover' with me drew closer. Bags packed days in advance. A new toy or teacher's praising comment or star in a school book proudly shared with me IMMEDIATELY upon arrival.
Time with Dad that was denied! Facts that were hidden! It was a torrid, emotionally draining period. Then as the universe unfolds so did they, all of them into young adulthood. No longer could they be controlled for a vested interest and the facts poured out. I could only listen. And hear I did! All the discourse strengthened their resolve for 'Dad' to be a part of their life. And the those with vested interest by their own doing, cling to the outer fringe to where they have been banished.
When will parents learn to truly demonstrate love of their children they promote a healthy relationship with a former spouse: even in an extended family. The rewards when they start to flow are insurmountable as 'Father Time' has revealed to me.
It is the child's right to able to spend time with both parents.
Neither parent should prevent the child from seeing the other parent.
The child does not owe the mother bacause she gives birth.
The child did not asked to be born but to be loved by both parents. Why should the mother or the father prevent the child from being loved and cared for the father.
It is precisely the attitude of some mothers who think that they own the child that share care and control is important to prevent abuse of sole custody rights.
Our prime minister has recently apologise for taking away the child from the parents. I hope our legal systems will not make the same mistake of taking away or allow the child to be taken away from the father
I just read the survey Ash. I am stunned that there is so much support for equal parenting in Parliament.
It tells me that this anti-shared care campaign is being driven by a few zelouts only.
The far majority support shared parenting.
Michael,
Log into the below section of our website and read.
You will find that we did do such a survey of Parliament in 2007.
The results were very interesting.
{ Link }
We also sent 1 and a half million emails to parliament via the F4E megaphone. We may need to re-install the Megaphone again going by how successful it was last time.
Michael. A very good idea you bring up as far as lobbying of MPs is concerned, and finding out what they think on the issue and i'll certainly be doing a bit of this myself now. As regards the press council, i believe F4E have put in complaints to the press council regarding bias and inaccurate reporting by the aforementioned journalists, and i know that i put my own complaint in regarding this issue, all to no avail. This is NOT to be taken as a political statement but perhaps since he is lagging in the opinion polls, and as he was brought up by a single father himself Malcolm Turnbull may be brought onside. He may not gain any of the feminist vote but as they are nearly all voting labour he won't lose any either, he could however win thousands of alenated fathers votes if he could be persuaded to take up our cause.
What are the positions of all the members of Parliament?? Both Federal and State Members.
Lobbying would be an effective educational tool.
maybe these Parenting stories and a few of the offensive biased comments should be packaged and sent to them?
- can someone in this "group" help automate sending responses to MP's and other organisations?
These "journalists - columnist" should be reported to the Press Council and the complaints sent to overseas equivalents, of the Press Council. along the with breaches of the UN Charter on Human Rights.
Overseas Publications may also be interested in knowing about the "bias of reporting" on this issue?
The issue of the Safety of Indian students is an explain of the Presses interest in Accurate reports - from and of Australia.
The safety of our Children and well being of our society, now and in the future depends on the Shared Care Laws being extended and the "racism and bias in the media" stamped out.
Scott,
You may be shocked at the level of cyber-bullying, cuber-stalking and email threats generated from these so called women's groups.
These bizarre postings on this blog, along with the threatening and astonishingly hostile private emails are one thing, but the online stalking of innocent fathers and posting of inflamatory and innacurate allegations against 'named' individuals is quite another.
It is in fact illegal activity, but they engage in this activity behind the protection of anonymous postings, in order to prevent decent people from excercising their right to freedom of speech.
This is the real face of the toxic mothers clan, as they are sometimes referred as.
Really nasty people who are full of rage and hatred.
They really are the WRONG type of people to be involved in such a child-sensitive issue as this.
Thankyou paulette and maureen.I'm well aware that most women/mothers are not like this. My own fiancee and her ex husband were also able to put together their own parenting plan without the need to go to court, despite their differences, and all their 3 children have thrived and are achieving well. One is currently doing her phd, the other daughter has done a baking trade and is now happily married and presented my fiancee with her first grandchild and her son who is still at school has plenty of certificates for high academic achievment.My fiancee gave her husband pretty much all the time he wanted with the children and he in turn paid her the required child support as is right and proper the result has been 3 well adjusted and achieving young adults. Unfortunately it is mothers/women like the first few posters on this thread who currently have the ear of the government and who are intent on taking us back to the bad old days which saw my own daughter end up as a half feral child in a class for slow children after only 3 years with her mother. Just as mothers get emotional, so do fathers when we see our children getting abused and neglected and the family court and social workers being complicit in children ending up as my own daughter did.
Welcome and i hope you put your own submissions and stories in.
Wow! I am shocked to hear some of the women's opinion's as a woman myself. I can only presume its emotional, rather than logical. We are rather emotional beings aren't we. It does give us women a sad reputation. I know guys aren't perfect but hey, nor are we.
Ash,
Maybe a useful addition to the "Fathers Stories" we are compiling for the A-G would be a collection of the hate-ridden posts from the likes Florin, Cynthia J and Jill McGee.
To me, they and their messages are the strongest and most powerful reasons for maintaining the current shared parenting laws. Not one of them even mentions the best interest of the children, its all about them getting revenge on their ex'es.
Which is what the old system assisted them to do.
I think its obvious from the posts on this blog who the abusers are.
Rather than put forward arguments, these spiteful mothers can only make offensive remarks.
If this is the extent of their ability to reason, then I can understand why they have lost custody of their children.
Ladies, engage in good faith in this discussion. making abusive posts is helping no one, least of all your kids.
Cynthia, How stupid are you. There are many reasons a child might be bed wetting. You can't be much of a mother if you don't know this. If you read on the internet that the world was going to end tomorrow i suppose you would believe that too. If a doctor doesn't believe you then i know who i would sooner believe.To your friends florin, l mont and jill, you have been allowed to post here, yet if i posted the poisonous lies and dribble that you have posted, on a feminist site, i would be deleted and banned from the site immediately. Guess that shows who the bullies really are.
Ian, feminists such as have posted on here are not exactly renowned for mature discussion or well reasoned arguments. On almost every forum i visit they almost always resort immediately to the denigration of ALL men, and the rationale that mothers and only mothers have rights, children have virtually no rights and men have no rights at all, only responsibilities.
Shared Parenting It Should be the Norm
By Lisa S. Ebert, JD
My marriage ended almost five years ago. And of course we share the parenting of our two children equally. I say “of course†because I can't imagine it any other way. I am often astounded at the parenting arrangements I see that are anything but shared.
{ Link }
I would urge all you moms out there that don't agree that shared parenting is indeed in the best interest of the child to read the above write up!
My comments;
I am a divorced woman, mother... when my ex and I decided to divorce we agreed to put our children first and life went on. My ex husband and I never stepped foot inside a court room. My ex remarried a wonderful woman that loved and nurtured my children (then 4 and 5 years old) right from the start and I loved her for loving my children. My children are now loving, caring adults and I have 4 beautiful grandbabies with number 5 due any day... my daughter and her husband are celebrating their 10th wedding anniversary on the 19th of November.
I had no idea that this CRAP! Was going on in our so called 'Family Law System'...
I met my partner and his two young children in 2005 and sadly, that is when we were all introduced to this shamefully flawed, family law system and parental alienation...
It was my partner's ex that ended their marriage for her lover, who was also her boss. Her income is double that of my partners so you know that her current husband's income is at least double that of hers. We have been to court 6 times since May 15, 2007. They can continue the fight indefinitely...
My partner and I on the other hand have been forced into an emotional, mental, physical and financial nightmare from hell and we are on the verge of losing everything because of it.
The saddest part of all is that, whatever my partner and I are feeling and suffering through, it is ten fold for our innocent children who wanted more time with Daddy!
How sad for all children!