Denying a father to parent his child

  • Thread starter Thread starter saintbtg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You looked at **3 **eh? Indeed. Why not actually 'Empty your tea cup before you judge your tea?’

Ok. Let us put it into simpler terms. I reiterate. If this does not indicate the truth to you, I do not know what will:

As** proof** of the Bias of which I speak here is this:

**Demographic Characteristics **
Mothers accounted for the majority of custodial parents (82.6 percent) while 17.4 percent were fathers, proportions statistically unchanged from 1994.

Page two.

Quoted from the unbiased U.S. Census Bureau. See here: census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf

Is *that *authoritative enough for you? The U. S. Census Bureau?

Perhaps you think that **all **those 'dads denied’ is due to other factors, like Men are just being irresponsible Neanderthals or something? :rolleyes: 82% to 17 % in favor of females. Rather a stunning disparity eh? :cool:

For those that need visual aids see here: youtube.com/watch?v=bquuAb3_iyY

Thankyou for this oppurtunity to elevate the Social Consciousness to Men’s Issues.
 
Nimzovik said:
You looked at **3 **eh? Indeed. Why not actually 'Empty your tea cup before you judge your tea?’

Ok. Let us put it into simpler terms. I reiterate. If this does not indicate the truth to you, I do not know what will:

As** proof** of the Bias of which I speak here is this:

**Demographic Characteristics **
Mothers accounted for the majority of custodial parents (82.6 percent) while 17.4 percent were fathers, proportions statistically unchanged from 1994.

Page two.

Quoted from the unbiased U.S. Census Bureau. See here: census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf

Is *that *authoritative enough for you? The U. S. Census Bureau?

Perhaps you think that **all **those 'dads denied’ is due to other factors, like Men are just being irresponsible Neanderthals or something? :rolleyes: 82% to 17 % in favor of females. Rather a stunning disparity eh? :cool:

For those that need visual aids see here: youtube.com/watch?v=bquuAb3_iyY

Thankyou for this oppurtunity to elevate the Social Consciousness to Men’s Issues.
Click to expand...
It is a fact that younger children should stay with their mother unless the mother is unfit. Older kids are asked which parent they would like to live with. It is also a fact that on a balance, mothers are less likely to give up their kids.

As I have told you before, I am not interested in watching your Youtube videos.

BTW your sarcastic comments just reflects on you and not well.
 
What you call sarcasm, I call endeavoring to impinge upon the threshold of the denial mechanism. You, of course, can choose to believe what you wish. This is an option that is at your disposal.

I can understand your need to not look at the evidence on youtube. Once again, this your choice. I accept that.
 
severus68 said:
It is a fact that younger children should stay with their mother unless the mother is unfit. Older kids are asked which parent they would like to live with. It is also a fact that on a balance, mothers are less likely to give up their kids.

As I have told you before, I am not interested in watching your Youtube videos.

BTW your sarcastic comments just reflects on you and not well.
Click to expand...
The fact that younger children should stay with the mother is based on the assumption of who is the primary caretaker of the child. My cousin (a man) was the staty-at-home dad to his daughter since birth. when he walked in on his wife and best friend together he decided that divorce was the best option. He petitioned to have a jurisdiction transfer to where both of their families live (they all lived about a few blocks from each other) and was denied. He was the primary caregiver of his daughter for most of her waking hours. And the result, he sees his daughter during school holidays only and her commute time to everyone is 8 hours one way by car (no major airports within four hours of where she lives). However, when his exwife wanted to move across the country to get her PhD he said that he would not consent to his daughter being moved out of state. So at least he maintained that “veto” right.
 
severus68 said:
**It is a fact that younger children should stay with their mother unless the mother is unfit. **Older kids are asked which parent they would like to live with. It is also a fact that on a balance, mothers are less likely to give up their kids.

As I have told you before, I am not interested in watching your Youtube videos.

BTW your sarcastic comments just reflects on you and not well.
Click to expand...
A voice of reason. Particularly the bolded statement.

One Catholic mystic tells how the mother of Judas Iscariot was a kind and godly woman whose callous husband removed the child from the home and his mother at an extremely young age because he was ambitious for Judas get the worldly sort of education he wanted him to have. He was separated from his mothers love at a young age and was never able to appreciate her love (and we know he did not appreciate Jesus’ perfect love). Only one mother could have suffered more than the the mother of Judus, the Deicide.

Many mothers of infants are ordered to give their sons up for weekends or longer to the father living in another home. How horrible to separate a baby from his mother! So many scarred souls! By order of the court! Infants more than anything need their mothers, with whom they have already intimately bonded for 9 months. To tear them from her with the law at a vulnerable age is a most terrible abuse.
 
gmarie21 said:
The fact that younger children should stay with the mother is based on the assumption of who is the primary caretaker of the child. My cousin (a man) was the staty-at-home dad to his daughter since birth. when he walked in on his wife and best friend together he decided that divorce was the best option. He petitioned to have a jurisdiction transfer to where both of their families live (they all lived about a few blocks from each other) and was denied. He was the primary caregiver of his daughter for most of her waking hours. And the result, he sees his daughter during school holidays only and her commute time to everyone is 8 hours one way by car (no major airports within four hours of where she lives). However, when his exwife wanted to move across the country to get her PhD he said that he would not consent to his daughter being moved out of state. So at least he maintained that “veto” right.
Click to expand...
How very, very sad. That the mother should be with the child is not based on who is the primary caretaker but because its the natural order of things. Its God’s design. However, there are exceptions. Some moms are “broken” and if baby is blessed with a dad who can take over for mom’s lack its a good thing of course…
 
Are you serious Eliza? Kids in broken family situations should go with the better human being, regardless of gender. Obviously it’s a tough call for the courts to make and a miscarriage of justice that it should happen to any child, but the gender bias we have in this country is absolutely absurd. The majority of divorces in the US are initiated by the women so it’s probably fair to say that at least decent chunk of divorced women out there don’t deserve to have their kids with them. And I say that because generally the one that files is the one who is in the wrong. Not always, but frequently.
 
Nimzovik said:
You looked at **3 **eh? Indeed. Why not actually 'Empty your tea cup before you judge your tea?’

Ok. Let us put it into simpler terms. I reiterate. If this does not indicate the truth to you, I do not know what will:

As** proof** of the Bias of which I speak here is this:

**Demographic Characteristics **
Mothers accounted for the majority of custodial parents (82.6 percent) while 17.4 percent were fathers, proportions statistically unchanged from 1994.

Page two.

Quoted from the unbiased U.S. Census Bureau. See here: census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf

Is *that *authoritative enough for you? The U. S. Census Bureau?

Perhaps you think that **all **those 'dads denied’ is due to other factors, like Men are just being irresponsible Neanderthals or something? :rolleyes: 82% to 17 % in favor of females. Rather a stunning disparity eh? :cool:

For those that need visual aids see here: youtube.com/watch?v=bquuAb3_iyY

Thankyou for this oppurtunity to elevate the Social Consciousness to Men’s Issues.
Click to expand...
Here is an article I found, to read it one must be a member of the site, I guess google this title and it should bring you to the site. I believe membership is free:
Journal Article
From Maternal Preference to Joint Custody: The Impact of Changes in Custody Law on Child Educational Attainment
Click to expand...
While what you ascertain is true, that the majority of custodial parents are the moms, prior to the 1980’s moms were the preferred parent to receive custody. It as normative for mom to receive custody of child.

The film Kramer vs Kramer was groundbreaking in 1979, because it actually portrayed a custody battle with the dad fighting for custody of his child… I understand that the Dustin Hoffman character is the hero of the film, I haven’t seen it.
 
The_Bucket said:
Are you serious Eliza? Kids in broken family situations should go with the better human being, regardless of gender. Obviously it’s a tough call for the courts to make and a miscarriage of justice that it should happen to any child, but the gender bias we have in this country is absolutely absurd. The majority of divorces in the US are initiated by the women so it’s probably fair to say that at least decent chunk of divorced women out there don’t deserve to have their kids with them. And I say that because generally the one that files is the one who is in the wrong. Not always, but frequently.
Click to expand...
Normally divorce proceedings and custody proceedings are two separate but related cases. Just because one spouse was a terrible spouse, does not equal that same spouse being a terrible parent.

In many states parents have joint custody following divorce, so the child has equal access to both parents.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Here is an article I found, to read it one must be a member of the site, I guess google this title and it should bring you to the site. I believe membership is free:

While what you ascertain is true, that the majority of custodial parents are the moms, prior to the 1980’s moms were the preferred parent to receive custody. It as normative for mom to receive custody of child.

The film Kramer vs Kramer was groundbreaking in 1979, because it actually portrayed a custody battle with the dad fighting for custody of his child… I understand that the Dustin Hoffman character is the hero of the film, I haven’t seen it.
Click to expand...
Bolding Mine:

See the clip I included in my post # 22.

Sorry. I can not access the mentioned reference.
 
1ke said:
Yes, the Church has a teaching-- it is about not having sexual relations outside marriage.

This is one of the reasons why. In addition to offending God, it places an innocent baby in such a situation.

The right thing to do is for the couple to consider whether or not they can marry and raise their child together. If not, they should seriously consider adoption into a two parent family.
Click to expand...
And now, back to the TOPIC AT HAND…

This x 1,000. Only this. Forget about every other option. If the father wants to be in the baby’s life, the best way to do this is to marry the mother and be a good husband and father. Otherwise, make the sacrifice so that some other couple can raise this child in a loving 2-parent home.
 
👍 Exactly!! This is why Catholics win!!!

I pity the secular male. I pity the Atheist male. How can they win?:confused:
I am being serious here…
 
Nimzovik said:
What you call sarcasm, I call endeavoring to impinge upon the threshold of the denial mechanism. You, of course, can choose to believe what you wish. This is an option that is at your disposal.

I can understand your need to not look at the evidence on youtube. Once again, this your choice. I accept that.
Click to expand...
Really? Who is in denial I wonder.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
And now, back to the TOPIC AT HAND…

This x 1,000. Only this. Forget about every other option. If the father wants to be in the baby’s life, the best way to do this is to marry the mother and be a good husband and father. Otherwise, make the sacrifice so that some other couple can raise this child in a loving 2-parent home.
Click to expand...
Unwed mothers do not choose to have their babies to increase the number of adoptable babies in the market. Perhaps, people wanting to adopt should think about the older children waiting, often in vain, for a family.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
And now, back to the TOPIC AT HAND…

This x 1,000. Only this. Forget about every other option. If the father wants to be in the baby’s life, the best way to do this is to marry the mother and be a good husband and father. Otherwise, make the sacrifice so that some other couple can raise this child in a loving 2-parent home.
Click to expand...
This is advice that is NOT in line with Church teaching, it would not be a valid marriage if they married just because of the child. And adoption is not the only solution to an unwed pregnancy, but yes, it can be explored and should if the parents do not want to parent. As of how it sounds, co-parenting should be talked about and worked on now while she is pregnant. If both really want to parent this child and want what is best for this child, the need to go to a mediator and/or therapist and work on co-parenting NOW.

And RealJuliane I am a big supporter of adoption (I am an adoptee) but it seems that both of these parents want this child, it’s the goofy grandparents that are the problem and will always be if these two parents don’t come together and figure out how to BE the parents of this child and tell everyone else to butt out with their dumb and cruel advice.
 
gmarie21 said:
This is advice that is NOT in line with Church teaching, it would not be a valid marriage if they married just because of the child. And adoption is not the only solution to an unwed pregnancy, but yes, it can be explored and should if the parents do not want to parent. As of how it sounds, co-parenting should be talked about and worked on now while she is pregnant. If both really want to parent this child and want what is best for this child, the need to go to a mediator and/or therapist and work on co-parenting NOW.

And RealJuliane I am a big supporter of adoption (I am an adoptee) but it seems that both of these parents want this child, it’s the goofy grandparents that are the problem and will always be if these two parents don’t come together and figure out how to BE the parents of this child and tell everyone else to butt out with their dumb and cruel advice.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry? What does that have to do with getting married and STAYING married? Valid/invalid is only in case of divorce and annulment. Plenty of Catholics have married because of a child, and many of them have STAYED married through challenges. How would that be out of line with Catholic teaching, to provide a family for your own child?

Honestly your response puzzles me. If the parents both want the child, and they were together long enough to create the child, then they should honestly consider whether marriage is a viable option. They would have to put aside their own desires (after the fact) and put the other and the child ahead of their own wants, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top