TN bill on divorce would require equa...

TN bill on divorce would require equal custody of children

There are 47 comments on the The Tennessean story from Mar 18, 2010, titled TN bill on divorce would require equal custody of children. In it, The Tennessean reports that:

A bill that would evenly split child custody in contentious divorce cases is drawing national attention to Tennessee and dividing groups along gender lines.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Tennessean.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Harley Rider

Cordova, TN

#1 Mar 18, 2010
I would think that an issue such as this one would have more comments and concerns on this board. Instead, I find that no one has posted anything at all ?
Tina

AOL

#2 Mar 20, 2010
Hi, this may surprise you coming from a woman but I think this would be a wonderful thing. I am going to post a blog I wrote on the bill HB2916 and I hope everyone will consider what I am going to say.
John hernando

Hernando, MS

#3 Mar 20, 2010
This wont work in memfrica,baby daddy dont marry baby mama must less suppot the cubs from breeding time.
Tina

AOL

#4 Mar 20, 2010
Well the bill should only apply to couples who have been married.
Dawn

Cincinnati, OH

#5 Mar 22, 2010
Children are all different and a "one size fits all" parenting plan is not the answer. Some children may be able to handle the 50/50 custody split but it would be devastating to others. The thoughts of possibly sending a child to two different schools is ignorant. The no child left behind act has made school difficult enough for our children. Having two different teachers each year would make things even more difficult. The best interest of the child should be looked at in every case. Children did not asked to be brought into this world we brought them here and as adults we should treat them as humans not material objects to be owned.
Tina

AOL

#6 Mar 22, 2010
Well that means one side is going to get the shaft and that isn't fair to anyone. The child should indeed go to the same school.... but because I have a wonderful husband and father and friends who are wonderful fathers, if you maintain the status quo men will continue to get the shaft.
Turtle

Millington, TN

#7 Mar 22, 2010
Well then my child support is paid bi-weekly straight from my pay and I have no rights to my daughters. whoop some half naked MFRs ass running out my front door and I am in the wrong.... to violent to see my daughters. I had pictures of her coming out the door of a weekly rate hotel room with my baby in a car carrier and dragging my 3 year old behind her at 5 in the morning while we are still married and I am the bad guy. Please explain this to me!!!!!!!!!!
Jim

Covington, TN

#8 Mar 23, 2010
Damn straight Turtle. Part of it, there is such a bias against men in this state and really throughout the country it is unbelievable. I was reading an article that referred to it as a hotel room and a paycheck and I know use that as well. In my situation the judge awarded my exwife custody of our two children (son and daughter) despite the fact my wife has a drinking problem and has a ton of men coming to her home on a regular basis with my two children (nine and seven) being there. Her attorney argued it wasn't "my place to judge" and the judge let it go. Yet, how is this for hypocrisy, one of my former college classmates who is a female and lives in Florida was passing through town on business. We were always buddies and nothing else, but I invited her to stay with me for a couple of days, one on a day (after the judge generously-yes I am being sarcastic- gave me a whopping four days a month to see my child)and because my kids told my ex that I had a woman stay over at my house (ONE TIME, SHE SLEPT IN A DIFFERENT ROOM), my ex took me to court and the judge ruled I cannot have a paramour at my house when my kids are there and her piece of trash attorney stated I obviously needed some parenting classes which the judge ORDERED and until I completed those my parenting time would be supervised. This is the type of crap that is allowed to go on. Men are constantly set up and though I have never dealt with them, don't get me started on the Department of Children's Services in this state.
Sonya

Cookeville, TN

#9 Mar 25, 2010
A one size fits all bill for child custody is not right!! In my case, my child is scared to go to her father's because he is so mean to her. She cries about it and beggs me to not make her go there any more than she absoutely has to.
This bill is WRONG!
Sassy

Memphis, TN

#10 Mar 25, 2010
Most men would opt for 50/50 custody to get out of paying so much child support. In my opinion.

And what if you can't prove that your ex is a psycho? Then what do you do? Wait until he kills your kid or endangers them and tell the court , "I told you so"?

Maybe if more men were responsible fathers , like they were back in my great grandfather and grandfather's day. Then we wouldn't even have to have this discussion.
Sassy

Memphis, TN

#11 Mar 25, 2010
Jim wrote:
Damn straight Turtle. Part of it, there is such a bias against men in this state and really throughout the country it is unbelievable. I was reading an article that referred to it as a hotel room and a paycheck and I know use that as well. In my situation the judge awarded my exwife custody of our two children (son and daughter) despite the fact my wife has a drinking problem and has a ton of men coming to her home on a regular basis with my two children (nine and seven) being there. Her attorney argued it wasn't "my place to judge" and the judge let it go. Yet, how is this for hypocrisy, one of my former college classmates who is a female and lives in Florida was passing through town on business. We were always buddies and nothing else, but I invited her to stay with me for a couple of days, one on a day (after the judge generously-yes I am being sarcastic- gave me a whopping four days a month to see my child)and because my kids told my ex that I had a woman stay over at my house (ONE TIME, SHE SLEPT IN A DIFFERENT ROOM), my ex took me to court and the judge ruled I cannot have a paramour at my house when my kids are there and her piece of trash attorney stated I obviously needed some parenting classes which the judge ORDERED and until I completed those my parenting time would be supervised. This is the type of crap that is allowed to go on. Men are constantly set up and though I have never dealt with them, don't get me started on the Department of Children's Services in this state.
That is ridiculous. Even if she slept in the same bed with you. That is "not her place to judge". Plenty of ex-husbands have girlfriends after the marriage ends.

Unfortunately , things have gone that direction for men because there are so many who aren't as good a father as you are.
wise ol owl

United States

#12 Mar 26, 2010
Turtle wrote:
Well then my child support is paid bi-weekly straight from my pay and I have no rights to my daughters. whoop some half naked MFRs **** running out my front door and I am in the wrong.... to violent to see my daughters. I had pictures of her coming out the door of a weekly rate hotel room with my baby in a car carrier and dragging my 3 year old behind her at 5 in the morning while we are still married and I am the bad guy. Please explain this to me!!!!!!!!!!
zzzzzzzzz Satan takes care of his own, didn't you know that
Mary

Calhoun, LA

#13 Mar 26, 2010
Well, here I go,I have to put my two cents worth in.It is horrible how the courts treat men,in divorce.My son's wife had an affair with another man,and was caught red handed.she went to court and got both children and child support,she even told her children,what she had done.Judges in Tennessee are the worst I ever saw.My son is a hard working man and he loves his children,but because of kinship with the judge,my ex daughter in-law ruined my grandchildren and my sons life.There is just one good thing,I know will happen,if she is a child of God,SHE WILL PAY SOMEDAY!
wise ol owl

Humboldt, TN

#14 Mar 26, 2010
Yes Beloved Mary we all shall pay one day, those of us who are not perfect and who refuse to change their wicked ways.
Tina

AOL

#15 Mar 27, 2010
I have to chime in again and yes I am defending males because I think they get the shaft. I keep hearing this argument about child support but you can twist that the other way around. You can argue many women DON'T want 50-50 custody because they want to take men to the cleaners. You can argue it either way, so your argument is not valid. Sonya mentioned her daughter is scared to go to her father's because he is mean to her. Well that can be taken two ways. One is she allowed to have a relationship with her father on a regular basis. One of my best friends had a "similar situation" where her daughter at first seemed scared of her father but it was because she only got to see him a few days a month so she didn't know him. When she got older she realized he was a nice wonderful dad and now they are very close. If indeed the father is mean to her then PROVE IT. If you can prove it you have an argument worth fighting in court. However, if you cannot prove it you do not. For all you know the father could say the same thing about you. I am not trying to pick at you but there lies the problem. We have to look at the big picture and 50/50 generally speaking is a better way to go. I am sorry but it just is. I am a mother and I try not to be selfish and that is what this is about unfortunately. Concerning a comment made toward Jim. I had to shake my head. Someone commented "not everyone is as good of a father as you." Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. You stated Jim was a good father, yet assuming Jim told the truth, he has gotten the shaft and doesn't get much of a relationship with his child, apparently you don't have a problem with that. Jim isn't the only one that has been treated that way.
wise ol owl

Jackson, TN

#16 Mar 27, 2010
People should get to know each other before jumping in the hay and tying the knot. Most for all the wrong reason. The end result is this blog how sad for the innocent children delivered into this hell created by lust and greed, the reason most got married in the first place.

And now the poor innocent children are the victims, and yes some of the fathers are molestors,
LOL you all know i can't spell lol so keep focused
Respect Light Love=Peace
Sassy

Memphis, TN

#17 Mar 27, 2010
Tina , I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. I am not saying that there aren't some father's who get screwed.
But do you know how hard it is to prove that a father is violent? Probably just as hard as it is to prove a mother is flaunting herself to any man who will look. Domestic violence is a HUGE problem in our society. And usually the men get off because of our domestic violence laws. But quite alot of the women who are abused do not report it. And when it comes time that they can get out of the relationship and don't want the men to get their hands on their kids , they can't prove anything.
One of the reasons they don't report it , is because of how weak and shameful they feel (the cycle of abuse). What about all of those women? I am sure , based on the domestic violence problem we have , that there are more of those women (scared for themselves and their children) that exist than there are men getting screwed.

50/50 Custody will likely get more children hurt than it will help.
Sassy

Memphis, TN

#18 Mar 27, 2010
"Many people assume that the only way a mother would lose custody to an alleged batterer or child abuser was if she were proven to be an unfit parent. Most people have difficulty believing that that a court would take a child away from a mother who has heretofore been the child's primary caretaker if her only crime is expressing concern about her own or her child's safety. Unfortunately, this is happening; the only real question is why.
There is no single answer to this question. Instead, it appears that a number of factors are involved. First, there is a widespread belief in our society that a person who both appears and acts normal could not possibly be a violent batterer or child abuser. Offenders are well aware of our propensity for making assumptions about private behavior from one's public presentation and they tend to use this knowledge of our collective blindness to their advantage by appearing to be the perfect parent during court appearances (Salter, 2003). Mothers concerned about the safety of their children, on the other hand, often appear overly concerned and as if they are exaggerating the problem.
As a report by the American Psychological Association pointed out:
If the court ignores the history of violence as the context for the mother's behavior in a custody evaluation, she may appear hostile, uncooperative, or mentally unstable. For example, she may refuse to disclose her address, or may resist unsupervised visitation, especially if she thinks her child is in danger. Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence.(APA, 1996)
Sassy

Memphis, TN

#20 Mar 27, 2010
(It posted my post wrong , this is the beginning)"Many people assume that the only way a mother would lose custody to an alleged batterer or child abuser was if she were proven to be an unfit parent. Most people have difficulty believing that that a court would take a child away from a mother who has heretofore been the child's primary caretaker if her only crime is expressing concern about her own or her child's safety. Unfortunately, this is happening; the only real question is why.

There is no single answer to this question. Instead, it appears that a number of factors are involved. First, there is a widespread belief in our society that a person who both appears and acts normal could not possibly be a violent batterer or child abuser. Offenders are well aware of our propensity for making assumptions about private behavior from one's public presentation and they tend to use this knowledge of our collective blindness to their advantage by appearing to be the perfect parent during court appearances (Salter, 2003). Mothers concerned about the safety of their children, on the other hand, often appear overly concerned and as if they are exaggerating the problem.

As a report by the American Psychological Association pointed out:

If the court ignores the history of violence as the context for the mother's behavior in a custody evaluation, she may appear hostile, uncooperative, or mentally unstable. For example, she may refuse to disclose her address, or may resist unsupervised visitation, especially if she thinks her child is in danger. Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence.(APA, 1996)
Sassy

Memphis, TN

#19 Mar 27, 2010
A second reason that fit mothers lose custody to alleged abusers is that many officers of the court believe that the only reason women raise abuse allegations during custody disputes is to gain a tactical advantage. Research, however, fails to find such an advantage. In fact, women who raise abuse allegations appear to receive less favorable rulings than those who do not (see e.g., Saccuzzo & Johnson, 2004). This may be because women who allege abuse may be seen as fabricating or exaggerating incidents of violence as a way of manipulating the courts (Doyne et al., 1999). For this reason, some lawyers advise women not to tell courts or mediators about child abuse or domestic abuse because, by doing so, they risk losing custody to the alleged abuser ("Custody Litigation," 1988; Saccuzzo & Johnson, 2004).
A third factor contributing to the problem is statutory. M ost state legislatures have enacted legislation requiring family courts to favor joint custody arrangements, and when this isn't possible, to favor the parent who appears most "friendly" to a joint custody arrangement. At least 31 states have statutes requiring courts to consider how "cooperative" the parent is when determining custody arrangements (Gonzalez & Reichmann, 2005).
The intent of "friendly parent" preferences is to guarantee that children go to the parent most likely to facilitate the child's relationship with the other parent. Although this goal is laudable; in practice, the result has been to penalize parents who raise concerns about child abuse or domestic violence (Dore, 2004). Friendly parent preferences tend to favor abusers who rarely object to the nonabusive parent having access to the child. Protective parents, on the other hand, frequently seek to curtail a violent parent's access to the child. Moreover, the very act of raising concerns of abuse, suggests to the court that the protective parent is inherently "unfriendly" and should therefore be denied custody ( Dore, 2004). Some professionals have found that the friendly parent concept is most often employed against the custodial or primary parent, typically the mother (Zorza, 1992).
Some states have tried to rectify injustices resulting from friendly parent preferences by enacting presumptions against custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence. Unfortunately, these presumptions are not always followed, especially when "friendly parent" preferences continue to remain on the books. For instance, Morrill et al.(2005) evaluated the effectiveness of statutes mandating a presumption against custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence in 6 different states. The investigators examined 393 custody and/or visitation orders where the father perpetrated domestic violence against the mother and surveyed 60 judges who entered those orders. They found that children failed to be protected in states with a statutory presumption against custody to an abuser when the state also had a "friendly parent" provision in their statutes with a presumption for joint custody.
A fourth reason that fit mothers may lose custody to an alleged abuser is due to lax standards that allow junk science to influence custody decisions in family courts. Over the years a number of "syndromes" have been developed that pathologize the responses of parents who seek to protect their child from an abusive spouse. The most popular of these syndromes, "Parental Alienation Syndrome."
Information found at : http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/cust_m...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Davidson County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News DCS: Mtn. View Superintendent wasn't making eno... Jun '16 mark 7
News Two charged with 'doctor shopping' (Jun '11) Jan '16 Boxer 16
News Women of Davidson County, Rethink Your Oppositi... (Feb '15) Sep '15 riccjames86 2
Greg Oxendine (Jan '15) Jan '15 curious 1
News Man Wanted For Assault After Incomplete McDonal... (Dec '14) Dec '14 LMAO 1
News Davidson County briefs: Chapman facing DUI, dru... (Oct '06) Nov '14 Geereree 467
Judge Casey Moreland Has NO Integrity (Oct '14) Oct '14 MarthaYoakum 1
More from around the web