I found that until I got a lawyer to handle my custody problems I didn't make any progress. I was just to emotionally invested in the situation I couldn't deal with it in a rational way. Someone not involved personally can be a great asset even if just for advice.

i don't believe in "father's rights". i also don't believe in "mother's rights".

nobody has a "right" to a child. children are people, and they deserve to only have quality people who are good role models and good for them around them, period. people who they can form positive attachments with that will help guide them on the road to life.

if this is mom, so be it. if it's dad, great. both? even better.

DNA and the ability to spread one's legs should not mean that one can bring havoc to the next generation.

jim, i really wish that my ex was a man like you, but he's not. as such, i had to take a job that pays minimal, but allows me to be off every night and weekend with the girls. the job also allows me to miss work frequently for the trips to children's hospital, and the specialists in-between.

i haven't dated in years, literally. i feel that i owe all of my spare time to my children, as they certainly didn't ask to be brought into this world we live in. when i do receive child support, great. i'm certainly not going to take the time to document what i spend it on, as my finances are MY business.

it's give and take. not all men are worthy of being around a child...and neither are all women. the children that are lucky enough to have both have something special.

I don't receive child support, but if I did, I would not have a problem in showing where the money was going. I am happy to see that Fathers are getting more and more rights these days. Sometimes being with the Mother isn't always best.

Fantastic The way it should have been for many many years

I only wonder how things started out? If a spouse says " come live with/off of me and be a stay at home Spouse/Caregver; concieves two kids and then decides that they don't like the arrangement; I don't see how getting the divorce gives them permission to change the committment just because they don't want to live together afterall; and they do want the children to live with them 50% of the time. If the Caregiver is still a full time Caregiver and has to maintain a family home wheather they are with you or not as the Provider. The old "bait and switch" is a ***** when the courts get involved and pretend that they make parents keep their implied promises to their kids that they have a family and a home.

Would seem wiser to make sure you do not agree to anything you would not want to abide is circumstances change. Since most women know the gneral "impossibility" of maintaining both roles of full time homemaker and career woman without extensive help I think fewer would be so eager to be a Homaker if they thought they would not have the option to stay at home. Fortuneately Caregiver parents still retain some dignity and stature for being fulltime nurturers; at least for children of tender years. True this is predominently been women but I am seeing more excuse the term that is preducicial I think Mr. Mom's.

Personally I am sick of seeing children pay the price of Parents that cannot keep their vows or care about the rights of their children. Growing up living out of a suitcase bites. The only thing worse is living in poverty which is usually the result to some level on both sides because living solo; especially supporting a child between two households is EXPENSIVE.

People are really lucky that the tax payers, who actually support the courts while litigants support their lawyers, are not fed up and force parents that want to divorce to support the children in a seperate "Nurshery domicile" that they both have to pay for (or got to jail) and provide the child's needs in but can not bring outside parties into or claim as their own. With that stability it would be interesting to see how children would fair since I don't think it has ever been a big need of children to be chroniclly uprooted.