From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Help Please with custody under Cal. jurisdiction
Keywords: California, child custody,
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:58:00 GMT

Good post.  I agree that there is often two sides to every story and that 
often parents use the children as a means of hurting one another.

I've seen it happen.  The children lose AND the parents lose - because
they spend so much of their time focused on hating and revenge.  

"You are what you think."
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

		"Creativity overcomes violence."
				John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"
 

In article <1992Nov11.054400.3135@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>This was originally posted only to misc.legal, soc.women and
>alt.feminism.  I added the men's groups to the list.
>
>In article <1992Nov10.160712.10201@infonode.ingr.com> hubbarde@infonode.ingr.com (Elaine Hubbard) writes:
>>Dear netters,
>>
>>A good friend (single working mother) who has had custody of her son 
>>in Alabama since divorce in California five years has been presented
>>with a modification decree giving full custody to her ex.  Unable to
>>have the jurisdiction of many support and visitation confrontations
>>removed from LA County Superior (because "the State of California
>>had invested too much time and money in the case already") to her and her
>>son's home state, she has traveled many times (with the support of her
>>friends, co-workers, church and community) across the country to 
>>appear on her own behalf or, when she can afford it, with counsel.
>>Her ex owes thousands in back child support, has been arrested for
>>contempt and for non-compliance with custodial orders when he refused
>>to allow the child to return home after visitation this past summer.
>>Now he has been awarded full custody of the child, despite his record.
>>Perhaps the judge in the case assumes that he will no longer have
>>to face them in court by issuing this decree.  Whatever his motives,
>>those of us in her support system are determined not to let this rest.
>>We would be appreciative of any information about advocacy programs,
>>legal assistance, Women's Defense Fund, or any other means we can call
>>upon to help provide her an appeal of this case.
>
>I recommend that she contact Mothers WithOut Custody for referral
>information.    The pertinent info is:
>
>	Mothers WithOut Custody (MWOC)
>	P.O. Box 27418
>	Houston, TX 77227-7418
>	(713) 840-1622
>
>>We believe the child's welfare is at risk, as evidenced by independent
>>psychological tests, testimony, and declarations on record.
>>
>>Please....if you can help, e-mail or post here.  She only has until
>>November 29 to post an appeal. 
>
>The thing that strikes me most about this post is the apparent
>prejudice against this father, the justification of this mother further
>continuing the battle over custody, the language used to characterize
>the father ("we believe the child's welfare is at risk," "ex owes
>thousands in back child support, has been arrested for contempt and for
>non-compliance....").
>
>I've been a strong advocate for fathers' rights for about a year now in
>these forums.  But I'm also an advocate for mothers' rights.  Actually,
>I'm an advocate for both parents after divorce.  I think children
>should have a good, fairly-equal relationship with both parents after a
>divorce.  After all, it was the parents that divorced--not one parent
>and the children.
>
>What is interesting in many posts to me is what is not said.  Why did
>this mother lose custody?  Just because the judge was a man and wanted
>to get this case out of his court?  I don't think so.  There are always
>two sides to every one of these stories.
>
>Often, judges are compelled to award primary custody to the parent who
>seems most willing to facilitate a relationship with a
>non-custodial/non-residential parent.  I suspect that this judge was
>compelled by something to award custody to this father--maybe it was
>this.  Anyway, another interesting point to notice is that this mother
>is now in Alabama, but the case is in California.  Must have started
>there.  Maybe this mother decided to move away from the father to keep
>the father away from his son.  Judges are starting to look down upon
>such moves, now.  Maybe the judge awarded custody to the father because
>the son wants to live with the father.  But's this is all just me
>thinking "out loud," so to speak.
>
>Whatever the case, it is apparent that this mother and her "support
>network" want to continue the battle, tie up lots of court time and
>lots of her money and life with an on-going struggle.  Is this father
>the terrible monster that this post attempts to portray?  The judge in
>the case didn't think so.
>
>I do hope that these two parents are able to eventually work this thing
>out as inexpensively (both financially and personally) as possible and
>that this son has two good parents who are moverover concerned with his
>welfare and happiness, and not so concerned about winning an
>all-or-nothing custody battle.
>
>Now, if this woman is hell-bent on destruction, she could always accuse
>this father of sexually abusing the son.  That should tie the case up
>for at least another year, cost another $100k or more, emotionally
>damage the child, and, if this father is able to withstand the renewed
>fight, she might end up with minimal visitation with the son in the long
>run.  But, more than likely, she could win using this tactic, finding
>some "child savior" social workers, psychologists, doctors to help her
>in her quest for the destruction of this evil father.  She might even
>find a sympathetic special prosecutor to get him indicted.  Of course,
>if the son is too old (more than 6 or 7), he will know what is going
>on....  Just hope that "any other means" doesn't mean stooping to
>such despicable behavior.
>
>Or, this mother can rethink her approach to this situation.  Is this
>about winning custody or is it about a boy/young man's life?  Does this
>child have the right to get to experience the best of both parents?
>Maybe, if she has been unwilling to facilitate a relationship with the
>father to this point, maybe, just maybe, she'll get the hint from the
>judge, and will try to start thinking about what is important for the
>son, and not for herself.
>
>Losing custody is not the end of the world, it is not the most
>devastating thing that can ever happen to a mother.  After all, almost
>50% of the men in this country have or will lose custody of their
>children by court decree.  Somehow most of these men survive that
>trauma.
>
>Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
>TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
>
>"Most of us would agree that constantly feeling sorry for oneself is not
>fruitful.  However, after a loss or relinquishment of custody we begin
>to grieve as surely as if this beloved child had died, as though the
>love between the parent and the child had died.  Surprised at the
>intensity of our feelings, we worry about the future relationship with
>our child(ren).
>
>"We grieve for what might have been.  There is a void in our lives--an
>empty place where a person and a whole pattern of living used to be.
>
>"Mourning the loss or relinquishment of custody of a child is perfectly
>normal and we can take solace in knowing that others grieve as well.
>While you cannot rush this process, you can stay aware of what is
>happening to you and why, and know that your feelings are normal.
>
>"But, in grieving for your loss, do not miss the door of opportunity
>that opens to you, the door which through which you can learn
>self-discovery and self-acceptance and ultimately the gift of
>unconditional love which you can pass onto your child(ren).  It is one
>of the most important lessons we can teach our children, and is one that
>only you can teach."
>	-- Unknown


Newsgroups: misc.legal