From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Custody
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:36:17 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

> >> However, when they were little it would have been ridiculous to give him
> >> primary custody, after all, he wasn't equiped to feed them.  
> > 
> > What?
> > 
> > I was the primary care giver in my family, and I had no problem feeding
> > them at all. My wife pumped, and we also purchased breast milk through
> > the hospital. All three of my kids are healthy, and I'm pretty sure
> > love my wife and I equally.
> 
> Well, pumping milk is quite a hassle, when mine were young I didn't work
> and was 'housewife' for three years.  This was a joint decision, as the
> vast majority of our decisions have been.  
> Watching this group and seeing the hostility that goes on, makes me devoutly
> thankful that my husband and I still have a solid and loving relationship
> after over twenty years of marriage!

My wife and I were both in school, but my schedule was pretty lax. However,
that still doesn't answer my query of why it would have been ridiculous. I
may be, as many appear to be, a little sensitive about statements which are
indicative that dads cannot nurture, feed, or give excellent care to babies.

I welcome your addendum which demonstrated that your choice was a joint dec-
ision --but I think I'd have preferred to see it attached to the original
comment. (It would have been ridiculous for US in our circumstances...) (-:

> >> After the child reaches an age to be able to decide, then the court 
> >> should take their wishes into consideration, [...]
> > 
> > Sigh. Ditching concept of revoking parental standing by virtue of divorce
> > would have the best effect, and not provide the child with the anguish of
> > a decision like that. Why it is that people figure it has to be 'one or
> > the other' mystifies me. Arguing for either maternal or paternal sole cus-
> > tody is STILL ripping the child off for a parent.
> > 
> 
> I didn't mean to argue for either parent to be sole custodian.  BUT the 
> child should still be allowed the option to decide if they DON'T want to
> visit a parent.  [deletion of example]

I don't go with that for a number of reasons; the most primary of them is
the amount of 'poisoning' I've seen in the people referred to me. Sure, I
can also come up with experiences which match what it is you're speaking
of too. But great caution needs to be exercised in any decision which has
impact on whether or not a parent may continue to have a relationship with
their child.

To add to your story, about 9 years ago here, a child's word was taken by
the court that his mom wasn't treating him well. The visitation was shut
off. Mom took an overdose of sleeping pills. The child freaked, he was mad
at her because she wouldn't let him do something or other (I forget what),
and dad seized on this and coached the poor kid that he could make her do
what he wanted by holding her hostage to visitation, so to speak. To make
a long story short, the kid's out at the local state mental institution,
and neither mom or dad has a relationship.

The examples are all over. Like I said, I've seen it the way you spoke of
too. But to blanket intone that kids should be able to speak on something
that the majority may not have the maturity to think through, is, IMO a
bad idea. All cases need to be inspected closely, and the child's feelings
in the matter might be used as an informational tool. But I'll always balk
at the idea of giving a child deciding powers --at least until their own
specific maturity indicates they can make valid choices, and that's some-
thing for the psych department to ferret out. :-) 

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men