From: mark@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Child Possibly Moving
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:12:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr4.034657.6809@beaver.cs.washington.edu> neville@cs.washington.edu (Dorothy Neville) writes:
>In article <92094.190336JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>After reading Mark's posting, I honestly wonder what the NCP (mom)
>>would have to say in her defense?  What sort of benefits the kids
>>could have by staying in their current location; what kind of
>>problems the move would create for the NCP; whether she feels that
>>the move is being unfair to her; whether she wanted the kids or
>>just gave them up so that she could go back to school; etc.

Well, it's certainly fair to note that there are 2 sides to every story.
I would be much more concerned about her side if she were to show some
willingness to negotiate in good faith.  I have verbally offered her some
concessions, such as helping her move or reducing child support while she's
in school, if she'll cooperate, but she's not really interested.

>I have nothing to say about Mark's situation.  He sounds in a bind,
>all his case proves is that the two body problem just gets worse, lots
>worse, when you get divorced with kids.  But I had to reply to play
>devil's advocate to Jennifer's naive posting.  So Mark, please don't
>take it personal, you might find something valid in what I have to say
>but maybe not, I am not judging you.  All I can say is that you have a
>difficult decision to make.  Made the more difficult because you have
>to deal with a court system that historically has made its decisions for

I don't take it personally at all - in fact, it's healthy to discuss it.
It also helps to ensure I've thought it all through before court.

You have to understand that Karen, my ex, is very emotionally dependent
on the children.  They love her, too, but I think she needs them more
than they need her.  Part of Karen's identify, who she is, is wrapped up
in the kids.  She also told her friends and family some pretty awful things
about me during the divorce, so her losing custody made her look pretty
bad to them.  She was assured by her atty that "no judge would ever take
children away from their mother" early in the process, and she and her
family believed it, especially since Judge Rose was 6 months from retirement
and almost never awarded custody to men.  (What really hurt her in the
original decision is that she lied to the psychologists, and she lied
to the judge, and I presented evidence to prove she was lying, so they
all knew it, and she still persisted in the lies.  I took my lumps for
my own shortcomings and held my head high, and I think that counted for
a lot.  Also, I really am a pretty good dad and mom combined.)

Karen's worst fear has been that I would move away and take the boys
away from her.  She has known since we got married that my heart and
my family was in Calif, and when we moved to Ohio in 1981, partly for
the AT&T job and partly to be near her family, we decided it would be
for 5 years to save up money so we could afford to move back to CA.
The divorce in 1987 cooled that for awhile, but it's obvious to her
that it makes sense to move back, so it's a very real fear for her.

Possibly in anticipation of this, she testified in court that she had
listened in on a phone call between me and my oldest son while he was
at her house (he was 5 at the time.)  What I actually told him (and I
have a tape of the call so I know for sure) is that I thought the judge
would award me custody and he and his brother would live with me.
She claimed I had added onto the end "and they would never see Mommy again."
I think she really thinks I said that, but the tape says I didn't.
My atty chose to have me deny the statement under oath, but we did
not play the tape to prove it.  (Her atty had already succeeded in
preventing use of tapes of calls between her and her lover in court.)

Possibly as a result of her statement, the Judge Rose decreed "neither
party to remove the children from the state of Ohio", which has since
been modified to permit 30 days/year out of state.  This clause has
been a source of great comfort to Karen, as she believed it prevented
me from moving to CA.  My atty told me that with a bona fide job offer
(not just moving for spite) I could take it before the judge and s/he
would grant permission to move and modify visitation appropriately.
Two attempts to get the clause removed in the past few years have
resulted in being told to get a job offer first, then they would consider it.

Incidently, I have remarried, the boys get along great with Beth,
my current wife, and Beth's family is also in Calif.  Her family
includes 2 cousins the same age as my boys, whom they greatly
enjoy playing with.  On Karen's side, they have one cousin,
a 2 year old girl.  (My boys are 6 and 9.)

>OK Jennifer, you want to know why this mom might be against the
>move.  Here are some possible reasons.

Thanks for listing these!  Let me address them.

>    - it removes the kids from a loving caring extended family.  Perhaps
>      they are close to their grandparents (she lives with them recall)
>      and maybe also with cousins etc.  So they are not only losing
>      regular contact with her, but with a lot of other people who
>      are important to them.  

Karen's local extended family consists of her parents, Karen's sister
(boys aunt) with husband and 2 year old daughter, her grandmother (boys
great-grandnother) and also her lover's extended family (self and
parents living across the street from her own parents.)  Much of the
childcare at Karen's end is done by the boys grandmother, Lois, who
they are somewhat close to.  Lois is very experienced with small
children (she was a foster parent of infants for years) and works part
time, so she's home when needed.  I disagree with their parenting style
(Lois is a doormat who needs to be used, Karen treats the boys like babies,
Walt, their grandfather, is a nice guy but thinks nothing of horseplay,
racist jokes, and power trips, all "in good fun") and am concerned about
how much time they spend there playing Nintendo, watching TV, not getting
basic hygiene or decent nutrition.  But they like it there and are by
no means being "abused".

Of course, they lack that contact with MY extended family now, ditto Beth's.

>    - maybe they are in a good school situation.  I think schools
>      are only good if there are parents who closely monitor what is
>      happening, get to know teachers, make sure that the kids
>      specific needs are met.  If her kids are in a different state,
>      it is impossible for her to maintain the contacts with teachers that
>      can really make a difference.  She'll never make a teacher
>      parent conference, never help sew a halloween costume, never
>      bake cupcakes for the bake sale, never take the afternoon off
>      and get to the class play or volunteer to chaperone a dance...

Actually, the school they are in is 6 million in debt and hurting bad.
I like the people there, but they have to take a bus 15 minutes to school
because the district can't afford to build a school in our neighborhood.

I'm very involved with the school - I worked to get the levy passed last
November (4th try, had it failed we would have been merged with Columbus
City schools and they would have been bussed much further for integration.)
I go to the parent-teacher conferences with Beth; Karen usually finds an
excuse not to go to the spring conference.  We both go to school plays;
I'm the one who gets them to activities like camp or sports.  I'm no
seamstress, but I take them shopping for costumes each year.  I'll admit
I usually don't have time for bake sales.

>    - maybe they were really traumatized by the divorce and it is
>      too soon to traumatize them further with all the stresses 
>      of moving to a new location, where instead of all their
>      friends, both parents, familiar house(s), neighborhood, little
>      league,...  all they are going to have for daily love and
>      support is dad.  A caring great dad, but he's only one
>      person.

The divorce made lots of stress on everybody, Karen, Beth, me, the boys.
The current situation is also very stressful.  Moving is also said to
be stressful, although the boys really strongly want to go.  They say
they don't mind leaving their friends (they only have a few close friends
outside their family.)  A different house and different friends is a
real issue, but they haven't thought of this yet.  When the time comes,
we'll talk about it, the relo company has sent lots of nice tools, videos,
coloring books, etc to help them deal with it.  I've previewd this stuff
but it addresses feelings they don't have yet.  Of course, they get Dad,
Beth, and our families on the other end.  I also think I can arrange that
they finish out their baseball (Matt) and soccer (Adam) seasons here
before we move - the seasons end at the end of the school year.

>    - phone calls are not the same thing as hanging out together,
>      she will lose out on all the little things about growing
>      up, she will lose out on her chance to install her values
>      through being a role model on a regular basis.  You don't
>      get that from a couple months a summer, you really get to
>      know and appreciate your child, teach them about life, from regular
>      talking and sharing.  And, often when kids have problems, physical
>      or emotional, they don't mention them, perhaps they don't
>      even know they need help.  Part of a parents role is to look
>      at daily signs of change, is the child sadder than usual, too
>      quiet, too loud...  and to try to figure out why --- nip
>      potential problems in the bud.  One busy adult no matter how
>      they try will never replace an extended family of people who
>      know the child well enough to notice problems and be a resource.

This is one of Karen's concerns - as she puts it, if she finishes school
here and then moved out, "Matt will be 12".  She wants to see them often.

I'm not sure I want them installed with her values, they are quite a bit
different from mine.  (I'll try to avoid slinging mud publicly.)  Finding
and dealing with problems is generally something Beth and I do, along with
teachers.  I don't see much of that from Karen, although she was the first
to spot a tooth coming in when the baby tooth was still there.

>    - right now, both parents work full time (or more), so are both really
>      busy.  It is hard for a child to get enough attention from
>      a parent with a full time job.  If both parents are in the
>      same town, then they can share giving the attention, and 
>      the kids benefit greatly.  It also sounds like the grandparents
>      share in this some.  Maybe they even take care of the kids
>      daily after school.  They will lose this and have to be shuffled
>      to daycare?

Right now I get home at 3 PM when they get home from school, by special
arrangement with my current employer.  While I doubt I can do this with
the new job, Beth may be home in the afternoon; Beth's sister Suzie is
home full time, and in a couple of years they will be old enough to come
home to an empty house after school.  In the worst case, there may be
a couple of years of after-school daycare.

>    - so she is going to school  (nursing is really stressful,
>      you give so much all the time, so little in return) and working
>      full time?  Doesn't
>      leave much room for a social life.  Maybe she gets an
>      incredible amount of joy being with her kids, if even for
>      only a couple hours a week.  Maybe its the only joy she
>      gets right now.  She will miss that terribly.  Selfish of her?
>      Maybe, but is it a crime?

This one certainly seems to be true, and I can't fault her for that.

>In which case she holds all these
>values as much more important than the things that his extra money can
>buy her kids.

Well, she isn't at all motivated by what money can buy the boys.
She would want custody and huge gobs of child support, but at
this point she has very little time for parenting.

>Maybe she would love to go west with them but can't
>leave her aging parents, or she needs the support network of her own
>friends in order to complete her schooling and continue with her own
>growth.

Her parents aren't that old and she depends more on them than vice versa.
I think she moved in with them to cut costs so she could go to school.
(She is 35, her parents are around 60.)  Certainly she needs her
support network - she always has.  Right now I am surviving without
my support network, as is Beth, but we are used to that and have
things pretty well in hand.

>Maybe none of these things are true.  Maybe she's an evil witch who
>is jealous of Mark's success and will do anything to hinder him. Or
>maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.

I don't think she's an evil witch, although I find it fascinating
that during the divorce, she got a dog and named it Cerebus.
Only later did I find out that that's the name of the devil's dog.

>I think the point is that there is usually two valid sides to
>the story, and that the court system has done a bad job of dealing
>with this in a fair manner beneficial to the kids and the parents.

The court system is far from perfect and far from fast.
But from what I'm told, having a CP father move for job reasons
over the objections of an NCP mother is one they're not prepared for,
evidently it's never happened before, at least locally.
Jobs don't wait months for courts to grind.  A serious bug
in the system.

>In this case it sounds like the law (unenforced or prejudicially
>enforced as it is) is really there to protect the NCP's relationship
>with their child.  Since the NCP is usually the dad, isn't this the
>kind of legislation that helps dad's rights?  If this were a CP woman
>moving, and the NCP father couldn't move but didn't want to give up
>all the things I mentioned above, would you be up in arms about how
>unfair this woman was, to put her career move above the needs of her
>children to be with their dad and other family and friends?

Point well taken.  The current law about the CP going to court to move
is there because fathers rights groups was concerned about NCP moms
moving away just to get away from the father.  There is a real conflict
here with needs on both sides.  This is why the courts are supposed to
judge based on the "bests interests of the children".  I think they are
better off with Beth and me in CA - better schools, more family their
age, better climate, better house.

>Jennifer, how in the world can you justify your comment about wanting
>to hear both sides when you have already tried and convicted not only
>this women but the court that hasn't even ruled yet!

I do appreciate the votes of confidence, but I also think her side
deserves to be told.  It certainly will be told in court.

>How about instead folks generate novel solutions to this
>problem?  A separate phone for the kids with a long distance plan and
>blanket permission to call Ohio anytime.  Easy access to stamped
>addressed envelopes to send pictures, letters, cassette tapes back and
>forth.  Give kids a camera so they can take pictures of themselves and
>new surroundings to share with mom and grandparents.  Share cost of
>mom coming west for visit or two during the school year, so she can
>watch her kid play soccer and meet teachers and new friends.

Interesting ideas.  I was thinking of getting one of these new AT&T 2500
picturephones on each end.  I'm not terribly concerned about phone bills,
but some monitoring would be needed.  They are expensive ($1500 each)
but I hope I'll still be an AT&T employee when they come out so I can
get the employee discount.  Postal mail is good too - they are
big enough to address their own envelopes.  Matt has a camera, but in
practice I'd be sending her pictures - I already get her copies of the
school/sports pictures.  It would be neat to have them send her school
papers, and of course report cards.  Videotapes, too, I have a camcorder.

I doubt she could come out very much, what with school and work, but if
she does (at her expense) I'll give her lots of time with them.  I have
already offered to pay for 2 trips/year (summer plus alternating either
Christmas or Easter).

>I would think that if Mark had lots of these ideas implemented, and he
>encouraged the continued presence of the mom in his kids lives no
>matter where they lived, it would argue his case better in court.

Most of these things would get implemented after we're out there, but
your idea to have them in the offer is a good one.

	Mark