From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: response to Alan Yasutovich wonderful self insight
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:41:03 GMT

In article <779@dogear.spk.wa.us> RARCINIEGA@thor.nafb.trw.com
(R_ARCINIEGA) writes:  

> 
>       This message is directed to Alan Yasutovich for giving such a won- 
>       derful heartfelt feels(or lack there of)about his "son" and "past
			 ^^^^^^                ^
"giving such wonderful heartfelt feels".  I take it English is not your
first language.  That might have something to do with the fact that you
did not fully understand what Alan was saying.  His first wife did not
want him to have a relationship with his son until 10 years after their
divorce - when she is now remarried and the son was now viewed as a
burden, an intrusion in her new life.  He felt, and his new family felt
that their lives had been intruded upon when someone, who took his
child out of his life, suddenly pops up and demands that he start to be
a father to a person he hasn't seen for 10 years.

>       life". You my friend are a classic example of a selffish, concided, 
>       think of only myself person. My list could go on but since you go/

We are all selfish (with one f).  And there are virtues to
selfishness.  Because I want things for me, I take measures to see that
I will have them.  For example, because I want my two sons to have
great lives, I work very hard to earn enough money for me to support them.
It is a selfish act for me to want to earn so much money.  It is selfish
for me to want my children to have everything that I can possibly give
them.  It is selfish for people to make themselves burdens of society to
obtain incredible levels of education - so that they  can someday return
the favor to society by making positive contributions to the lives of
the rest of the people on this planet while at the same time making
substantial wages for themselves.  Selfishness is not a pure evil.
Short-term selfishness is often required for long-term generosity to be
possible.

Oh - "concided" is not a word - I think you meant "conceited".

>	went to MIT, you get the picture. I feel sorry for that you let the 
>	divorce and your ex-wife get in the way of establishing a reltation-

I think 10 years ago it was pretty much expected of men that if the
woman desired to cut the children out of the ex-husband's life, that he
should just let her do that - thereby making him an ex-dad.  Men had
very little control over this.  The courts supported women in their
efforts to do this to the father.  I doubt that he "let" them do it.  He
probably had very little choice.  After all, when the courts tell you to
do something and you don't do it, you are in violation of a court order
- which is a crime.

>	ship with your "son" or stranger as you put it. When you and your 
>	present wife divorce I hope your atitude would be the same as in 

I think that Alan also expressed that he has a very significant
relationship with his new family - especially his daughter.  I think he
said that he loves his new daughter as much as one person can love
another.  I think that the laws have changed enough so that if Alan's
new family does not stay together, that he would want to and would be
able to maintain a significant relationship with his daughter - despite
the wishes of his wife.  And a second divorce is a dread thought.  I'm
sure Alan is doing everything to avoid having to go through a repeat of
the tragedy of 10 years ago.

>	your first break-up. Thanks to you and your unwillingness to become
>	involved in your "sons" life, he will probally be just like you.
>	HAVE A GOOD LIFE IN YOUR NEW ONE........

I too wish Alan all the best - as I wish everyone all the best.  And,
since Alan is a positive, intelligent, caring, contributing member of
society, I too hope that his son turns out like his father - in fact,
even better - despite what his mother and the courts did to prevent him
from having a relationship with his father.

I can empathize with Alan's dilemma - I can't sympathize.  I will not
let my wife or the courts destroy the relationship that I have with my
sons.  I'm sure Alan regrets what happened back then - and he might
even regret that he didn't fight harder to maintain a relationship with
his son.  He did what a lot of people expected him to do - what the
courts and his first wife told him they wanted him to do - get the hell
out and stay out.  He was not able to establish a loving relationship
with his son.  His son became just another person - a stranger in his
life.  Now, the wishes of his first wife have changed and he is
expected to become the father that he never was to a person that he
doesn't know, to a person who doesn't know him.  I encourage Alan to
try his very best to become involved with his son - and to overlook the
intrusion that his son might be to his new life.  Alan, try to at least
become a friend to your son.  He needs to have a positive role model in
his life - even though he apparently has a step father, he surely needs
all the help he can get.  In time, he might understand you and
understand what happened.  If you at least try, and if it doesn't work
out, you will, at least, not have to feel guilt over not even trying.

Alan was put in a very awkward situation and I commend him for being
honest in expressing how uncomfortable and awkward he feels about this
situation.  It took courage to lay it on the line and leave himself open
to shots like this post that I'm following up to.  I can only
imagine the pain of having my son torn away from me 10 years ago and the
frustration at having the mother contact me 10 years later and demand
that I become the father that I never was to my son - to a son who I
don't even know - when she was to one who insisted that I not ever be
involved with my son 10 years earlier - and the courts supported her in
that wish.  I can imagine that the pain was very similar to the pain
that I have experienced and am experiencing over the tragedy of my 
divorce.

Hang in there, Alan.  I'm sure you will make the best of it.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  I'm going to see "Toad, the Wet Sprocket", or "Towed the Wet
Sprocket" or "Toed the Wet Sprocket" tonight.  Then I get to see my
sons for 21 hours this weekend - thanks to a recent court order which
denied that I could have them overnight because there is no Guardian Ad
Litem report in my divorce case.  Three weeks ago, the court denied me
overnight visits because we didn't have a written report from one of my
psychologists - even though he told the referee over the phone that I
should have as many overnight visitations as the referee would give me
and another psychologist who testified in court that I should have my
children at least three nights per week.  So, we had the written report
of the second psychologist at the last hearing and it recommended
immediate overnights, but the referee chose to not allow them until the
Guardian reports.  I have objected in writing to all these decisions by
the referee.  I have objected to his comments in his findings of
facts.  He has made statements as facts that were purely hearsay
statements that my wife made to the court - statements that were lies.
My family has not been allowed to see my two sons for 7 months.  On
September 26th, my ex2b told my brother over the phone that "I will see
to it that neither Aaron, nor any of his family, will ever get to see
my children again." Her parents verified her statements to my mother
several weeks after that - saying "that she really didn't mean it." But
in court she has insisted that my family not be allowed to see my
children.  Again, my family has not seen my children at all for 7
months.  The referee stated that another month wouldn't hurt them.  In
fact, what he stated was this, "If Defendant's mother wishes to see the
children, she can come to Ohio."  He made no provisions for any of the
other members of my family seeing my children.  Next divorce hearing -
May 1st.

When I told another man in my department what this referee did to me, he
made the following comments via email to me:

	Oh my....Don Martin again.....that guy sucks!!! He is
	just so very terrible and biased against men....  He has
	done me so much damage... I even tried to get the court
	ruling body to bring charges of incompetence against that
	no good for nothing *(*&^%&^*(*

You see, he has had dealings with this same court official too.  And
this guy is supposed to be one of the very best.  Things would be much
better if the divorce courts just flipped coins over decisions.  That
way, all the court officials would not be able to interject their own
personal biases against men into all their rulings.  Sure, things would
be random and arbitrary, but I'll take random and arbitrary over biased,
prejudicial, misandrist and sexist everyday.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support