From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Help Please with custody under Cal. jurisdiction
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:44:00 GMT
Keywords: California, child custody,

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