Mothers Leaving Children ‘Just Another Lifestyle Choice’ ..

Isn't life grand when you can just shift camp just because you "feel" the need. Allocating the kids to someone else and just ignoring the fact that you bought them into this world and they should at least expect that their birth parent would hang about for a while, while they get their act together..

But ofcourse I forgot that women can do whatever they choose, it's part of the feminist mantra. Stuff the kids, I want something else and I do not give a damn about their future or their ongoing hurt and neglected feelings..

Ahh!, what is it like to be so narcissistic. selfish and uncaring ?

I don't know, I am not a woman..

Article: Mothers Leaving Children ‘Just Another Lifestyle Choice’

By Glenn Sacks | Thu, Jan 14 2010, 09:34 AM

This remarkable piece reprises some fairly common themes such as (a) marriage and motherhood oppress women, (b) divorce doesn't harm children and (c) single-parenthood is OK for children (MSN, 1/10/10). And all of the above are about the freedom and happiness of adult women and not about he welfare of children. These were all trial balloons floated in the 1970s and subsequently shot down by huge amounts of social science. But people who are attached to them just refuse to let them go, as the article makes clear.

The piece tells the personal stories of three women all of whom were married, all of whom had children and all of whom felt the lack of personal freedom that all that brings. And all decided to divorce and ultimately abandon claims for custody.

At the outset, I can say that I'm all for personal freedom. I think that everyone as an adult, should get a taste of answering to no one but oneself. If you never do that, you run the risk of always wondering what you missed, and if you do have that experience and choose to put it aside, you know exactly what it is you're abandoning and why.

So maybe those three women hadn't done that. Maybe they'd all gone straight from being under their parent's wing to marriage and children. The article doesn't say.

But what all three did was put aside everything we know about the damage that divorce does to children in favor of their own personal freedom. As one mother said,

It started as a restlessness. I had this feeling that I could write a book, that I'd like to travel the world.

And another,

Plus — though admitting it startled her — she craved the freedom. "This is the part that's so hard to talk about. But secretly, inside, it was the most exciting thing. If he was living with his father, I would be free to do what I wanted to do.

And that is, as small mountains of social science tell us, a terrible thing to do to children. Tellingly, the article glosses over the children. Apart from a few facts about the practicalities of custody arrangements, the children of these three mothers aren't much discussed. Certainly they're not interviewed; their performance in school isn't mentioned; their emotional/psychological wellbeing doesn't merit a word. Social science tells us in no uncertain terms that those things are all likely to be damaged by divorce. And the kids are not followed into adulthood to find out how losing their mothers affected them later in life.

The article tells us that one child, 12-year-old Will was "crushed" by the divorce and separation from his mother, but that's it. He's 21 now, and fully capable of telling his side of the story of his mother's liberation from him, but the author elects not to go there.

But, in the article and in the mothers' own words, child wellbeing takes a back seat to the desires of their mothers.

Speaking of personal freedom, another thing the article overlooks entirely is the little matter of child support. Did any of these women realize their personal freedom from marriage and children while also paying to support those children? The article scrupulously avoids the topic altogether. And that strikes me as an important oversight. After all, non-custodial fathers don't seem to view divorce and child support payments as the acme of personal freedom. Indeed, the sometimes unreasonable demands placed on them by family courts achieve the opposite - a form of involuntary servitude.

All that leads me to wonder if the dads in these cases gave a pass to child support from the mothers. It's well established that custodial fathers are less likely to request a child support order than are custodial mothers, so is that what happened in each of these cases? If so, women reading the article should be advised that it gives a seriously distorted view of the realities of the lives of non-custodial parents post-divorce.

As I said, I'm all for personal freedom. But where children are involved, parents need to behave responsibly. They need to commit to being the best parents they can be. Children don't stay children forever, and when they're grown up, their parents typically have a lot of their lives left to live. If they want to divorce then, fine. If the woman wants to travel the world, write a book, go back to school, become a sculptor, I say more power to her. But parenthood is not all about the parents; it's about the kids, or should be. Any parent who doesn't get that basic concept needs to learn it, and fast.

Divorce and single-parenthood aren't just lifestyle choices. They're blows against little people who can't make lifestyle choices themselves.

Australia: Fury at ruling in custody battle..

Just so you understand the reasons for this blog as well as the need. It would appear that any mother can treat any child in any fashion and still be granted the kids while a law-abiding, honest, intelligent Fathers are denied access to his own children for any excuse, even manufactured lies instigated by Mothers..

Just thought I would clear up that bit of sexist behaviour as well as ongoing bias Fathers face in the Family Courts on a daily basis..

Women can do whatever they like without any consequence while Men are still expected to carry the brunt of the law..

Again, just incase you are wondering about it, like you actually give a damn..

Fury at ruling in custody battle

Laurie Nowell From: Sunday Herald Sun January 10, 2010 1:22AM 22

A MOTHER found by the Family Court to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children has been given custody of them.

The father, deemed "principled" and with "much to offer his children", has been effectively banned from seeing his daughters.

The case will spark renewed debate about family law and the issue of shared parenting.

The father, who we will name "Bill" because he cannot be identified for legal reasons, is described by a Family Court judge as no threat to his daughters, a successful parent who is "courteous" and "intelligent".

The same judge found the mother, whom we will call "Jasmine" and who abandoned her first daughter at two and spurned the child's subsequent attempts at reconciliation, had displayed "dreadful", "cruel" and "malicious" behaviour.

But the judge still ruled that because of time spent apart, the children had become estranged from their father and it was in their interests that "the children spend no time with the father".

This was at odds with a ruling in February 2008 that Bill should have contact with his daughters.

But in last month's ruling, the judge said: "The necessity to preserve the children's physical, emotional safety and welfare is overwhelming. However unsatisfactory this outcome is for the father, it is the outcome most aligned with the children's best interests.

"In addition, it is the only outcome which will afford the girls the peace they require now while permitting some possibility of a relationship between the father, (the children) and their siblings in the future, however long term that may be."

But the judge added: "It is a sad fact in the family law jurisdiction that a determination which is most consistent with the best interests of the children can appear to reward bad behaviour on the part of one parent and work in apparent injustice for the well-motivated best performing parent."

Bill has not seen his daughters since April and has not spent extended time with them since August 2005.

He says the estrangement was largely a result of false allegations of sexual abuse of the children made against him by his former wife.

The custody ruling in the Family Court last month came after a seven-year battle over access to the girls, now aged nine and 11.

It followed a criminal trial in 2007, when Bill, 55, was cleared of the sexual abuse allegations. The trial judge found them totally false and threw the case out.

The ordeal has cost Bill his home, his job and about $450,000 in lost income and legal costs. He has faced court 70 times to clear his name and try for some form of access to his children.

"It has been a nightmare. All I wanted was to be part of my children's lives - to try to give them a good start in life," Bill said.

"But I am denied that because of the malicious way in which my ex-wife has acted and because of the credence the legal system has given her lies and falsehoods.

"The family law system needs wholesale change. There appears to be no testing of evidence in court and it seems that often lies and fabrications are immediately accepted as fact.

"It's a disgrace and, as far as I know, it doesn't happen in any other legal sphere."

Bill's case follows the case of "Steve" last year, in which the court accepted his good character, but banned him from seeing his daughter for seven years because it was believed the mother would "shut down" emotionally if he were allowed to see her.

In another case last year, a father, "Mick", was jailed for sending a birthday card to his daughter in breach of a court order and was locked up again for taking a walk in a park - near where, unknown to him, his daughter was playing.

Debate over the operation of family law has become heated over the past year with a new campaign seeking to overturn amendments to the Family Law Act brought in by the Howard government that have established the principle of "shared parenting" and effectively given fathers a better chance of having greater access to their children in custody disputes.

Historian and Family Court critic Prof John Hirst questions the underlying principles in family law.

"The Family Court by law has to make the children's interests paramount in divorce cases. Everyone thinks this is wise and proper, but to elevate one principle above all others can produce terrible results," he said.

"To stop mothers being tempted to make accusations of sexual abuse and so keep children to themselves, the law should state that any parent making false accusations of this sort will lose the right to be chief carer of the children. If a mother has so turned the children against the father that they don't want to see him, for a time at least the children should be taken into care.

"Even on the present test of child's best interests, it is hard to see how a child will benefit from being left with such a mother. She has burdened the child with the story that her father abused her.

"Then when the child comes of age she will discover that the mother's accusations were false."

A smacked child is a successful child..

How many times have you witnessed a mother trying to rationalise or debate a 2 year old. How many times have you come across uncontrollable children, be it in public or at someone's home. They can be absolute terrors, make life a living hell for all involved.
I must confess that I once smacked one of my kids on the bottom when she was a teenager as every other method of discipline just did not work. My method of discipline was to apply the " 3 times" rule which worked very nicely (raising four kids and being able to claim only one such incident must be a record). The object of the exercise was that if I had to tell them to behave a third time they would be in trouble, mostly time spent in their room or reduction of other privileges or even allocated more chores for a week..

The teenager by the way was so indignant that she went around the entire family complaining and showing my hand print on her rump. Even now, 20 years later she still remembers that incident..

I reminded her that it hurt me more than it did her but as she pushed the boundary on bad behaviour, it was not going to be ignored or tolerated..

The things Dads have to do..

Sadly, an ongoing effort to take away a parents authority to apply punishment has been the goal of all western democracies by self-serving, childless do-gooders without even bothering to find out the outcome or benefit that authority produces..

Now they can hang their heads in shame as a population of spoilt, uncontrollable and obnoxious "children" head out to work and become involved in society..

You have probably already noticed those over privileged, self elevated neurotics..

A smacked child 'is a successful child'
By Georgia Warren From:NewsCore January 04, 2010 3:55AM


YOUNG children smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

According to the research, children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

Only those children who continued to be smacked into adolescence showed clear behavioral problems.

Children’s groups and lawmakers in the UK have tried several times to have physical chastisement by parents outlawed. They claim it is a form of abuse that causes long-term harm to children and say banning it would send a clear signal that violence is unacceptable.

However, Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children.


“The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,” said Gunnoe.

“I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don’t use it for all your jobs.”

Research into the effects of smacking was previously hampered by the inability to find enough children who had never been smacked, given its past cultural acceptability.

But Gunnoe’s work drew on a study of 2600 people, of whom about a quarter had never been physically chastised.

Spotlight on UK Female Sex Offenders..

Finally some recognition of female sex offenders. Especially as this has been ignored by all involved in the abuse racket that concentrates all it's efforts on one sex while living in denial about the other..

Spotlight on UK sex offenders
By Rajeev Syalin and Mark Townsend

7:15 AM Monday Oct 5, 2009

Child sex abuse by women is more widespread than realised, say experts, who believe there could be 64,000 female offenders in Britain.

Researchers from the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a child protection charity that deals with British female sex offenders, said its studies confirmed that a fair proportion of child abusers were women.

Donald Findlater, director of research and development, said results indicated that up to 20 per cent of a conservative estimate of 320,000 suspected UK paedophiles were women.

The figures come days after a daycare worker in Plymouth, Vanessa George, together with Angela Allen from Nottingham and Colin Blanchard from Rochdale, pleaded guilty to sexually abusing young children.

Findlater said: "There was some suggestion it was only blokes that sexually abused children. Over time those arguments have fallen aside and people have had to wake up to the fact that actually, sadly, there is a fair proportion of women abusing as well."

About 32,000 names are on the sex offenders register. But researchers at the foundation suggest the real number is 10 times this figure.

Provisional studies, which mirror work done in the United States, suggest 5 per cent to 20 per cent are women.

The calculations put the number of female child-sex offenders in the UK at between 48,000 and 64,000, a figure Findlater describes as "highly possible".

He said: "The problem is far bigger than conviction rates and, if you look at survivor studies, you end up with a very different story about the scale of the problem of female sexual abuse."

Detectives at Scotland Yard's paedophile unit, meanwhile, disclosed that they had detected an "increased prevalence" of female offenders.

London Metropolitan police sources said quantifying the number of paedophiles was problematic but there were likely to be hundreds of thousands.

Steve Lowe, director of Phoenix Forensic Consultants, which treats and assesses child sex abusers, said the true number of female paedophiles had remained hidden for too long.

"As a society, we find women sex offenders difficult to acknowledge. But those of us who work with paedophiles have seen evidence that women are capable of terrible crimes against children - just as bad as men."

He said some female abusers remained hidden because they appeared before the family courts, where their cases were not publicised because of reporting restrictions.

The latest British Government figures, published six months ago, showed that 56 female child sex abusers were in custody, with 49 sentenced and seven on remand.

Another 84 were under supervision in the community.

Officially, fewer than 2 per cent of people on the sex offenders register are women, although experts say they expect to see the proportion increase as public awareness of female paedophiles grows.

Officials at the government's Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre said under-reporting of incidents involving female abusers was a concern and warned that "copycat" abusers may attempt to replicate the abuse that took place at Plymouth's Little Ted's nursery, where George worked.

Despite appeals from the police and anxious parents, the married mother-of-two has yet to reveal victims' names.

George, Allen and Blanchard, all 39, met through the networking site Facebook. Officials at the protection centre and at Scotland Yard believe that the internet is driving an increase in the number of sex abusers of children.

However, police say that they have detected no changes in the levels or types of abuse.

- OBSERVER
By Rajeev Syalin and Mark Townsend

Women Murdering Children: SO..

Again, notice the little amount of information when any woman or mother abuses or attempts to murder her own child. Were it a Father, his previous history, his life and any other information would be exposed for all to see but this is a women and that will not be the case. We cannot as journalists expose women for the abusers and murderers they really are..

Get real..

Mom admits poisoning 2nd baby to get dad’s attention

By Men's Activism News | Source | January 1, 2010

'HILLSBORO, Ore. (AP) -- A 25-year-old former medical assistant has pleaded guilty to poisoning her 2-month-old daughter with morphine in a bid to attract the attention of the child's father. She was on probation for a similar crime in California.

Sara Rose Dillard appeared in Washington County Circuit Court on Wednesday and admitted giving her daughter Elise a high dose of the opiate in June. Judge Mark Gardner sentenced Dillard to seven years in prison after she pleaded guilty to first-degree assault.

Authorities said Dillard, of Beaverton, was on probation from California for feeding her son, who was 10 months old at the time, two opiate pills.
...
"She knew the baby would go into respiratory distress and bring a lot of attention to her and her baby because she'd put herself through respiratory distress before," prosecutor Megan Johnson said Wednesday.

Doctors at Providence St. Vincent Medical Center admitted the 2-month-old for observation in June although they couldn't detect the fever Dillard said she had. The next morning, the child was barely breathing. Her condition puzzled doctors until toxicology tests came back positive for opiates.'

Teenage mother charged in death of her infant son: She threw him to the floor head first, so who cares..

First of all notice the negligence with which that journalist operates. Minimal information as usual about any woman or mother doing anything wrong..

As usual, the media treats any action by any female as an insignificant occasion even though she just murdered a child. killed him stone dead, murdered him..

Any suggestion on how if a Father had performed that same act and how he would have been treated ?

The blatant and obvious sexism in today's media is there for all to witness..

Who wants to be a journalist these days. Their main efforts are focussed on lies and misinformation..

They will have to live with what they perceive to be a soul that actually gave a damn..

Let's ensure that all women are shown to be law abiding citizens even though they murder and abuse more children that men ever do..

Teenage mother charged in death of her infant son: Police say she threw him to the floor head first


By Men's Activism News | Sat, Jan 02 2010

'Jan. 1--A teenage Tulsa mother was charged Thursday with killing her infant son.

Tulsa Country prosecutors charged Dominique Lagail Lee, 18, with the first-degree murder of Kai'den Terry.

He was 48 days old when he was fatally injured on Sept. 27, the charge states.

Lee is accused of inflicting a blunt trauma injury to her son's head at their apartment in the 6900 block of South Trenton Avenue.

A police investigator's affidavit asserts that Lee grabbed the child's legs, pulled him off a bed, and threw him to the floor head first.'

Girl Sues UK’s Child Support Agency: ‘You’ve Bankrupted My Dad’ ..

How's this for ensuring the privileged princesses are served and genuflected to ?

Bankrupt Dad just to appease that princess. Well done girls, life just cannot get any better for you can it ?

Let's just screw any male, any Father and push him to suicide as life just does not get any better for him and we have you to thank for that..

Well Done ..

Obviously, it's takes the child to actually give a damn and recognise the difference, as you obviously don't..

Good on you Emma..

Girl Sues UK’s Child Support Agency: ‘You’ve Bankrupted My Dad’

By Glenn Sacks | Thu, Dec 31 2009, 09:59 AM

Sometimes it just seems to get nuttier and nuttier out there.

Case in point: Great Britain's Child Support Agency is threatening to jail a father and sell his house to satisfy his child support debt. The only trouble is that the girl who's the subject of the support order lives with him. So what the CSA wants to do is jail her custodial parent and put her on the street. All of which is in her interest according to the CSA. In fact, both father and daughter say that paying the amount will bankrupt him, which would of course severely affect her. And the money would go to her mother with whom she no longer lives. Meanwhile the mother has never paid a shilling in child support. So the girl is suing CSA.

Did you follow all that? If any of it makes sense to you, be sure to let me know. Read about it here (Daily Mail, 12/30/09).

It seems that 13-year-old Emma Chapelhow is fed up. Her parents, David Chapelhow and Janette Plummer divorced at some point, with Emma going to live with Janette. David paid child support, but the CSA, unilaterally and apparently without giving David the opportunity to contest the ruling, decided to radically increase the amount based on "lifestyle being inconsistent with income." In the U.S. we call that 'imputed income.' In other words, the state decides that a parent is hiding income because he/she seems to be living a more lavish lifestyle than the income reported would support.

Maybe the CSA based its decision on Emma's pony, Pringle. Who knows? But however it arrived at its conclusion, at some point it presented David with a bill for £43,000 which he says he can't begin to pay. So he started fighting the ruling which has further depleted his resources. Currently, he and Emma live in a caravan (travel trailer) so they can rent their house to make ends meet.

And the CSA which seems dead set on bankrupting Emma's custodial father, hasn't so much as peeped about child support from Janette.

All of that has raised the ire of 13-year-old Emma, who's filed suit against the CSA. Two years ago, a court ruled that Emma was mature enough to "instruct her solicitor," which means she could decide what parent she wanted to live with. She chose her father whom she calls a 'hero.'

He's joined her suit against the CSA, which is legally obligated to "have regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by their decisions." Emma, David and their legal representation apparently believe that tossing the dad in prison and selling his assets to pay a debt that may or may not be legitimate to a mother who no longer has custody and who does not herself pay to support her daughter, violates the CSA's duty of 'regard.' Fancy that.

Just in case the CSA hadn't behaved enough like a Mafia enforcer, it sent the bailiffs out to seize Pringle under the nose of the distraught Emma. Apparently it was just a bluff, but terrorizing a 13-year-old whose best interests you're supposed to be protecting makes sense, doesn't it? In any case, seizing an asset that seems to be the child's to satisfy a parent's support obligation to that child is surely a first.

Thanks to Roy for the heads-up.