I have more time to care for my son than she does now. Should that matter?

What can I tell you? Those are the facts on the ground. You make a big fuss about your wife’s laziness or inability to hold a job NOW, but at the time, you were apparently content enough to let her stay home and take care of your child. Just out of curiosity, since you apparently don’t think that (1) being the primary caretaker of the children while the family was in-tact and (2) having an employment situation (or lack thereof) that allows one party more flexibility in spending time with the children are legitimate considerations in determining which parent should have primary physical custody — what factors DO you think the Court should look at? In a previous thread, you objected that because she stayed home with the kids doesn’t mean she loves her more – but nobody said it does. The Courts don’t have a divining rod to determine which parent loves the child(ren) more (if in fact either one does); they just have a limited set of factual circumstances to determine, in most situation, which of two perfectly decent people is better placed to take care of the day to day needs of the child. What, pray tell, do you think the Courts should look at to determine who that person is?

Apparently what I should have done when my ex quit her job would have been to quit mine as well and just let everything go to hell. That way I could have spent just as much time with my son as “caretaker” as she did.

I have been involved in numerous divorce cases. The simple fact of the matter is that 99% of divorce cases SETTLE before trial, and the vast majority of the time, those settlements include the father _voluntarily_ relinquishing primary physical custody of the child(ren) to the wife. That’s the simple fact. Even where custody is litigated, Courts tend to look at things like: Who was the primary caretaker of the children during the marriage? And whose job affords them greater flexibility to be home for the children after school, to take sick days, to not work weekends, etc. And more often then not, its the mothers. Those are good, gender-neutral reasons to afford custody one way or the other. Of course, these are all generalizations, and I have also seen cases where custody is litigated and dad wins, and usually in those cases, dad is a teacher or dad works from home and dad is in the best position to take care of the kids during the week.

#45:

It’s typical of people like you not to read all the commends in the thread — particularly the one where Stephen AGREED that he was a proud member of the He Man Women Haterz Club! Stephen has also not been abused or exploited. He voluntarily relinquished custody of his child and now complains that he has to support him. Any abuse exists solely in his own head.

The way so many feminists like you reflexively equate disapproval of a man being abused or exploited with hatred of women speaks volumes about you.

have you been involved in a custody case? the attorney mediating my divorce advised me that it’s ‘standard’ that the wife gets custody. even though we made the same amount of money and I have my daughter 12 days/month, I had to pay full support, 1/2 of all activities my daughter had with her mom, etc. I agreed to this because it was ‘standard’. I suspect many people settle for crappy decrees because they want to do what’s best for the kid and they don’t really know what to do about divorce.

I can’t believe all divorces aren’t systematically reviewed (every 2 or 3 years) by questionaires mailed to the parents, maybe have older kids participate… a private divorce system. small issues could be addressed, larger issues brought out into the open without huge litigation, and the divorce attorneys would have ongoing business keeping things running as smooth as possible, vs making things as miserable as possible…

The “ticked”-ness that I feel is orders of magnitude greater that I do not get to see my son every day than it is about the money. I can make more money, I can’t make more time with my son whom I love.

But, back on topic, the law proposed is just flat out wrong.. No way should divorced NC parents foot the bill for college when no other parent has to. It is just more piling on the fathers. Pile enough on that camel’s back and it will break.

Socialism is a society-wide cuckoldry scheme, wherein the productive members of society pay the expenses of the children of the unproductive.

I cannot get worked up over individual cases of cuckoldry when the entire society is insane.

What you meant to say was that you were upset that your wife was the primary caretaker of your children, and that you entered into a Consent Order granting her primary physical custody of them, and now you’re ticked that you have to support them. The system is just so unfair!

LOL, most women do not find me toxic. Some do but I didn’t want to know them anyway.

I do relish in my loathing of certain types of women. (if you think cheating on your husband is OK, then I hate you.) I also loathe even more the system that lets them have special rights.

I am for everyone being equal under the law. The law should be blind to gender as well as race, religion, etc. The law even says it is supposed to be applied that way but in reality it is not.

I’m sure you are! Most people are bitter at their spouses after a divorce. Some people even irrationally transfer their loathing of one person into a hatred of an entire sex of people. Those borderline emotionally healthy adults tend to mature out of that phase rather quickly. You, however, seem to relish in your loathing! It’s almost a catch-22, because your toxicity to women probably keeps them far away, which only reinforces your wounded sense of male privilege and having been wronged.

ClassAction, it’s also a dick move to shake down some guy in perpetuity for something he didn’t do. And to try to continue doing it after it’s made obvious he didn’t do it is bordering on criminal. I guess sometime parenting isn’t any more than a monthly check, in your view.

I think that DNA tests for paternity should be mandatory at birth and there should be some punishment for the woman if she has lied about it.

Just because a man fell for a cheating woman’s lie should not mean that he is stuck with paying. The woman should have to tell who the real father is or get no money. The cuckolded man should have some recourse to be made whole such as suing the bio-dad.

Actually, it’s pretty easy to make sure you don’t pay child support for a child that isn’t yours – have paternity tested at birth or shortly thereafter. That’s it. There’s no secret. But once you’ve been supporting the child either as an in-tact family or otherwise, and have acted as a parent to the child for years and years, you waive the right to kick them to the curb if you find out the kid isn’t yours. It would also be a dick move to punish a child you’ve treated as your own for years by cutting off contact if you discovered it’s not your biological offspring. Parenthood is more than a sperm cell, after all.

That said, a parent shouldn’t have to pay for a child’s college education. Some states, like New Jersey, already impose this obligation on divorced parents (although obviously, NOT on the parents of an in-tact family). Technically, there’s a “multi-factoral test,” but in practice, judges almost always make the parent pay.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100104/stevens