Skip to main content

quote:
WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING FOR FULL CUSTODY


That's the problem with society, why the need to fight for custody? Children need two parents.

DC and Kirk wrote each have natural parenting feelings toward their children.

Absent harm to the child courts should defer to the parents with how they want to raise their child. It may not be how you would do it, but that doesn't mean its wrong. No one on this thread has given any valid reasons why equal custody would not work. Just they don't "think" its good.

My son has a child in equal custody on a 7 day rotating basis and has for years and it works just fine. There are no problems for the child.
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Ed:
quote:
WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING FOR FULL CUSTODY


That's the problem with society, why the need to fight for custody? Children need two parents.

DC and Kirk wrote each have natural parenting feelings toward their children.

Absent harm to the child courts should defer to the parents with how they want to raise their child. It may not be how you would do it, but that doesn't mean its wrong. No one on this thread has given any valid reasons why equal custody would not work. Just they don't "think" its good.

My son has a child in equal custody on a 7 day rotating basis and has for years and it works just fine. There are no problems for the child.


You've obviously the whole rest of the post. That statement was in response to the accusations that this mother is not reasonable fair or mature...if she is not a good mother why is he not fighting for full custody? She is not here to defend herself -- we are only getting the one side of the story...

He already has joint custody. If he wants more time with his daughter -- all he has to do is petition the court for a change. He refuses to do that. He wants the court to undo their previous decision and remove the stigma from that decision on his life. The agenda behind this appeal is my issue not that the child needs both parents.

Every child needs 2 parents. Every child needs SOME TIME with both parents. I think equal time with a child is great, but the agenda behind this "appeal" is my issue...He refuses to just petition the court for a change...it makes me wonder why? Why won't he do what every other father has done and petition the court and justify why he deserves more time with his child and prove that he is a worthy winner in this case? Instead he just wants the courts to say they were wrong...that doesn't win anything for anyone...that just continues this process for even longer than necessary...He could petition family court and have hearing within months...instead he petitions for an appeal which tends to take years...

The bad thing is -- all ya'll are reading is that I'm not gung ho "go daddy" with this guy...I'm fully supportive of 2 parent families and 50/50 time...I just think there is a better, more efficient, and possibly easier way to get to that resolution...
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
Like I said before, just because the court papers say 278 days with mom and 79 days or whatever with Dad doesn't mean that is absolutely how it has to be -- that is the court's order, but common sense and flexibility can make that work out to being a more rewarding relationship for both parents and the child...it is all in how mature you handle the situation....and if the mother does nothing but give you a hard time -- you always have the option of going back to court and asking for a change...if "this father" has spent this much money on appeal after appeal etc...I'm sure the money to go back to court to request a change would not be a problem...


The reality is that the primary caregiver (usually mom) holds all the cards. Unless you've got the family court judge living with you, you can't enforce the court orders, and most people don't have the cash to constantly go back and forth to court. Trust me on this; I've seen it. Honestly, you know how vindictive women can be, Dixie; I've seen that, too. "Common sense and flexibility" are rarely used with these women.

Yes, I have a unique bond with my son because I carried him for nine months and took care of him almost completely for the first couple of years of his life. That doesn't, however, give me ownership; his father has just as many rights. Unfortunately, the courts don't see it that way. Again, men are more or less relegated to weekend babysitters as it stands now.

I'm just going to respectfully disagree with you on this one, Dixie.
yes he is Tru -- just look a little harder and you'll see...

WIP -- I never said ALL women were reasonable, but I've watched enough to know that after a little time and "killing them with kindness" and other ways of "handling them" many women -- even the most vindictive -- lose the fun of the fight and give in more than most will realize. I've never been vindictive...I've been hurt more times than I can count and still haven't gone out for revenge, but I know I am very different...HOWEVER, many MEN are just as vindictive and given the way "this mother" ended the relationship and he felt like he had no say so...that and given the fact that she manipulated the system to her advantage gives "this father" just as much reason to be vindictive as the woman...

However, I don't mind if you disagree...It's all good. I just dislike seeing people manipulate the facts and the law and try to make out like they are not...the agenda in this is my issue...I'll say again, I wish this father all the best...
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:....the agenda in this is my issue...I'll say again, I wish this father all the best...


DC, the agenda is your issue?

This is about a court that did not honor established well known Alabama law.

The trial court was reversed by five(5) learned appeals court judges, to only be overruled by the Supreme Court of Alabama based solely on speculation and assumption.

Do you NOT see something wrong with that?

The agenda by the father - if any at all - is as any citizen would expect of the courts 1.) follow the law 2.) rule not on inference and speculation but on the overall facts.

All too often Alabama courts do not honor law but honor what they feel like at doing at a particular time. That is wrong. Finally, society - i.e. the general public - has no clue the courts are operating in such manner.

Was it you that said in another thread that making this information available to the public was good?


I thought "the father's issue" was being a parent to his child...if that is his issue -- he has routes of rectifying that situation now that he hs moved and complied with the court's requirements...but if "his" issue is as you state -- expecting the court to follow the rules then my statement stands -- the "agenda" is my issue...if he had no recourse, if he couldn't go back to the court to request a change -- then I could see a bigger issue, but he has recourse. I have 2 friends requesting changes in their arrangements as I type -- it costs just as much money to file a new change as it does to appeal it to the high court...

If the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court -- then you know, the original decision just might have been right -- it wasn't what you wanted but that doesn't make them wrong in their opinion.

The public is not ignorant -- just because you want them to be -- that is not the case...Most people never have to deal with family court and MOST don't have the negative issues that you have with them...this is not a case, in my opinion, that merits "public outcry" -- there are far worse things than getting 79 or so days with your kid as opposed to 150+ -- how you make that relationship worth while makes all the difference in the world...Had the court removed all visitation and said you can't see your child at all -- that is something I would see as a great injustice because just as was pointed out before and I won't rehash them again and continue to go in circles.

I wish you the best with this case. I think you have wasted precious time by not filing for a chnage in custody and going before a different judge (since yours was Suttle) and seeking a change...I think your agenda is to make a name in the "family courts" and to continue to criticize Suttle and other judges that make tough decisions every day of the week...while I don't always like the decisions--I have to trust that they are doing their jobs...I still see that while the decisions weren't what you liked the courts ruled as they saw fit -- which is what they are supposed to do based on law and the totality of the circumstances...please keep us updated but I'm not going to repeat myself...
AGain, if the agenda is to have the relationship and more time with the child -- request a change in the custody arrangement...Unless you had intentions of "home schooling" your child -- then the judge made the right decision -- a year early -- but the right decision to give the time to adjust...I see the logic in the decision...but then I'm an outside observer who isn't taking the decision as a blow to my ego or my ability -- I'm taking it for what it was a "best interest of the child" related to custody decisions as deemed by the court...like I said, just becasue you don't like the answer doesn't mean it is not the right answer...again, the judge did not deem you unfit and did not take your child from you...he took time away but if you make the most of the time -- as a stay at home father -- you should still have a great relationship with your daughter...Good luck...
Educational material FYI

Click to read U.S. Supreme Court case Troxel vs. Granville U.S. (2000)


If you remove/replace the grandparent rights statue used in Troxel and replace it with "Children's Best Interests" both terms are used in overly broad terms, which the US Supreme court held in Troxel is unconsitutional.


Click to read APA Study on Joint Physical Custody

Several persons have made comments about equal parenting is not good for children. Yet, no one has explained 1.) who came up with the alternating weekend time or 2.) how that is any better for children than a joint custody arrangement.

Others have also made comments the judge in this case made the correct decision.

How does one explain how the civil appeals court reversed the trial judge after reviewing all the evidence, but the supreme court only "assumed" the trial judge did his job?


The U.S. Supreme Court has said in five parental cases (all are linked in the one post below ) that between a judge and a parent - a judge should defer to a fit parent, even if a judge thinks his decision is better.

Now, certainly this post is NOT in attempt to sway your opinions, however, here is some educational material worth a read, if you have opinions as have been stated here.

As for Dixie Chick, please read the entire opinion before you go claiming only certain parts are selected to benefit a certain position.
Last edited by Nurturing Father
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
Educational material FYI

Click to read U.S. Supreme Court case Troxel vs. Granville U.S. (2000)

Click to read APA Study on Joint Physical Custody

Several persons have made comments about equal parenting time wasn't good for children. Yet, no one could explain who came up with the alternating weekend time or how that is any better for children than a joint custody arrangement.

Others have also made comments the judge in this case made the correct decision. It is more than interesting how the civil appeals court reversed the trial judge after reviewing all the evidence, but the supreme court only "assumed" the trial judge did his job. Never said equal time wasn't good for the kid...

The U.S. Supreme Court has said in five parental cases (all are linked in the one post below ) that between a judge and a parent - a judge should defer to a fit parent, even if a judge thinks his decision is better. The judge did defer to a "fit parent" that parent just wasn't you.


Now, certainly this post is NOT in attempt to sway your opinions, however, here is some educational material worth a read, if you have opinions as have been stated here.

As for Dixie Chick, please read the entire opinion before you go claiming only certain parts are selected to benefit a certain position.


I told you several posts earlier that I am done discussing this topic with you and I wish you the best with your case.
Did you know:

The U.S. Supreme Court said in Troxel vs Granville U.S. (2000) the following:

"The Due Process Clause [of the U.S. Constitution] does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a “better” decision could be made."

Also the U.S. Supreme court said: When a state court issues a legal judgment or opinion based on "assumption" because no written findings of fact were listed - as the judge in this case - state courts have violated Due Process (fundamental fairness) as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Have you seen the two Polls over on the web site about the local judge this case is about?
Posted on another thread 1/17/09 at 4:27am


quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
Judge Ned Suttle hasn’t positively affected this father and his daughters’ life. In a child custody modification case initiated by the mother, Judge Suttle did not properly apply Alabama law to factual evidence presented his court. Overwhelming evidence proved our little girl was well-adjusted and thriving, and the mother was continuing on the course that previously resulted in a Tennessee court order for equal-shared custody. Judge Suttle was reversed by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals for his deliberately wrong decision (Davis v Blackstock Ala Civ App 2007).

Judge Suttle modified custody to the mother with complete knowledge the Tennessee Appeals Court said equal custody is best because ...“This record contains abundant evidence [mother] has refused to adhere to the plain requirements of the parenting plan and that she has purposely and deliberately embarked on a course which, if not stopped, would eventually erode the relationship between [father] and [child]. (Davis vs. Davis, TN 2004)."

Judge Suttle agreed with the mother that our 4 year old daughter needed 35 hours per week in daycare instead being in the personal care of her father. A father the Tennessee trial judge called “loving and nurturing.” With Judge
Suttle’s absolute knowledge the mother unsuccessfully attempted the same reasoning only 15 months earlier in a Tennessee court saying, “Our 18 month-old needed spontaneity of daycare to prepare her for schooling.”

To date, a total 9 learned judges from Tennessee and Alabama with legal costs to father of $30,000 have reviewed specific facts and circumstances to our individual situation. 8 of those 9 judges have issued legal opinions that court ordered equal-physical custody is best based for our little girl. Only Judge Ned Suttle condoned the mother’s judicial forum shopping to limit the father-child relationship.

See legal documents to back up these factual statements at <www.whyjudgesuttle.com>

In my humble opinion retirement is exactly where Ned Suttle needs to be.

I am the father.
Mark Davis
Florence, Alabama
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
I had a statistic on another thread that said something like 10 years ago, 1 of 8 fathers would leave and now it is like 1 of every 2 mothers will leave. Maybe it should no longer be "assumed" that the mother should have immediate custody, but many times I don't think the courts have the funding or resources to truly investigate who would make the better parent so they err on the side of caution and since the mother has the bond of giving birth and carrying the child for 9 months -- they give it to her until proven otherwise...

As a woman, I would take issue with the man taking the child I had carried for 9 months and bonded with etc -- and not giving me custody...especially if he just had an agenda and was trying to prove a point and further that agenda...Now if you can prove me unfit, by all means, go for it, but if you can't prove me an unfit parent -- that I don't provide for my child, that I don't take care of my child's health and mental well-being, that I don't keep my child clothed and fed, that I don't take time to spend with my child, that I don't educate my child and teach tehm to be a good person, that I don't be a mother and love and care for my child -- if you can prove that I neglect or abuse my child -- try it...but if you can't prove that I'm unfit -- if you can't prove that I'm not doing the best I can then you are barking up the wrong tree...Now, if I was a woman that was doing drugs, had a different man in my bed every night and that my child had nothing to eat but crackers and ketchup and had to get themselves up for school etc...then you might have a case, but otherwise, you have to share...you can't get anymore than I can and you certainly won't get the chance to get more....Does the mother in this case do any of those things or NOT do anything of those things? Is she an unfit mother? "you" say the father is not unfit -- how is "he" fit? What does "he" do different that would make him the better parent than the mother?

Again, I ask, why not apply for a new custody arrangement? Nothing is ever written in stone -- until you are dead...but trying to get the court's to change the ruling of the TN and then AL courts is less likely to happen...I think what's really sad is you can't see that I really want you to get what you deserve in the case -- I'd like you to have a wonderful relationship with your child...I just fear that by going the route you are -- you are going to not get what you so desperately want...Sorry I'm not the "atta boy" kind of cheerleader...but I do wish you the best...like I said -- I know several men that are the custodial parent in this area -- it can be done -- so maybe if you asked again and since you finally moved close enough -- the 50/50 could be a possibility...


That is sexist and discrimination against the father. Why should some woman just be able to rip someones child away because they want to fool around? I am happily married to my first wife but I have a friend who this happened to. His wife was fooling around and wanted a divorce. He actually asked her to just stay married and she could see who she wanted just so his kids would not be taken away. She would not and actually acts like the scorned woman when she was the one fooling around. My friend spent 65K just fighting to get joint custody. It should be as simple as this if the father is a fit parent then he gets joint custody. If he does not if he wants custody then no child support or alimony.
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DixieChik:....the agenda in this is my issue...I'll say again, I wish this father all the best...


The public is not ignorant -- just because you want them to be -- that is not the case...Most people never have to deal with family court and MOST don't have the negative issues that you have with them...this is not a case, in my opinion, that merits "public outcry" -- there are far worse things than getting 79 or so days with your kid as opposed to 150+ -- how you make that relationship worth while makes all the difference in the world...Had the court removed all visitation and said you can't see your child at all -- that is something I would see as a great injustice because just as was pointed out before and I won't rehash them again and continue to go in circles.

I pretty sure you would not feel the same if you were the one one getting 79 days.

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×