Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Another go at joint custody initiative

Another go at joint custody initiative

Aug 07, 2007 - 04:02:46 CDT

By DALE WETZEL
Associated Press Writer

North Dakota supporters of joint child custody in divorce cases have drafted a second ballot measure to encourage the practice, nine months after a more complex proposal was defeated at the polls.

It would change state law to require judges to award joint legal and physical custody of children if either parent requests it in a divorce case, if neither parent is considered unfit or dangerous to the child.

Joint physical custody, which refers to where the child lives, is defined as an equal division of the child’s time between the two parents, or “any written time-sharing agreement agreed upon by the parents,” the proposed measure says.

The proposal was submitted to Secretary of State Al Jaeger’s office on Monday. Jaeger has until Aug. 15 to approve the measure for circulation, which will allow its supporters to begin gathering the petition signatures they need to put it on the ballot.

Backers of the initiative will have one year to gather signatures from at least 12,844 eligible North Dakota voters, which is the minimum required to put the question to a statewide vote.

Debora Vaagen, of West Fargo, who is the chairwoman of the initiative campaign, said the measure’s supporters want to put it on the November 2008 ballot.

The measure, which is only two sentences long, is much simpler than a child-custody initiative that North Dakota voters defeated last year, Vaagen said.

Last year’s initiative, while seeking to encourage joint custody arrangements, also limited child-support payments to “the actual cost of providing for the basic needs” of a child. Vaagen, who campaigned for the first measure, said she believed its child-support language increased opposition to it.

“I absolutely think this is better than the last one,” Vaagen said of the new measure. “It is shorter and to the point.”

News > State

Printer friendly version Another go at joint custody initiative

Comments

mom-of-teens wrote on Dec 17, 2007 7:56 PM:

" Families have a way of breaking down on their own without the help of the courts. This initiative doesn't help all children and will harm a certain percentage of them forced to spend time with parents who only want custody to avoid support payments. I for one am not comfortable handing over 1/2 custody to my ex who isn't responsible with them. Is he "unfit" according to this measure; I don't know; unfit is not defined. But one thing I DO know for sure....my ex will pursue joint custody, probably win if this measure passes, stop paying child support, and then NEVER take the kids 1/2 time! His joint will be in name only; lucky him; he will then have the best of both worlds; no kid responsibility and no pay roll deductions! There will be plenty of deadbeats like my ex who will milk this measure to make butter; and if this measure passes; that's exactly what they will do. "

beth wrote on Dec 10, 2007 10:26 PM:

" i am in Mn. reading artical on joint custody - it is costly for all in the long run. Very damaging to the child. i do not have custody anymore. the courts pushed joint. i have no custody legal or physical. infact i have to pay to see my son. Most attorneys like money not the virues that build families. i call it the 3 p's purgery, pay off, past. Look this is where my son is now. He just turned four. opens doors for family break down. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Nov 28, 2007 10:57 AM:

" My ex is the NON-custodial parent, and has no quams about arguing with me or trashing me in FRONT of our kids! Not to mention all the trashing he does when they are with him. By the time they come HOME they are so confused, that I have to do damage control. Why should my kids have to hear that crap on a regular basis, 50% of the time; just because my ex can't "get over it" and get a life? He cheated on ME, and lied to ME, he stole from ME; yet I am the ONE who trys to be fair and CIVIL and he is the one TRASHING ME! That to me is abusive to my kids. Why should they have to be exposed to that MORE! It's ridiculous! "

Mike R wrote on Oct 9, 2007 8:56 PM:

" More on our legal system: I agree. That is why I chose not to have an all out custody battle. My ex made it clear that she was prepared to make it ugly and even went as far as to say that she would make up things if she had to. A couple of people have came on here and said that you can have a full out custody battle and not involve the kids - just don't tell them what is going on. That is a crock. Kids know what it is going on, even if you don't tell them. Kids are not stupid. They pick up on a lot more than you think they do. When 2 parents are out for blood in a custody battle, the kids do suffer and anyone who thinks they don't doesn't have a firm grip on reality. The measure would make 50/50 the norm and would end a lot of the all out "all or nothing" custody battles. You want a law that is in the best intrest of the kids - what could be more in thier intrest than this? "

More On Our Legal System wrote on Oct 9, 2007 12:18 PM:

" Reading these post just makes my earlier point. Look at how those of you with opposing views want to trash each other. If you can do this tom people you don't even know, just imagine what it does to a child whode parents trash each other in a custody battle. Think about it, no matter which side you are on, isn't it better to keep the children safe and feeling loved, or is it better to destroy thier faith in the people who are supposed to love them and want the best for them? "

Sunshine wrote on Oct 8, 2007 8:27 AM:

" To What: Sorry about your husband or (Father of your children) , he doesn't sound too responsible--but as the saying goes: ONE BAD APPLE DON'T SPOIL THE WHOLE BUNCH , GIRL!" Take a look around , fathers are gaining more and more rights in courts as we speak. I hear it all the time now. Watch out girls, things are changing . Give the children the best thing in life--Both Parents "

MIke R wrote on Oct 8, 2007 5:57 AM:

" What: My comments exactly. WHAT are you talking about? Trashing of mothers? Did you read some of the comments? All the trashing of Fathers seems to really jump out at me. I suppose you missed all of that though huh? "

Jim S wrote on Oct 8, 2007 1:46 AM:

" To, What, Can you repeat the part of the things where you talk about the stuff? So how did the DNA results show? Was he or was he not the father of your child? All I got out of it was that he has another child. Whats that got to do with bashing mothers. Mothers where not bashed. Custodial parents, (who for the most usually but not all are mothers.) who use the children against the noncustodial parent are the ones who get called on it. If you think it is bashing and/or you are offended, then you must have something to hide. If it doesn't pertain to your situation then you have nothing to worry about. If you go through and read every post written on this site then you will find that your complaint has been filed and rebuttled many many many times. NEXT!! "

WHAT wrote on Oct 7, 2007 9:53 PM:

" I cant believe the way some of you are trashing mothers. I have provided for my kids without any help from the goverment or the biological father, Until about three years ago . The state finally decided that he should pay some support. He then inturn wanted dna testing and I agreed after ten years . He decided the kids were not his.So we went and did the test as I had nothing to hide, Him on the other hand had another child that was a few months older than our youngest.Hmm , whos wrong here? "

Mike R wrote on Oct 7, 2007 9:20 PM:

" We are from different planets: Sorry that I use women as the bad guys in my examples. I kind of reference what I know from my angle, but I do realize that it is hard on both parents as well as the kids. I know my ex goes through hell when I have the kids for the summer. Right now I also have the kids every week-end but that has nothing to do with her being generous - it is more of a matter of convenience for her right now (not that I am complaining - I get the kids every week-end). Some time in the future that will come to a screaching halt and then the kids routine will be upset once again. I think divorce is one of the cruelest things you can do to another person and to the kids (there are some exceptions like violence, drug use, etc,). To get a divorce just because it felt like the right thing to do at the time is selfish and cruel and it happens more and more in todays society. It just seems like the "in thing" to do nowdays. I think there needs to be some community (or what-ever) involvment into trying to break this trend. It puts families through hell and ruins kid's lives for selfish intrests of one person. Isn't that sad? "

Mike R wrote on Oct 7, 2007 7:46 PM:

" Socks: I think after a year or 2 of 50/50 being the norm and not the exception, judges will be a little more inclined to lean towards that as an option - even in old custody cases that are revisited. As it is now, judges will not even consider 50/50 unless both parents are extremely in favor of it. My only option now would be a full blown all or nothing custody battle, and I know my odds of winning that one. She uses the kids as weapons to make my life hell, but other than that she is a good mother to them. It is hard to get a change of custody unless there are some severe circumstances. If the law is 50/50 maybe judges would be more willing to award joint custody in all cases and I wouldn't have to have an all out war or try to prove her unfit. It would make things so much simpler. "

50/50 wrote on Oct 7, 2007 5:27 PM:

" Ridiculous. I am sorry to hear the father would subject this kind of environment to his own daughter and brag about it. That's just not the way for a decent father to act. Kids really need guidance even more these days . But, please, remember, that not all dads are like him! I have a step daughter , but I will help my husband (who is the best Dad) raise her the best way I know how. I don't know the answer, but dad's deserve 50/50,too . "

We are from different planets wrote on Oct 7, 2007 5:21 PM:

" I would really like to see a support group for women as well as men..... I do not see our community SUPPORTING either sex.... we as parents are going through some VERY rough times, and I think the best thing for the whole family is for both parents to have a place to vent about their situation and their life as changes take place. Rather than Mike crying every night- as well as me (as a Mother), maybe the community could work on supporting single parents so we can deal with one another and learn to be united in some ways just for the children's well being. How painful it is for our kid's to grow up in this kind of situation- let us not forget , that the children also bear too much of the pain themselves. "

Socks wrote on Oct 7, 2007 5:18 PM:

" Mike - So if this law goes into effect, what steps would you have to do to get 50/50? "

RIDICULOUS wrote on Oct 7, 2007 5:10 PM:

" Is this subject ever going to be OVER?? I am all for joint custody ::: IF BOTH PARENTS are LEGALLY "FIT" parents -- and I definitely want to see some drug testing for quite possibly ALL parents. It is ridiculous that my daughter's father tells his friends that his daugher can come to him ANYTIME she wants and he will supply her with any drug of choice. Meanwhile , I am at home trying to teach her that drugs will get her nowhere and that she needs to get an education. Can someone please tell me HOW this man is going to be (fit ) to care for our child 50% of the time when he can't even stay sober for 24 hours?? I really hope people are considering that this MAY NOT be the best thing in all situations??? I pray my daughter DOES NOT have to be subject to this man that has deserted her, but will supply her drugs anytime. Come on people, read the news- do some of these parents actually deserve visitation?? "

Mike R wrote on Oct 6, 2007 3:45 PM:

" Sunshine: No, she isn't all bad. I still see glimpses of the person she used to be every once in a while. I don't expect the person I once knew ever to fully return, but it would be nice if we could at least be civil for the kids sake. That would make every thing so much easier for me and the kids. I think the 50/50 system would have made things easier in my case. She worked with a bunch of divorced women, all of which used the kids as weapons in thier divorces. She said she hated what they did, but when she left, she did the exact same things. She learned from the women she worked with. She knew all the ropes and how to work the system in her favor. I think if that "society of divorced women" would lose the power and the control the system offers them now, many would think twice before considering the divorce in the first place. Just my opinion. "

I hear you wrote on Oct 6, 2007 11:55 AM:

" This will always be an issue, unfortunately. It all comes down to the fact that the parent with custody uses the child to punish the other parent. For those of you that get along with your ex-spouse or partner for the sake of the child...I give you unlimited praise because your child (ren) will be better people for that. "

Sunshine wrote on Oct 6, 2007 8:27 AM:

" Mike- Smile & Hang in there--sounds like your ex isn't all bad. The way you have been talking about her lately, it sounds like you still have feelings for her. Hey, that's wonderful! Always think positive , maybe your ex will come around yet! I love happy endings..It takes 2 to tango! "

MIke R wrote on Oct 6, 2007 8:05 AM:

" Socks and Jim: You are both right. Our divorce was a result of a midlife crisis on her part. When we had the combined birthday party, she had fun and was forced to take a second look at her choice. For all of the good qualities she once had, her worst quality always has been that she was the most stubborn person ever born. She could never admit that she was having second thoughts about something as major as wanting a divorce. So instead she puts the kids through a living nightmare and treats me like garbage because being civil brings back memories. And the system lets her get away with it - that is the part that ticks me off. The self-righteous people who say that I didn't work hard enough on the marraige or I wouldn't be divorced have no clue at all. We held hands everywhere we went. We usually sat on the floor and cuddled when watching tv even when we were at someone else's house. We treated eachother the same as we did when we first started dating right up till the time she left. Lots of people were envious how we still acted like kids on a first date even though we had been married for 15 years. For those of you who think that it takes 2 make a marraige fail, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just lucky. "

Jim S wrote on Oct 5, 2007 8:19 PM:

" Mike, Personally, I think she had to good of a time and she got a glimps of what life was like for the two of you when you guys were first dating and early on in your marriage. I think it scared her because she still loves you but if she gave in, it would show that she was wrong for leaving. This way it makes it easier for her to think she is in the right by being tuff. I remember when you introduced her to all of us at TJ's place. Man, the was a long time ago, hard to beleive but, we were just kids then, that had to have been 21 years ago. Hard to beleive I can remember than far back. LOL "

thinking out loud wrote on Oct 5, 2007 8:07 PM:

" May be joint physical custody isn't the answer to the problem. But, I think it is a step in the right direction. Existing laws are not fair. Society has changed a lot since these laws were written. A larger percentage of families have both parents working outside of the home. Fathers have a more active role in raising their children, in some cases more so then the Moms. Is this true across the board? No. But, we can't just ignore this change in society and family dynamics. My brother is currently going through a divorce and custody dispute with his soon to be ex-wife. Although she is responsible for the dissolve of their marriage, among other things (I won't go into detail); my brother has been told by his lawyer he will be lucky to get anything other than visitation rights. My brother has been a great father, his ex has been a good mother, but she is currently going through a mid-life crisis and it is not the healthiest environment for their daughter. Is there a simple solution to resolve ALL cases? I doubt it, but maybe we shouldn't be looking for a simple solution. Maybe we should be looking out for the best interest of the children . . . case by case. "

Socks wrote on Oct 5, 2007 6:05 PM:

" Mike - Thats sad she cant put the kids first. Sounds like she got cold feet after the event. Instead of dealing with her emotions, she decided to cut you out of future events. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 4, 2007 9:33 PM:

" No, I am not welcome to come along trick or treating. The strange thing is that the events I have tagged along for were a lot of fun for everyone including my ex. Last year, we decided to have one birthday party for my son instead of 2 seperate ones. He was turning 10 and and that is all he wanted for his birthday is to have one party - not 2. We did the one party thing and both kids had a great time. My son said it was the first time since the divorce that he actually felt happy. My ex and I were telling stories about our childhood and she was laughing so hard she almost didn't make it to the bathroom. After the party, we went out to dinner and that went exceptionally well also. For the next couple of days, she text messaged me several times an hour going on and on how well things went. Some of the texts were silly and playful. Then all of a sudden she is mad as heck at me and states that we will NEVER have another joint function again - not even for the kids. She never said why. That is kind of how it is now. The better something goes, the madder she has to be for the next month or so to make up for it. She has to punish me if she has a good time. Cash Cow: It's been 3 years and I am not even close to coming to terms with it. All I want to know is how long before I am able to go to bed at night without crying myself to sleep? "

Jim S wrote on Oct 4, 2007 8:43 PM:

" Is there a support group for men like us? If not we should start one. I know how you all feel and I know there are more dads like us then there are of those who skip out completely. Hopefully this law will change everything for all of us. "

Cash Cow wrote on Oct 4, 2007 11:43 AM:

" Mike R why is it such a situation as if you are looking in the mirror. I went through all of these 10 years ago and I am still going though with it since my daughter is only 10 years old. I have missed a lot. Time does help but it still will not get me to feel good about all the things I missed out in my family. I gave up and now just see them every other weekend. I gave up but my child support is there every month. Now my Kids are getting to the age where they are making the decision to come visit or not. So now I don’t know if there activities have more priority over my visitation rights. There Mom gives me no support as to encourage them to come see me. I just hope some day they will see the whole picture. There mother now tells me what weekends I well see them because of there schedule. I have no summer visitation because I have to work and 2 weeks of vacation that I use just for them. I have not had them, 7 consecutive days in a row for years. The reason Moms a school teacher with summers off and the kids don’t want to be babysat. "

Socks wrote on Oct 4, 2007 8:07 AM:

" To clarify ... I was married once before, but not to the father of my child. I was never married to my kids dad. "

Socks wrote on Oct 4, 2007 8:02 AM:

" Mike - Will the ex let you come along for trick or treating? My ex hubby had the weekend arrangement too, with the mother of his child. When came to Halloween or events, we'd go along. Nothing like a dad, new wife, mom and boyfriend all together. A little uncomfortable at first. That bites if she won't let you take the kids or come along for years until it lands on the weekend again, by then they may be old enough and want to go with their friends. "

50/50 wrote on Oct 3, 2007 11:25 PM:

" To Mike R-- I have seen the hurt my husband goes thru for a few years now. Unless it's his visitation time, he doesn't even get to have her on her birthday, Halloween, nothing! He doesn't even get a call on his Birthday. Of course, she is too young to pick up the phone for herself and dial it. I have seen it all-- all the bitterness, revenge, anger, and vindictiveness to last me a life time. The little girl will figure it all out all on her own very soon. You can't fool the little children. They can and will put it together some day soon! Hang in there Daddy's. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 3, 2007 8:44 PM:

" Some people may wonder why I am so eager to see this law passed and why I seem so bitter at times. Yesterday was hell for me. It was the first time I really looked at the October calander and realized that Halloween was in the middle of the week again. I haven't taken my kids trick or treating for the last 2 years and this will make it 3. I actually started to cry. You can't imagine how little things like that hurt me. Most would never believe the pain I would be willing to endure just to have the opportunity to take my kids out on Halloween night. It is a pain that no parent should have to go through - especially when I have done nothing wrong. My ex doesn't know herself why she felt the need to leave. So unless the holiday falls on a week-end, I have to suffer for doing nothing wrong. That really sucks. Some people come on here blabbing how I need to man up and quit acting like a victim. Funny thing is that those people have never been through anything close to this. They have absolutely no idea how bad it actually feels. They are not capable of understanding. They have never had to look into thier childs crying eyes when you tell them good-bye for the summer. But go ahead and feel free to judge me anyway. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 3, 2007 8:37 PM:

" No new law: I am not Really really trying to make my point. Most of my posts have been in response to completely untruthful and misleading comments made by others to scare people into seeing the law thier way. I don't have a problem with people who disagree, just don't distort the facts or post just plain silliness. I can't stand that and yes I do feel the need to respond to set the record straight in those cases. I am all for your enforcer theory. If this were to become law, I would be the very first in line for it. The "my way or the highway" mentallity is really starting to get old. I might end up with a lump or 2 during the negotiations (at least I am man enough to admit it) but my ex would get beaten unrecognizable. "

NoNewLaw wrote on Oct 3, 2007 8:10 PM:

" Ummm...did you miss the hypothetical part about the big muscle bound mobster with the billy club? I'm guessin' under MY system that Lil' Miss Wifey-poo would change her tune...right after she got done changing the dressings on her head wounds. No courts, just Guido The Smasher. Seriously, though...it CAN be done. It's just a matter of two supposed "adults" actually giving a rat's posterior about their children more than their vengeful motives. Unfortunately, the vast majority of divorcing couples have the combined maturity of a 3 year old when it comes to taking the children into consideration above and beyond their own childish BS. "

Hi Again wrote on Oct 3, 2007 7:23 PM:

" NoNewLaw you are 90% right and I agree with you 100% but the 10% of the matter is that 90% of the divorcees won't do that, so I say change the law so they will!!! "

50/50 wrote on Oct 3, 2007 4:38 PM:

" To: No New Law-- Easier said than done. My husband is going thru this right now and the child is being used by the custodial Mother for revenge! There is absolutely no negotiating with her AT ALL .. It's her way or the highway! If you get her mad about something, she takes away hoidays too--even with a court order! The only ways to settle the arguments is going back to court. She doesn't seem to mind it at all because it's a yearly thing! It's not just the visitation times- It's taking away weeks at a time, because its her way! So, no negotiating with some! "

NoNewLaw! wrote on Oct 3, 2007 3:17 PM:

" I read this story when it was published 2 months ago, and rolled my eyes. Today I decided to do a bit of reading, and found that this is one hell or a hot-button issue...for about 7 bloggers who really really like to try to make their point. There is no need for a LAW to require 50/50 custody. If anything, there should be a very large Italian-American man with 22" forearms and a 50" chest whose middle name is "The" to preside over negotiations between the divorcing couple. (For instance "Vinny The Crusher" or "Tony The Enforcer) Said large imposing mobster-type could stand over the couple with a billy club and whack them upside the head every time they start any sentence with "You always..." or any time it appears either of them would ever use the child(ren) as a weapon of revenge against the other. Keep the stinking lawyers and court system out of it, force the parents to come up with an amicable resolution. I'm sure eventually the pain inflicted by said large mobster-type would be enough to convince them to set aside the vindictiveness and BS. My ex and I didn't need the big scary guy, we worked it out on our own. But most selfish divorcees need him around. "

Billa Bong wrote on Oct 3, 2007 12:20 PM:

" Jim, the answers may make sense to you, but they don't all ring true to me. Just my opinion. "

Jim S wrote on Oct 3, 2007 10:34 AM:

" Billa Bong, You can go back and read through all these posts and your little agruement has already be answered. Many many many times. "

Online Editor wrote on Oct 3, 2007 8:55 AM:

" To Mike R. and other readers: Editing comments is a subjective job. Because of some new job requirements I am not reading comments as often in the evening, but I obviously have to deal with the aftermath if someone else posts a questionable comment. I do not like name calling, it only brings the discussion down, but I am not going to pull the comment down. Hopefully everyone can feel vindicated and we can move back toward the discussion. "

Billa Bong wrote on Oct 3, 2007 8:45 AM:

" It seems impossible to me that people really think they can split a kid 50/50. If you think of everything that goes along with it like the kid being taken from house to house or school to school it seems like the kid is the one who suffers. I don't think this will pass if the voters really think about it. "

Sunshine wrote on Oct 2, 2007 11:06 PM:

" Thanks Mike-- her comments don't make any sense or pertain to any of the issues here! maybe Jim S. will know what her comments are all about. "

Jim S wrote on Oct 2, 2007 10:48 PM:

" I have no idea who St. mom is unless she is attacking my mother. i think someone must have urinated in her cup. She brags on another blog that she is a teacher. Toeveryone she came across as a current, not retired, not a teacher in training or college but an active teacher. She definately seems like she has been caught stealing from our school system. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 2, 2007 8:33 PM:

" Hey what do you know? The online editor is asleep at the wheel again. Nutbags? Sounds like maybe we should just throw out the rules completely because that wench gets to say what-ever she wants to anyway. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 2, 2007 8:24 PM:

" Sunshine: No one can explain the posts made by mamamia. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 2, 2007 7:03 PM:

" Anyone else notice that MamaMia seems like she is the one playing the victim - the victim of her own little hell she calls life? "

Sunshine wrote on Oct 2, 2007 4:53 PM:

" Jim S--who is St. Mom? Explain that comment by MammaMia "

reggie wrote on Oct 2, 2007 4:32 PM:

" whoa "Jim mama mia gets a little upset "

MamaMia wrote on Oct 2, 2007 2:28 PM:

" Oh, another thing Jim S. Please say hi to "St. Mom". Moral character? Decided by whom? Other super know-it-all conservitive right wing nut bags? You make me laugh! "

MamaMia wrote on Oct 2, 2007 1:49 PM:

" Jim S. You need to zip it. You know nothing except what I tell you on my posts. You don't know if I am a current teacher, past, or maybe working toward it. Also, you don't know if I'm full or part time -- only what I say. I might have several days or hours off during the week. You just don't know, do you? So don't make any more of a fool out of yourself than you already have with your many posts and "stifle!" as Archie told Edith. Thanks, and have a nice day, won't you? "

reggie wrote on Oct 2, 2007 1:09 PM:

" Cashflow I know my husband and I had to leave the state to to survive. We then got the c/s increaseYIKES I know what it is like to have to comute. Michael I am on your all side. I believe ther is good and bad in all but the man gets abused and doesnt get looked at properly . "

cash cow wrote on Oct 2, 2007 10:38 AM:

" I might have to move back to ND so i can vote for 50/50. My kids might get to know me as there real dad intead of a Every other weekend candy dad. By the way I moved so I could pay for survival. I comute 320 miles every other weekend. "

Jim S wrote on Oct 2, 2007 10:20 AM:

" Mommamia, I am sicken by your comments; more so you being a school teacher. I am also troubled that you seem to make a lot of your posts during class time. I think this is abuse of my tax dollar. My mother who is a teacher in the Bismarck school system often tells of fellow teachers who really don't have any business being an educator based on moral character. "

MamaMia wrote on Oct 2, 2007 9:48 AM:

" Poor Mike R. You must be so deep in your divorce victimhood that you can't see sarcasm, irony or humor. Too bad, so sad, poor dad. "

Jim S wrote on Oct 1, 2007 10:51 PM:

" You must be referring to Brittney Spears? There are some good mothers out there. I am sure your mom was nice. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 1, 2007 9:49 PM:

" Jim: Would love to go do some fishing, but can't make it. I work pretty much from daylight to dark every day during the week and the week-ends belong to my kids (see what a selfish person I can be). I would love to get up to the tailrace this week-end - walleye, trout, and maybe even a salmon or two - Wow that would be awesome. But nothing is going to come close to watching my son shoot his first rooster on Saturday. He can't hardly sleep at night just thinking about it. I was thinking that I should have someone record the hunt for him, but he said no. He wanted his first hunt to just be a father and son thing with no one else around. How can anyone argue with that? "

Michael wrote on Oct 1, 2007 9:13 PM:

" Children should be stripped away from their mothers at the age of 2 or less to be raised by their fathers, who have MORE FAMILY VALUES THAN ANY TEN WOMEN PUT TOGETHER! "

Hi Again wrote on Oct 1, 2007 8:51 PM:

" I have been gone for two days and all I read is a bunch of slams.......come on people grow up. Mike and Jim you both have made your points don't waste your time with her bull. We are here to set an example of what is right and fair for our children. take the high road don't let them nay-sayers bring you down. go collect signatures NDSPI.ORG. To all of you non supporters, we do not need to defend ourselves to the self serving interest that you have and the only reason you are on here is to protect YOU not your children.... period. What you seem to forget is your children will judge you someday for what you are doing. "

JimS wrote on Oct 1, 2007 8:55 AM:

" Only if that other person wears a size 14 shoe. "

Socks wrote on Oct 1, 2007 8:07 AM:

" Maybe we should all take a step back and wonder what it's like to walk in the other persons shoes. "

Jim S wrote on Oct 1, 2007 12:25 AM:

" Mike, you are either on something, or onto something. LOL You are right, I only bad mouthed when either provoked or when someone came in here and started out their 2 cents by slamming an ex. Which again probably provoked me. I missed debate class in highschool. (did we even have one?) :>P I am so glad it is gonna be so sweet in here now we got wow and nota outta hear. She did say at one time that if the child support was not attached to this measure she would vote for it. I thought we where in broke back pasture the way she would always ride the fence. Sometimes for it, so times not. Sometimes she was married to her ex, sometimes she wasn't. Sometimes she would let him see the kids whenever he wanted, sometimes not. UUGG, Hey wanna go fishing this week sometime? I am thinking either the river or SAK, maybe both. How bout you editor, wanna go pester some eyes? "

Mike R wrote on Sep 30, 2007 10:00 PM:

" Hey Jim. Do you hear mumbling noises? Kind of sounds like a vindictive ex mumbling somthing about needs more money and more attention and all the normal jazz. "

Whatever wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:45 PM:

" Nonfundamentalist---You will be back..LOL "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:38 PM:

" And I think if YOU look back on all the posts, you will see that you and Jim do your share of slaming ONLY those who come on and OPPOSE the initiative. And no, I don't believe either one of you can debate WITHOUT badmouthing someone because so far, you haven't. Nice try, though. As far as me and "my kind", we will be celebrating next November when "your kind" loses. And BELIEVE ME, I am JUST as done talking to you too. The only problem is that I seem to keep hitting a nerve with you both and you can't handle it. Fine, whatever...Not worth my time anymore. See ya... "

Mike R wrote on Sep 30, 2007 8:59 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: I said that you were the worst of the anti's. Now Jim and I may have joined in a time or 2 but if you go back and read all the comments, I think you are gonna find that we did so only when you or your good friend Wow started in first. I think Jim and I are very capable of debating anyone on this topic. It is people who cannot debate that insist on turning this issue into a non-custodial parent slam fest, that are the real problem here. Say what you want to about Jim and I, but come next election, you and your kind will have a new set of rules to play by. Now, Like Jim, I am done talking to you. It is obvious that you have nothing further to add. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 30, 2007 7:24 PM:

" No, I think you and your bossom buddy were the worst, but then again who's REALLY keeping score here? "

Mike R wrote on Sep 30, 2007 6:49 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: You know I wasn't going to bring this up, but what the heck. I think you are right on one thing - it has been going on from BOTH sides. I think the anti side has been doing it much more so, but hey since that is the side you are on I guess it doesn't matter who drew first blood or who does it more? You really carefully choose what you want to defend don't you (gee I think I saw that comment somewhere before). Funny how the person it fits the most is the person who originally said it. By the way, as far as making the attacks personal - other than MamaMia, I think you were the worst one on the site. But I suppose that is OK as long as you are attacking the other side? Can we say Hypocricy boys and girls? "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 30, 2007 10:56 AM:

" Mike R., Mild as in calling someone a common thief? Mild as in accusing someone of being on welfare when they have a legitimate job? Mild as in calling someone a liar, vindictive, and undeserving of their kids JUST because they oppose this measure and because THEY are the ones stepping up to the plate where their kids are concerned? You really carefully select what you choose to defend don't you? Your side has been name calling, criticizing, and bashing custodial parents from the beginning and ALL of a SUDDEN NOW you are worried about personal attacks? The fact that you are arguing the DEGREE of the attacks just proves how ridiculous that is. A personal attack is a personal attack! Just like "clothes are clothes" and "food is food" as SOMEONE said earlier! Mild is in the eye of the attacker, I guess! As long as they are on your side. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 29, 2007 8:43 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: The attacks that have been coming from both sides up till this point have been mild in comparison with what mamamia did. Both sides were getting close to the line, but she is the one who crossed it and she crossed it big, and has done so on other topics as well. She thrives on negativity. Differences aside - look at it for what it is. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 29, 2007 1:09 PM:

" Yes, I think pulling back on the personal attacks is a wonderful idea, seeing as how this has been going on for AWHILE with BOTH sides. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 29, 2007 10:12 AM:

" There have been plenty attacks from BOTH sides; not just one. And yes that's correct, you DO all know who you are! "

Online Editor wrote on Sep 29, 2007 8:16 AM:

" To readers: Mike R. is correct, please pull back the personal attacks. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 29, 2007 12:47 AM:

" My wife did the figures and took what we spend just to make it month to month then added kids. We both are successfull professionals with a combined income of over $150,000 yr. I am divorced because I chose not to be married to my wife because she had an affair. I could have and was willing to work through that for the sake of our child. When the test came back positive that she was pregnant, I couldn't raise the other child. I didn't respond to momamia because it wouldn't matter anyway. There are at least 3 to 5 people that personally know me and know who i am and what my morals are. I do pay a lot of child support and I am not in arrears. I also pay 1/2 of everything. And I mean everything plus all of summer camps, all of basketball camps. No reggie, I will talk to you, there are however two that I am done with and am not going to waste anymore time with. You all kknow who and what they are. "

What? wrote on Sep 28, 2007 10:36 PM:

" It's hard when you spend all your money for rent, food, medical, daycare, etc. You have no money left, your kid is sick need to take him to the doctor, get more meds, miss work (without pay). Dig out the charge card so the kid can get what he needs. I'm in a big debt hole, because my ex paid what he wanted when he felt like it. Quickly learned don't count on him. It's easy to say .. the kids don't cost much extra, when your not struggling to make ends meet. $1800 is way to much. But to say $100-$300 is a crock. If have two kids under 5 yrs, daycare runs $700-$800 a month. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 28, 2007 10:26 PM:

" MamaMia: The online editor will not publish the name I would like to call you. Trust me it fits. I have to wonder though if the online editor is asleep or not. Your attack on Jim S is personal. You are attacking him personally (his failed marraige) and not his ideas. I thought that was not allowed. Hey online Editor - lets all play by the same rules. If she gets to post her garbage, then have the decency to let me respond to her. By the way MamaMia, the fact that you are still in your first marraige doesn't make you better than anyone else. It makes you lucky. Your husband could leave you in a heartbeat and all your self-righteousness couldn't stop it. With your holier than thou attitude, I hope he does leave you. If you nag him as much as you nag on these message boards, he must be deaf by now. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 28, 2007 5:44 PM:

" YES, there are deadbeat moms out there too! Good for everyone to know that. Some people on this board have a nasty habit of bashing custodial moms when not all custodial parents are MOMS, as you just mentioned! So glad you brought that up so I didn't have to again. And not ALL custodial moms are a part of the vindictive ex club. EVERYONE has their own agenda on this one! It's just that some people on this board don't want to HEAR both sides, only their own. "

reggie wrote on Sep 28, 2007 4:41 PM:

" Fund the reason why it always comes back to c/s is because that is what happens even if you go to court. Why does my brother in law have 50-50 custody but he still has to pay c/s That is not right . He has the kids 90% of the time. Also you beat up on the dead beat dads. Some of these dads are not dead beets but the ex's make it so hard for them to see or talk to their kids they giveUP. So that is why they just dont come around. dont get me wrong there are dead beat dads and DEAD BEAT MOMS TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 28, 2007 2:56 PM:

" I make sure my kids are taken care of financially, so sue me. My kids are not spoiled and they DO have character; because they are SECURE in knowing at least ONE of their parents is there for them. Doesn't make me a bad parent. And it's absolutely ridiculous to think that $100 a month extra is enough to raise a child. All the stats you all claim to know, and you don't know THAT! WHATEVER.... at any rate what someone said is this isn't about child support, but for SOME reason that is the only thing supporters of this thing seem to always want to talk about. Wonder why... "

reggie wrote on Sep 28, 2007 2:11 PM:

" Jim S I hope I am not one that you are not talking to anymore. "

MamaMia wrote on Sep 28, 2007 11:11 AM:

" Jim S. Nope, my 1st marriage is still intact, unlike yours. So sad, poor dad. "

wow wrote on Sep 28, 2007 11:06 AM:

" to LJ this will not really change anything just clog up the courts and lawyers will make alot of money. THE POINT IS THE JUDGES/COURTS need a wake up call and this will no do it. The law now is not perfect but neither is the proposed bill neither works perfect but at least with the current one you have the ability to do what the the proposed bill states some people are not willing to put forth the effort it takes to push for 50/50. To make it basically mandatory is ridiculous. A woman I knew was put in this position in another state and even though she pushed for sole custody she ended with 50/50 and two months later her husband killed himself and their 2 children, this was done because their state automatically give 50/50 if it is requested and since there was no documentation of his stability, he could convince anyone of anything she lost her children so no I do not believe that it being automatic if requested is a good idea. Too bad that some people do not really think of the children. If the kids are old enough to put together a sentence a court should hear what they have to say because sometimes they tend to tell more about a situation then some parents would like. In theory it sounds good but in practice 50/50 has problems. "

50/50 wrote on Sep 28, 2007 11:01 AM:

" Gosh Jim--You disappointed me! I thought for sure you would come back with something different for MamaMia! LOL .. Can't figure out why she would think you are a Dead-Beat Dad. How Rude! "

Jim S wrote on Sep 28, 2007 9:58 AM:

" MomaMia, Are you a deadbeat mom? "

Jim S wrote on Sep 28, 2007 9:57 AM:

" We are all parents and we shouldn't have to ask anyone how to raise a child. But in regards to the question; if you take the kid to applebees everyday for meals and I feed our kids at home everyday because I don't have the money to go out, doesn't matter, we both are feeding our child. Altho the home cooked meals will be healthier even tho applebees can be funner. You buy our child designer jeans and I buy route 66, who cares they are both clothing. This should be considered 50/50. By being parents we are responsible to our kids to give them the basics; food, clothes, a roof and an education. Whether it be generic or namebrand it is all the same. Roof is a roof, food is food and clothes are clothes. "

MamaMia wrote on Sep 28, 2007 8:37 AM:

" Jim, are you one a them there dead beat dads? "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 28, 2007 7:34 AM:

" Jim im with you.......the more you get the more you spend, need vs. want. Divorce is a life style change, and that means everyone. That whole arguement about sustaining a standard of living is bull. If a parent loses a job during marriage and has to sell the house there is going to be a lifestyle change, and the children are moving toooo!, lifestyle change!!!!When the roof is leaking and needs to be fixed oohhh my god the kids might have to eat family brand food or where that winter coat one more year. College? Ha, nobody else paid for mine, or my first car. I bought most of my own clothes because my parents thought they were to expensive I wanted them I didn't need them. Extra activities? right! These kids are spoiled these days, and I do mean all of them. Get over it! they will survive, they are not china and they won't melt. They might ....build a little character. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 28, 2007 6:24 AM:

" Jim: I guess I never actually sat down and put a pencil to it to see how much more it costs, but I do know one thing - When the kids are with me for the summer, I don't really notice that it costs me any more than when I don't have them. YOu are right when you say - How much food, shampoo, and clothes do the kids need in a month? Of course when there are medical bills, Insurance, School fees, and things it can add up - but those are things that I pay half of anyway - over and above what I pay in child support. I cannot believe it when some custodial parents claim that they get $500 a month in child support and it doesn't come close to half the cost of raising 2 kids. I have to wonder - what do they feed those kids? Do they wash clothes or just buy new ones all the time? I don't believe that it costs that much more in electricity and food. I also don't think that you can count the increas in the number of bedrooms. Sure my ex (custodial parent) needs a 3 bedroom apartment, but I also need a 3 bedroom home so the kids have somewhere to be when they are with me. We both need 3 bedrooms, So why does she get to scream about the cost of the 2 extra bedrooms but I don't? Notafundamentalist: the fact that you live in a $900/month apartment does NOT make it a necessity. It is a choice. I am not saying that you don't deserve to live there or that there is anything wrong with living where you do. Just pointing out that it is your choice to live there. And like I said, custodial or non-custodial parent, would you still not have to have 3 bedrooms anyway? "

another X wrote on Sep 28, 2007 1:02 AM:

" Yes...but how do you raise a child 50/50 when your X lives so high off the hog.. doesn't care if you have $1 to your name as long as she can hand the child money for McD so she doesn't have to cook or spend time with them? This has to be 2 people that can reasonably agree on clothing prices, activities...you have to be able to live within your means...and some X's can't do that. Then what? "

Jim S wrote on Sep 27, 2007 11:10 PM:

" Mike, since I am done talking to certain people on here, I will talk to you. This shouldn't have anything to do with CS as there should be none when custody is split 50/50. Even with the way things are now where in most cases 50/50 is the exception, if all kid nesessities are split, how much does it cost to raise a child? Both parents need to have all the nessesities of daily life, so how much extra does it cost? If a child eats $100 of food in a month on top of what the family would eat without the kid, is that close? So if that child spends on average of 1 week per month at the non-custodial parents house, is $75 enuff? Our 18 yo obviously costs as much to feed as it costs me but our 18 month old who eats what we eat costs; nothing more. Not every meal has to be a happy meal from mickie D's either. How many pairs of pants and shirts does a child need to be boughten every month? My wife and i just figured it out that it cost us about $100 month extra to raise our 4 kids. That is up and above the nessesities. If they were all with us full time, it might cost us about $300 more per month. with that being said, don't say one can't get by on $100 per month. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 27, 2007 10:31 PM:

" Mike R., I apologize for the previous comment; it was harsh and unnecessary. I'm just frustrated when people act like raising kids without the help of the other parent is such a cake walk; it's not. My ex wouldn't DREAM of sharing half of the expenses; that would be too much responsibility on his part; not BADmouthing him either; just a fact. The cost of a three bedroom apartment (which I am in right NOW) in my building is $900 a month. The cost of a two bedroom is between $750-800. That's $100-150 dollar difference. The cost of food for me alone runs me about $50 bucks a week. The cost with my kids full time (including school lunch money and snacks) about $150 a week. A difference of $100 bucks a week. I spend more on gas to drive them around, more on toilet paper, more on laundry soap, not to MENTION stain remover, more on shampoo, more on clothes, etc etc etc. My ex would never survive if he had to do all of that and still have money for all of his toys. People don't take any of that into account when determining the cost of raising kids. And forget about saving for college, that's extra yet. "

MIke R wrote on Sep 27, 2007 10:14 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: I have said it before and I will say it again: Anyone who spends $1,800 on thier kids a month does not have a firm grip on reality when it comes to need versus want. Maybe you are wealthy and money is no object for you. I can tell you for an absolute FACT that most of the kids in this world are raised on significantly less than that amount and do just fine. As far as my ex, I am not punishing anyone for what she did. I was just looking for a rational answer. Like Jim S has said time and time again - I must have struck a nerve with you or something. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 27, 2007 10:01 PM:

" As far as the $1800 a month thing goes, that INCLUDES all the food, medical, extra cirricular, and everything else other than housing that I PAY for MY kids that my ex DOESN'T! And Mike R, I realize you are bitter about your ex leaving you and everything, but news flash for you. People DON'T just wake up one day and say "oh gee, I think I'll get a DIVORCE today, sounds like FUN!" She was obviously unhappy for some reason and her inability to communicate with you about it or stay and work it out isn't my problem or the problem of all the other custodial parents in the world. Don't punish the rest of us for what your ex did. Let her be someone else's problem not yours, and get over it. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 27, 2007 9:23 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: I have tried it and I do know first hand that a hundred bucks isn't going to cut it when it comes to the cost of raising the kids. But I also know that it isn't as bad as some custodial parents would like us to believe. For example, the price difference between a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment is not really that much. The amount of extra energy to heat a 3 bedroom as opposed to a 1 or 2 bedroom house is minimal. The amount of electricity to run the fridge, freezer, and air conditioner shouldn't change with or without kids. Lights are minimal. If you shop smart, you can feed 2 or 3 people for almost the same price as you you can feed 1. There are extra expenses, but not anywere near what some custodial parents would like us to believe. Hey, if it is so expensive, why not try shared parenting and let the other parent pick up half the tab? Sounds like it would be a win/win situation to me. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 27, 2007 8:27 PM:

" And no, that doesn't necessarily MEAN you should pay $1800 a month, but no one should pay a measley 100 or 200 either; that doesn't even cover a THIRD of what kids cost. Try it fulltime sometime and maybe you will know that. "

nonfundamentalist wrote on Sep 27, 2007 8:23 PM:

" Reggi, your theory is absolutely fabulous, and NO money does not buy love, but then again, love doesn't pay the BILLS, does it? And we need housing and groceries etc in spite of the kids, BUT we need a H*LL of a lot MORE groceries etc when we have the kids FULLTIME!! I AGREE, with one thing you said. IF you can't take care of your kids, then you shouldn't have them. I completely agree. And I say that to all the deadbeat parents out there who can't or won't take care of their kids. Mike R., I also concur with what you said, the one that LEAVES should be the noncustodial parent! EXACTLY how it is in my case now, so I guess I have NOTHING to worry about! Excellent! "

Mike R wrote on Sep 27, 2007 8:14 PM:

" maybe this is a little off the track but here goes anyway. Getting back to the "no fault" divorce CROCK of garbage and the fact that someone can just walk away from thier family because they feel like it at the time; I have noticed something. My ex was middle-aged and going back to school - kind of a mid-life identity crisis thing. For no reason, she decided one day that she wanted a divorce. Nothing going on that led up to it. No warning signs. Just woke up one day and wanted to try something else. I know a couple dozen divorced men with the exact same story. I know plenty of men who went back to school in mid-life and never felt the urge to get divorced. This kind of seems to be a modern day woman thing. Can anyone explain this to me? What is it about going back to school (even though they already have a degree) and sudden divorce that go hand in hand? Before anyone answers - My ex did not meet someone in college, so that is not the answer. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 27, 2007 8:08 PM:

" I don't care who you are or where you live. NO ONE can INTELLIGENTLY argue that there kids cost them more than $1,800 a month. If you spend that amount on your kids in a month, I can assure you that well over half of it was spent frivilously. It is those people who think that they need $1,800 a month to raise thier kids that truely are the ones opposed to any changes in the law. I know I can raise both my kids on my own with no help from anyone and give them all the little extras as well on about half that amount - EASILY. I say, If it costs so much to raise the kids, give them to the ex and see how much it costs him. I bet it won't be $1,800 a month. "

reggi wrote on Sep 27, 2007 3:38 PM:

" I was reading WOW comment. I do NOT Belive that it takes 1800.00 dollars a month to pay for a child support. I Know this. That is highway robbery. I have to have a place to live regardless of kids. I have to have veh to drive regardless of kids. I have to have grocery's regardless of kids. That is wrong. Again. If you cant support them you dont derserve them. My nineteen yr old just moved in with us now because he is old enough to make up his own mind. The child was taught nothing. He is like a two yr old in the home. His mother did not teach him hygenie or picking up after himself or respect for anything. The thing kids need the most it teaching and love. Money can't buy love. I look now back at how many times we had to tell the boys no because we didn't have the money because we had to pay 1800.00 monthly. Then they would come to see us in RAGS. Because her excuse was no money. So who would go buy shoes coats ect. ME. So then we would have the money to do things with them. BUT I see now who they want ... Their FATHER MY point made "

Jim S wrote on Sep 26, 2007 8:36 PM:

" I hate to say this but I will anyway. It has been stated on here many times that if the truth hurts or if someone gets so defensive, they are hiding something or the truth hurts. Experience tells me that WOW stands to lose a lot if she loses full custody. It is so refreshing to know that there are more and more people speakng out against the current ill law. Time for change. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 26, 2007 7:45 PM:

" Wow: You are wrong again as usual, but I do have to STRONGLY AGREE with one point of yours. Unless there are grounds for the divorce (violence, cheating, etc) the one who leaves should be the non-custodial parent. The one who leaves without reason (just because I want to is NOT a valid reason) should be forced to leave the entire family. That person (man or woman) should not be able to just walk away and take the entire family out from under the other person. The entire concept of the "no fault" divorce is a huge CROCK. It is harder to get out of a cell phone contract than a marraige with kids involved. If that isn't about the stupidest thing I ever heard of. And we wonder why the country is going to hell? "

50/50 wrote on Sep 26, 2007 5:18 PM:

" to LJ: Thanks for saying it for me! Wow --!!! Now is the time to go ahead and fix the problems for the children. "

LJ wrote on Sep 26, 2007 3:27 PM:

" To WOW. I cannot believe what I just read. You are saying that if we cannot make something perfect then we should just leave it as is. We have been working on perfecting transportation ever since the wheel was invented. We would still be in the Stone Age if we applied your logic. This measure is not intended to make divorce and custody perfect, just make the lives of the children better. If the byproduct of this measure is less money spent on lawyers that is just icing on the cake. "

wow wrote on Sep 26, 2007 1:47 PM:

" to NdOkie Obviously if the parents relationship is amicable and they agreed to these things when they went to court then it has NOTHING to do with your state having joint custody. The same here if parents went into court and worked out an arrangement they would get it like some of the families I know. That is something several people on this forum do not get that it is possible to get joint custody when going into court. Maybe the law shoud change about divorce, The person who files it has to pay the child support and get just visitation UNLESS the reason was violence in the home. Gee maybe there would be less divorce and then these kids would stay with both parents. When you go to court now you have the right to fight for 50/50 or more visitation, etc. The excuse I have heard is I didn't want to drag my kids through that BULL your kids are not in that court room and they do not have to know what went on unless you tell them. This garbage about mothers spending money on themselves gee doubt it because most of the people I know that get child support both MEN AND WOMEN do not receive even a quarter of what it costs to raise a child. None of them are able to take these imaginary vacations and buy expensive cars as several of you want to claim. If there are so many of them then why hasn't something been done about it by the non custodial parent? This is ridiculous because obviously this will not fix the problem just as the current law isn't perfect neither is your proposed one so why bother until you can bring something that will fix it all. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 26, 2007 1:57 AM:

" Hi Again is right, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE go to the website listed below and help us get some signatures. We need everyone to help, it doesn't matter if you get one signature or 100. Everyone helps, every 1 helps, every 1 counts. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 26, 2007 1:53 AM:

" Yes, it makes no difference. Parent is a parent, it takes two and a child deserves BOTH!!!! "

bubbles wrote on Sep 25, 2007 11:32 PM:

" As I sit here and read most of these comments. I can see both sides of the fence. I see my ex husband who is struggling to make things work financially with his girlfriend by working two jobs. Me and my ex both asked the state for a reduction. To this day their has not been a reduction in his support. I just got remarried in June. I struggle to get my ex husband to come pick up the girls to take them when he is off work. I have helped my ex husband by paying off the trailer that her lives in. I have given him my van so that he can get back and forth to work. I have even filled it with gas. I have offered to pay for the testing that he needs to get a better job in corrections again. I would love to see him spend more time with our girls but his girlfriend does not like them. In our divorce papers it has that he can see the kids any time that he wants we don't have sent visitaion. and that was the way we wanted it. Not to many divorce couples actually get along with their exes but I can proudly hold my head high and say I do, and that I will help in in anyway that I can. "

50/50 wrote on Sep 25, 2007 3:24 PM:

" To Soldier: thanks, that's what I thought, but not sure. It's only fair that it is dealt with that way. I can't wait for the measure to get on the ballot next November. It will get my vote! "

Soldier wrote on Sep 25, 2007 2:42 PM:

" In regards to the measure and unmarried parents. I believe that it would be the exact same. The only difference is no divorce. If either parent thinks they will have full custody and collect child support, court action is needed. At which time joint custody can be asked for and awarded under this measure. "

50/50 wrote on Sep 25, 2007 11:17 AM:

" Jim s: I thought of that same question..How will it work if the parents were never married? I maybe missed the post on it if it was before "

Socks wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:45 AM:

" Hi Jim S. - In regards to your post at Sep 24, 2007 7:28 PM - How would it be for the unmarried parents? Thanks "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 25, 2007 7:16 AM:

" To A New Question we need all of the supporters we can get go to NDSPI.ORG and volunteer to get signatures. The faster we get signatures the more time we have to educate and advertise. "

50/50 wrote on Sep 24, 2007 9:08 PM:

" I just came across the proverb by Sigmund Freud-- "I cannot think of any need we need in childhood as strong as the need for a Father's protection" . I really think both parents should start on even ground. No one parent should have the advantage when going into court and establishing primary custody because of gender. They need both parents. A good Mom should realize this and help the situation for the best interest of the child. They need Daddy's,too. Their children will have a better balance in life. I will vote for this measure to do more to make sure both parents are fully involved in raising the child.. particularly fathers… "

Jim S wrote on Sep 24, 2007 7:30 PM:

" Good posts today! "

Jim S wrote on Sep 24, 2007 7:28 PM:

" Great question, It depends on your circumstance. If you are divorced prior to the passage of this law, you will need to get it back into court and plead your case. If you get divorced after this law passes, you sould or you better get it right away unless something comes up that states on of the parents has a history of neglect or abuse. "

More on Our Legal System wrote on Sep 24, 2007 10:42 AM:

" The ND Bar opposes this initiative. What a surprise!!! facing the loss of huge legal fees derived from long drawn out custody battles. And the Courts enforing the law??? From Rugby forgot to include District Judges making rulings and going on the record that they made the ruling based on thier personal knowledge of the character of the attorney from personal experiences. A clear violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, but it happens all the time up here. As the child of a bitter divorce and a custody battle that raged on for over ten years, I can speak from experience, the only one that suffers iws the child. Growing up unloved and confused, forced to repeatedly make a choice between two parents tht I loved, it completely turned me off from wanting to marry or have children out of fear of a similiar situation happening in my adult life.. Fortunately I met a woman who changed that fear. This is a good initiative that provides love and security to the ones that matter most: the kids!!!! hate you ex-spouse if you want, but don't screw up your kids lives in the process. "

From Rugby wrote on Sep 24, 2007 9:48 AM:

" To: A New Question: Good question. There are serious errors in judgement and following the law in our District Courts. Our Judges, being elected, are more interested in political clout than in the law. This is clearly evident in many many cases - including the ND Supreme Court which has - numerous times - decided a child should stay in custody even though they are no longer unruly or deprived because "they might become unruly (or deprived) under other circumstances". The law is very clear yet even the ND Supreme Court ignores the law. Try to appeal a case where you have been denied your right to testify, you have presented clear evidence of perjury - and the ND Supreme Court for it's lack of being able to make a solid decision - uses it's "discretionary power" to just accept the ruling rather than make a true ruling and risk political ramifications "

A new question, wrote on Sep 24, 2007 8:24 AM:

" Folks, I have been following this topic since last year and now I have a question for the organizers. If this passes, what will parents have to do to be awarded 50/50? The current system is broke and needs to be fixed. Based on the way my girlfriend's case was handled here in Bismarck, you now have a new volunteer to fight to change this winner take all system that we currently have in place. I can't believe what a custodial parent can get away with; such as documented allegations of neglect and perjury and the court just lets them off without so much as a hearing. Justice was not served in Bismarck last Friday. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 23, 2007 5:02 PM:

" Jim: You are one of the least arrogant and non-pretensious people I know. You (just like me) cannot sit there and allow someone to make grossly untrue statements without setting the record straight. I don't see anything wrong with that. If there were more people in the world like us, we wouldn't have all the hidden political agendas that everyone seems to have these days. You and I are very clear and straight forward about why we support this measure. Others like to dance around the issue and make somewhat misleading statements to give an edge to their opinion. That is what I think is wrong. "

50/50 wrote on Sep 23, 2007 12:11 PM:

" To: Not o Different--I agree when you say the custodial parent should not tell you how to cook or in fact what to do. When they are in your care-"just do what you know is best for the child to protect them" .When my stepdaughter started visitations, my husband got 2 pages on what to do and what not to do. Including what soaps she uses, when to clean the bedding, etc. It was utterly ridiculous!! Just remember that it is supposed to be what is "best for the child" - as opposed to "what's best for me"!! Just because my husband does things one way and differently from the custodial mother-- Doesn't make his way wrong!!! "

Jim S wrote on Sep 22, 2007 9:20 PM:

" Mike, you have known me for...22 years or so, am I arrogant? "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 22, 2007 10:37 AM:

" Jim, robbing my KIDS of what exactly!?? The opportunity to be neglected by their dad?? Oh oh, I see! I am the BAD guy because I STEPPED up to the plate while he abandoned them! So BE it then! As far as being a common criminal goes, the criminals are the deadbeats out there who abandon their kids, financially, emotionally, and physically! NOT the parents who stick around and RAISE them!! As far as the nice guy thing, that is open for debate, as far as I'm concerned. You are arrogant from what I have heard! And to "HIGH" again, no need for ME to lick my "wounds", YOU will be licking yours next November. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 22, 2007 8:57 AM:

" Oh fund, in the publics eyes, I am quite credible. I make a very nice living in public speaking. I hold and speak at over 200 seminars a year. I am a nice guy, just not to people like you. people like you are nothing more than a common criminal. You rob the system, you rob your X and most of all, you rob your kids. "

NdOkie wrote on Sep 22, 2007 8:53 AM:

" Goodness! Reading the most recently posted comments above is like reading notes being passed between a bunch of junior high kids! For pete's sake, will you listen to yourselves. Is this the way supposedly mature, healthy adults think and act? Do you think your kids admire ya'll for being ugly and as unreasonably demanding towards their other parent? Get over it, already. Be responsible. Get help. I strongly recommend a program called Beginning Experience. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 22, 2007 8:47 AM:

" Hi, Hi again, Naw, I like to sit here and pick on the less fortunate. Actually, I was out most of the week and did get some signature. I think I have my whole town signed up; about 350 signatures or so. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 22, 2007 8:37 AM:

" Jim, I never said I was married to the FATHER of my kids! Nice to know you have so much time on your hands to try and dig up dirt on me instead of doing what you CLAIM you are so passionate about! You don't have anymore credibility here than I do; you are NOT a good one to represent the other side. If they want this bill to fly, I HOPE they don't pick YOU for their spokesperson! You are rude, biased, sexist, sarcastic, and just an overall jerk. Good LUCK! "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 22, 2007 7:50 AM:

" Jim you are funny.......Fund looks like you better go lick your wounds....I would much rather see you people out collecting signatures than sitting here arguing with Fund. Go to NDSPI.ORG help us get this passed "

Jim S wrote on Sep 21, 2007 6:20 PM:

" Notafundlementalist, I hate to say this but................. you are a dang liar. When you came on here all you did, (and still do) bash your ex. You have stated numerous times that you wish he would stay away. You were worried about him coming back and taking you back to court to get visitation. We have all said this before and now I am saying it again. Your story changes so much, every friggin time; just depends on who is on. You are full of it. here is your actual first post where you stated you were married but now you say you aren't, "notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 11, 2007 9:49 PM: " To Hi again, GOSH maybe I WOULD still be married if my husband hadn't CHEATED on me! Keep your holier than thou opinions off this board. You have no right to judge people who are divorced. There are plenty of good reasons out there to choose from and you obviously have never been, so don't know what you are talking about, so stick to the issue of shared custody. " You are funny. I will post more to prove my point. BUSTED "

reggie wrote on Sep 21, 2007 5:55 PM:

" To not to different. You are so right about the veh thing. When we went back to fight for custody of our youngest son. I am the step mother...... I owned a 2002 ford f350 the ex's lawyer went out and took pics of the truck and used it in court. Also the ex everytime we had something different she did the same thing. Yet is ok for them to have new veh and go on vacations ect. I know how you feel. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 21, 2007 5:20 PM:

" To Jim and Reggie, believe it or not if you want to; I don't really care at this point, but I keep all of my receipts and I can ADD. To not so different, I don't disagree with you. Your situation is one where you should have joint custody; you are obviously stepping up to the plate for your kids; unfortunately not all of them do. I was offered a job out of state and turned it down because I didn't want the kids to be away from their dad; alot of good it did now since he never spends time with them anyway. I would love for him to step up to the plate and share some parenting responsibilities with me, but I have accepted the fact that it probably won't happen in my lifetime. Yes, you are entitled to a break and entitled to a life of your own; I'm not disputing that. I just can't waste time in court battles with my ex for him to simply get joint custody and then not utilize it except on paper. I don't have the time, the patience, or the emotional fortitude. "

Not so different wrote on Sep 21, 2007 3:30 PM:

" To "Notafundamentalist"... The ironic thing is if you asked me (as a father who has visitation only) my wishes are not so different from yours. I 've never missed a support payment and,child support has never been the issue. I pay for alot of other things for the kids that I'm not obligated to pay for because I love my kids. Despite this...when I bought a different vehicle two years ago (the other one was 14 yo) my ex immediately accused me of being greedy and selfish - how dare I now drive a 4 yo vehicle...was I hiding income from her? When my buddy gave me a puppy from a litter his hunting dog had, my ex immediately assumed I'd spent hundreds of dollars buying the pup and threatened to take me back to court for more child support. I've never accused her of misusing the child support I pay - so why do I feel like my every financial transaction is subject to scrutiny? I work hard to take care of my obligations, am I not entitled to a life also? I'd like for custodial parents to understand that some of us out here really love our children and just want to be part of their lives. Really. I'd like for custodial parents who decide to relocate hundreds of miles away from the noncustodial parent to stop and think about "what's best for the childern" as opposed to "what's best for me". I'd like for custodial parents to acknowledge that just because the noncustodial parent doesn't do things exactly the way she does, doesn't mean it's wrong. I get chewed out because I don't make spagetti sauce the same way she does when the kids are with me! It's only spagetti! You might laugh, but this is reality for some of us (10 years post divorce)! If people could just learn to show a little respect and try to get along we wouldn't be having this debate...but it takes two... "

reggie wrote on Sep 21, 2007 11:34 AM:

" Jim S I agree with you. You say it well I wish my mom could have spent that kind of money on me in one month .... "

reggie wrote on Sep 21, 2007 11:03 AM:

" Fund You sure get upset it must be hitting home with you. I am not going to sit and argue. Also someone said it. If the shoe fits were it. I know my stuff. I am not bitter to what is fair only to what is not fair. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 21, 2007 9:25 AM:

" 50/50, well said, thats what we have been saying all along. Notafundlementaist always blows up at us for saying that. I am not sure if she is being hurt by the truth or if she is looking for a medal. Maybe a chest to pin it on? $1,878.97 on your kids in one month? ummmmm kkkkk whatever "

Jim S wrote on Sep 21, 2007 9:20 AM:

" Thank you ND OKIE for your valuable contribution. Take note all, another instance of proof that shared parenting does work. "

50/50 wrote on Sep 21, 2007 9:09 AM:

" To Nonfundamentalist: I think the majority of the people are talking about the Dead-Beat Moms out there! Not all Mothers are like that, and I know it. Don't feel guilty if you are not one of those dead-beat Moms! They know who they are--"If the shoe fits--wear it! "

NdOkie wrote on Sep 21, 2007 8:11 AM:

" We have joint custody guidelines here in Oklahoma, and thank goodness we do! One set of granddaughters live with both their parents, alternating week by week. Both parents live within a mile of each other, and for the sake of the girls have been able to keep their relationship amicable, like mature adults. My other granddaughter benefits from the joint custody arrangement her parents worked out in that her daddy had remained involved in her upbringing and even comes to stay with her when her mother has to travel on business. She also gets to go to his home out of state on longer and more frequent visits. Again, the parents' relationship remains amicable and mature. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 21, 2007 7:36 AM:

" Mike R, I think you ask some fair questions. Here's what I would like from noncustodial parents. I would like them to not assume that all custodial parents are money grubbing and spend child support on trips to the Bahamas when SOME of us actually put the money toward school lunches and stuff the kids need. I would like noncustodial parents to worry about their own kids and leave mine out of their arguments for this measure. My kids are just fine. They see their dad when HE decides to take them; and of course they are more than happy to go when HE decides he WANTS them. You want to feel sorry for my kids? Fine. Feel sorry for them because their dad is such a jerk, not because their mom is. I would like noncustodial parents to not assume that this is the BEST solution in all situations and to TRY with all their MIGHT to see the other side of things; the side where this is NOT going to be the best. At least acknowledge that this is not right in every single case OR that the roadblock is ALWAYS the CUSTODIAL parent. I feel that my ex is unfit for joint custody. I have seen things and been told things by the kids. But I don't have photographic die hard blessed by the pope proof; that to me is an issue; and an opportunity for an opportunist like my ex to get joint custody; which for him would be on paper only. I would as USUAL pick up his slack. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 20, 2007 10:25 PM:

" Jim: You are right. That is the norm. But I have to ask who thought up this system? All we here is talk about deadbeat dads, how fathers need to be more involved in thier kids lives, how fathers need to step up to the plate. But the system rarely awards fathers custody. The system as it is now is set up so many fathers are nothing more than occasional visitors to the kids and not a true father (in many cases not by the fathers choice). How are fathers supposed to be more involved with thier kids when the system is so hell bent against the 50/50 custody issue? How are father supposed to step up to the plate like all the custodial parents are saying we should, when many of those same custodial parents are going to vote against this measure? What do you custodial parents really want from us? I would like to know. It seems that no matter what we do, it is wrong. We are supposed to be more involved, but you won't let us be because we have limited visitation. You want us to pay half (or more) of everything, but you don't want to share custody. You want us to be better parents, but you condemn everything we do. You want equal treatment under the law but are just fine with the custody laws slanted in your favor. Did I miss anything? "

Socks wrote on Sep 20, 2007 10:06 PM:

" I think if you were ever married, it seems the child support and extras is higher. I was never married. He paid a set amount, I carried the health insurance and paid all medical, extras etc. The set amount rarely covered the daycare cost, but was blessed to get that. Not sure if that's the case with most unmarried folks, but was for me. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 20, 2007 8:53 PM:

" I would be REALLY interested to see the stats on custodial parents who actually spend child support on themselves and not the kids. Funny.....I know NO ONE like that...wonder where they are all hiding. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 20, 2007 7:11 PM:

" To Reggie, for your info... I spent $1,878.97 on the kids last month, NOT including housing my ex spent $213.41 (Child support)! I'm not exactly digging in his pockets now am I ?? I ALSO KNOW from MY experience that not ALL men are perfect and just getting a raw deal. If you don't like custodial parents, then you are the one who is bitter not me. I just think if my ex only wants the kids to get out of paying child support that is not right. If he wants the kids half time someday (which he doesn't now) then fine; but he will have to help with the expenses when they are with him. He is not going to get the luxury of coming to me for money all the time when the kids are with him to pay for their expenses or having me send money with the kids for things they want and then TAKING the money AWAY from them to put gas in his car because the kids "OWE HIM"!!. My ex is a scumbag and takes whatever he can from people, even his kids! Not exactly a good candidate for joint custody, but he will TRY anyway and waste everyone's time, including mine... "

50/50 wrote on Sep 20, 2007 7:06 PM:

" I agree with Jim s-- Child support probably goes for "her" new vehicle, and trips out of state, new clothes for "Her", The money is not going for the child. It is being spent for themselves and not on the child. I have seen way too much and it doesn't make any sense -- But , what do they care- it makes their vehicle payment! "

Jim S wrote on Sep 20, 2007 6:04 PM:

" Here is the norm, noncustodial parent pays more than what is fair in CS, then court ordered to provide health insurance IF it is attainable at an affordable cost. Then, noncustodial parents are court ordered to pay 1/2 of all medical bills. This is the norm. Some judges allow or figure CS to be used for food, lights, rent morgage, extra cirrecular activities. if things were worked out fairly, lights, rent or morgage, food ect would be a wash with what the non-custodial parent has to pay. On top of 550 per month CS, I pay 1/2 of the cost for summer camps, band and science fees, lunch money for school, fun clothes to wear for special events, special shoes for Volleyball, basketball and clothes for hunting. I don't complain about things as life is too short to worry about something so trivial. My theory is if it makes her happy and makes my kids' life better, then it is money well spent. What does bug me is when my x is driving around in new vehicles, taking vacations out of state, or buying expensive stuff on a job that pays her about 9K a year. "

SSS wrote on Sep 20, 2007 5:26 PM:

" I agree with Reggie on the last comment about the money going to the kids. I have seen people who get their check and then go blow it on nice clothes that I (having no kids) can't even afford. (probably because I'm not the best with money) But at least I make sure I have the necessities. It's too bad that whoever is receiveing the child support (not in all cases) can't put it just for the kids bills such as food, school supplies and clothing. Too many people just think of it as a bonus because they won a law suit. GIVE IT TO THE KIDS (not literally that might be as stupid as spending it on yourself). Put it towards their schooling if the other bills are paid. This is your childs future!!! SSS out "

reggie wrote on Sep 20, 2007 5:19 PM:

" SSS You are So very right. Best to ya . Also Socks. I am in your court. You did what you felt was best ... Best wishes "

reggie wrote on Sep 20, 2007 5:10 PM:

" I am not saying that the kids should not be taken care of. I have no problem if the funds are spent properly. How ever I do have a problem with the custodial parent. Having control. For FUND you are the bitter one. I just stand and speak how I feel. I have seen so many men get the bad end of this deal. Because they do work hard and try to have a decent life for their kids. You the custodial parent do rake them thru the coles. Just because he gets a dollar raise dont mean that you should get 50cents of it. I have found that more Father's with custody have a better relationship with their ex because they want the child to know their mother. They dont try and control the situations. I have a lot of friends, I see this both ways. I still think the father is better at being more giving and more flexable then women. Admit it women WE are very vendictive creatures. That is our nature. Men are not that way. And Again to Fund. I never said you were .. You must have some guilt built up. You really get excited. I know my research probably better than you ever will on this. I have dealt with it for over 15 yrs. A good parent does what makes their child happy, and what is best for them. Also you that get the support may not be rich, but you are doing better than the one paying. You are very bitter FUND. I am not. I am a step mother to three boys who have been emotionally abused because of their mother who reminds me of you. "

SSS wrote on Sep 20, 2007 4:24 PM:

" Hey all you people in tribune land. Here's my take on the whole situation. If we have joint custody (a good thing most times) then the bills should be kept track of and split in half so each parent has the exact same responsibility money wise. I doubt if we as a society will ever get to a decision that would make everything equal between parents. We were all taught at a young age that life is not fair. Good luck with everything just thought I would say a little something. Have a fabulous day! "

Reggi wrote on Sep 20, 2007 4:04 PM:

" And also one more comment . I read in here paying c/s is ok fine and dandy if the money goes to the kids. YOU cant tell me most of them spend it or have a account on it just for the kids. NOPE I have seen kids going with out shoes and clothes ect because mama is drinkin it away or saving for her retirment. We have bought the kids cars and clothes ect. I finally said no more. If we have to have them pay c/s then the money should go into a special account and the custodial parent should have to have reciepts of what they bought for the kids and show it to get reimbursment. That is the way that should be. "

reggie wrote on Sep 20, 2007 3:53 PM:

" Mike and Jim s I feel for you my husband now has been down that road and I have suffered with him. I am fortunate thow. I do feel for the men in these. You are right about Fund and wow. "

reggie wrote on Sep 20, 2007 3:42 PM:

" No nonfund, Men or women do get robbed is it right that a father cant have a home of his own to have his children BECAUSE she is getting have his paychek. Is it right that he cant go see his kids Because she get s have of his paychk. I am telling you it is bull. And you know. It . You dont want to go down that rode I dont think no man or woman should have to go with out or not have a place of ther own. You cant tell me it is fair for a man now adays to have to try and live on 1200.00 a month and still have some sort of life. We all know that is wrong. I The other thing is if they dont want part of there childs life dont force it. If they do GREAT. We wanted our kids but The ex kept us in court fight for more and more money I dont blame these days for not going out and getting better paying jobs it does no good. The women come in and think they should have more and more . YES I am a very proud woman and dont need no man's help finacially I can take care of my self and my kids. Yet yes they need there father good. I want him to spend his money on his kids they way he wants. If all would wake up the majority would probably help ther kids more if the other x wasnt digging in ther pocket "

Socks wrote on Sep 20, 2007 7:23 AM:

" Mike & Jim - Thank you. :-) There were many things that went through my mind while making the decision. Fear - Having to trust other people to help raise your child. I had to trust. Guilt - Feelings of guilt of not being able to do it all. This feeling has now gone away, but it took a few months. Questions - What will I tell people, how will my family react? When meeting new people, I find bringing up the subject is awkward. When I told my family and friends, they were very supportive and understanding. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 19, 2007 9:53 PM:

" Socks: I had tears in my eyes reading your last few comments. I can't imagine what that must have been like for you. I applaud you for putting your desires aside and doing what was best for your child. I have seen kids living with parents that were in no way able to care for them and thier special needs, but yet they refused to send them anywhere that could have provided better care. They did this out of selfishness for themselves and not the kids. You made the toughest choice a parent can make and you did it for your child. I must admit that I am not sure I could have made that same decision. You did the right thing and I hope you never forget that. You can always try to look at the bright side - your toughest decison is over. Anything else life throws at you should be a breeze. "

JIm S wrote on Sep 19, 2007 9:42 PM:

" LOL Mike!!! Socks, I don't know first hand what it would be like to go through what you have been through. I do know what it is like second hand looking through my aunt and uncles eyes. I can only imagine how hard it must have been but you did do the right thing for and by your child. Don't worry about chioldren going to two different schools in one school year. It will not happen. This law will not effect you for this child, not sure if you have more or not. I do appreciate your insightful skeptismbut would also appreciate your further study of this measure and the good it will have on other children. I trust with what has happened in areas where this is already law that this is the best for our children. Imagine if you were not to see one of your parents or if your son goes through a divorce and his ex will not give any of you visitation and you are never allowed to see your grandbabies. All i ask is that you keep an open mind. Thank you "

Mike R wrote on Sep 19, 2007 6:47 PM:

" Jim: I used the term unfit instead of unable, because I think if a parent wanted to, regardless of your situation, you would find a way to do so. That would become your only priority in life. If you are unable to provide for the special needs that the other parent can provide for, then you are unable because you are unwilling and that makes you unfit. What I am trying to say is that for all these "what ifs" there is a sound logical answer. What if a child has a disability? Then both parents would find a way to make it work. What if the parent live far away from eachother? Then one parent would have to do the selfless thing and move if they truely wanted the shared custody. Everyone is so hung up on the "what ifs". But the simple answer to them all is that parents who are serious about wanting shared parenting will find a way to make it work as long as there is some chance that the courts will award it. No amount of what its are going to change that. By the way, the lactating thing still isn't gonna happen. "

Socks wrote on Sep 19, 2007 6:43 PM:

" Jim S. - Placing my child in a group was the hardest decision of my life, I have never had such a heartwreching choice to make. He as adjusted well. He has taught me more in life, than any adult. He makes me smile, he never gives up, he always has hope and is willing to try the same task again for the 1000th time. Still fail, and be willing to try again. When both parents live in the same area, and the child can go to the same school, the 50/50 can work. I've seen parents do it and others fail because of being selfish. If this measure doesn't pass this time, revise and try again. I'm still not sure if right measure as written, but the intent is good. "

Socks Cont. wrote on Sep 19, 2007 6:21 PM:

" Jim S - Do you know how it feels to be told your newborn, may not walk, may not talk, he may not ever be to live byhimself, he will most likely be MR and require 24/7 care? I've had some challenges over the past decade. He has made progress, he does walk, he does say about 100 words, too soon to know if he will be able to live independtly and has severe learning challenges. I doubt if this law passed it would effect me, but want to make sure whatever law is passed is the best one. "

Socks wrote on Sep 19, 2007 6:19 PM:

" Jim S - The child's father sees him rarely. (His choice, I have never said no when has asked to see him) The group homes for children and adults are excellent around here. I am very aware of them, he lives in a group home. He needs far more care, than I can provide. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 19, 2007 9:58 AM:

" It has been awhile but here is that website again that explains and answers all questions regarding breast feeding, special needs, whatever you want. Please read it. http://www.spig.clara.net/sp-over.htm "

Jim S wrote on Sep 19, 2007 9:28 AM:

" Notafundlementaist, it's not that we don't want to hear your arguements towards this measure, fact is, there are answers and positive answers that are facts that answer your questions. It is not like this bill is brand new and we are the first to try to pass it. Fact is this law will bennifit the majority of kids. The only ones that wouldn't are those that have a parent who is abusive and neglectfull. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 19, 2007 9:24 AM:

" Mike, I don't think "unfit" would be a good description for someone who can not or has the means to raise a special needs child. I think unable would be a better term. If children are so bad that they need special treatment, then maybe it is best the state handle those kids. Places like Pride do awesome jobs of careing for special needs children and adults. One of my aunts and uncles had two daughters that were struck down with MS, it was too much for them to care for them. The state took over and cared for these children, now adults. They still live there and with much assistance are able to have a better life because they are equipt to handle children that are special. My cousins have had a better life because their are people who are trained to assist them in their everyday lives. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 19, 2007 9:15 AM:

" Socks, Why does their need to be more addresses to the what ifs? Fact is it is both your children and you both deserve to raise your child. More importantly your child needs; deserves both of you. My heart just lyes broken when I think of parents who think they are the only one that child needs; disabled or not. When it comes to a place to live, maybe a disabled child should stay in the home and the parents can transport themselves to the childs home. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 19, 2007 12:30 AM:

" Mike, I was actually a little queeze myself after I read that. Not for me either but it is nothing like the swift kick in the your know whats after a divorce and custody hearing. LOL As far as the breast pump issue, it is just another answer to the rebuttles from the closed minded. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:16 PM:

" Jim: Yeah, I know all about the breast pumps. From my personal experience they can be a pain for some women. Not all are up to the task with that one, and I have to concede that point based on my personal experience. As far a the father lactating - I am pretty secure in my manhood - but not that secure. That wouldn't be for me. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 16, 2007 10:16 PM:

" Mike, nursing is not even an issue, they make breast pumps. I think my wife still has hers if someone wants to borrow it. She used it so she has milk for our son while she was at work. My youngest sone is 18 mos. old, when my wife was pg, we were on www.babyzone.com and there was this article in their about breast feeding, breast pumps and another alternitive is that a male can and do produce milk. Doctors claim that the breast milk from a male is just as good as mothers milk. Word to future fathers. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 16, 2007 10:11 PM:

" I posted a website a few weeks back that all you can go read. All these what if's are nonsence. Every one of your concerns is addressed on the website I have given. None of your worrywarts have anything to worry about. Your concerns are nothing to be concerned about. Notafundlementalist, I still don't think you have read the law as it is now. All this new measure is going to be is an admendment to the old law. Everything else is going to stay in place, it is just going to specify that shared parenting be the norm and not the exception. "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 16, 2007 8:36 PM:

" What if ........you are entitled to 50/50 unless you have commited a criminal act against your children period. Abuse or neglect both legally defined, I think drugs, medical or lack of, among a list of other things that you could put in either catagory. The point is every parent should have the opportunity to parent their children, and if they blow it they will lose them, and that is the only time they should. For those arguing against this you should study the law as it stands now so really understand what you are arguing against. I have collected 240 signatures. "

Socks wrote on Sep 15, 2007 6:58 PM:

" I have a kid with a disability. There are many things to consider depending on each childs needs. Concerned Dad's comments awhile back had some real good points. This measure isn't clear enough for me to jump on board and vote yes. I would support a measure that addressed more of the what if's. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 15, 2007 3:30 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: The term is defined on a case by case basis, and that is how it should be. If one parent has a history of abusing the kid - that would be unfit. If one parent is a crack-head that puts the kids in dangerous situations - that would be unfit. If one parent is unable to care for the child because of the childs medical needs, then that parent would be unfit until there was a change in circumstances. G's long rambling of "what ifs" is exactly why there is no clear "carved in stone" definition. Let me do my own what if for a second. What if we give you what you want? What if we define the term to the exact letter and very detailed? What if the measure passes with that definition and what if a parent is clearly putting the child in harm's way but it doesn't fit the term "unfit" outlined in the measure? What then? The reason the word is not clearly defined is because what might make a person unfit in one case might be different than what makes them unfit in another case. One definition does not fit all in this case. No one is ever going to dream up all the 'what ifs" in life. This measure doesn't want to alienate any kids because of rigid definitions. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 15, 2007 3:02 PM:

" Mike R., I am not the ONE ignoring the term unfit; I am the one trying to have it defined. It is NOT defined in the measure; and if it is defined in case law, the what EXACTLY is that definition? I have asked that question many times and not received a solid definition. I would say I am not the one ignoring it. Those who fail to provide a definition to those of us who ask are the ones ignoring it, don't ya think?? "

Mike R wrote on Sep 15, 2007 2:11 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: How true. NO reasoning with some people here. That is the understatment of the century. Nursing babies could be an issue. Physically disabled kids may present a problem if one parent lived in the sticks and hod no way to care for the child. In that instance, I think that would make that parent UNFIT to raise that child, don't you? UNFIT - you know the word used right in the measure. UNFIT - the one word that makes all the exceptions that you like to what if about. UNFIT - the generic term that makes it un-necessary to detail every possible scenario in the measure. UNFIT - the word that you keep on ignoring over and over and over. Yeah, you know. That word - UNFIT. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 15, 2007 12:31 PM:

" G, I hear what you are saying. I presented some of the same arguments in the past, children with disabilities as well as young kids who are going through seperation anxiety and nursing babies. Everything was shot down, so don't take it personally. No one in support of this bill wants to hear anything negative about this bill, because everyone supporting it thinks they are smarter and more sophisticated than the rest of us. There is no reasoning with some people here, so be careful. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 15, 2007 12:26 PM:

" Jim, I see NOWHERE in that particular post a disclaimer. And if all you see is mothers being glorified nannies, then you are the one who is blind, not to mention extremely sexist. You have a chip on your shoulders when it comes to women and you are biased because of it. You are the one who needs to get over yourself. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 15, 2007 12:13 PM:

" G: What if, what if, what if, what if, what if????? What if a space ship landed today and took all of our breathable air? What would we do then? YOu can ask a million what if's and no matter what law you are talking about, you can always what if it to death. That is not a rational argument. By the way, no one is suggesting slpitting the kids between 2 different schools and no one is denying them health care. This has all been discussed time and time again in this forum. Scroll down and read it for yourself. What if, What if, What if????? "

G wrote on Sep 15, 2007 11:06 AM:

" What if you have one parent that works all differant hours or works all nite and has nobody to take care of that child who has a disability or they let someone care for that child that has a disability and knows nothing how to take care of that child who has a disabilty. You have to have a care giver that works with children with disabilities you just can't pass your child off to someone and if something happened to that child because the parent did not have a childcare giver that works with children with a disabilty you are indandering that childs life. And again living in a remote area of the this state the pshyical and education needs of the child with a disabilty will not be met and that is just fact. "

G wrote on Sep 15, 2007 10:52 AM:

" Another point also is that if a child is not getting the proper services because of this law becaue a parent lives in a remote town and the child suffers pshycial or mental issues then that parent could be charged with neglect and then what. The education factor for a child with a disability is at great risk because a child with a learning or has another disabilty that affects there education because they want to have this switching game with parents. You can not put a child in this situation that has a disability as structure is needed in thier live and sending them to another parent for a 1/2 of a year will regress a child with this disabilty and then if one parent does not know how to handle a child with a disability what then. "

G wrote on Sep 15, 2007 10:43 AM:

" Well there is another factor children with disabilties are not in the mix in this law and this will be challanged in court as you have many factors that this law will violate ADA laws. If you have a child with a disabilty and if that child has a pshycial disability mental or a learning disability there are accomindations that need to be met and also services that child may need and if that child needs some kind of services everyday and if you have a parent who lives in a small town in North Dakota and is 100 miles away from the nearest city that has the service for that child it will be so hard for that parent to get the services that that chid needs as to travel will be hard for the parent and the child to. "

G wrote on Sep 15, 2007 9:47 AM:

" My goodness what does the law going to say your say it will be 50/50 with each parent well there could be a big problem with that if you have one parent that lives in Beach and another who lives in Fargo do you really split them up in the middle of a school year. Ok what about there age does the child who is a teenager do they have a choice who and where they would like to be with there mother or there father and if they want to stay at there school and not be so confused of what a school will be teaching and another thing they won't be there during a part of a school year and what does the school do transfer back and forth there records of the school they were at. Gee I see mass confusion here with all of this. You can't switch in the middle of a school year every year to get a good education it will be to confusing the the children. And if you are a senior in high school what then does anyone see a problem with a person who wants to graduate but if they have to go to another parent they don't graduate with the school they are wanting too. "

JIm S wrote on Sep 15, 2007 2:01 AM:

" Notafundlementalist, you are so blind. Look at what I wrote, I put in a disclaimer regarding all parents. I never said it was just women. You are so full of yourself, get over yourself. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 14, 2007 10:51 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: Yes the child support is a dead issue at this time. I bring it up not to change the support system, but to show that many of the custodial parents bank on the system the way it is. The non-custodial parents are constantly being accused of wanting this only to get out of child support. I want to show the truth - who is really seeing the dollar signs here - in many cases it is the custodial parent. To mike r: You are right. The system will come after you with a vengance if you get behind on child support. They throw everything they have at you even if you are behind because of a book keeping error on thier part - trust me I am familiar with that one. But try going in to complain about not being granted your court ordered visitation. How many agencies are there to help you then? Need a hint? The answer is absolutely none. They tell you to go spend thousands of dollars (that you don't have) and take it to civil court where the judge will usually let them off with a warning the first few times while you rack up tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses. Miss a few child support payments and they notify the IRS, start garnishing wages, take away hunting privileges, and even your drivers license (which is totally stupid sind once they take away the license they are making absolutely certain that you will never get a job to support your kids). They don't give a rats behind if you are being denied custody though. Personally I am in favor of harsh treatment for deadbeat parents. I just think both sides should be subject to the same penalties. Is that wrong? "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 14, 2007 8:57 PM:

" As far as the comment about the women leaving the men, we know that is not always the case. Not always the woman's fault, sorry to say. Perhaps if it is in a majority of cases, the man should probably examine why his wife felt the need to leave. Not possible to have a relationship where one person is perfect and the other holds all the flaws; I even acknowledge that in my case. Doesn't make what my ex did acceptable; but I know unlike some people on this board that it takes two people to make a relationship fly; not one sitting back and the other doing all the work. For some reason, my generation of men really don't seem to understand that or don't have a REAL desire to do any real work and want to blame everyone else for their own problems. My father was never like that, my grandfather was never like that. Can't QUITE understand where they get that from, but OBVIOUSLY it is creating a generation of unhappy, unsatisfied women. Know for a FACT I will get slammed for this, BUT as someone else pointed out before.....the truth hurts.... "

Finally wrote on Sep 14, 2007 5:06 PM:

" Mike R. very well said. I am glad that there are other people out there that think the same way I do. I can only hope that in time all of these problems with the child support issue will get worked out. I like your thought. If a judge says that I can't see my child all the time and can only see her 5% of the time, then I should only be responsible for 5% of the cost of raising that child. You want me to pay my fair share, let me see my child. That is my right as a father and the right of all non-custodial parents out there. Way to go. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 14, 2007 4:30 PM:

" UUUUUUHHH, re-read my Sept 9th post at 10:32AM Re: excessive child support payments. Said basically the same thing as Mike R with regard to noncustodial unfair child support amounts. Was basically told forget it cuz the custody thing was the priority. "

To Mike R wrote on Sep 14, 2007 3:19 PM:

" Excellent writing on your 50/50 split for child support and custody. I love it!!! There are far too many custodial parents out there that never allow the non-custodial parent visitation despite or inspite of court orders and yet the non-custodial parent gets to pay child support or have liens placed his/her home, bank account, and taxes and get auto-deduction from his/her paycheck. This would help a lot towards giving the CHILDREN an opportunity to be with Both parents. But, then, you're going to put the Divorce and Custody attorneys out of business and our Judges won't have much to do. Still - I love your analogy. "

Bingo!! wrote on Sep 14, 2007 12:13 PM:

" I think Jim S. hit it right on the nose! Couldn't have said it any better myself! "

JIm S wrote on Sep 14, 2007 10:13 AM:

" Mike, of course it makes sence. Problem is it makes too much sence and that is a problem for custodial mothers. Of course not all but the majority. This is my experience and the fact of "experts". Husband and wife get divorced because woman in marrage realizes that she will not or can not change the guy she married. She wants out of relationship for whatever reason. Dawns on her that if she leaves she will be giving up some income. Reality sets in and past tells her that since she is the mother of their children, the courts will allow her full custody because moms are the primary care giver. She sees the dollar signs and realises that when she gets full custody, "she is the boss, has all the power." She can now recover part of that lost income through CS and other monthly bills or other incurred expenses. When it comes down to it alot of xwifes are nothing more than glorified nannies. If this law goes into effect or if something were in place like what Mike states, too many single "I'm the boss" mothers stand too much to lose. Which goes back to the old who is really the selffish one here? A father who lose everything but at least wants to have a relationship with his children, or the mother who uses the children to heklp support herself and uses the children as weapons? Looks pretty clear to me. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 14, 2007 8:32 AM:

" If you have not seen it, everyone here needs to watch the movie, "BYE BYE LOVE", it tells it like it is. Divorce, custodial and non custodial parents and their relationships together. It is a comedy, "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 14, 2007 6:15 AM:

" I am with you guys it is old arguing with two people who stick their foot in their mouth all of the time, nice to see we have some new people. I am collecting signatures this weekend in West Fargo, during West Fest if you are around come and sign, or help. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 14, 2007 5:52 AM:

" Here's a thought. I brought this idea up last time we tried this measure and I got slammed big time for it and called all sorts of names. But I do think there is some logic behind it so I will try it again. If you have 50/50 custody, then each parent should pay 50% of all expenses (logical so far - right?). If you fight for and get full custody, then you should know that you are fighting for the opportunity to pay all the bills yourself without any child support. If the non-custodial parent is allowed 5% of the time with the kids, then he pays 5% of the bills. The system now is based on the fact that the less time you spend with the kids, the more you pay for the privilege of not being able to see them. I think that is wrong. If one parent wants to be selfish and vindictive and keep the kids all to themselves, then they should keep all the bills and expenses to themselves as well. Makes sense to me. I would bet that you would see a lot more people open to the idea of joint custody and a lot less people trying to keep the kids away from the other parent as a form of a weapon. Now I understand that this idea isn't going to work in all cases - like where one parent is deemed truely unfit to be with the kids or in the case of a parent who doesn't want to have custody of the kids. It is not a magic bullet that is going to solved every problem in every situation. It is however a logical way to approach 2 fit parents who both want sole custoday without any real reasons as to why they want it that way. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 13, 2007 10:58 PM:

" Notafundlementalist, I am very well aware of all the stats that you refer too. Don't roll this over on me. You are the loser and your kids are the ones suffering. The more you post, experience tells me that your X is not what you make him out to be but probably stays away from you as you are impossible to deal with. It is your way or no way. It is mothers like you that have and are the only ones who bennefit from this current BS law. I have spent months researching everything to do with child custody, CS and divorce. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 13, 2007 10:57 PM:

" Online Editor: I posted a comment to the Felony DUI board hours and hours ago and nothing shows up. I even posted a question as to why that is happening and again nothing. New comments to this topic seem to get posted ever 5 minutes or so - that is why I am asking the question here. What gives? "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 13, 2007 10:17 PM:

" To Jim again, maybe you are the one needing to do research. There are plenty of women and child in this country who are living in poverty and are OWED child support; or don't you ever research that? As far as the poors souls getting "skrewed over", they are the ones "skrewing" their kids over. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 13, 2007 10:02 PM:

" Sunshine: Funny how it works. When it comes to expenses, custodial parents love it when you pay 50% of everything. When it comes to Child Support, in many cases the non-custodial parent pays well over 50% of the costs of raising the child. But when it comes to visitation or custody, then you can't have 50%. When it comes to what you pay, it should be 50% at a minimum. When it comes to custody, they are just fine with giving you 5 or 10%. Seems like many of the custodial parents only like 50/50 when it is to thier advantage. 50% of everything EXCEPT custody. Am I the only one wondering why it works that way? "

Sunshine wrote on Sep 13, 2007 9:36 PM:

" I Quote from a statement recently made on here by Nonfundamentalist--: You brought up a very good point----"A child has a RIGHT to be supported by BOTH parents, not just one! There is NOTHING WRONG with expecting both parents to be financially accountable to their kids!" That is a 50/50 thing in my book. Well, if custodial parents out there agree with that statement, then don't you think that SHARED CUSTODY would be the way to go? Or at least the father getting his visitation rights without any hassles. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 13, 2007 9:04 PM:

" Rich, maybe not but most of the time you are living better than the poor soul you are screwing over. Reggie, don't listen to her, the truth hurts, she knows it because you struck a nerv. Notafunlementalist better research before posting here again. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 13, 2007 9:02 PM:

" Mike and Reggie, you can't argue with those who are victums of dead brain syndrom. notafundlementalist, you are the one who is full of yourself. You only spout off when there is someone else in the room that thinks as selffish as you do. Reggie, it sounds like you are on top of it. Thank you for supporting us guys that have been wronged by the system. If you are not taking money from your ex, i hope he is a constant in your childs life and that he pays for 1/2 of the expenses. You guys can't even argue with the likes of WOW and NOTAFUNDLEMENTALIST, they are way to stuck on themselves and to selffish to see it. Their poor kids. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 13, 2007 8:43 PM:

" Kids making up their own MINDS is hardly brainwashing. OBVIOUSLY there is a good reason why they feel that way. You have no credibility at all. Your comments are all biased and bitter. As far as the comment about raking in money, that doesn't even deserve a response. Obviously you need to do some homework before you post again. We custodial parents aren't getting rich off child support like you think we are. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 13, 2007 7:40 PM:

" WOW: Please show me ANYWHERE where it states that under the current law the judge has to have a valid reason for not granting 50/50. Show me where this is written in the law. Show me where it is written in case law. Show me where it is written ANYWHERE. You can't do it because it isn't there. You are assuming things that are not even close to correct. You couldn't back up a single one of your statements if you tried. You bring up the abuse issue as a negative against this measure. Fact: Most of the non-custodial parents are fathers. I read a study (can't find it right now though) that stated more kids are abused by thier mothers than there fathers. So awarding joint custody should actually decrease the abuse statistics. By the way, the arguement that "it might help most kids but not every single one so I am still against it" Is getting really old and very weak. The law we have now is not perfect for ever single kid out there. The proposed measure isn't going to be the answer for every single kid out there. The fact is that no law is EVER going to be perfect for every single kid out there. It isn't going to happen. No law is perfect in every situation. That is pure rhetoric from people who have no legitimate arguement. "

Reggie wrote on Sep 13, 2007 6:09 PM:

" The other thing with this . Is that it will never end. Nobody want s to pay child support. I Dont blame them. It is hard enough to try and survive in this world w/ out having to pay an ex money for the kids. . Also the dads or moms non custodial parent wants to do things for there kids and with there kids. But if the ex is raken in the bucks they cant afford it. All in all the only ones that get hurt here are the kids. The comment I read about her kids already telling her that they are going to stay with her sounds like brain washing to me . "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 13, 2007 5:47 PM:

" Reggie, good for you that you support your kids without the help of "any man". However, "any man" is not the father of your children. So, you are too proud to take money from a man, big deal; that is not the point. That is your own foolish pride. A child has a RIGHT to be supported by BOTH parents, not just one! There is NOTHING WRONG with expecting both parents to be financially accountable to their kids! And to imply that there is something wrong with that scenerio like the father is being financially robbed is absolutely ridiculous! To make that kind of general statement is plain ignorant. Get over yourself! "

reggie wrote on Sep 13, 2007 5:43 PM:

" Wow you are soooooooooooo wrong on the judges being fair about 50-50 I spent a yr in court fighting for custody of a 15 Yr old Boy who wanted to be with his father. We were willing to go for joint What ever it took to take care of this boy. But because the MOTHER would not give a INCH we lost. Dont give me that about the judges being fair on the 50-50 It all boils down to the pitty story the woman wants to give. Believe me it stinks because I am a women. I even see my best friend manipulate the system. Women might as well admit it . We can be very very vendictive worse than men. Some of us thow learn to controll it . I hate to see what most men have to go thru in a divorce. When children our involved. I see my brother in law suffering with a x that doesnt even Deserve to have the children. She is a drunk but the judge says she is the better parent how is that. She has been turned in for child abuse Again how did she get custody. You all tell me. I hope the law changes. Good or bad kids should know there parents "

reggie wrote on Sep 13, 2007 5:12 PM:

" Mike r you are sooooooooooooooooooooooo write about the tax issue. And Jim S I stand with you on WOW . "

reggie wrote on Sep 13, 2007 3:19 PM:

" i am sorry i have missed commenting back sooner. I do have a lot to say about this issue. Then men most of the time get ripped ont his deal. And even so. I am to proud of a women to take money from a man. I belive if you cant take care of your own child you dont deserve to have them. My mom and I made it on our own with out any man's money. Nothing agains men. I loved my father. And he loved me. But I was raised with to much pride. I had a great child hood and my folks divorced when I was two. Men would probably spend more time with there kids if the women would make life BAD for them. I see that most of the time. The reason why ther is always a fued over the kids is because one of the two havent gotten over the other. All it does is hurt the kids. I think there is good and bad in all. But kids need to know who there parents are and they will judge them in there own way and soon find out who is the good one and if there lucky they have to good parents . "

JIm S wrote on Sep 13, 2007 11:24 AM:

" Wow, you have no idea on what you are talking about. Your claims have no merit. Sit back and let the educated work this out. Debating with you is like talking to a fence post. "

wow wrote on Sep 13, 2007 8:05 AM:

" to Jim S I have never said that children need both parents in alot of cases BUT these is flaw with this proposed bill. Times now have shown an increase in abuse that is reported but there are still many that are not and with that lies the problem. I explained a similar scenario ealier in these posts. To Mike R. the whole point in judges/courts changing their attitude toward 50/50 is something that definitely needs to be done BEFORE changing any laws. You seem not to get the fact that a judge now has to have a reason not to give 50/50 and will use that same reason as to not give it even under the proposed bill. If a couple go to court and one asks for sole and one joint they look at both and make their decision. You say they have to use past cases as a reference for their deceision but yet if they do the same will happen. Laws do not need changing the judges/courts do, make them take classes on the possibility of 50/50 or even more fathers having sole custody, until you change their minds you will not get the effect you are hoping for. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 12, 2007 6:51 PM:

" WOW, try to find bad issues with shared parenting. Just try really hard. If you can find true studies that show actual proof that shared parenting is worse than one parent over the other. If you can show me that there are more negatives than positives, then I will give it up and NOT support this issue. I will also NOT gather anymore signatures and I will give up my relationship with my daughter who lives with her mom. I will give it all up if you can provide verifyable facts that shows that this measure is better than what we have in place. In return, if you can't, I want you to shut up on this issue and since your little mind is so narrow, never speak about this issue in any way shape or form. If I am wrong then I will never speak for it and if you are wrong you must never speak against it. Can you do it. Prove to me with facts that this is a lost issue. Are you up to the challenge? "

Mike R wrote on Sep 11, 2007 10:05 PM:

" whatever: this bill has nothing to do with grandparents rights. I for one think grandparents rights is a crock. And by the way no one is forcing the parents to take the kids if they don't want them. Have you actually read anything here before making such uninformed statements? Wow: I agree that judges need to be educated on the 50/50. I just don't see it happening on any large scale unless the law is changed forcing them to look at it differently. In ND, the court with jurisdiction over the divorce is the county where you live. If you live in a county that doesn't believe in the 50/50, you are out of luck. If the law changes, the judges have to change to adapt. If they don't recognize the new law, they can be dis-barred. They won't really have a choice once it becomes law. If you have another way of educating judges, I would be happy to hear it. I just don't think it is going to happen without a change in the law. "

wow wrote on Sep 11, 2007 12:14 PM:

" to Mike R I have been gone and was not able to comment back for awhile. I am both custodial and noncustodial mother because 2 of our sons live with their father and one lives with me. The one with me has many medical needs. This proposed bill will not affect me at all because of the agreement with my ex provides exactly what we both thought was best for our children. The necessary hospital visits and out of town trips to larger hospitals would not be conducive to our older boys school and extra curricular activities. We made the best decision for our children. In the beginning my ex threatened to take all the kids and cause problems but I fought against that and we ended up working this out with the judge. After a while we were able to get along again and He actually gets along with my current husband and that helps the boys greatly. I never said a custody fight was easy BUT either parent can go in now and request joint even when ones wants sole custody, you can still argue for joint and if neither has been found "unfit" by the court joint can be ordered IF you get a judge that understands 50/50, That is where there will be a problem with this proposed bill the judge/court decides who they feel is fit or unfit by what is before them just as they do now, change their minds and the current law will be more effective. Use a little common sense. To Jim S exactly YOU CAN'T make a law to protect everyone so why go from one bad law to the other. also your website is done with statistics and well statistics are only as good as the people who write them. You can mold statistics to look anyway you want them. You read them one way the next person reads them the way they do and it could be completely opposite so I go by what I actually see and know from actual people that I know. "

whatever wrote on Sep 10, 2007 11:13 PM:

" So what about Grandparents rights with this bill? When both parents are gone and doing drugs and grandkids stay with them? Do they lose the grandkids half the time even if there is no child support? So now people want to tell me were my child has to spend his time 50 percent of his childhood. I don't agree with that. Some days I am waiting for my child to get to 18 because you know what? it is scary out there. There are control issues that people shouldn't even have the power to have over others. And this is about control. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 10, 2007 5:59 AM:

" Notafundamentalist: You couldn't be farther from the truth if you tried. I am supporting this measure for my kids. I am stating that many who oppose this measure are the ones seeing the dollar signs disappearing and that is why they are so strongly against it. Think about it - if you were the gravy train like many of the custodial parents, would you want to get off? As far as the child support system being tackled first, most of the people against this measure the first time were againt it because of the child support language that was attached. That is why the state spent thousands of our own tax dollars to fight against us (whather that was legal or not is still in question), because they didn't want to lose any federal funds by collecting fewer child support dollars. That is why they created all the doom and gloom and panic in the media. Now you are saying that we need to deal with the child support first? I am beginning to think that Jim S is right - nothing we do is ever going to be right in your eyes. Every time we de-bunk one of your theories, you attack from a different angle. No matter what proof we offer, no matter how well this has worked in other states and other countries, no matter how much input we get from the people and other agencies when writing the measure, it just won't be good enough for you. Your mind is completely closed to the idea. Why do you try to sound like you are approaching this with an open mind when it is obvious that you are not? "

Jim S wrote on Sep 9, 2007 11:36 PM:

" I think you feel wrong! We lost last November at the polls because of the child support issues that were attached to this measure. Custodial parents grip because they are not getting enuff CS. Non Custodial parents grip because they think they pay too much. If this law were in place and 50/50 were awarded then maybe and it better be that CS is split evenly along with all other bills associated with the raising of the children. I know there are few that grip about how much CS they pay but most of the time it is people gripping that they pay a lot of CS and never ever get to see their kids. That was my case for 6 years. I never cared about the money but if I am gonna pay, I wanna see my child and have some say in the raising of my child. When this measure is made law, CS will take care of itself. If not, then it too will be on the books in an upcoming election. Even talking about CS on this forum is a waste of time as it has nothing to do with this measure. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 9, 2007 8:57 PM:

" Mike R, I COMPLETELY agree with you!! And THAT is why I think that the child support issue needs to be tackled first; because the comments that I am seeing is that people are in support of this measure BECAUSE of excessive child support amounts. I feel like you made my argument for me. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 9, 2007 7:25 PM:

" Hi again, you obviously don't read any of my posts. I am WELL aware that there is medical and dental ON TOP of CS. That was my POINT in the last post. Also, I have one boy and one girl; and NO it won't happen that they will want to live with their dad; they have BOTH already said by their OWN choice that they don't want to live with him. And since you don't pay attention, my ex doesn't WANT them either, Unless of course, there would be something "in it" for him. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 9, 2007 6:38 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: The child support thing is going to have to have to wait for now as it has been seperated completely from the custody issue. But I still have to wonder, if I am paying half of all clothes, school fees, daycare, etc. plus all of the medical insurance, then exactly what is my child support supposed to be going for? I thought that the whole idea behind child support was to pay for all those expenses. But I pay for all those expenses seperately and still pay support. No one has been able to explain that to me. Some say that it is to maintain the residence so they have a place to live, but what about my residence? Why is the cost of maintaining my residence never taken into account? Don't the kids need a place to go when they are in my care also? "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 9, 2007 3:02 PM:

" We do have medical and dental in the state ...ON TOP of CS. I have to wonder do you have boys? Lets just say THEY decide they want to live with their dad and you can't stop them, then what are you going to do, give up 1/2 of your income? The only way you can prevent that is joint 50/50. Don't even say it can't happen because it more than likely will unless he doesn't want them or won't let them. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 9, 2007 10:32 AM:

" Hi again, you are right. If someone took half my income, my little family would suffer and I wouldn't be able to keep my kids; let alone take proper care of them. But then again, I don't have a spouse to pick up the slack for me either, there is just strictly MY income anyway. My ex is married, works full time his wife is a social worker and works full time, and they both claim to not be able to afford the whole $200 a month total that they pay for two kids! As I mentioned in my other post I also pay for basically everything else and my ex doesn't have to worry about any of that, so to me $200 a month is not that big of a sacrifice. I understand that some child support orders are excessive, but if they aren't taking into account medical, daycare, extras paid by the noncustodial parent when determining support, then it is clearly a system problem with child support, not custody. Those who are in favor of this law who makes arguments about excessive child support payments should be working to overall the child support system since that seems to be where the problem is; rather than the custody thing. If those who receive excessive child support payments had their payment cut in half, for example, maybe they would be more willing to share custody knowing they wouldn't get as much in child support if they are TRUELY in it for the money and not the kids. If doing away with excessive child support payments is the true motivation, then child support is where supporters should start to solve the problem. This way at least deadbeat parents who either DON'T pay or are behind won't be coming out of the woodwork to claim joint custody and those of us who ARE NOT getting excessive payments won't have to turn our kids loose on parents who only want them to avoid child support altogether. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 9, 2007 10:14 AM:

" Mike R, you are correct; child support payments (in ND anyway) don't take into account medical payments, daycare, and extras. In some states child support includes all of that, but apparently not here. You ex wife should consider herself lucky. You are paying half of everything and still paying child support on top of it. My ex is paying $200 a month only; he doesn't help with child care, medical, school clothes and supplies, extra cirriculars, or anything else. If he had joint custody, the kids wouldn't be in extracirricular activities because he wouldn't pay for them when they were with him. They would be lucky to have clothes and school supplies. The $200 that he would save wouldn't go for the kids, he would spend it on himself, claim to be broke and then I would have to pay for absolutely everything. At least when I get the child support, it goes to the kids, not to myself, and not to him. "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 9, 2007 8:28 AM:

" notafundamentalist you are correct to say 1/2 is all they can take but, but you act like that is nothing. what if someone was taking 1/2 of yours what would you have left and what could you do with it, more than likely not much. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 9, 2007 6:48 AM:

" Notafundamentalist: You are correct. When I say that there was no limit to what could be ordered, I meant that based on the income of the person paying. If you make big bucks, you pay big bucks. I never meant that you could be ordered to pay more than half of your income. I just stated that it is a huge reason why some are against this measure. There are some people out there who stand to lose some really big money if they ever lose thier custody. As far as paying over half your wages goes, that only applies to child support itself. For example, I pay about 40 percent of my wages as child support, but I am also responsible for paying health insurance on the kids, plus I pay half of all daycare expenses, plus I pay half of all clothing and extra curricular activities, plus I pay half of all school lunches. Add it all together and I pay WAY more than half my income. No it isn't all in child support, but it is all court ordered and the court doesn't really care what I have left to live on. Plus I drive about 70 miles a day round trip to work which isn't takin into consideration. I could work closer to home, but I am not allowed to take a lesser paying job now. I have to stick with where I am at even though they don't recognize what it is costing my to drive back and forth. If I would get laid off, that would be my problem. My payments are still expected to continue. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 8, 2007 2:35 PM:

" Mike R, I agree with you that isn't fair, there are alot of parents who pay an excessive amount. I acknowledge that. It was my understanding that by law child support couldn't take more than half of someone's income. My mom was a bookkeeper for MANY years and she was never allowed to withhold more than half of someone's paycheck when they had a child support order. She could've gotten into trouble if she did. My ex has another child in Oregon and between her and our two kids, no more than half his income is withheld. I have also been told this by child support enforcement and two different attorneys. They have to allow you something to live on. For awhile, my ex wasn't even paying the full amount of support ordered because doing so would've put him over half his income. There may not be a cap on the amount of support that can be ordered, but there is a cap on the amount that can be withheld. They aren't SUPPOSED to take more than half of someone's income; and if they are, they shouldn't be. "

MIke R wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:25 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: I think the point Reggie was making is that no kid in this state NEEDS $1,700 a month, but there is no cap on the amount of child support that can be ordered. That IS a big motivating factor for a lot of custodial parents (notice I said a lot of and not all). There are also many other financial advantages for being the custodial parent. Tax time is coming. I get to claim one of my 2 kids as a dependant, but my ex is the only one allowed by law to claim daycare expenses as a deduction even though we both pay exactly half of all daycare expenses. She is the only one by law who can claim the child tax credit and she can claim both kids for the credit even though one is mine to claim as a deduction. She is the only one by law who can claim earned income credit on the kids (we both would qualify). We both paid in the same amount of taxes last year. In addition to everything I paid in, I still owed a couple hundred bucks at the end of the year. She got back everything she paid in plus almost a thousand bucks more than what she had paid in. Can you honestly tell me that isn't in the back of the minds of the custodial parents who are fighting so hard against this? "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:14 PM:

" Reggie, It sounds to me like you have your own agenda for supporting this initiative. $1700 a month worth. So its okay for both parents to have access to the kids, but it NOT okay for both of them to be financially responsible to them! I don't think so. I would gladly give up my whole $200 dollars a month if it meant my ex took more of an active role with OUR kids, but that is HIS choice not mine. I didn't ask to be a single custodial parent, but he picked the easy role first. If it takes two parents to RAISE kids it also takes two to support them financially. If joint custody is actually in PLACE, then fine, no child support then. But custodial parents have every right to collect on behalf of their kids without feeling guilty or money grubbing. I'm getting tired of all custodial parents being portrayed that way. Like someone said, it takes TWO. "

reggie wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:02 AM:

" Been ther. Got ya coverd now exactly how you feel The same thing happend to my husband it was a good thing that i worked so we could have a place to live and we barely made. it. The ex even threaten me for money. What do they think. Some of them are syko "

reggie wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:54 AM:

" I support the custody issue. I think the kids should have both parents if it is feesable where they live ect. "

Reggie wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:52 AM:

" I cant belive some of the ads I read on this. Worried that because their child might get hurt in ther ex's care. well it could happen in your care to. I belive that ther is good in bad on both sides of the fence. But the men always seem to get the down fall. I am a female married a man with three kids and watched him struggle to see his kids even thow he had the right she would not show up or she would not call back or just plain fight with him. Then just want him for the MONEY> I personally dont think Child support should even be allowed anymore. I have seen it as money does bring out the worst in people. If you are a female and have the custody of the kids . Support them your self. And visa versa. I would be to proud to take money from him. I have two step boys that are serioulsy damaged because of ther mother. They were not taught respect no how to social lize in the real world but because she was a female????? She got custody because she could go on welfare and stick him for everything. 1700.00 a month child support is more than what most people make in this state. Now you tell me that that is fair? "

mom wrote on Sep 7, 2007 9:50 AM:

" i think that all children should be with their parnets .the child is not the one who made them to come into this world.think about it.last time i check it takes 2 people to make a baby right. "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 7, 2007 6:12 AM:

" also I would like to add that if this passes and your ex does what he says he is going to do, and doesn't keep up his end of the bargain, the kids won't want to be with him anyway, so what are you really losing, maybe some support money big deal. Like I said check your ego at the door, this is a win win situation for all. When my ex disapoints my kids I say well you know how he is. My son said to me last night.... Mom you are the better person, you are thinking about us, dad only thinks about himself.... my son is 13. He has to go to his dads today, but you know what he will remember all of this the rest of his life. I am proud to advocate for both parents and child, change is always hard in the beginning but it gets easier. There is a 50% chance that my son will divorce and I want to be able to see my grandchildren regularly. "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 7, 2007 5:54 AM:

" notafundatmentalist I have never called you names, and I apreciate that you want to learn al sides but we have told you go do the research you don't have to listen to us. All I am getting out of you is fear of losing something. Don't deny it any more, you are not against this measure you do see the good in it but you are not willing to vote for it because as I said you are afraid it could come back to haunt you. As I have said this bill will help future generations more than likely your own flesh and blood, look at it that way. Your arguement if is fruitless, I am not judging I do understand I understand that when I was a kid I would have given my left arm to be with my father no matter what my mother said about him, maybe she was right is what I found out, but I still had to find out on my own. As much as I don't get along with my ex because of how he is, I am letting my kids find out on there own. I will say this, he loves them and they love him, and they will not resent me for keeping them from him but they do resent him for trying to keep them away from me. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 6, 2007 11:27 PM:

" NotafundalMENTAlist, why can't you see the facts instead of being a pesimist? You are far from a realist. You have constantly put yourself down by being inconsistant. I hope your x whatever he is comes back and does start a relationship with his child. You are just plain ignorant and selffish. You either can not read or are just to ignorant to understand. No one came out and picked on you and we never started anything with you. You always started them by failing to see the facts. FACTS FACTS FACTS, it is all about the FACTS. Read the FACTS understand the FACTS and do the right thing and do not deny your kid their father. Kids without their father end up dropping out of school more often then those with. Those without a father end up with being pregnant while they are teens. If you want to protect you child that is fine, but keeping them from the other parent is not protecting them but denying them. get it right. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 6, 2007 10:42 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: Yes, he could have sued you for full custody at the beginning and I think he had the right to if he wanted to. The child is both of yours - not just yours. That is the mentality that needs to be overcome - that it is the mother's child and the father is just there for the ride or something like that. The child is just as much the father's as the mother's, so why should he not have been entitled to sue for custody? As far as his habits, if they are how you describe them, them he is easily deemed unfit and you should have nothing to worry about. As far as what I said to Shaina about being lucky that she was not married, I stand by it. You still have the right to sue for custody, married or not. You still have the right to child support, married or not. It is just that once you are married, the government steps in and you are FORCED to do a lot of things that you were evidently very capable of doing on your own without the government interference. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 6, 2007 10:24 PM:

" Jim, I never in any of my posts said that I was married; I always said my ex; that doesn't automatically mean married. Also as far as no one else on this board, your attitude and the attitude of the others here is why they are not posting; you insult people and then run them off. I seriously DOUBT you changed many of their minds; I think they just all realized they were not going to get you to see their side; and as far as my ex defending himself; no need for that. You have done that enough for the both of you. "

Shaina wrote on Sep 6, 2007 10:24 PM:

" Yeah... I mean... it would be nice to not have to see my ex anymore... obviously we broke up for a reason -- but how could a parent be so selfish to deprive their child of another person/family who love them? I don't speak an ill word of dad in front of my child and I compromise as much as possible to make it work smoothly FOR MY CHILD. I'm not saying it's easy but how a parent could have the heart to deprive their child of the other parent is horrifying to me. Kids need their parents! It should be a parent's goal to raise a happy, healthy child and that only happens if the parent's remember that it's not about them. I don't think parents realize how heartbreaking it is to be a child where the parents are at each other. Those kids love each parent so much and are so caught in the middle. Then somehow, they find a way to blame themselves -- whether they tell you or not -- kids will blame themselves for what is going on. How can people do that? I want my child to grow up happy and feel content. His dad and I don't always agree but we both have our son's best interest in mind so we find a way. It's about compromise and letting go a bit for the best of everyone. I am so sad to hear the reality of the court system. It's no wonder kids are more and more... messed up. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 6, 2007 10:04 PM:

" Jim and Hi again, your comments are also the reason a lot of people are turned off by this bill. You catch so much more flys with honey than vinegar; you can't even disagree with someone in a mature way without putting people down, and then you expect them to VOTE for your cause? NOT! You really will not have the support of custodial parents if you continue like that. I was trying to be fair to everyone and see all sides, but everyone who has a different opinion than you, you have to insult and try to run them off. I really don't think those who voted against the measure last time are going to vote much differently this time; especially hearing what they do from both of you. Good luck to you both, when the votes come up short a second time you can scratch your heads and wonder why. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:59 PM:

" You show your true self worth when you chose to have a child with this fella. Stop with all the accusations regarding this fellow, he can't even defend himself and you have no merit. Also, show me people that are turned off by this measure. You are the only one here protesting it. All others that have been here are gone as they must have figured it out that this law is better than what is in place. Almost all the people that I have appeoached to sign this measure have thought it was a good plan. There were some concerns at first but after an education, they saw it is for the betterment of all. Also, I thought you said in one of your firsts posts that you were married. Which is it, your story always changes depending on the day and the situation. I certainly hope you don't plan on having anymore children, your kid now doesn't stand a chance. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:51 PM:

" Hi Again, I am glad you spoke before I did, you were too kind to notafundelmentalist. Better she hear the truth about her from another female. Nice job! "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:33 PM:

" To Hi again, you really know nothing about my situation, and until you are in it, don't judge what you don't understand. If my ex is such a saint, then he would have custody already instead of getting high and blowing off his kids. Your all or nothing attitude is the reason a lot of people are turned off by this bill. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:30 PM:

" I am also not married to my ex, but was told that he could sue me for custody anytime he wanted to, and that even though we weren't married, he still had the same chance of getting custody as me. I was also told that it would be wise for me to get a custody order in place prior to him moving back to the state. I was prepared to share custody at that time because he was staying clean and was working; but when he left the state I was told that he automatically forfeited custody, and that I would get it by default, but I that I had to "hire a lawyer" and make it "official" first. It made it seem like if I didn't that he could come back to the state at anytime, take them out of state and never bring them back and there would be nothing I could do about it, which was basically what I was told. He was also calling sporatically and leaving messages on my answering service, threatening to take the kids back to Minnesota, threatening to have me fired, to have me killed, crap like that so that played into my fear too. Well, of course, I was scared of that happening. Then when he moved back to the state, he wasn't working, he was living with a young gal and partying all the time and didn't want much to do with the kids, so then I was relieved that I did. When he lived out of state the kids saw him maybe twice in a year. I had to do a seperate custody order and then go through child support enforcement, but I still had that legal protection under the law as a non married parent; but I was considered the custodial. From what I was told, my ex had the same protection under the law; he just chose not to excercise that right. That was my understanding. "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 6, 2007 8:20 PM:

" shaina ya it is pathetic, and believe it or not most people don't know it, or they know bits and peices and don't tie it all together. Its really pathetic when you really get it. notafundamentalist I guess we know which side of the fence you are on and why, I hope your grandchildren don't have to go through this. For this law, you have to drop your ego at the door, parents like you don't understand that your childrens relationship with the other parent is really none of your business that if it really is as bad as you say it is they will make up their own mind, they are people too and they also have civil rights. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 6, 2007 6:45 PM:

" Shaina: Good thing that you were never married. Single people can split and they have the right to push for child support or not. If you had been married and gotten divorced, the government would have stepped in and FORCED you to have a child support arraingment even if neither of you wanted it. They would FORCE you to buy health insurance for the kid even if you couldn't afford it - single parents don't have to by law. And the list goes on and on. If you talk to someone within the system, they will tell you that the child support if for the child not the parent and the parent doesn't have the right to reject it because it is for the child. They seem so worried about the rights of the child but what about the rights of the children in cases like yours? They don't seem very concerned at all about those kids. And what is the deal with parent not having the right to make decisons on thier kids behalf? Don't we, as parents, do that every day? It is almost as if you get punished for being divorced. I have yet to figure the system out and I doubt I ever will. "

Sunshine wrote on Sep 6, 2007 3:10 PM:

" To Shaina--- What a great gal you must be, to put your child first. Thank God there are mothers like you who can work things out for the right reasons. I commend you a lot. Just think custodial mothers out there- this woman is putting the best interest of the child first! The child needs the Daddy,too! Think of the money they are actually saving by not arguing about visitations, no court costs involved,no judge telling them what they are ordered to do,and a happy child! Think of the money they can put away for what the child really needs besides love. Let's see- college fund, etc. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 6, 2007 11:58 AM:

" To Hi again, I am not the one who stands to lose from this, but my kids are. Yes, you have a right to raise your kids, go for it, and good for you that you support this bill for the RIGHT reasons. I also have the right to raise my kids and to advocate for them when I feel they will be put at risk. My ex is already calculatiang how much child support he will save and how much I am "worth" when this whole this goes through. NOT exactly thinking of the kids now is he? I won't tell you that you can't raise your kids, but please don't tell me that I have to hand my kids over to a father who I KNOW will neglect them. What the children tell me....Is that clear and convincing proof enough for your new law? I DOUBT it very much. What I have seen with my own eyes but have not actually photographed...is that going to be enough? I DOUBT it very much. And yes, I am ALL for the constitution; ESPECIALLY the freedom of speech thing; I like that ALOT. "

Shaina wrote on Sep 6, 2007 10:21 AM:

" Mike and Hi Again -- That is really pathetic and hopefully this thing will pass for the kids sake. My ex-boyfriend and I (never married) have a child together. We have a shared parenting agreement -- joint custody -- no courts involved -- no child support either way. I am glad we never married and don't have to fight a judge to do the right thing for our child. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:46 AM:

" Hi Again, Great post, very true and very well said. Good thing this post was not started with a post like this or this would be a short comment board. "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 6, 2007 7:42 AM:

" notafundamentalist if you were a realist you would take a good look at the data out there and say "great lets do it, done deal where do I sign" You have stated "great idea in theory" This one has gone beyond theory it has been tested, analized, beaten up one side and down the other and still come out on top it is on the final lap of success. There are groups all over the country, hundereds of people, trying to change the system. We have been complaining about the system for years IT IS NOT WORKING, it is TIME. People are like sheep, they follow, then they complain, they feel sorry for themselves, they don't vote?????But its people like us who get mad, get educated, and want to take back our civil rights that get bashed? talk about a system who wants to make a city smoke free but sells cigarettes, and if it passes they want to raise property taxes. A system that makes you wear a seat belt in a car but doesn't make you wear a helmet on a motorcycle. Tell me I can't help raise my kids because I got divorced??they are governing us to death. What about the consitution that we were built on.....freedoms of speech, civil liberties such as the right to privacy???I believe that it is my business if I get a divorce, how I raise my kids unless I comminted a criminal act that can be proven beyond a resonable doubt that this SYSTEM has violated mine and my childs rights. All of the pathetic laws they pass, when all they have to do is look at the constitution. I don't need protection from myself. Now, I give you credit for trying to see both sides, but REALITY IS when I explain the SYSTEM to people in person they change their mind if they are against it, if I cannot change their mind it is because they either work in the system, or they have something personal to lose or they think they do, which one are you? "

Mike R wrote on Sep 5, 2007 10:42 PM:

" Oh, I forgor to comment on the other point that Hi Again made. Judges do not want to award joint custody unless the couple gets along really great. That way they think there will be no fighting and it will be easier on the kids. First off - it the couple was getting along so well, they probably wouldn't be getting a divorce now would they? Takes a real Einstein to figure that one out! Secondly the system is designed to be an adversarial system - just like criminal court. It doesn't need to be that way, but that is how it is set up. Even if you are being civil and getting long fairly well and trying to be adult about it, the system will find a way to turn you against eachother. I don't have the time to explain how it happened in my situation but this GREAT system we have now made everything we tried to do turn out worse. We originally both wanted joint custody, but the judge rejected the divorce decree because he personally didn't like joint custody arraingments. That was the start of the tension, and every step along the way, it got worse. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 5, 2007 10:35 PM:

" Shaina: Hi Again is right. Joint custody is not awarded in most cases because judges are stuck in thier ways. They go back to the time when the mother always got custody because the dad worked all the time and the mother was home with the kids all the time. Times have changed and judges have not. The judges in this state refuse to change because they think if they change, they are admitted that they must have been doing something wrong, and they never EVER make mistakes. Judges in this state believe that they know everything there is to know about every situation that comes before them. If you don't believe me, find a ND District court judge and try to talk to them about any topic. You will see what I mean with the first few seconds. The money making industry comment - right on again. That was pretty much the entire case against the measure last time - "look at all the federal dollars we will lose". It wasn't about the kids. It was about the money. That is really sad isn't it? "

Jim S wrote on Sep 5, 2007 10:28 PM:

" I just had to ask as it just seems that you are always looking for this thing to fail. Studies show the facts, past proven history shows the facts on how this measure is great for kids. With all of that, you still lean towards there is not enuff evidence to say if this will work when all the true evidence says it will it is and it has. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 5, 2007 9:11 PM:

" Jim, neither one....I'm a realist. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 5, 2007 8:01 PM:

" Notafundlementalist, are you an optimist or a pesimist? "

Jim S wrote on Sep 5, 2007 3:18 PM:

" I found this interesting, yesturday I took off from work to take my youngest to the doctor. Of all the children in there, 2 were brought in by both parents, 1 was brought in by a grandmother and 4(including mine) were brought in by the father. This is an example of how things have changed. I remember when my oldest was a youngin, the mother was 8 out of 10 times the one to take her to the doctor. In the 2 hours that we were in the doctors office and waiting rooms, there was a male present in 6 out of 7 children appointments. I wish I could sit and try to figure out the numbers in a day or a weeks time. "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 5, 2007 1:02 PM:

" Shaina there are several reasons 1. its an old way of thinking that the children are better off with the mom because in years past they were the ones that stayed home and where the primary care taker. We all know that has changed women are in the work force just as much as men. 2. They use the excuse that they do not want to give joint unless both parties involved are getting along, which actually has the opposite affect that is why it is called an adversarial system, we believe that if each is awarded 50/50 if they are fit this would actually stop alot of fighting. 3. It is a money making industry. The more money Childsupport dollars flushed through the system the more federal funding the state receives, so if they award full to one parent the maximum child support will be paid flushing more money through the system vs. joint and taking both incomes into consideration in alot of cases when the income is about the same there would be no exchange of dollars the parents would just have to split the expenses or what ever they agree on between them completely taking the system out of the middle. The attorneys are our biggest challenge and we all know what they charge, they want people to keep fighting. If you need more information goggle shared parenting you will find all kinds of stuff about how and why. Also go to NDSPI.ORG we have a link to some video from a group in Minn. fighting for the same thing it is very interesting. "

Shaina wrote on Sep 5, 2007 10:27 AM:

" Why don't judges like to award joint custody?? "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 5, 2007 10:27 AM:

" To Jim, my hope is that all children DO win; however, I don't believe all of them actually will. I think it is premature to say either way. I do hope that if this law does pass that you are all as passionate about improving it and working the kinks out as you are about passing it in the first place. Would be a shame for this to just be a flash in the pan and then be done with it; without any follow up and re- assessment of how effective it is working and what needs further improvement. I hope you will all put aside some time in the end for this kind of follow up; I think you will need to do this eventually. Good luck. My ex will love if this passes; he is already calculating how much child support he will not have to pay, and how much I am worth. lol! "

Jim S wrote on Sep 4, 2007 11:38 PM:

" Well, Mike and Hi again, looks as if those that were against this have either changed their thoughts and have realized this is the best way to go or they know they just can't win against the facts. Pretty soon it will be just us in here trying to keep this open so people will come in and ask to sign. I am very confident that this measure is going to win. Not just win but can you say landslide? Maybe I should rephrase that and say all children across the state will win by a land slide. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 4, 2007 10:46 PM:

" Wow: I was thinking today who you really were. Were you a custodial mother or the very rare custodial father. I thought you must be a custodial mother. You made it sound like getting custody was the simplest thing you have ever done (for most mothers it is). You know 3 people who got exactly what they wanted even though that decision is court is very rare ( I was thinking that all 3 cases must also have involved mothers). You want to criticize us for how we see things, but you are looking at the situation from your own experiences also - exactly what I am being condemned for. What you fail to realize is that fathers do not have an easy time (like you did) of getting custody. fathers do not get the rare court decisions to go in thier favor. You see this issue from the perspective of the custodial mother who marched into court and got everything you wanted just because of your gender and nothing more. You ARE IN FACT what this measure is fighting against. No wonder you are not in favor of it. No wonder you cannot see the facts that Jim S has taken the time to lay in front of you. "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 4, 2007 9:37 PM:

" wow you are exactly what we are fighting against you don't see it but you are exactly what I would consider as brain washed....you just can not see past the BS. to any one who wants to sign or collect signatures go to NDSPI.ORG Jim I have 90 signatures total. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 4, 2007 7:26 PM:

" To online editor, is there someway that I could give my contact information phone number without posting it on here for everyone? You can reply to jsimmers@westriv.com "

Jim S wrote on Sep 4, 2007 7:11 PM:

" I am a signature gatherer. email me at simmsjs@yahoo.com and I will give you my contact information. "

Wondering wrote on Sep 4, 2007 11:02 AM:

" Is there any where i could go to sign this measure? my computer isn't working right and i can't send E-mails? "

JIm S wrote on Sep 4, 2007 9:23 AM:

" To Wow regarding your 8:08 post. How do we know this will help the majority? I thought you read the website I gave you. Facts show this helps the majority. I have given nothing but the facts and yet you agrue and spin it at us. You have not shown one fact outside your own closed little mind. Find a professional FACT that I can research and post it. Hi again, Mike and myself can argue the point because we do have the facts. You have nothing of any merit. The only thing obvious here is the fact that you do have something to lose no matter how you state otherwise. You stand to lose sole custody, if you did do what was in the best interest of the children, you and your x have equal custody arraingments. I have also asked this many times and notafundlementalist is the only one who could provide a legitamate aguement but even that was shot down but facts and reading through the whole article. All the studies and the past has shown that there are obsticles to overcome but in the long run they get worked out and still, everything always works for the betterment of the children. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 4, 2007 9:13 AM:

" If this law were on the books, the playing field would be even and neither parent could "pull rank." So WOW, how do you make a law that fits everyone? You don't; you can't. It is impossible because no matter what, you can not please everyone. But history and studies have shown and proven that this law IS in the best interest for all involved. It does help the majority and not the minority as is the case with the current law. "

wow wrote on Sep 4, 2007 8:18 AM:

" to Mike R obviously you believe that this never happens and I have seen three cases where it did, I did not say in a row you put that in. Also I did not say all three failed, two are still having major problems because of vindictiveness by one parent the other family finally worked through the whole thing although it took awhile they are doing well. As I said previously in THEORY this would be great but when you get down to it you really never know because each case is so different. There are too many variables in each case and hman nature. You at times sound as vindictive as you've made your ex sound. I did not exactly like my ex either through our divorce but he was able to put his vindictiveness behind and we worked together even though at times it was a pain. We did this for our children. Even if this law went into effect how would this change any of the vindictiveness you talk about? IT WOULDN"T> "

wow wrote on Sep 4, 2007 8:08 AM:

" to Mike R I have no reason to make things up because to use Jim's words I have nothing to gain or lose whould this become law it will not affect me at all. TO Jim S I believe the ones who like to argue are you and Mike R and hi again because you cannot look indifferently at something and see the flaws there are. You say that you should not have to request joint custody but isn't that what you are supporting? If someone requests joint it is "automatically" given unless found unfit. This is what you are fighting for and yet you don't think you should have to ask for it. Same as now. Also Mike I did what I had to do for my children and it worked out well just because you believed your ex doesn't mean they are all like that but you are going on YOUR bias and not what is necessarily the majority. Someone said earlier that this law would help the majority of cases, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? Just from your experiences? Not very reliable now is it? The three families I know agree that this law would be problematic as much as the current law is and that no matter what YOU believe about judges following the law does not change their opinions and in the end it is in their opinion that the judgement is made. Case law is so broad from case to case that their opinion is what they rely on. You could be the best parent on earth and you go to court and come across negatively to the judge who do you think they are going to believe if the other person is asking for sole custody? Just changing wording of law will not change the human aspect of it whatsoever. I cannot believe that you do not see that, it is so obvious. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 3, 2007 10:09 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: Maybe I shouldn't be accusing Wow of anything, but I do find it amazing that I have seen it happen many many times where one parent wanted joint and the other did not, and I have NEVER in any of those cases EVER seen joint custody awarded. Now Wow has seen it happen 3 times where only 1 parent wanted joint custody and it was awarded all 3 times. Statistically impossible if you ask me. Also it was a disaster in all 3 of Wow's cases, when statistically shared parenting works well in every state and in every country where it has been implemented. Combine that with the odds of 3 parents getting joint custody in the first place - well you know how I feel about it. I know the stats that I (and several official studies) have seen. I find it hard to believe that Wow has seen the exact opposite 3 times in a row. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 3, 2007 9:31 PM:

" To Hi again, I have 47 thus far. I have only been in front of 52 people. To notafundlementalist, That is the reason I put down my side and stated that I am for this and I have nothing to gain. I have many years and many case experiences on this subject. Not as close to the courts and to the judges as Mike has been but plenty with the subject itself. To WOW, Of course anyone can ask for it but why should I have to ask to exceersize one of my rights? I should have to speak up if I don't want. Mike is right on it is fact that joint is often asked for but almost never granted. It again should be the norm that joint custody is awarded and not the exception. WOW, I think you like to argue. If someone said there is not a cloud in the sky, you would agrue it without going to take a peek. Is there going to be obsticles to over come? I would be a complete idiot to think that there wouldn't be. Will judges hold on to old school thinking? I am sure they will. BUT, if it were the law that Joint be given unless proven otherwise, then judges would have to go with the intent of the law or face the music. Also, it should be the burden of one of the parents to provide proof as to why the other parent should not have joint. Something in the line of a police report or something from Social Services that says otherwise. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 3, 2007 8:01 PM:

" The non married parent thing is obviously a flaw in the measure; makes me kinda wonder how many more flaws will be found. But regardless, I don't think it's fair to say that someone would make something up just to prove their own argument. For all we know, both sides could be making things up to help their cause. I personally don't think the people on this board, including myself, are necessarily the best people to represent either side; we all have our own experiences, our own biases, and our own judgements about other people. There has been alot of mugslinging, alot of bitterness and rude comments on this board, some from myself also; and that doesn't solve anything or make anyone here very credible. I think everyone is entitled to speak here without being slammed constantly for their views. Just my opinion. "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 3, 2007 6:55 PM:

" Mike and Jim have you collected any signatures yet? "

Mike R wrote on Sep 3, 2007 1:27 PM:

" Wow: Say what you will about who got joint custody. I have never heard of it happening. I think you just made that up to add ammo for your arguement. You seem to think it is EASY as pie to get joint custody, and anyone who asks can get it. That proves beyond any doubt that you have no idea at all how the system works. You could not possilbley make that uneducated statement otherwise. You also seem pretty self righteous in your statement that I could have ignored the threats and fought for custody anyway. I know my ex's threats were not just hot air. She would have done ANYTHING to get custody and that includes lie, cheat and steal. Maybe you are the kind of person who fought for the kids anyway out of your own selfishness, but don't come here and try to judge me. "

wow wrote on Sep 3, 2007 1:01 PM:

" to Jim S I have read the proposed law and I have gone over your site you provided and still there are too many things that can go wrong with this just as the current law. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO REQUEST FULL CUSTODY NOW. TO Mike R my ex threatened me with all kinds of things to but I still fought for what was right for my kids, and guess what all his threats were talk, maybe you should have tried, the kids did not have to know all the details unless you showed them the whole recorded information from court. To hi again seperation is a legal term that involves a marriage not just people living together and that is how the courts look at it. Several states require a seperation for a period of time before a divorce is allowed, such as NC is one year and GA is six months. Also no matter what law you come up with will never cover all situations so it should be left up to each individual case and those parents stepping up if they want custody or not as they have the ablity to now. Also Jim S I believe you may be the ignorant one for thinking this will be so great if it was passed. To Mike R I know three families that one parent wanted sole and the other wanted joint, joint was awarded and for two of the families it has caused more problems than you could even imagine and the kids are really having a hard time the other family finally worked something out after about 3 years of misery. That is why I believe this law that if you go in and want joint and it is basically automatic can be a problem. You take two audlts who hate each other and try to force them to work together will cause a problem somehow no matter what. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 3, 2007 9:41 AM:

" Hi agian: I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I have spent enough time around judges and courtrooms that I know how they read and interpret things. It is going to be looked at in the legal seperation context and not the context of non-married parental seperation. I would almost bet on it. I hope for the sake of all the non-married non-custodial parents out there that I am wrong, but I don't think I am. Hopefully judges will follow the intent of the law when it passes and not get to hung up on the technical terminology, but I have seen some judges that could care less about the intent of the law and pay a lot of attention to the exact wording. I forsee this being a problem. Maybe not in all cases, but I think some judges are going to try to dance around the law by going after the definition of the word seperation. Just seems like it could be a problem. "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 3, 2007 7:37 AM:

" Yes it was thought of, and legal seperation is legal separation and seperation is seperation as in parental seperation. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 2, 2007 9:22 PM:

" Hi Again: I, unlike many on here, am capable of looking at things objectivley and I have to say that this is something that maybe we didn't think of when drafting the measure. Seperation is a legal term - as in legal seperation, which is the period of time between when one spouse leaves the home and the finalized divorce. Legally speaking, there really is no term defining when a non-married couple splits up. I think the term seperation would most likely be used in the strictly legal sense, which would leave a lot of non-custodial fathers without the rights that this measure is going to offer to divorced non-custodial parents. I guess if I were a non-custodial parent that was never married, I would think that kind of sucks myself. I really can see that as a flaw in the measure, but I still think the measure needs to pass as it is better than what we have now. "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 2, 2007 6:21 PM:

" The initiative states divorce or seperation ............seperation as in not married. "

Jim S wrote on Sep 2, 2007 2:27 PM:

" It should not matter if you are married or not. It could encourage people to step up and take responsiblity for being a parent. I think fathers coming out of the woodwork to all the sudden are going to be no more than what is already happening. I think it will not change but I hoip eit does. It frustrates me to no end when I hear of fellows that claim to have children but have never and don't care to see them. If one doesn't care enough now or can not afford it now, I don't see them all the suddem coming up with $2500 to get any visitation and to get a straight 50/50 might be tough to get because they were never there. But for parents that have always been apart of their childs lifes, this would help ensure that they have an equal oppertunity. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 2, 2007 1:24 PM:

" Child custody and marraige have nothing in common. Married or just living together, mother and father should have equal rights. I say should have - not sure if that was thought out thoroughly or not. Maybe that could be added as an amendment. I don't see the married part having anything to do with the father's (or non-custodial parent's) rights. They have to pay child support the same as if they were married. Why should custody be different than that? As far as coming back later and suing for joint custody, that could happen. Even with the system we have now, it is pretty common for the non-custodial parent to challange the custody arraingment. That probably won't change. I guess maybe the non-married couple thing is the flaw in the law. Might have to work that out. Still better than what we have now. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Sep 2, 2007 11:05 AM:

" Maybe this is covered territory already, but how will this law affect children of unmarried parents who lived together and then split up? Will it work the same way as if they were married or will the union not be recognized as a marriage and therefore the mother retains custody? And what about unmarried parents who split prior to this law going into affect. Can the noncustodial parent come back and sue for joint custody? Just curious. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 1, 2007 4:50 PM:

" Someone mentioned before that there was a hole in my theory. That if I got joint custody and took away the power my ex has that it might back-fire - that losing that control could cause her to become even more vindictive. I guess anything could happen, but I know of a divorced couple (Hope you don't mind Jim S) that had kind of the same situation. She was controlling and used every tactic in the books to mess with his head. After the judge ordered enough of the silly stuff and made it clear that her games were not going to be played anymore, things got a lot better. She did not freak out over the loss of that power. Once she lost the power to control his life, she became quite civil about things. There were no more games to play. It didn't do her any good to try, so she gave up on it. Why are so people so sure that it would be different with everyone else? "

Mike R wrote on Sep 1, 2007 3:40 PM:

" Wow: I have NEVER heard of ANYONE EVER being awarded joint custody when both parties were not in agreement on it. If Both of them are not 100% for it, it NEVER happens. Please provide one case where you know the outcome was different. As far as why I didn't fight for my kids, it wasn't in their best intrest at the time. My ex wanted the kids for the power she would have over me. She made it very clear that it was going to be an ugly fight at any cost. I did the hardest thing for any parent to do. I backed out of the fight so my kids wouldn't have to go through that. I couldn't stand the thought of what a fight like that would do to the kids. I also didn't want to do to my ex what I would have needed to do to get custody. So I became the bigger person and walked away, thinking that someday when the time was right to try again. YOu can be as self righteous as you want to be, but the truth remains. The truth is that some people didn't fight for custody because they were thinking about the kids and it has nothing to do with being unfit. You want to talk about vindictive and petty? I think your last comment really said something about yourself. "

JimS wrote on Sep 1, 2007 9:16 AM:

" WOW, it is you that is wrong and it is you that doesn't understand and it is you that is just plain ignorant. Look at that dang gum facts, they're right in front of you. A judge can think whatever they dang well please, but they better be following the law plain and simple because there are a lot of other avenues one can go against the judge too. Give it a rest already, your claims are without merit. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 1, 2007 8:18 AM:

" And the number one reason that the term "unfit" is not defined and "written in stone" in the measure is: They don't want to limit what is and what is not unfit. What if you define the term with a rock solid (not vague in any way) definition and then someone comes along doing something that is definitely harmful to the child but something that wasn't considered when the definition was written. Common sense says the person is unfit to raise the kids but according to the law, you can't find him unfit because of the rigid definition of the term that everyone so badly wanted. People are always coming up with different things. There are always situations that arise that no one thought of yesterday. The term is not defined because it should be left up to interpretation and common sense to some degree. How else do you allow for all the unseen things that arise but were not planned for? Now there is something that could really clog the court system. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 1, 2007 7:11 AM:

" Jim S: Is it just me or is Notafundamentalist a hard person to read? They come out against this measure originally. Then they switch and start defending it. Then they jump all over the person who is also defending the measure. Seems to me they are trying pretty hard to play both sides of the fence. "

Hi Again wrote on Sep 1, 2007 7:08 AM:

" collected another 40 in about an hour "

wow wrote on Aug 31, 2007 11:51 PM:

" there are those on here supporting this that did not get custody or joint. Why was that did you even try to and if you did why did the judge not grant it? the same thing would happen again with this law if you tried before and lost then you somehow were found "unfit" for joint custody. That was up to the judge to decide and if this law would go into effect then that same judge I doubt would change his opinion. THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE LAW NOW AND ANY LAW BEING PROPOSED. THE JUDGE/COURTS HAVE THEIR MINDS MADE UP ALREADY FOR THE MOST PART. That is the biggest problem except for vindictive, petty adults around here. "

wow wrote on Aug 31, 2007 11:41 PM:

" to hi again you are trying to make this so simple and it is definitely not. There really is a even field for everyone walking into court now if you want it that way but some people are just to ignorant to do this. I know several families that went to court and asked the judge for joint one side asked for sole and in the end they ended up with joint. I think that this law is no better than the current one. Basically you need to open your mouth in court and make your wishes known and hopefully your childrens wishes. NOTHING CHANGES WITHOUT THE COURT OR JUDGES GETTING OUT OF THEIR OLD TIME THINKING!!!!!!!! This law is no better and many people that I have talked with even those going through a divorce right now with children involved think this is a major problem waiting to happen. You obviously do not understand this. You are stuck on the wording for joint, 50/50 whatever. I look at the fact that this makes it no more a level playing field then right now because this does not change the judges/courts attitude. If you goto court now and not given custody because the judge finds that how do you know this will change that outcome. I am talking about those that went in asking for joint when the other wanted sole. Nothing in this law changes what the judge believes in the end. Thank goodness most the people I know understand this fact and will not sign anything for this bill because it really changes nothing in the end. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 31, 2007 10:33 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: No, the reason I never jumped all over Rex has nothing to do with gender at all. It was a juvenile, sarcastic comment that was designed to start a fight. I chose not to acknowlege it as to not encourage the guy. The comment didn't deserve a response. To mike r: I am naive? I would bet that I know 10 times more about case law in all aspects than you do. Calling me naive about case law is the pot calling the kettle black pal. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 31, 2007 9:34 PM:

" Notafundlementalist, please give it a rest. I say this not being or trying to sound harsh, I do like your optimism but the negitism has to stop already. And you wanted me to comment on people that make dumb comments about there check? Should I make a comment on you last statement? As far as other states, look at other countries like the UK. Not only is this universal as Hi again put it, but it IS universal as in international. "

Boy o Boy wrote on Aug 31, 2007 5:36 PM:

" Did everybody get their checks today? I got mine! "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 31, 2007 5:21 PM:

" concerned parent, the con you are referring to wouldn't happen to be the "all or nothing" and "not taking into account the INDIVIDUAL needs of the child and family" would it? That was the one that stood out to me the most; kinda seems like a big DEAL to me.......well, gotta get supper on for my kids since I'm the only parent who seems to care what they eat.... "

walk the streets wrote on Aug 31, 2007 4:59 PM:

" You're right, other state are similiar to us. I've talked to a few of my friends that live in other states and they have the same issues as us as far as both sides not being able to agree. I think we should all start collecting signatures. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 31, 2007 3:32 PM:

" I also search some of the other states language and found ours to be very similar. Pretty universal sounds like to me, well i am going to collect signatures. "

Concerned Parent wrote on Aug 31, 2007 2:43 PM:

" To notafundamentalist. I checked out the web site you referred to. I found 6 pro’s for the children and only one con that MAY be bad for the children. I browsed thru several pages on this web site and everything I read seemed to support shared parenting. Here is a quote from that web site “Conclusion Joint custody can work, and work effectively for kids, dads and moms, but it has to be done right. It is not easy for the parents, but it is the best option for the kids. Just make sure you are being selfless, putting the kids first, and keeping the long view. It will pay great dividends for them and for you.” "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 31, 2007 1:51 PM:

" singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues......wasn't too tough to find cons all I had to do was google it; hard to believe no one could find it........... "

Concerned Parent wrote on Aug 31, 2007 1:05 PM:

" To notafundamentalist. Here is an update to your numbers. There are currently 20 states that have joint custody laws on the books at this time with another 8 states with bills pending to add joint custody to there current statutes. That breaks down to 40% with the law and another 16% with pending legislation. See http://members.tripod.com/~mdcrc/legislation.html "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 31, 2007 12:51 PM:

" I was going to say that too Jim......I also have not found one thing negative about shared parenting in my research, I challenge anyone to find some. To notafundamentalist that is 6 states in the last couple of years with several working on it. Is there something in ND bylaw that says we always have to be last to change anything? "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 31, 2007 9:45 AM:

" To hi again, you are right. you will make a huge impact. some children will be impacted positively and other children won't do well at all, and be put further at risk in addition to dealing with a divorce, and be impacted in a negative way. but you believe in what you are doing; so go for it and see what happens. there are only about 6 states so far that have done this, 6 out of 50; that's only 12%. So we'll see what happens. I for one, would like a front row seat when things go down. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 31, 2007 9:40 AM:

" To been there, what exactly are you trying to say? "

Jim S wrote on Aug 31, 2007 9:39 AM:

" I missed what REx had said but you are right, that was BS. People can say what they want, I am a supporter, advicate and a signature collector for this measure. I have 25 names to date in just 2 hrs of visiting with folks. I agrue when someone comes on and says this measure won't work because......... because why? Studys, past history and the facts show that shared parenting does work, is a bennefit to all kids. Fact is, i have never found one article, one bit of proven fact or study that says shared parenting is harmful to children and that it is not good for a child to have both parents in their life. Even for spouses that drink, do drugs, cheat steal, whatever, the kids still love that parent. Maybe they don't deserve to have 1/2 custody but that is where the guildlines for determining fit virsus unfit come in. Question I have for you notafundlementalist, since you say this will not work in every situation, where do you get your facts. I honostly don't beleive it will work in all situations but then again, it might work better than what we think. I am 100% certain it will be 1000X better than what is in place now. But, since I can not find one shread of information on why shared parenting is a bad idea, maybe you could share your resource so I can read it too. I have provided a website with "pro" information. I would like the same in return. Maybe it is you are a nurse and see lots of instances that says otherwise? My wife is a 4yr RN who is the DON of a local hospital who has a legal nurse consaultant tittle behind her name, and she does not know of anything against shared parenting and she is also as much a supporter of this measaure as I am. If you would, please give me some hard facts. "

been there wrote on Aug 31, 2007 8:21 AM:

" Is this something that could be done when the divorce is final. The sad thing is, most people don't think of this until they are going through a divorce. 1. They want equal time w/kids, when prior to divorce there wasn't equal time. 2. Doing this to get even. 3. PLEASE everybody think of the kids involved. Having your parents get a divorce is hard enough without being caught in the middle of another battle. "

To Mike R wrote on Aug 31, 2007 7:32 AM:

" Your are too naive. Case Law is supposed to be there to "guide" judges. Look at the District and Supreme Court Decisions and see how they ignore Case Law - State and Federal. Our Judges seem to think they are all knowing about law and, from my personal experience, decisions, while couched in "legalistic phrases" are based more on personal knowledge of prosecuting attorneys than on evidence and fact. Look at the decisions, read the transcripts. You are too naive to be true. "

yes wrote on Aug 31, 2007 7:27 AM:

" you're right mike ... murphies law "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 31, 2007 7:09 AM:

" Jim, it will be interesting to see the outcome if this law passes. For some it will help probably, and for some it will probably make their situation impossible. I just don't agree with the extreme argument that some people have made that joint will benefit in all cases. Some kids are not going to thrive in that situation; some will actually be put at risk. You have acknowledged that, Mike R, has. But some of the others here haven't. You have also acknoweledged that your situation is the way you want it NOW; Mike R. has acknowledged that his situation wouldn't be helped right away. This may or may not affect mine; the bottom line is next November will be the deciding factor when all the votes are tallied. For now, I support the non custodials who NEED my support; not the ones who are just doing this to get back at their exes. And I want to just comment on what Rex said about not being able to wait to cash his child support check. I find it REALLY interesting that you and Mike have not commented on that. If Rex were a woman, you both would have been all over that! You want equity; fine, but you don't want to give it back in the way you respond to both sexes. I find that interesting. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 31, 2007 6:06 AM:

" notafundamentalist you are right it may be idealistic but I do believe that this country was built on idealism and hope for good things. WE know it will not work in all cases but I bet it works in the MAJORITY unlike the present system. It will work more and more as the years go by, the more it is practiced the more it will be accepted. Look how far we have come in the last 20 years, did you ever hear of any men with custody? As far as making people grow up well we might not be able to do that but I do think that we can make a large impact. It has been proven in other parts of the country, and statistics prove it, this is better. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 30, 2007 11:46 PM:

" Mike, murphies law. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 30, 2007 11:44 PM:

" Notafundlementalist, The law now doesn't work in all cases, matter of fact, it only works for the custodial parent. usually the mother. Sometimes I think you have opened your mind some but you too are still stuck in "old school." If the playing field were level and joint was awarded to both like it should be, then the children would have a better chance at having a relationship with both parents. Of course some of the same issues are going to come up but they can be brought up with evidence,(if there is any) and a good reason why the other parent should only recieve minimal visitation if any. As far as the judges and courts go. They have to follow the intent of the law and they too must have good reason for desiding the way they did if it is NOT joint. I am not sure why you and wow can't see this. Again, don't make this any harder than it is, it really is not that complicated. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 30, 2007 11:05 PM:

" Hi again: Thanks for clearing that up, but I wasn't trying to make a point of it not being defined. As far as I am concerned, it is already defined in hundreds upon hundreds of previous cases. Case law definition is just as sound as if it were defined within the measure. don't believe me? Find a judge and ask him. I am just saying that just because every word is not defined in the measure itself doesn't mean that the definition doesn't exist in the law. Some people will never be able to grasp that though. Sad, isn't it? "

yoland wrote on Aug 30, 2007 9:50 PM:

" I totally agree with hi again. I hope everybody reads the articles that were posted by newspaper man "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 30, 2007 9:47 PM:

" To hi again, I get what you are saying and it does make sense. Your heart is in the right place, the problem that I have with this is that you cannot FORCE someone to grow up. If that were true all the laws we have in place now would never be broken and everyone would be mature. Yes, people can be forced to work together under whatever circumstances they have to, but that doesn't guarantee they will grow up. Your expectation for this law is that parents will work together peacefully, with minimal conflict; sounds great, but it's a little idealistic. The REALITY is, it's not going to work in all cases. Do you honestly think that two parents who are fighting about their kids NOW, are going to fight LESS when a new law is passed? This is not a magic pill for the divorced masses. And we don't need to argue about statistics and how much better it is to have both parents, and how this study proved this and that study proved that; you are preaching to the choir here. I would love my ex to step up to the plate and give me a break now and then, and I would LOVE to be able to TRUST my ex with mundaine details like remembering to check the balance in the kids' lunch accounts or helping them with their homework, or GOD forbid making sure they shower and brush their teeth once in a while, or actually SHAMPOOING his carpets every now and then, so the kids don't have to visit him in filth. But unfortunately, I am alone in the world when it comes to my kids. My ex is NEVER going to change. It's not going to happen, not in this lifetime; and not in the lifetime of alot of others in my same situation either. You noncustodial parents who really DO give a crap, need the law on your side, you REALLY do! But I just don't think this will accomplish what you hope it will. "

got wrote on Aug 30, 2007 9:42 PM:

" Well Rex I hope you got your check "

mom wrote on Aug 30, 2007 9:35 PM:

" strong words capt crunch "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 30, 2007 5:36 PM:

" WOW you don't get it... they will not be given joint if they do not want it the other would automatically get full. If the law is put into effect it will only force the one requesting full to prove the one asking for joint unfit CLEAR AND CONVINCING. I have been nothing but logical about this but you a definately a product of the problem, you don't understand the system. That is our point you cannot JUST WALK IN AN ASK FOR JOINT BECAUSE YOU WON'T GET IT. hOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL YOU IT IS NOT THAT EASY. First of all I am also a product of all sides I have four step sisters, and I am adopted, my mother and father have been divorced 7 time between the two, don't tell me that the children cannot be shared I have two children in this situation and resently one moved in with me by choice and the other with the ex not by choice they want joint. Secondly, up to this point they have spent an average of 12 days at my house for the last two years do I not deserve joint? IS 12 DAYS NOT SHARING ALREADY? They are very well adjusted thank you, so don't tell me it can't be done. Like I also said in past posts about this if you make it so there is minimal opportunity to fight maybe the parents will grow up. My advice to you is like it has been said in the past you need to think about this or do some MORE research because you don't have a clue what it is you are trying to say and you are not convincing anyone of anything, Personally I am sick of it. Is there anyone else that has an opinion that makes sense? "

wow wrote on Aug 30, 2007 2:46 PM:

" to hi again as I said before if parents want joint custody they have the ability to ask for it now. If this law is put into effect there will be those automatically given custody that really do not want it. Not that I think that is a good attitude but I have heard little good attitude on this forum. I have seen comments that as soon as this goes into effect I am going after my ex and comments that people are worried about child support lost. Anyone has the ability to walk into court now and request joint or sole custody why any of you that do not have custody did not do so and show evidence as why this would be beneficial is beyond me. If you did and the judge gave sole custody to your ex then he must have had a reason, and if you think he did not how do you know going back now will change anything? As I said I have been on every side of this, child of divorce, custodial parent and non custodial parent so I see many flaws in current and the proposed law. Unfortunately we live in a very imperfect world and there will never be a time when there is never divorce and a good way to have the children spend all their time with both parents. I never fought for sole custody but joint which ended with two children living with my ex and my disabled son living with me and me paying a very nominal child support and having insurance along with my ex having insurance. Human nature should mean that your children come first but all I have heard from most here is about the custodial or non custodial parents feelings and not a whole lot about the children. Unless alot of adults grow up and act their age there is no law that will change anything ever. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 30, 2007 1:51 PM:

" Wow ....I have answered your question, I am not the one with delusions, of course there will be some that ask for full custody, hopefully with good reason otherwise they are not going to get it. It will just end up being a dog and pony show in the court room, my advice to them is if they do not have CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE then save your money on the attorney. Judges on the other hand HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW. Not a concept that is hard to understand. "

Captain Crunch wrote on Aug 30, 2007 1:06 PM:

" If women want equal rights, they need to take equal responsibility. This means registering for selective service. "

half pint wrote on Aug 30, 2007 11:40 AM:

" Jim S, I read it, I'll read it again (probably 3x), then I'll put my opinion on. Thx. "

It's Time wrote on Aug 30, 2007 11:38 AM:

" I will sign this petition. In an age when men and women are supposed to be equal, it is time to do away with archaic ideas like "mothers must always keep the children because they have some special status due to being female". Special status or special rights is not real equality. The time has come for 50/50 custody. "

REX wrote on Aug 30, 2007 10:27 AM:

" Today is August 30, 2007 a Thursday. Almost time for another child support check from my ex-wife. You gotta love it! "

wow wrote on Aug 30, 2007 10:25 AM:

" to high again so you believe with this law that one parent won't ask for full and the other joint? You are delusional if you think this law as is will change anyhing. The fact is alot of the judges are from old school maybe we should look at getting younger ones in that see the reality that either parent could be sole or that joint would work but until you change the courts mind this law will not change anything except as I previously said. I also stated in THEORY this sounds like a good law BUT it will not change the way a judge looks at a case if someone says they want full custody. I have not talked in circles I have stated the same thing that this law will not change most outcomes because their will always be the judge/court to factor in. No this will not change anything for me because my boys will be 19, 18 and one just turned 16 and this would not change my situation but I do not believe this will help a whole lot and I still have friends that this could affect and it would be harmful in 2/3 of them and about half of that 2/3 are fathers who have sole custody before some of you jump on the bandwagon that I am trying to help vindictive mothers out. "

ballot wrote on Aug 30, 2007 8:17 AM:

" I hope if this does go on the ballot, both sides get out and educate the public. Otherwise a lot of voters will be guessing on there ballots. "

Mary wrote on Aug 30, 2007 7:59 AM:

" I have to share a positive experience, my dear friend and her husband divorced. They had 4 children. They had a nasty divorce but still rose above to consider the best interest of their children. Today, the children are grown and very well-adjusted adults. Just think about it.... "

half pint wrote on Aug 30, 2007 7:10 AM:

" Thanks for the tip Jim S. I'm looking forward to reading it and I will respond. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 30, 2007 6:46 AM:

" Mike R no it is not defined in the measure but we do have initiated intent drawn up for those who are questioning exactly what our motives are. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 30, 2007 6:44 AM:

" To half pint when you decide that 50/50 is right goto NDSPI.ORG we need all of the help we can get to collect signatures. I collected my first 30 yesterday in about an hour....we are on our way!!! "

prenup wrote on Aug 30, 2007 6:36 AM:

" Maybe their should be a pre-child custody agreement (like a prenup), then everyone will be agreed upon before marriage. I wonder how many people would sign something like that????? "

MIke R wrote on Aug 30, 2007 5:36 AM:

" Jim S: Somone came to the table with an open mind? How is that possible? I thought the state was full of people who knew everything even before they had the facts. Is this a sign of some sort? "

Jim S wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:21 PM:

" Half pint, that is a great post. Finially someone comes in that doesn't know much if anything about the measure admitts to needing more information before stating an opinion or even without bashing an X. Nice job and thank you. Try this site for one source of information. http://www.spig.clara.net/sp-over.htm "

Mike R wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:11 PM:

" Here we go again: The term unfit is not defined in the measure, but it is defined in working case law (family law) time and time again. Social services uses this term in thier reports on a daily basis. If it was such a useless, undefined term, why would all social service workers be using it? I have made this point several times and no one ever addresses it. They just wait a week and bring up the same tired old (unvalid) point again and again. Why is that? Notafundamentalist: Very wrong on your statement. It does NOT take 2 to screw up a relationship. It takes 2 to make a relationship work, but that relationship can be completely destroyed by either one individually. "

half pint wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:48 PM:

" This is a hard one...I'm going to have to check into it a little more. Right now I'm honestly 50/50. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 29, 2007 7:28 PM:

" To Jim, I knew my ex probably about as good as you knew yours. As far as the judge judy thing, no matter what side of the fence you are on, it always takes at least two to screw up a relationship. To hi again, good point; divorce is between a two parents not the child and the parent. Under normal circumstances that is how it should be; unfortunately there are, believe it or not, still parents out there who want nothing to do with their children unless there is something in it for them. Hard to believe, but true in some cases. and yes, if i were to die tomorrow my ex would probably get the kids, GOD help them both. Excellent posts. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 29, 2007 12:35 PM:

" Who is this lady? The CS language was not what made this measure lose last time the reason it lost was because of a bunch of bureaucrats, and attorneys that were afraid of losing income and scared a bunch of people with a bunch of BS. The CS language is not necessary there are already guidelines in place for joint custody. As far as losing I am pretty sure that all involved in the last measure were not disapointed about the 46% of the vote considering we only had a hand full of people working on it. Double the time, double the effort, double the vote. It is a winner. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 29, 2007 12:12 PM:

" As a matter of fact we have language it is called initiated intent. Good question how CAN a judge rule against a parent that wants joint in our current system based on fitness? We have in place what they call the best interest of the child factors, have you ever read them??? There are better than a dozen of them that I have tried use several of them to get a change of custody but basically the attorneys say that is not enough although they use these to determine custody at the time of a divorce. Also and more importantly there has to be a change in circumstance in order for a parent to get a change of custody that an attorney will tell you basically the only changes that they will accept is neglect, abuse, they are even questionable because What neglect is may be different to you than it is to me, the same with abuse. The sad part is they won't change custody at all for a good reason like "it is in the best interest of the children" they don't care they treat people like cattle and standardize everything. So my answer to you is you can't take the children away from either parent unless there is neglect or abuse CLEAR AND CONVINCING. In my mind all we are doing is flip flopping the law, they can use all of the same standards that they use now but the court will not be able to MAKE a parent fight for something that is already their right. The burden of proof will be on the parent who is trying to take the child away. "

here we go again wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:25 AM:

" So, I'd like to know...what exactly makes a parent "unfit". One person may think that a person is unfit because someone doesn't go to church on a regular basis, while the next family never attends church. Since it does not define what makes a parent fit or unfit, how can a judge ever rule on it? This lady thinks the only reason the last measure failed was because of the child support language. Sorry lady, but that is not the case. Its because it is a poorly written measure and it is going to cause more problems, confusion, and back-log our courts even more than they already are. You can't have a 2-sentence measure and give no definition of its terms. How is that going to make anyone's lives any better? "

Jim S wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:38 AM:

" Wow, it sounds like you are spinning in circles. Hi again is exactly correct. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:37 AM:

" To High again. Great post and more true than not. I was watching a Jay Leno awhile back and he had Judge Judy on and he asked her about some of the cases that come through her courts. She said some of the most rediculas court cases are some of the divorces she presides over. Jay asked her why she thought divorces are so common. She responded, "8 out of 10 marriages fail because the female in the relationship after whatever time will find that she can't change her male partner." Thus when she realizes he can't or wont change, she will go look into finding another someone to "change." If people would put their family first and forget about their selfish selfs. In my opinion, a divorce should only be granted if one parent or spouse or child is being abused. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 29, 2007 7:50 AM:

" notafundamentalist point well taken.....but I don't think your child really cares about what woman your ex dates, or if he has a job. You made my point exactly, he did these thing to you not to the child, yes it did ruin the family unit but I am sure none of it was directed toward the child. I don't really care what the circumstances of your divorce are but I am sure that your ex does love the child and no matter what you say or do your child will always be apart of your ex. I think I read that this would not affect you anyway but..........regardless of what happened to cause a divorce if the guilty party wants joint then they should have the chance to, if they mess it up shame on them. Let me throw out a what if..............what if you die and the child has to go live with a father that they don't even know??????I would rather keep parent and child involved as much as possible. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 29, 2007 7:32 AM:

" Wow....Maybe I should say it this way a parent should not have to FIGHT for joint custody, and if you read your next sentence you basically just quoted the measure. I understand your point completely, but you are not understanding that the court has tooooomuch control and THAT is what needs to change a refresher course is not enough. As far as both parents requesting joint that is not the problem, the problem is when one wants full and the other wants joint. This law change is about the parent who wants full proving the court that the other does not deserve joint vs. the person who wants joint to prove to the court that they deserve joint. We are asking parents who before the divorce already have custody of their child (a divorce is between parents not parent and child) and they should not have to prove to the court that should be able to keep a right that they already have. The law is to protect the right of the parent and child from being taken away from each other without do cause. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 29, 2007 5:28 AM:

" Jim S: I would vote for a law like that. Or at least force people to prove that they have grounds for divorce. This whole idea that someone can walk away from thier responsibility to thier families "just because they feel like it" is amazing to me. It is easier to get out your role as a family then it is to get out of a cell phone contract. Does anyone else see that as a problem? I think they should change the wording of the wedding vows. They should remove the wording about In sickness and in health, in good times times and bad, in richer and poorer, untill death do you part. The should replace it with wording something like this "Do you promise to love, honor and cherish until some time when you find something better or just feel like like giving up". Maybe Its just me: YOu say you just wanted to cause trouble. I would actually believe that. Your comments have so far not had any other real purpose. You can choose to be sarcastic about it all you want, but hey sometimes the truth hurts. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 28, 2007 11:21 PM:

" Then maybe you should get to know the "other" person better before getting married. Maybe kids from divorce should go to the grandparents. Not all but most of our parents are still married. and not all our parents are any better than any of us. They were obviously able to find the good to keep the family unit together, no matter what. Maybe you are all right, there is nothing wrong with the current law. maybe the real problem is that it is too easy to get married, to easy to have children and to dang gum easy to quit on your family. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 28, 2007 9:49 PM:

" As far as the comment about "there must have been something good about the ex or you wouldn't have married him..." yada yada however it went, I'm sure there probably WAS something, but for some reason the only thing that sticks in my mind at the moment is why we split. Weed, other women, and not working for some reason all come to mind, and that tends to overshadow whatever it was that was good about him. Using that as an argument for the other side is a little lame, sorry, and really has nothing to do with the issue of joint custody. If I had known then what I know now I would have been the runaway bride instead of Julia Roberts, so what? It has nothing to do with the issue. How I felt about my ex has nothing to do with how I feel about him now; and if I thought he was a decent father, if we ALL thought our ex's had redeeming qualities, we wouldn't be debating ANY of this would we? "

wow wrote on Aug 28, 2007 8:25 PM:

" to hi again obviously you are not understanding the point of the courts needing a refresher course because if these parents request joint then they should not be refused unless there are circumstances that are dangerous to the children. To make this mandatory/automatic is leaving alot up in the air. If both parents request joint now they should have the chance but if they don't request it they don't have a chance. You say they should not have to ask for joint but that is exactly what this new law is saying "if they request it the court must" . In REALITY there is no law that will fit every case so every case must be taken case by case. I really think 50/50 in THEORY is a great idea BUT it is not always realistic and can be dangerous in some situations so it will still be case by case. Someone just needs to wake the courts/judges up and see that either or both parents are capable. Just because someone has a child does not mean they are capable of caring for that child the amount of abuse in this country is proof of that. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 28, 2007 1:16 PM:

" Wow, yes either parent has the right to ask for 50/50 under the current law.....but if one does not want to have it then 9 out of ten times sole custody will be awarded. in my opinion a parent should not have to ask for joint custody, it is their RIGHT to have joint custody unless PROVEN unfit. A judge cannot just cannot just decide one is unfit because they FEEL like it. CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE is CLEAR AND CONVINCING. By the way many, many people request joint and are refused. "

wow wrote on Aug 28, 2007 10:33 AM:

" okay for the last time under current law either parent has the right to ask for custody or 50/50 and you would need to convince the court of this. As I said the court needs an overhall not laws yet. If you already feel that the judge has old fashioned ideas you need to wake them up and change their opinion which this law will not do. If the judge feels like believing a parent who islying to get sole custody the judge could still rule one unfit. or the opposite could happen like my previous post. No 2 cases are the same, maybe simiar but not the same. the way things are now you have the ability to ask for 50/50 and get it. the more laws we make the more confusing he system gets. My actual opinion of parents who don't automatically ask for custody, sole or joint, do not really want the responsibility day to day, so why pay the money but if they could use this law making it a must they are not paying anymore and can tell their spouse I will stop if you do this... Neither law is perfect but I would rather stick with the known until the courts change their attitude and then and only then will things change. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 28, 2007 7:29 AM:

" Wow that is a good point but..........if either party has joint and neglecting their responsibilies and neglect is cause for change of custody then you can go back for full custody. I think this measure gives all parents the opportunity right out of the starting gate to be a parent. Unlike the law now, you have a ligitimate right taken away when in most cases you didn't do anything wrong. That is why the current system is so adversarial, if you lose you right after the fact you do not have the right complain. That also is a constitutional right innocent before proven guilty. One thing that escapes everyone is you people married these people there must have been something good about them, you must have loved them and I asume they loved you back are you trying to tell me that they are incapable of loving and caring for their own children, seriously come on, people get angry and fight when they are mis-treated and the current system has built a business out of mis-treating people and keeping the system unbalanced. In the days that few people got divorced they probably were unfit, divorce is too common now to say that of the 50% of people that are getting divored that 25% of them do not deserve 50/50. Custody and CS are only weapons from one parent against the other, have you ever heard take the weapon out of their hand. Maybe then we can focus on the children. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 28, 2007 12:57 AM:

" Mike, am I you or are you me? Funny people that come on here and shoot their mouths off and when asked for facts with searchable references and the whole place goes quiet. I have searched for facts from both sides, funny thing is that with all the cases out there, all the expert studies, none can come up with anything stating that if both parents are fit and want to share the raising of their children, it is harmfull. Maybe you and I would be fighting against this measure if our shoes were on the other foot and we were trying to protect something that we don't have the rights to have full authority over. "

Maybe it's just me wrote on Aug 27, 2007 11:50 PM:

" No Mike, actually I don't really think you and Jim are the same, I just wanted to cause trouble. Why, because I REALLY don't get out much. I, like the many other single moms am at home raising my kids. I know, I should be at the bar blowing all my child support.... But I had to do laundry tonight so my undies are fine, but thanks for your concern. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 27, 2007 10:59 PM:

" Sorry, I meant IP address, not url. Wouldn't want anyone to get thier undies in a bunch because I mis-spoke. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 27, 2007 10:38 PM:

" Maybe it's just me: Why don't you ask the online editor to track the url's on our posts and see if we are the same person. He has done it before many times. I can assure you that Jim S and I are not the same person. You must find it hard to believe that 2 different people have the gone through the same thing in life and now have the same outlook. YOu don't get out much do you? "

Mike R wrote on Aug 27, 2007 10:14 PM:

" Wow: You claim that parents who don't really want the kids will fight for joint custody under the new law that never would have fought anything under the old law. I very (and I do mean VERY) seriously doubt that. "

Maybe it's just me wrote on Aug 27, 2007 10:01 PM:

" But....I can't help but wonder if Jim S and Mike R are the same person. "

JIm S wrote on Aug 27, 2007 8:07 PM:

" Show me something that is PROOF as too how this law will harm kids more than what the current law does. Notafundlementalist has it right, she has nothing to worry about and if her x wanted to fight for custody now he could. More kids are harmed by not getting to spend equal time with both parents than they are when with parents that are what some call "unfit". "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 27, 2007 7:50 PM:

" To wow, the last post was meant for you, but I wrote it to smalltown girl by accident. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 27, 2007 7:44 PM:

" Smalltown girl, that was my fear exactly, that my ex would fight for joint custody and then I would get a phone call that one of my kids was seriously injured while in his care. And the more I think about it, the more I thought that could happen now also under the old law. When the kids were with him in the past, they have had to sleep on the floor or on inflatable mattresses. They didn't even haved beds at his place until I bought them beds. It is just ridiculous. He is paying a small amount of child support, but I feel as though I am supplementing his household. That aside, I think there are alot of situations like ours that could be negatively affected by this, and still every one of those parents like my ex can go to court and sue for joint custody if they really wanted to under the OLD law. I definitely hear where you are coming from because those are some of my same fears too. But my ex, for example, doesn't have the money at this point to sue me for joint custody. He wouldn't have money under a new law either. But for me, that is still in the back of my mind, and for those under a new law who are newly divorced or in the middle of a divorce, who feel their soon to be ex is unfit, but don't necessarily have the quote unquote proof, or whose ex would want joint custody for the wrong reasons is why I am against the measure. For those noncustodial parents who feel that custodial parents withhold visitation or sue for sole custody to create conflict; the same can be said for those who sue for joint custody under the new law. I'm trying to keep an open mind, and I do sympathize with those who can't see their kids, but I really think it will be awhile before anything changes. "

smalltowngirl wrote on Aug 27, 2007 2:06 PM:

" To Jim S: August 14, 11:09 a.m. Re-read your post. Those are your words; I didn't put them there. I never ripped my ex, so you don't need to put words in MY mouth! I wouldn't have said a word to you about anything, because I agree with you that there are 2 sides to every story. You just come out telling me from the get-go that I am not credible & that basically I don't matter, after you posted the same type of stories that I did. Maybe YOU need to re-read my posts! I am a custodial, and a non-custodial parent. Are you both? Do you have any idea what that is like? Don't judge me, & I won't judge you. We all want whats best for our children, and when my kids don't want to be with their Dad for some reason, don't you think there is definitely a problem somewhere? "

JIm S wrote on Aug 27, 2007 1:28 PM:

" WOW, I don't see how you can read the site and say it does not give anything towards one way or the other. It is listed with all kinds of senerios, and answers to every question opposing it there is and there are no negitives against it. How is this not an informative piece? "

wow wrote on Aug 27, 2007 11:01 AM:

" to Jim I did read the one web site you posted which did not prove much one way or another. Again Mike R the point of people fighting for custody in the current law allowances is that everyone has the ability to ask for custody or joint BUT there are many that don't because they really don't want the custody, NOW change that to the courts must grant if requested, so now that parent that really did not want custody does it just because they can use it to force the parent that really does want cusody to go along with whatever they want in exchange from backing off. You see it does change the demographic of those requesting joint custody because it takes no extra money at first to ask for joint and the court will have to by this new law accomadate the possibility. Unfortunately there will never be a perfect law that will cover all situations so having the OPTION of joint and NOT the AUTOMATIC version of law is a problem. I have a friend who while getting a divorce found a judge that usually granted 50/50 to parents autmatically the spouse new that this was the way to get what they wanted, my friend thought it was best to have both parents involved so did not fight 50/50. About 6 months later during the spouses time the children were left alone because this person had to meet with a friend at a bar. 3 children under the age of ten, a fire, and only two children getting out, You see where I have a problem with the court saying they must grant it if the parent asks? OPTION yes MUST no. this was an extreme but to get my point across that there needs to be a court overhall before any law changes. The judge thought since the parent requested 50/50 that they really wanted to spend time with their children. "

JIm S wrote on Aug 27, 2007 9:47 AM:

" If you all would go and check out the website I posted, you will find that this law will help out the majority of our kids. We can all stae this and that and whatever, but when ever you run the numbers, numbers never lie. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 26, 2007 9:17 PM:

" Smalltowngirl, what you copied is what a judge told me. When he told me to get over it that "affairs" happen all the time. It helped to move on. I wanna know where I ever stated my x lives "high off the hog". Don't put words in my mouth. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 26, 2007 9:14 PM:

" Mike, you are right, I still wondeer how many have actually read this measure? I asked earlier for someone to give some facts how this measure is harmfull to our children. I want a proven study. it can not be that hard to find. Unless there is no proof that shared parenting is harmfull to children. people here are so scared to lose power that they have gained by having full custody of the children. WOW, Notafundlementalist, smalltowngirl? Any of you. Give me some facts and please provide your source so I may check it out. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 26, 2007 8:33 PM:

" Wow: Thank you for helping me make my point. Some people keep bringing up how many court battles this measure would create. They never think of how many there are right now without this measure. But you just admitted that parents are already using the kids as leverage and battling for custody just to get even. So if it is already happening now, why be so afraid that someone might do the exact same thing under the new system? By the way, no one still has been able to rationally explain why more people will supposedly use the kids as leverage more often under the new system than the old one? I say that the parent that will do that under the new system would have done the same under the old system also. Why do you think that everyone is all of a sudden going to get more vindictive and use the kids as more leverage? No one has been able to answer that. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 26, 2007 8:26 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: We have found some common ground. You stated "But we disagree HOW that can be accomplished. I don't think this bill accomplishes that; not for ALL children involved". The thing about it is that the current system doesn't do what is in the best intrest of the child - not for ALL children involved. You seem to want a law that benefit everyone, with no exceptions at all. The fact is that no such law exists and it never will. You do what is best for the majority and I think the proposed measure is a heck of a lot better than what we have in place right now. "

smalltowngirl wrote on Aug 26, 2007 6:40 PM:

" To Jim S: As I said before, show me where I "ripped" my ex. You sit there & say how your ex is living high off the hog off YOUR CS money (does your ex work?), how she's not using the money, or much of it, on your child, how's she's going to become a burden to the taxpayers after your CS ends, and calling her a lying cheat. (Sounds like you slammed her to me!) Does your daughter have a home, a vehicle for transportation to the places she needs to go, clothes on her back, food, entertainment, etc? My ex questioned my daughter the last time she was there about if I spend HIS money on myself. My daughter told him point blank that my kids are first. If your child would show up at your house for your visitation in grubby clothes, thin & starved, no toys or whatever her age range is for entertainment, then I would say she was 'living high off the hog' and you would be justified. Does your child suffer without all these things? Well, I guess I'm gonna go now, drive off in my new Cadillac, with my Gucci bag, and my Macy's charge card......all thanks to that massive CS check I get every month. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 26, 2007 4:53 PM:

" I take all sides into consideration but when one comes in here bashing the noncustodial parent right away, you lose all crediblity. Put up an educated agrument why this is not a good law backed by facts. Make yourself credible by producing some facts. I have submitted plenty as to why I stand behind this measure. And remember, I stand nothing to gain from this measure. i am doing this just so kids will always have access to both parents and parents don't have to waste valuable time and resources in fighting for what is normally a losing battle. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 26, 2007 4:48 PM:

" Smalltown girl, all my stuff is recorded on court record. I never slammed her like you did your ex. Stated my opinion followed by what is fact the she admitted to in a court of law. I think all you that are against this measure, need to go read the current law and add in the new measure to include this one and you may see things in a different light. i don't believe that none of you have all your facts straight. notafundlementalist, I still think you are confussed as how this measure is and what its intended perpus is. "

smalltowngirl wrote on Aug 26, 2007 3:59 PM:

" To notafundamentalist: Yeah I kinda figured he was commenting that in response to you, but I used it because he did slam her & he claimed he never did it! My ex is not a bad father, but I just don't agree with the way he has to come up with an 'excuse' as to why our son can't live with me. Why not just say "Because I love you & I don't want you to leave me." I know if my daughter asked to go live with him, I would let her go; not because I wanted to, but because it is what she wants. She is 15, she knows what she wants. It would honestly devastate me, but I would do it if that is what she feels would be the best thing for her. I would pay my child support, and enjoy the visitation I get. I thing it is wrong to force a child to live with a parent with whom they don't feel they want to. Not because "Daddy wouldn't buy me an ice cream cone, so now I hate him & want to live with my Mom" but there should be a good reason. I know there are truly some deserving non-custodial parents out there are getting the shaft & this is why they are fighting for this. I feel bad for them, I really do. I just know what would work for my family, and force isn't it. So, where's the happy medium? "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 26, 2007 3:16 PM:

" To Mike R, maybe I am a little paranoid or misinformed? as you pointed out. Or maybe you aren't getting your point across as clearly as you think you are or taking other's concerns seriously about why they are opposed to the bill as written. Yes, I go come across very negative sometimes, but you and Jim also come across as though your opinions or the opinions of your supporters are the only ones that matter. I think when it comes to a child's best interest, you are preaching to the choir about the importance of that. We don't DISAGREE that the child's best interest is what matters. But we disagree HOW that can be accomplished. I don't think this bill accomplishes that; not for ALL children involved. To say that a child need's BOTH parents, no matter what, end of story; is over simplifying the issue. I think the bill deserves a shot, but again, needs to be well written and well represented. It's two bad people from both sides of the issue can't come together and write something together that would give it well rounded representation. "

wow wrote on Aug 26, 2007 3:09 PM:

" to hi again I do not know what world you are living in but the statement that most would not fight for sole custody because both parents are fit is ridiculous. Parents do this now, using children as leverage in a divorce is common place in this country and giving this 50/50 as standard would just drag things out more and more mudslinging. The courts themselves must change their attitude. To Mike if you believe that the judges would do what they want it won't matter how many times you take could take it back to court you would still end up more than likely with a judge that would take the word of the last one. NO law will work until the system changes it's attitude. The children should always be able to talk to the judge (as long as they are able to) so that the judge gets the whole picture and as many have stated in most cases the children want both parents then the judge should take their opinion into consideration. Some children at younger ages have a tendency to be more honest about things happening in the home i.e. mom or dad being violent or abusive verses some adults who have been abused and are terrified to say anything about abuse when the other parent says I will take custody or 50/50 and make sure the kds hate you in the end. There are just too many variables case by case. The courts need an overhall not the laws yet. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 26, 2007 2:52 PM:

" Smalltown girl, the August 18th comment was directed at me, not his ex. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't take offense to it because I KNOW I'm nothing like his ex. i also agree that there are TWO sides to every story, as Jim as pointed out to me with my ex as well. I believe the same is true for him as well. Actually, I'm alot like most of the custodial parents on this board who don't want this initiative to be a "leg up for deadbeats" who might consider joint custody just because they think they can get out of paying child support. That won't make them fit to have joint custody, but this initiative would give them an open invitation to try. I don't think it will affect my situation, if my ex had the money for a lawyer he would have hired one by now, and would have fought me in the first place. But I would hate to see a child have to spend 1/2 the time with their parent who doesn't even want them, and that could happen. I also can't support something that doesn't take all situations into account. I don't like the wording that the court "must" grant joint custody; I would rather see something like the court has the "option" of granting joint custody, for example. I don't understand how the writers can be so specific on that point, but leave other scenerios open to speculation and questions. Just my opinion; I've been against the measure from the beginning, not because of the "idea" of joint custody, but because of the wording of the bill. I've tried to explain myself many times, and depending on which side a person is on at the time I post, I have been slammed alot, but it's only my opinion. "

smalltowngirl wrote on Aug 26, 2007 1:20 PM:

" Jim S - Aug. 7th "My wife cheated on me and that is why we are divorced. I don't think she is a bad parent because of that. I think she is a bad parent because she is selffish. Everything is about her and NOT the children. She has denied many visitation requests and has even blown off court twice regarding visitation hearings. She is always putting me down in front of our child. These are why she is a bad parent, not the fact that she is a lying cheat." "I have had to fight and the only reason my X and I can work things out like we have is because I am better looking than jail is. Even tho she hates me so. " AUGUST 14th " Basically I pay no attention to CS, it is only money and if something so insignificant makes my x happy and it makes my daughters life a little easier, so be it. Even though my x does not use much if any of the money for my daughter, it is still only money and I won't have to pay this forever. My X thinks she is living high off the hog but what is she gonna do when my daughter is 18 and she doesn't get the support anymore. How about when she is retirement age and she has no SS and had not worked enuff quarters to use Medicare? I guess then she will become a burden to all of us who pay taxes. " AUGUST 18th - The scarey thing is that this gal sounds so much like my exwife it is scarey to know there are two exactly alike. Not one true thing will ever come out of her mouth. My ex has more contempt of court charges against her for failed visitations than Elvis had hits." Jim, please show me where I ripped my ex. I made statements that were my children's own words. I can't imagine any of the garbage above coming from your childs mouth! "

Jim S wrote on Aug 26, 2007 12:05 PM:

" Mike, The difference between you and someone like smalltowngirl, is that when you come in here, you help fight for the measure and you don't readily rip your X; you rip the system. when small came in, all she did was rip her X. That is the difference. Oh yea, caught 2 limits on the big lake. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 26, 2007 12:00 PM:

" Smalltowngirl, I never said anything demeaning towards my X, I never ripped her or got angry. I told my story to build crediablity because I am for the measure and that I will not gain from it. When you came in here, all you did come off as complaining and yelling. When you ripped your X, I desided I didn't need to speak to you unless you have added something. "

smalltowngirl wrote on Aug 26, 2007 9:46 AM:

" No, not mad & bitter, just trying to get MY point across. Jim S doesn't have the guts to come back & say anything but instead you come back for him. I'm sorry if I came across in any negative way towards you. I, like you, hurt when we see/feel/hear what our kids are going thru. I get a little disgusted when I come in here, say what's on my mind, and Jim S belittles me & tells me he doesn't think I matter. Why? Because I am the custodial parent. But yet, I am also the non-custodial parent! So, why am I not credible? I wonder if he thinks about what he is posting before he thinks if his child would ever read the horrible things he has said about his childs mother. There are 2 sides to every story, aren't there? "

Mike R wrote on Aug 26, 2007 8:22 AM:

" smalltowngirl: I basically was agreeing with you and offered you an explanation, but yet you are still screaming at me? Maybe Jim was right. Maybe you are just mad and bitter. "

smalltowngirl wrote on Aug 25, 2007 9:31 AM:

" to Mike R: So you're saying, basically, if you & Jim S knew me personally, and you both knew how my son feels, you would agree with me? So I am lying? I am the non-custodial parent JUST LIKE BOTH OF YOU! My son calls me CRYING, telling me that he has ONCE AGAIN asked to come & live with me & was rejected. He is 13, and knows what he wants. When asked why he can't live with me, he is told that "if you live with your mom, you won't be as smart as you are here because your Mom won't make you do your homework" or "you won't have your own room there' because he would have to share with my younger son. He is also tole that "your mom won't make you clean you room like we do" and there are way more stories. It's funny, also, that in an earlier post Jim S says that I bring nothing credible to this, and yet all I did was share my story. He has shared MANY stories saying the same things I have. So it OK for him, and not me. Sounds like a double standard. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 25, 2007 7:05 AM:

" To wow this law change is not vague and the judges would have to follow it. The only time a judge would have to make a determination is when one parent is trying to get full custody and would have to prove the other unfit under the standards that are already in place. Most parent will not even attempt to fight because most parents are fit. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 25, 2007 5:23 AM:

" notafundamentalist: No one ever said that you were a bad person for wanting what you thought was best for you kids. It is just that you come off with such a doomsday scenario about this measure that won't affect you or your worst fears at all. You are fighting against something out of fear that you should have no fear about. I don't think that makes you a horrible person - just maybe a bit paranoid and a little misinformed, that's all. Wow: That is my fear exactly - that judges will find anything at all (even if they have to invent it) to throw out the 50/50 custody even once it becomes law. They think they are Gods already so they can pretty much do what they want. At least in a case like that, where there is a clear case of disregarding the law, there would be grounds to get another hearing. I just don't think that information by itself is going to change the minds of many judges. They reject information when given to them in that manner. They think they don't need it. They already know everything anyway. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 25, 2007 5:16 AM:

" smalltowngirl: Jim might come off as sounding harsh, but his credibility is second to none. I think the reason that you sound "mad" to him and I don't is the fact Jim and I went through pretty much the exact same thing, but even though our kids wanted to be with us, our ex's claimed that the kids wanted to be with them and that we were making everything up. I know my ex speaks for my son all the time without ever consulting him to see what it is he really wants. I don't think it is because you are a woman. I think it has more to do with the fact that you are a custodial parent telling a familiar story that he knows best from the other side of the coin. It is great that we are all looking out for our kids. Just keep in mind that what is best for you kids is not best for mine. "

wow wrote on Aug 24, 2007 9:27 PM:

" to Mike if the judges do not get a refresher course on how either parent could provide a stable life for their children this law will not change the judges mind because in the end if they are so set in their ways they will find something no matter how small to not give 50/50 because as you said they will have to go case by case. If they are so set in their ways they will not believe this will work either. The judge has the last say in what happens unless the parents work something out before hand and bring and agreement to the judge. There are too many loopholes in vague laws and this situation in custody is too different case by case to standardize anything. In theory yes it would be great if children could be with both parents BUT this is not possible alot of the time. Until we have courts that realistically look at each case in the best interest of the children and not what they grew up believing. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 24, 2007 5:04 PM:

" notafundamentalist it probably won't affect your situation, as it probably won't affect alot of situations. Concerning the moving, I believe that if both parents have or want 50/50 they are not going to be able to move so easily. It is alot easier to move if you have full custody or you are the single one. What is the next problem? "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 24, 2007 3:57 PM:

" Yeah know, the MORE I think about it and the MORE I read on this board, the more I TRUELY believe that this law will probably NOT affect my situation! First of all, I am NOT selfish, putting my OWN needs before my kids. Second of all, my kids didn't CHANGE schools when my ex and I split up because THEY didn't WANT to, and I wanted them to keep SOME stability, and Thirdly, I didn't take them away from their friends or keep them away from their father to try to legally extort money from him. He moved out of state and left the kids by his own choice. And when he finally moved back almost 3 years later, he decided his sabbatical from being a parent should probably end and now he has them whenever he wants. So I guess the ONLY thing I am guilty of is being a CUSTODIAL parent rather than turning them loose on their "father" completely or splitting custody with my ex who doesn't even WANT it! Wow, am I a "horrible" person..... "

Lisa A. wrote on Aug 24, 2007 3:05 PM:

" To concerned dad - I agree with you 100%. My husband went through the same thing when he was married before. He & his ex were both raised in a small town and planned to live and raise their children there. She decided to mess around, ultimately filed for divorce and wanted to "make a fresh start" with her new boyfriend and moved herself and the kids 25 miles away. Kids had to be uprooted and start a new school but at least they were close enough for him to be involved in their lives and have frequent time with them. When that boyfriend disappeared it was time again for "another fresh start"...another move and another new school for the kids. A year later she was sure she'd met the love of her life who lived in Fargo - another move, another fresh start but now the kids are starting over at their fourth school and now they are 225 miles away. Quality time is important, but don't kid yourself that 2-3 "quality days" per month can ever take the place of being there for your children on a regular, frequent basis. Throughout all of this my husband still lives in the same small town - in the same home - works the same job. His youngest son recently told him "you're the only thing that never changes in my life, I always know where I'm going when I come to see you and what to expect...I really like that." They say the adults are supposed to know what's best but maybe they should ask the children. "

smalltowngirl wrote on Aug 24, 2007 2:28 PM:

" To Mike R: You responded to me because I said Jim S has no credibility since he already has what he wants. I shouldn't have said it that way I guess, but he comes at me with this "I sound mad" BS, when in reality, I said the EXACT SAME THING as you did in your previous post about my child that my ex has custody of. You said your son cries knowing he has to go back with his Mom, just as I said MY CHILD does when he has to go back to his Dad's. Jim S. says that I am just MAD, but why does he not say the same thing to YOU? I mean, we both feel the same right? Is it because I am the woman? "

smalltowngirl wrote on Aug 24, 2007 2:18 PM:

" To wow: I did call my lawyer but was not informed that I could have the kids write to a judge; I was just told basically there wasn't anything I could do as long as there was no physical abuse or neglect. THANK YOU for telling me that I can do something, because you bet I will now! "

Mike R wrote on Aug 24, 2007 11:56 AM:

" concerned dad: AMEN. I agree 100 percent. When my ex left, the first thing she did was pack up the kids and move them to Fargo. We lived in a small town and both agreed that our kids deserved to grow up in a small town setting like we both did as kids. However, she immediately moved to the one place we both swore we would never want to raise our kids. I would have followed her to be closer to the kids, but she told me on more than one occassion that if I move, she cannot promise that she would not move away from Fargo if she finds a better job or lover someplace else. I think this was her way of telling me that if I move to Fargo, she would in fact move again to make it harder on me. She claims that she has only the best interest of the kids in mind, but agrees that I am a very good father, so what is her real motive for keeping me from the kids? She says she will move where-ever the job takes her for the money. When we were married, I gave up lots of great opportunities for myself because I didn't think I had the right to impact the rest of the family that way. She thinks nothing of it. My son hates Fargo and everything about it. He loves spending time at my house in a small town where he has a little more freedom and less to worry about. He has cried himself to sleep every night for the past 2 weeks because he knows that on Sunday he goes back to Fargo. I know that being in Fargo is not in his best intrest but what can I do? As is the case right now, the courts assume that the best intrests of the children and the best intrests of the custodial parent are the same thing. "

Concerned Dad wrote on Aug 24, 2007 11:34 AM:

" It is our resposibility as parents to make whatever sacrifices necessary to maintain the proper development and wellbeing of our children. The problem is that many invoved in divorce are greedy and selfish and only serve themselves. That is why laws that safegaurd the best interest of the children are necessary. I would agree with the initiative if it had a clause similar to this. "while both parents have equal physical custody, if either of the parents choses, for thier benefit , to relocate to a distance that would require the children to change shools, that parent would loose physical custody to the parent remaining in the childs origional shool district." Pure and simple you have chosen to have children and until they are 18 years of age it is your obligation to sacrifice a little for them. Find a job and a lover in a location that minimizes the disruption to your childrens already tramatic lives. It presently is not only unfair to the non-custodial parent for the custodial parent to "take off with the kids", it is unfair for the children. It is rarely in the best intrest of the children that they are relocated away from thier other parent, friends, schools and all that they are familiar with. If a clause similar to this was in the measure it would answer alot of questions and provide for the children stability and access to both parents. It is hard to argue that this wouldn't be in the best interest of the children but this is a forum and there are alot of selfish self serving people that this just would not work for. If that is the case you don't deserve the custody of the your children!!! "

concerned dad wrote on Aug 24, 2007 11:09 AM:

" We all agree on one point, we want what is best for our children. First unless there is abuse, the best for our children is no divorce, but this isn't always possible. Second is the security of keeping thier home and bedroom; due to costs this isn't always possible. Third it is best that they stay in the same school and keep thier old friends; this is almost alays possible and the only reason that this does not always happen is the custodial parent decides that thier happiness is more important than thier childs. Parents remove thier children from thier school and thier friends because the parent puts thier needs ahead of thier childs, whether it be for money, to be closer to thier new love, or to make life more difficult for thier ex-spouse. This is what needs to be addressed in the new initiative. I truely beleive in the exact wordage of the measure with the addition of a condition that would greatly benefit the children, isn't that what this is all about!!! "

Jim S wrote on Aug 24, 2007 9:14 AM:

" Mike, you are very right. Some judges are very modernized but most are oldschool. Judges follow the law and if this new measure were added to law, then it would be something that they would have to go by. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 24, 2007 8:37 AM:

" Wow: Change the frame of mind of the judges? I think my odds are 10 times better of winning the lottery. Judges in this state are set in thier ways. They think that they have unlimited power and no matter what they are always right. Do you know what the difference is between a ND District court judge and God is - God doesn't think he is a ND District court judge. Try to change that attitude? Good Luck. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 24, 2007 8:34 AM:

" smalltowngirl: How credible is Jim S? He already has what he wants, but he is fighting so no onese else has to go through what he did. I think that makes him 100 times more credible than anyone else on here who is fighting only for themselves and thier personal control. HI Again: It is amazing to me how many people last time voted against the measure because we didn't get DHS input, but when we tried, they refused any input at all. Now we are wrong because we didn't include wording favorable to the BAR, but once again we tried to get thier input and THEY REFUSED to give it. Why is it that we get blamed all the time for not getting the input that other agencies refuse to give? I would like one person to rationally explain to me how that is our fault. "

wow wrote on Aug 24, 2007 8:07 AM:

" to Mike yes Lisa's comment was rational and she should not have been blasted but then blasting someone back doesn't help with all the negativity. There has to be a happy medium somewhere but I don't think the current nor the proposed law will work well. To level the playing field as I said before needs to be taken before the judges and courts to change their frame of mind that only mothers should be custodial parents then there would be a level playing field for all. I also believe in THEORY this would be great but also in THEORY things would be better if their children were put first instead of the parents feelings toward each other but we all know that doesn't happen often either and we cannot force that on people. We can only wish that parents get along but like my situation my ex and I did not get along for over ten years and now with two boys graduating this coming May we get along better than when we were married at least for the last 5 years. "

wow wrote on Aug 24, 2007 7:56 AM:

" to Jim I guess on this we will have to agree to disagree because I still don't feel this is the right way to go although in theory it does sound good in actual practice I think there will be as much or more problems as the current. To Mike yes it does happen but this would not necessarily give a level playing field but a wide open space for people to automatically say they want custody to leverage the divorce now those that do that have way too much money and like to fight. About the negative attitude that is something you can control, just don't stoop to the level of those that just like to argue, sorry that was all I was trying to say. To smalltowngirl you do sound mad but if there was supposed to be a psycological eval then right the courts and ask when it will be done, also if both your children are teenagers all they need to do is write the judge because in ND and in most states the age of 12-14 starting the child can choose where they want to live and if they request the judge listen to them then they have a choice. My oldest was 16 and decided he wanted to come live with me he was in Georgia, they have the same law his father could not stop him if that is what he wanted just like when he decided to go back a year later I had no way to stop him because that is what he wanted, but we told him if he changed his mind again it would not be possible because of school differences, they have trimesters there. But because of the choice he had he was able to do this and all teens have this ability so instead of stewing about things not going your way DO SOMETHING about it. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 24, 2007 7:39 AM:

" It is most interesting that when you state something logical you never get a response: to Concerned dad "the wording" could not be MORE SPECIFIC and CLEAR. The bar association refused to work with us on the wording, DHS refused to have any input, they don't want it to change. As far as the courts attitude they need to change the way they look at it, they are behind the times, like wow and Jim said. Also this law is not going to REPLACE THE OLD ONE IT IS IN ADDITION. I could sit head to head with all of the custodial parents and find holes and excuses in their stories, if a parent is not neglectful or violent then they deserve 50/50 period. "

smalltowngirl wrote on Aug 24, 2007 5:53 AM:

" Jim S. - Oh, I am sure you won't be able to keep your mouth shut & not respond to me. How dare you say that I am 'just mad' that I only have custody of 1 of my kids! I willingly gave my son to his father on a trial basis, but it's notmy fault that BOTH children hate it there! I sense something in your words that maybe your son/daughter wants to be with their mother full time, and you know this. Hmmmm..........and as far as bringing 'credability' to this table: someone mentioned in an earlier post to you that if your situation is the way you want it, why are you here? How credible is that? "

JIm S wrote on Aug 23, 2007 11:16 PM:

" Fathers almost always have a harsher voice than the mother. Smalltowngirl, this is the only time I will comment to you as I don't beleive you bring anything credible to the table. We all have stories and to every story someone thinks there is a good side to it. You just sound mad cause you lost custody of one of your kids. Hey, they are his kids too and he has as much right to them as you do. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 23, 2007 10:08 PM:

" Wow: You say parents would fight for 50/50 custody just as leverage. Do you mean that parents now don't fight for sole custody only to use that fight as leverage? It happens all the time. What would change about that? I don't think anything at all would. What would change is that at least the playing field would be level. I don't think that is such a bad thing. As far as my sounding negative, go back and read the comments that were directed towards all non-custodial parents. I react negatively when some know-it-all without a clue like mamamia spouts off. Just look at her last comment. Lisa A. just made the calmest and most rational comment ever posted, and mamamia bashes her to the end of the earth for it. Yeah, that attitude does tend to get people in a negative mood. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 23, 2007 9:47 PM:

" WOW: It would not be a bad idea if there were refesher courses on this but that is why judges and attornies look up other cases of simular issues so there are guidlines to match with the evidence presented. As you see from the website, there are plenty of places to find information, if you do a google search on shared parenting, you will find all the links you need and talks about all other countries where there are cases to go by. The foundation is already there, we just need to build on it. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 23, 2007 9:43 PM:

" Wow: yes about the courts....agreed.......BUT, IF, and that is a very BIG IF. But if it were the norm, then shared parenting would be the first best option unless; one parent does not want it, and two; one parent is unfit. These are the only and I mean the only reason shared parenting should not be looked at first. If a judge is going to look at case that has been on the books already regardless of time, them other circumstances need to be looked at. Where the non-custodial parent lives, if that parent was actively apart of the childs life or is he/she coming back for revenge, and if that parent is fit. "

smalltowngirl wrote on Aug 23, 2007 9:37 PM:

" I have 2 children with my ex.....1 lives with each of us. The child I have custody of does NOT want to go for visits, and the child HE has custody of doesn't want to leave my house after his visitation is over. They are both teenagers; they should have a choice. I have to force my daughter to go because her father is a control freak & a harsh-voiced individual who scares the children & makes them very uncomfortable. Not to mention he is re-married & the new wife is harsh as well. I am also re-married and my kids call MY husband Dad and have asked that he adopt them. And you think this man deserves both of my children 50/50? NOT! And by the way, the only reason he has custody of our son was because he went thru his "I need my father" stage & I had to sign over custody in order for him to start school. There was supposed to be a psychological evaluation done in 6 months but it never happened. What kind of father would deny his son the chance to go back with his mother if he chose to do so? If this law passes, it will be the BIGGEST injustice to the children, and our judicial system has failed us. "

JIm S wrote on Aug 23, 2007 9:36 PM:

" WOW: you can find a million ways to dispute this but all are falling just a little short. Remember, the measure says, "Shared parenting IF both parents want it." That does not mean that custody is going to be forced upon anyone. You are right on what it says on the website but it always refers back to shared parenting being the best option for the kids in most cases. If it always refers to most cases, then that should be good enuff to warrent change. Anyone with any rational thought knows that the current system does not more for the majority but this one will. Every law, every piece in our system in any manor is never perfect for everyone 100% of the time. It is that way with all aspects of life. We as society need to what is best for the majority and deal with the minority. "

wow wrote on Aug 23, 2007 8:01 PM:

" Jim I read the web site you put up but did not find anything against what I said but it did reaffirm what I said about the courts. If both parents ask for custody now, the judge should look at shared custody and not just go with the old standby so a law will not change that. Before laws are changed our judges/courts need to have a refresher course on how mthers are not always the best for custody and that sometimes it is better for shared custody. In some cases it would be better but in alot of cases one parent or the other should just get visitation. There are many times a parent doesn't fight for custody because they really do not want the responsibility of daily care for the child but those are the same ones that would sit back and say that they want 50/50 as leverage in the divorce which is why I do not think this is good. Children are not leverage and if you are a good parent you will have no problem sharing the parenting duties just like when you were married. If only this was a perfect world but it isn't. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 23, 2007 7:51 PM:

" All these posts are opinions and there are no proven facts for those that are against this measure. i have given you a website where you can go and chck out the FACTS as to what history tells us. "

wow wrote on Aug 23, 2007 7:39 PM:

" to Jim the point of the home study is that if there is mudslinging you know kinda what your ex dd by saying you would never see your daughter again then the judge could say fine if you think he is so bad let's do a home study and see how things are if there is no problems either way they could give joint custody BUT as I said the judges need to look at themselves and the way they have done things in the past and automatically giving custody to the mother is not always the best thing. Adding another law on the books will not clear anything up until the courts look at custody issues differently. I do know it has gotten better because I have several male friends who have gotten custody. Now if you want joint you can fight for it and changing the law for that to be a standard will not change the fighting but it does add the problem of the parent who really doesn't want custody but says they do just to drag out the process and to be a jerk will happen by this. Just by reading some of these posts I can see that. To Mike I was not saying you didn't have the best interests of your child but you are coming off kinda negative which makes some people really wonder even more abbout this law change. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 23, 2007 6:16 PM:

" This measure was well thought out and planned. Someone didn't just wake up in thed middle of 2005 and state, " I think I am gonna throw together a bunch of hooy and see if someone will buy it." This parenting works in other parts of the country. In fact, other parts of the world. It just accurd to me that ND is way behime the times. To see what I am talking about, go tothis site, http://www.spig.clara.net/sp-over.htm This site sure opened my eyes and reinforced what I have been talking about. This goes to show that, and altho your questions are good and logical, they are nothing new and studies from real live court cases have answered them all. But plpease read it for yourself. You can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head in a bulls.... but wouldn't you rather take the butchers word for it. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 23, 2007 5:51 PM:

" WOW: I do see your point, but: people, namely mothers, use the current law to their advantage because they know that they have the better chance in winning full custody. If the playing feild were even, as is what this law would accomplish, then there is no upper hand. My x's two last words to me out the door were, 1, I had an affair and 2, you will never see your daughter again. She used this because she knew that she would have a better chance then I would to get custody. If a judge finds that both parents are "fit", why should a home study be done? What will they find? Was a home study done before the divorce? I firmly beleive that if the playing feild were even from the gitgo, then there would be less fighting and divorced couples would have to work together. I hear a lot in here how pwople think this law won't work but the old one doesn't work either. So, what I want to know is, how would you change things from where they are now? How would you change from the proposed measure being brought foreward? I stated this before, I am certain this new law is not a fix all, I think that would be impossible. I do beleive this new law is for the better. The old law was maybe fine when it was the male that was out being the bread winner and the female was the primary care giver. Times have changed and the male is as much a care giver as the woman is as oppertunities and progression through time has allowed women to be compeditive in the work place. For this reason alone should be enough to warrent a change. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 23, 2007 5:35 PM:

" To Wow, very excellent points! NO law will be effective when parents don't act as advocates in the child's best interest rather than their own. Replacing a bad law with a law that is open to tons of different interpretations and is full of what ifs and doesn't take all situations into account is not the answer. I agree with concerned dad as well and excellent post too by the way. The bill needs to be written with a lot of thought and intelligence, and when I posted that before I was bashed; but I still agree with that. Glad others see that as well. "

wow wrote on Aug 23, 2007 4:48 PM:

" What I see here is that alot of people do not get is the fact that not so much that the law must change is the attitude of the judges in these cases. Because of the fact that all cases are so different it will need to be left up to each individual case. If a parent says I want joint custody, 50/50 then a judge should look at the possibility but an actual law stating that as the norm could cause just as many problems as the current law because there will be those that will use that as a tool to cause hassle for the other parent not in the best interest of the children. To Jim what I meant by a home study is that the judge (not attorney) would call for a home study in cases where parents are fighting a joint custody agreement as was done in my divorce in another state years ago. Neither parent was found unfit and then the judge has a reliable source and not mudslinging to go to. The best interest of the children will not be served by ANY LAW it must be the parents to act like adults and understand that they both brought these children into the world and they both have a responsibility to spend time with their children. One thing to always remember is the QUALITY OVER QUANTITY of the time spent is alot more important. I still would not vote for this particular change because I don't believe it will work just like the current law is not as effective as it should be but that goes along with judges changing their attitude about automatically thinking a mother is always the best parent they need to look at both period. "

Say its not so wrote on Aug 23, 2007 3:23 PM:

" This again!!!!!!!!!! "

MamaMia wrote on Aug 23, 2007 2:28 PM:

" Lisa A: You're the one who has messed h18ozup your life, not your kids. Get over yourself and make the situation work for them, not to your selfish advantage. Think kids would like to be uprooted from their new school 225 miles away so you could have your 50-50 way? Think again. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 23, 2007 12:46 PM:

" I even know of a few couples in Bismarck that share their kids 30/30. This means that the kids are at one place for 30 days and then they go to the other place for 30 days. They attend the same school all year and have for the past 4 years. According to the kids that are 14,11, and 8, this woorks great as they get the bonus have having om and dad, the luxery of two homes, they have all the same friends and schools that they are familiar with. To me this would be most ideal for people that life in thw same area because it is less back and forth and allows the kids to get settled. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 23, 2007 12:33 PM:

" Great post Lisa A. To unbiased veiw, I see your point but remember 50/50 custody doesn't have to be 50/50 visitation. Mine isn't. 50/50 custody would give you an equal say in the raising of your child, major desicions regarding medical, school, religous and extracurricular activities. If 50/50 to the tee doesn't work for visitation because of geography conflicts, then what is wrong with a visitation plan that is set to make things as fair as possible? Go back and read my post on 8-22 and 8:26 pm. This is just an example and can certainly be agjusted. Heck, this was from the judge in my orriginal divorce decree. When the parents are forced to work together most will do it because they have to. For others, then a judge can make the descision for them. I fail to see that this as being that hard. "

Bystander wrote on Aug 23, 2007 12:27 PM:

" To Lisa A: THANK YOU AND WELL SAID,GIRL. SOMETHING FOR THE CUSTODIAL PARENT TO THINK ABOUT! ALL MY HUSBAND WANTS TO DO IS SPEND QUALITY TIME WITH HIS LITTLE GIRL, BUT, FOR SOME REASON, SHE TRIES TO DENY IT WHEN EVER POSSIBLE. IT IS COURT ORDERED, BUT, SHE WILL TRY TO FIND A LOOP HOLE IN EVERYTHING! HE IS SUCH A GOOD DAD, AND SHE KNOWS IT, BUT, SHE STILL TRIES TO DENY EVERY CHANCE SHE GETS. I AM THINKING INSECURITY OR SEPARATION ANXIETY ON HER PART. JUST WANTED TO SAY THANKS. "

Unbiased View wrote on Aug 23, 2007 11:03 AM:

" To Jim S: While you make a point that 50/50 custody would work if parents live in the same town, such as Bismarck, Fargo, etc., that is simply not the case in many custody situations today. You cannot write an initiative that makes sense for a small portion of the population and call it logical and ask the entire state to pass it and apply it to all custody situations. As has been mentioned on here by others, change needs to occur, but it needs to be in the form of a more complex bill that would address the needs of North Dakota at large. "

Lisa A. wrote on Aug 23, 2007 9:51 AM:

" To "Mama-Mia" and a few others who seem to think all non-custodial parents are only thinking of themselves and not the children. Just for a few minutes imagine this "hypothetical" situation --- You have filed for divorce from your spouse due to "irreconcilable differences" - neither you or your soon-to-be ex are perverts, drug addicts, alcoholics, abusive etc...both of love your children unconditionally. Of course you believe you will have physical custody because after all, you are mom and in your mind you are the better parent. But a strange thing happens - the judge awards DAD physical custody - both of you are good parents but DAD has a stable work history and income & is staying in the family home since you want to move to a different town and living with dad will allow the kids can stay in their same school, keep their same friends etc.. Not to worry, you will be allowed to visit your children one evening a week and every other weekend...what? You are outraged? These are YOUR children! Oh...and a year later DAD meets someone new and decides to move himself and your children to a new town 225 miles away. Of course you have no say or control of this as he isn't moving out of state...and whoops! We'll need to change the visitation schedule to one weekend a month - it's really in the best interest of the children not to have to travel back and forth so much. Your heart is broken - you miss your children - you know your children need you as much as you need them. Welcome to the world of a non-custodial parent. Yes - there are crappy, bad, non-custodial parents out just as there are crappy, bad custodial parents. But there are far more heartbroken ones who just want to be a part of their children's lives. If that is "selfish" then so be it. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 23, 2007 8:49 AM:

" CS is a seperate issue and it is my experience that when a judge sets visitation, he/she sets CS accordingly. If you take your case back to court after this measure passes, All you have to do is ask the judge to adjust it accordingly, it never hurts to ask. "

concerned dad wrote on Aug 23, 2007 8:46 AM:

" By the way guys, the reason the Bar Association is once again against this measure is that it is they that have to argue it in the courts. They are not against it because they think that the current system is fair it is the simple fact that the wordage that you have once again selected for the measure is so full of holes that it would be a nightmare for the courts. The only way to get the Bar on your side is to include them in the drafting of a measure. One hat is not only fair but is written in a manner that was not so full of holes that every little issue that was not clear had ot be argued in court. When I say comlex I mean well specificed. The fact that you have the Bar against you is once again a for sure loose for you effort, maybe in four years you all will figure out how to win for our children. "

concerned dad wrote on Aug 23, 2007 8:13 AM:

" Mike, you are right and I stated it in a previous post; the current laws do not solve in a fair manner all of the complex issues involved in divorce custody. The problem is, the new initiative doen't accomplish the goal either. My point is yoe needed to address all of the concerns from both sides of the table if you wanted a chance to get an initiative passed. There are terms of resolve for every issue that cannot be argued as not being in the best interest of the children. Identify them, negotiate them and agree apon them. At that time your initiative will pass. Divorce with children involved is very complex, don't expect to write a simple law full of "what ifs" and expect it to pass. I am on the side of change being needed, however your initiative needs help, and I could never vote for it. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 23, 2007 7:22 AM:

" Concerned dad you are Wrong Wrong Wrong you are talking about posted concerns from the people that refuse to open there mind up, worried about their own situation and not the average. We do not need a more complicated measure, it is people that make it complicated. Just like when you child wants something, you get better result when you don't argue a simple yes or no. If two parents can be parents married then they can be parents when they are divorced no arguement. If there is clear and convincing evidence they can't, won't, or don,t then they do not deserve 50/50 and it will be taken away or they won't get it. In MOST cases there will be nothing to fight and ARGUE about and that most definately IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 23, 2007 6:19 AM:

" concerned dad: You say this measure is bad because it does not adequately address all concerns, but obviously the law we have now does not even come close to addressing all concerns either. So what is the point? Are you really saying that no matter how bad the old system is, we are not allowed to try to improve it until we can get it absolutely perfect for everyone? Just think if that same mentality had been applied to other laws and other aspects of life. We would still be living in caves and carrying clubs. NOTHING on this earth is fool-proof or perfect. Not every concern is addressed in ANY law. I guess I wouldn't expect this one to be much different. "

Concerned Dad wrote on Aug 23, 2007 12:24 AM:

" Well Jim and Mike I hate to say it but the reason the initiative did not pass before was because it did not effectively address and define all that was needed. You state that it was too complicated before and you were right, it was complicated because there were too many unanswered questions. The fact that you have eliminated the child support criteria does not make it more simple it only creates more questions. Or let me guess, child support stays the same, (in favor of the mothers) and the fathers have the children half the time. Wow that would be fair. You state there are now no gray areas, well how about all of the unanswered questions and concerns in this forum. Jim you say that it cannot be too complex so that simple people can read and understand it. Well, your measure does not have a simple chance of passing because it is too simple and therefore left, once again, too many unanswered questions. How hard would it have been to get some smart people, from both sides of the table, to identify all of the issues that were stated on the last forum, and are once again being addressed here, to sit down and write a complex initiative that is in simple terms. What you need to do is establish some common sense common ground, and find some intelligent folk. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 23, 2007 12:23 AM:

" Mike, I am not sure what their motivation is. The state bar that is. But I think for some attornies hate the thought of losing some business. I mean when things are done right from the gitgo, there is less of a chance things will go back into court. If these were not in court all the time, the courts could deal with other issues. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 22, 2007 11:19 PM:

" Notafundlementalist, you better go read my posts again, my daughter does not go to two different schools and we do not live in the same town but we only live 14 miles from eachother. You are right, I do have thinigs how I like them. I wish it was more but I am NOT remarrying my X. Couldn't pay me enuff. I know how the stsyem works. I know first hand what the new law is trying to accomplish. I want other children to have the same oppertunities my child has. I want "non"custodial parents to have the same oppertunity that I have and NOT have to spend the childs college fund to accomplish this. My x doesn't like this but she is like me in the way that she would not like to share but she is the one who wanted out. I will also tell you that sinse we have this arraingement, it makes it easier for the two of us, (x and myself) to communicate, coexist in all school functions, (sporting events, plays, parent day) whatever it might be. This is a great measure if people open their eyes, minds and hearts. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 22, 2007 10:06 PM:

" Jim, you have 50/50 custody, but your visitation is split 53/47? And you don't live in the same town, which means your daughter goes to two different schools. And she's happy and you are happy, so my question is why are you fighting so hard for a cause that isn't even going to affect your situation? You obviously worked this out and it's working well, but that doesn't mean this will work for everyone. I just don't understand how you can be so hell bent on something when you already have a good situation worked out. You INDIVIDUALIZED it to meet the needs of your daughter and yourself; so what EXACTLY is your issue? What EXACTLY have you got against an INDIVIDUALIZED custody arrangement? YOU obviously did it, and you didn't need a NEW LAW for THAT. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 22, 2007 9:53 PM:

" Good Point Mike. This country was founded by "simple" men. Maybe common men should have been a better discription. The way laws are written, you need to go to law school to understand them. One thing that is great about this measure, it is easy to read and understand and anyone can read and understand it. You don't need to consult an attorney to read it. That is the way it should be. No grey areas nothing hidden or complex. "

MIke R wrote on Aug 22, 2007 9:40 PM:

" concerned dad: You say that the measure is to simple and doesn't take enough into account. The old measure was defeated by people who did not like the child support clause and thought that it was to complicated. Everyone seemed to think that a simpler measure would be better. So we made it simpler. Now the problem is that it is to simple? Is there any such thing as a happy medium? "

JIm S wrote on Aug 22, 2007 8:36 PM:

" As far as other parents that don't live in the same town; Hi again said it best and I know this works as this is the way my visitation was set at first. (And remember, my x and I were not close to being friends) My x had Monday after school until before school on Thursday. I had from after school on Thursday until Monday b4 school. She had one weekend a month and I got supper on Wed. We ulternated holidays. In the summer, I got Sunday nights until wed and she got wed to Sunday and we switched one weekend a month. It was a hassle for all at first but once we got used to it, everyone did well. Our daughters grades came back up after this arraingement was set and everyone was accustomed to it and she also felt more at ease with all other family members as well. This because a way of life for her and she grew into it. We made it fun for her as she was proud of the fact that she has two homes and most kids had only one. There are many ways where custody could be split. Custody is 50/50 but visitation could be 55/45. I don't think anyone would argue with that. Mine right now as we speak is 53/47. It is a percentage based on the number of days split through out the year. This works great and we don't live in the same town now. X is never happy but kid is happy and that is what matters. And for those that are curious, I spent thousands of dollars to have this arraingment because it is what my daughter asked for. I never asked for a reduction in CS either nor was it granted. "

To Mama Mia wrote on Aug 22, 2007 8:30 PM:

" I actually talked to a phychiatrist because I felt that maybe we should see my step-son in the summers only so he didn't have to hear the berating of his mom to his dad. They phychiatrist said no it's worse. They need to have both parents in their lives. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 22, 2007 8:25 PM:

" Mike and Hi again are exactly right on what I was stating. In a town as big as Fargo or Bismarck and in ND you can't get much bigger then those two, it is or should be no big deal to drive across town to take your children to school when it is your time. I would be against my child going to two different schools in one school year. I also think there is not a judge around that would support this idea. Correct me if i am wrong but my guy feeling tells me that, the reason parents fight over their kids is one will use the child against the other parent and in retaliation the other parent will take revenge by other means. No one wins and the children are always in the middle. Do you think that if the playing field were level from the gitgo, parents couldn't use the children as pawns and they might get a long better making life easier for them. For some people they just can't get along no matter what. But for, and I think all of us have good traits, and try to do the "right" thing, we are all human and make mistakes. I think that if joint custody were the norm and not the exception, divorces might not be as bad as they are and life for everyone would be easier. And to it should not be about the parents but the kids. Well, here are a few rules to live by. 1, you have to make yourself happy first. When you can do this, you will make life more enjoyable for all those around you. Including your kids. 2, you need to take care of yourselves cause when you do, your kids will be taken care of. Ever notice that crabby kids come from Grumpy parents? "

Concerned dad wrote on Aug 22, 2007 8:21 PM:

" Here we go again, no the present system is not fair. Divorce, custody and support are very complex issues with hundreds of different variables. The problem we have is that there are very simple laws in place to try and accomodate very complex situations. Once again the proponents of the measure have provided us with more simple laws cannot and will not solve the issues. There are truthes stated in this forum on both sides of the fence and the proposed initiative creates as many problems as it attempts to solve. It is unbeleivable to me as a supporter of the need for change to see such a uneducated attempt for resolve. Plain and simple their needs to be a complex initiative that answers to the complex issues presented by both sides. I do get to see my two boys alot, my ex promotes it because I buy things that the boys need and she can buy more $80 shoes and go on fun weekends with the $1200 she gets every month for child support. "

Socks wrote on Aug 22, 2007 8:04 PM:

" Thanks for the clarification Mike. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 22, 2007 7:34 PM:

" Jim: I find it very strange that attornies are taking a proffesional opposition to this measure also. Even the BAR association is against this measure. This point was brought up on another board (not in the top 10), but just how many attornies are child phychologists? How do they know for sure what is in the best intrest of the child? What is the real motivation there? Seriously, I would be interested in knowing. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 22, 2007 7:32 PM:

" socks: Jim is talking 50/50 where the child goes to the same school all year. I think it would be impossible to have a child go to one school for a week and a different one for another week. The classes would not match up for starters. Both school would most likely be on different units in each class. How could a child ever keep up. I would be very against forcing a child to go to 2 different schools and I think Jim would be too. I don't think anyone has ever advocated for that, but that is one of the things that constantly gets brought up by the opposition. I really do believe that it is more of a scare tactic than a legitimate concern for them. mammamia: Nice to see that when everyone else is trying to call for a truce and calmer discussions, you can still find it in your heart to stir the pot with such a rude and uniformed comment. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 22, 2007 7:19 PM:

" WOW: Actually I am looking at this from my kids point of view as well as my own. My kids want to spend more time with me. They want to see me more when they are in school. My 10 year old son would do ANYTHING to spend more time with me. How can you possibly say that I don't have his intrests at heart? "

MIke R wrote on Aug 22, 2007 7:05 PM:

" Lisa A: I find it difficult to not respond to people who accuse me of supporting this measure because I am a deadbeat or they try to catagorize all non-custodial fathers as drunken womenizers who don't spend time with thier kids when they do have visitation. If you go back and read all the posts, Jim and I have only responded to those who attack us personally or attack all non-custodial parents. "

Socks wrote on Aug 22, 2007 7:04 PM:

" Jim - Are you talking about 50/50 between parents and kids staying at the same school all year? I can see if the children get to go to the same school all year, this could work. However, to force a kid to go to two different schools would not be in the best interest of the child. Please clarify for me. Thanks "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 22, 2007 6:45 PM:

" also if you live in the same town 50/50 during the school year has not affected my children at all. One thing that I also think peopele forget is these childrens needs change rapidly from year to year and when 50/50 is the arrangement as the childs needs change it allows for more flexibility therefore focusing MORE on the child. In the current law the custodial parent is very careful not to allow extended visits or longer weekends to maintain status quo, seriously for a non custodial parent they can have as much time as six weeks in the summer, everyother holiday, fathers day, their birthday, along with every other weekend and one night during the week, and before any third party not to mention if the custodial parent is nice enough an extra day here and there, the kids are already going back and forth. If you have a son and they are old enough to go on the opener for deer season are you going to tell him no because it is not your dads weekend? My kids are in junior high and high school I pretty much let them be where they want depending on what they have going on, they have two homes and they are comfortable at both. These people deserve a joint arrangement. "

MamaMia wrote on Aug 22, 2007 6:45 PM:

" Lame, lame, lame idea. It will never pass. People who think this is a good idea do not have the best interests iof the child in mind. They are thinking of themselves. B-O-O H-O-O! Get over yourself and start working for your child's interests, not your selfish interest in wanting 50/50 with your kid(s). They need stability, not being shuffled around for your pleasure. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 22, 2007 6:22 PM:

" To Unbiased View I also apreciate your opinion and this seems to be a big question. I personally think that parents who love there children are not going to make the children go to two different schools for two reasons 1. It is not practical. 2. We are talking about making this the norm and at that point the parents getting the divorce obviosly are living in the same house which would be in the same town correct? If they want this arrangement it would be practical for them to stay in the same town. To all of you single mothers who are raising your kids alone without any financial support that is to be commendable, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to share the responsibility as you have stated it is very difficult to do it alone? "

Jim S wrote on Aug 22, 2007 10:45 AM:

" To unbiased veiw. Thank you! If it were the norm for a child to spilt 50/50 with oparents during a school year nothing would be made of it and children will adapt. I know a lot of families in Bismarck whos child lives 50% for the time with both parents and it works great. When I was first divorced, I had 50/50 but when she claimed she could not make it because there was no CS, she got it back into court and found a way to take most of my visitation and hit me with a large CS obligation. Soon she was taking all my visitatin from me. While it was great with 50/50 and my daughter didn't know any different because since the divorce that is all she knows. Any issue is only as big as the parents want it to be. the old saying I always heard from my grandma, "Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill." "

Jim S wrote on Aug 22, 2007 10:10 AM:

" Thank you to WOW for coming in here and wanting to have a civil debate. It is a breath of fresh air. See, when you come in and state why you don't think this is a good measure without slinging mud, you won't get slammed. I beleive that this is the true intention of these blogs. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 22, 2007 10:07 AM:

" I don't know how many will actually take their case back to court. Probably 50% will and out of that 50% would probably take it back if this law wasn't inplace. I knew this measure was in the works, I didn't wait for it, My daughter needed me now, she couldn't wait until this thing passes. If a parent who is not around now and never seizes the oppertunity to spend time with the child probably will not pursue this. I hope it does encourage estrainged parents to come out of the woodwork. It is never to late to be a parent. Those that are not paying their child support and run everytime the sherrif comes to collect probably are not going to persue this as they are wanted by the law and my have to sit in jail if caught or do not have the money to pay support so how would they all the sudden come up with $2500 to go to court? No father should deny the child a mother and no mother should deny a father. This measure does need to pass for the sake of the child. One can argue (and they have) that they do not want a judge to interfer with how or where the child is raised. I say good, me too. I don't want that either. Fact is, unless one of the parents gives up his/her right to custody, the judge always makes the decision, not the parents. When divorce takes place, it is almost a given that the mother will get custody and the father will be the non custodial parent. This needs to end. Everything should be equal. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 22, 2007 9:57 AM:

" To wow. I dissagree with you in that this does need to pass for the childrens sake. I too have the same background as you in the situations at hand. With that said, there should always be the natural parents involved in the upbringing of said child. I don't understand the home study thing. That is what will cost the money to attornies. When you were married did a homestudy take place before you could have children? Altho it could be argued, but both parents (in most normal cases) were fit to raise a child, a divorce doesn't have to change that. With all my experience in these type of situations, I am yet to read where the child got divorced from the parents or was legally part of a divorce. No dad should deny his child their mother and no mother should deny her child their father. Because he/she may have a substance problem does not make the other a bad parent unless their is proof that harm had been done to the child. As far as lawyers making more money if this measure passes. Call and talk to your attorney and ask him/her. I talked to mine and others as well and they are against the measure passing. I never got an answer to why they proffessionally are against it. Could it be they stand to lose a lot of income from this measure. "

Unbiased View wrote on Aug 22, 2007 9:45 AM:

" To Jim S.: You said you wanted to hear the opinion on the measure of someone who has read it and doesn't have a deadbeat ex story to tell, so hear it is. I am not divorced, I do not have children, but I am an attorney and I do feel this is a bad measure. Oh, and before you begin a tirade on how much money I must make from the current family law in North Dakota, I do not practice family law in any respect. I still feel this is a bad law. The focus of this law is on what the parents, especially non-custodial parents, think is fair and does not focus on what is best for the child. Forcing a child to split 1/2 a school year between two parents is not in the best interest of the child. I wish more people would pause for a moment and imagine the impact this could have on children of divorce who are simply trying to have the same life as their peers. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 22, 2007 9:34 AM:

" To Lisa, good point. Sometimes even professionals get caught up in the moment but I will head your advise. "

Lisa A. wrote on Aug 22, 2007 8:46 AM:

" To Jim and Mike - First off I want to say that I support this proposal based on issues my husband (and I) have had to deal with in regard to custody/visitation for his children from a previous marriage, That said, after reading many of your last postings, if you two consider yourself good representatives of "the cause", you need to sit back and take a deep breath and reassess because all I'm getting is negative vibes from you. Why are you indulging in these mud-slinging contests with other posters? You accomplish nothing positive by lowering yourselves to those levels - if you're going to roll in the mud with pigs, people will consider you a pig as well. "

wow wrote on Aug 22, 2007 8:36 AM:

" I also do NOT believe this should become the standard and before JIM and Mike jump on me I am both a custodial and non custodial parent and I am the child of a divorce. NONE of you seem to be looking at the childs point of view because all I have read is bitter comments by both sides and all about money or welfare etc. This law will not change much other than make the attorneys more money. Until the judges take a look at both parents and have a home study done on both parents and talk to the children(if old enough to talk) they will never be able to make an nformed decision. There are both fathers and mothers that are good parents and bad so what really needs to be done is to look at both sides, making this the norm/standard will just bring out those parents(male or female) that just request 50/50 to get out of paying the other parent child support not having the best interest of the child. I am a mom and the one comment about a child with disability does make sense to the point of health concerns and doctors and medications etc. One parent dealing with all of those things is much easier for the child's welfare. If all of you are such great parents than you should have been able to work something out but human nature causes problems. Yes this 50/50 could be an option but definitely should not be the standard FOR THE CHILDRENS sake. And to the person who said his support was late so his ex didn't let him see the children, Sorry but support and visitation are TWO SEPERATE issues and you should have complained to the courts because legally she cannot withhold visitation. "

I am Woman,Hear Me Roar wrote on Aug 22, 2007 7:51 AM:

" Yes, I am a woman, and have seen enough double standard to last a life time! I agree with Jim S & Mike R. My husband is going thru the same thing. The custodial Mom does what she feels she wants to do "at the moment". He can't because he is only the non-custodial Daddy. Things have to change for the sake of the child. Why is it? I think because they feel they are going to lose their power trip and control over the non-custodial parent. Just my opinion! "

Mike R wrote on Aug 22, 2007 6:16 AM:

" Jim S: Don't you just love it how some people with throw out the old line "I probably even make more money than you do". Kind of like if they make more money than their opinion should be worth more. Usually the sign of someone desperate with nothing left for thier argument. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 22, 2007 1:25 AM:

" So, notafundlementalist, you do get your money from the state? LOL I figured with your education and line of work, your demeanor would be a little calmer. Do you make more than I do? Probably not but good to know your state check is a different type of "welfare". "

Mike R wrote on Aug 21, 2007 11:10 PM:

" supermom: Yet another screen name? Do you have multiple personality disorder or what's the deal? You can't use the same screen name for more than one comment, but yet you have a nickname that "everyone" calls you? Now that's funny. To "to CS and Jail": You want to know why? I'll tell you. It's something called a double standard. It happens all the time, but they think us dumb ol guys aren't smart enough to see it. "

To CS & Jail wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:38 PM:

" The custodial's parents cannont decide to throw or not throw someone in jail for nonpayment of child support, the state does it on their own. You have no say. My husband missed 2 payments because of an illness and could not work, and the was taken to court with a deferred sentence. The judge told him she didn't care how he had to get a job but he better do it. I have even heard a judge tell a father that stayed home with his children so that he could raise them instead of a daycare. He was a stay at home father, not lazy because we all know how hard it is to raise children and the judge saying that was not acceptable. Why not? Mother's can do it all the time. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:35 PM:

" I know what you mean, I was actually accused of being on WELFARE, and I have a 4 year nursing degree and work for the STATE HEALTH DEPT! lol! My ex left the state of ND for 2 1/2 years and wouldn't even SPEAK to the kids or SEE them; let alone help support them financially! It's amusing to me that I have been accused of being power hungry and money grubbin! As far as MONEY goes, I pay for EVERYTHING anyway; the LEAST my ex can do is $250 a month! And as far as power hungry? Well, if I don't take CONTROL in my life; who will?? My ex?? NOT capable! My parents?? Don't want to burden them; my dad is hospitalized and my mom is on chemo for cancer! My friends?? They have their own kids and their own lives and their own problems! Power hungry?? NOPE! Just the card I was dealt! SOMEONE had to take over and be responsible! My ex just got their too little too late! "

Jim S wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:30 PM:

" To clear things up, you wonder why some of you get bashed? When you come in here and complain and bash your X. Dead give away. You don't want to get bashed come in and state why you think this is not a good measure. My educated guess is that few have read it before coming in here. NotafundelMENTAList claims she read it. Other than that, I am not sure who here has, does anyone have the URL? Please share it so all can read it. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:24 PM:

" So you got your name "Hit the nail in the head" because.......you are a carpenter? "

reply wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:09 PM:

" How do I know he doesnt pay child support, because we have joint accounts that it is suppose to be deposited into! As for him not going to jail, it is because he got busted with drugs on many occasions, theft charges and is an informant (narc) for this great city! As for my stepsons eating habits and entertainment he does when he is there, Yes he tell us that is what he eats and does. Just because I do work very hard by far does not mean I do not have quality time with all my kids! I am twice the dad with my stepson to make up for his "real dad". Quality time is NOT playing nintendo games and letting your kids watch, if you have no money take them to a park! The last time I checked that was free. Take them for a nice walk along river road. You do not have to have money to entertain a child and spend real quality time with them. You say leave the adult stuff to the adults, I know we do on our end. When a little boy comes home and says, mommy why does dad always staying bad words about you and my stepdad? If you heard some of the things that he is actually put through over there you would be singing a different tune!! It is truely heartbreaking, that a defenseless little child should have to go through this. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 21, 2007 9:56 PM:

" Supermom: How about sticking to just one screen name instead of having 4 or 5. I know that you have at least 3 or more in the last 10 comments. It makes it so much easier to know who you are talking to if the names aren't changing every single time you comment. Unless you are a deceptive person by nature and are doing that to make it look like you have more support that you actually do. "

hit the nail on the head wrote on Aug 21, 2007 9:43 PM:

" Thank you for notafundamentalist..Either you or you personally know of a single mother/father who worked their butt off to keep a roof over their childs head and food in the fridge, with absolutely no help from the other parent, or social services!! Some people have no idea how hard it really is to raise a child all alone, not just financially. As for my screen name I chose, all my co-workers and friends and family call me that, because I work extremely hard to raise our kids into responsible, hard working, young lady & gentleman!! Afterall, they will be running this world when we are all old and incapable. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 21, 2007 9:25 PM:

" Jim S: This is the second time, on 2 completely different websites where my "new wife" has been brought up. I must have married her in Mexico after drinking a lot of Mosh tequila because I don't remember her or any wedding. I just love how people who don't even know me assume to know everything about my life. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 21, 2007 9:22 PM:

" To "to mike r" The reason I started with the welfare comments is because I was responding to supermom and she was talking about welfare. She implied that non-custodial fathers are deadbeats on welfare who live off the check. I notice that you didn't seem to concerned over that. When I turned it around and made the exact same referrence only in reverse, you blow a gasket. I wonder why that is. Why can't you see that I said exactly the same thing as was said to me first? Why are you so offended now? Where were you when supermom said it? You say this is a topic I know nothing about. OK, lets see. I live within the system. I know it very well because I deal with it all the time. Somehow your dealing with the system makes you so much more knowlegable than me? I don't think so. Eye opener: Empty promises? How little you truely know. I have NEVER made an empty promise to my kids. Thier custodial mother does it all the time, however. But I am sure you can find an excuse for that somehow? You don't even know me. How on earth could you even speculate as to who breaks promises to our kids? Just another know-it-all assuming facts when you really don't have a clue. "

CS & Jail wrote on Aug 21, 2007 9:09 PM:

" If a dad has kids with different mothers and has one at home, what good does it do to send him to jail? So the kid he has at home is out of luck too? I have an ex who has not paid child support in awhile. The state brings him to court, he pays a couple months and then back to non-payment. He's not in jail. He has a kid at home. I'd rather have support the kid he has at home and not have to tell my kid your dad's in jail. In meantime, the state keeps a tab. If my kids dad ever wins the lottery, my kid will get a nice trust fund with the back child support. "

Online Editor wrote on Aug 21, 2007 9:02 PM:

" Please make your comments without name calling and insults. "

TO WORKING DAD! wrote on Aug 21, 2007 8:22 PM:

" How is the child confused? Do you tell him his Dad is supposed to pay money? Another thing if he is supposed to pay child support and doesn't, it's been my experience that he should be in jail. Why is he not in jail? How do you know he eats those things or doesn't go anywhere, and his Dad only plays nintendo? Does he tell you those exact things? Are you stalking his Dad? If so maybe your the one confusing the child. let him have fun with his Dad and don't confuse him on grown up things. Keep the adult stuff to the adults. Maybe you should KINDLY talk to the father? How do you know he doesn't pay the child support & your girlfriend just tells you he doesn't? Because if he didn't pay he would be in jail. Point blank. And if his child support is minimal maybe it's because he does not have a high paying job. There are a lot of factors you need to think about before you start bashing another parent. Like I said you keep the adult stuff to the adults or you will cause the harm to the child. That child does not need to know those things. All he should know is people love him. Sounds to me if the Dad wants to be in the child's life maybe he should be allowed more time with him? If you work so hard and are not around and this dad doesn't maybe he can give that child quality time. Think about it logically. I think your girlfriend fills your head with ideas that are untrue. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 21, 2007 7:46 PM:

" OH, I think there has been PLENTLY of name calling by many on here to go around...not just from eye opener! As far as the whole "supermom" thing goes...she PROBABLY goes by supermom because she is stuck doing EVERYTHING and her ex doesn't HELP! Just a hunch. If you say stick to the issue, then by ALL MEANS stick to the issue. The name calling, insults, and bashing is getting old and of course we are going to post to defend ourselves. DUH! "

Too Funny wrote on Aug 21, 2007 6:44 PM:

" Hey, Eye Opener--God, settle down! Take a pill & breath! They have their opinion & you have yours. Which, by the way- Do you eat with that mouth? Name calling really isn't necessary. This post is to talk it out, and get better ideas to help the children.Remember, WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CHILD. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 21, 2007 4:58 PM:

" To Mike, I am mad at you. We have known eachother for what, 22 years. How come I was not invited to your 2nd marriage? Maybe it is a good thing you kept it low profile. Eye opener might have shown up with her boxing gloves on. I am still mad. "

eye opener response.... wrote on Aug 21, 2007 4:33 PM:

" Mike R: Your mouth is way too big for your small mind!! I could really care a less what my child's father does and who he does it with-- unless of course the use of his anatomy allows him to forget he has a child that needs a father in her life!! Which is where I come into play- I am a parent that does not like to see my child hurting , and if men like you make empty promises to our kids' ........you bet I am gonna hate you !! We care takers are all the children have as stability- god only knows the children surely cannot count on morans like you to stand up for their rights!! And by the way, I really feel sorry for your new wife -- OH the crap she must be forced to listen to. I am sure you make yourself out to be the good guy , don't you MIKE ??? "

Jim S wrote on Aug 21, 2007 4:31 PM:

" Too many times people come on here and bash one another. I have leaned that way myself out of emotion. This blog is not for that and either is this measure. It is my belief that divorce has done this to us and the current law entises this. This is one reason I feel it needs to be replaced. Altho there is not one law that will work for everyone but everyone needs to go and educate themselves and the have calm logical debates and keep the emotion out of these posts. My wife is probably right to stay away from this blog because too many people are here that will not go and read the required information and will go to all leangths to protect what they have. If someone to rip another because he/she posts on here all the time is obsurd. Where are your kids? Why are you not with them? Ever think that non custodial parents don't have their children with them and feel that they are doing just cause to help get the word out to help this measure pass. I myself look foreward to speaking with people and collecting signatures. If anyone would like to sign this measure, I do have the appropriate signature sheets and should let me know and i will give you my email and I will contact you to get you on board. I am in full swing collecting names already so let me know. "

nevergiveup wrote on Aug 21, 2007 3:04 PM:

" Mike R. said "I treated my wife like a queen. She and my kids were my life. Everything revolved around them. She just went through some mid-life crisis thing. I can understand it because I know what happened to her in her childhood and that shaped her into the person she is today. She enjoys control. She never had it as a kid - she lived in a dictator type of environment where she was treated more harshly than most animals. Now she is seeking total control in every part of her life - no matter what." Wow...sounds like we married the same personality-type. I too treated my wife and children like there was no tomorrow. I coached my childrens' sports teams, attended parent-teacher conferences and spent quality time with them while my ex pursued her bachelors and Masters degrees. When we divorced, first she divulged every detail of our marital discord to our children. Told them that I didn't love them and couldn't be trusted. In fact, she brainwashed our beloved daughter into thinking that I touched and kissed her improperly. Funny thing is that during the marriage my ex and her mother told me that I was the best father they had ever seen. What changed? Towards the end of our marriage I could no longer deal with her rigidity, passive-aggressive behaviour and lack of imtimacy which I believe stemmed from her relationship with her father. I stayed in the marriage because of our children but eventually had an affair. The affair was wrong and if I could I would have just filed for a divorce. However, after 12 yrs of marriage and no compromise from the other party I made a mistake that she lives everyday to make me pay for with her children! But she's not vindictive or bitter...she's just looking out for the best interests of our children. "

to mike r wrote on Aug 21, 2007 2:58 PM:

" Is this blogging your entire life? You sit at your computer all day and night to pass judgement on others that you think you know, but in all reality you know absolutely nothing about! You are the extremely bitter one! As for money, our kids know hard work gets rewards! Not one of them think money makes happiness! I dont know how you got I linked his rights to child support, or that I live off the child support?? If you can live off $79 a month (if you get it) let me know how you do it! Contrary to what you may think, I wish child support would just give up cause it is a waste of time, and we do not need it. We take great pride in taking care of our kids! I also said before, it definitely goes both ways there are great dads out there that deserve their kids, but you must not have absorbed that! You should really consider getting a hobby, or mabee volunteering some of your almighty time! There are a lot of kids in the hospitals that would love to be read to and shown a little bit of possitive attention. Are you capable of anything positive, though? "

working dad wrote on Aug 21, 2007 2:23 PM:

" I am a divorced man with 3 great kids, my girlfriend has one with a loser. We have custody of all. So I am on both sides, I work very VERY hard to make sure that our kids have a good stable life. My kids "mom" chooses to go to the bar every single day, all day and night! My girlfriends childs "dad" chooses not work out of pure lazyness! We work very hard to fill the shoes of two losers. When my "step"son goes to his "dads" he eats mac and cheese and hot dogs or fast food for an entire weekend. They never go to a park, movie, family outing. His weekends persist of watching tv and watching his "dad" play nintendo games. This is not a good idea for so many children and the good parents need to step up and ban together to shoot it down! As for child support, it is a joke! I wish the minimal amount of support he is suppose to pay would just delinquish, and he would quit messing with a confused little boy! "

Jim S wrote on Aug 21, 2007 12:10 PM:

" Well, she is "Supermom". She probably did have the child all by herself from conception to now. Anyone with a name like supermom obviously thinks pretty high of herself and anyone else is just a pissant "

To SuperMOM wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:53 AM:

" Maybe you shouldn't put comments in your child's head that life is better when you HAVE MONEY! Some people work 2 jobs and still have to be on welfare. You have no clue. You probably tell your child they will have no fun at Dad's because he doesn't have money to do fun things. Parents in the 1940's I'm sure passed on shoes to other siblings. They didn't need NEW things to make them happy. Think about the child and not the monetary value of things. The best things in life are free and be thankful you have the child. Remember it took 2 to make that child not just you. "

To Mike R wrote on Aug 21, 2007 9:10 AM:

" There you go again, Mom's who live off of child support???? Who? Where? It's non-Custodial parents like you come here and spew this kind of garbage. You are EXACTLY the kind of person that compels people to draft measures like this. " See it can and will be turned around, in your own words! Again, how come everytime a custodial talks about their ex they are accused of being bitter and only interested in child support, but you can say any and everything about your ex and you believe your thoughts are perfectly ok. I have not made a post on this board since the first couple of days, because I felt I was getting knocked around but I finally have to respond back because you don't do as you say. "

Tommy wrote on Aug 21, 2007 9:08 AM:

" I cant say that I have ever agreed with Mike R before but have to this time. at least about this SUPERMOM being the reason that these types of measures need to be addressed. I was out of work for a few months and my child support fell behind (2 months) and my ex pulled my visitation... is that fair to the child??? As soon as I was employeed again it was all caught up. Something has to be done. With this high of a public opinion on the matter I hope at least the judges are reading the articles and posts and see that they need to be a bit more open to fathers having equal custody and splitting everything down the middle. Maybe a minimum amount that both parties put into a college fund each month and such. It is not fair right now at all for most of us fathers that wanted a short divorce and didnt want the child to suffer through a long custody battle. I had friends that had parents that did that and it wrecked either one relationship or the other. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 21, 2007 6:16 AM:

" Supermom: By the way, nice attempt to link the father's rights to your lack of a child support check. Now we all see your true motive. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 21, 2007 6:14 AM:

" Supermom: What about, what about, what about, what about. That is all you know. You say what about the kids who cry because they don't want to go? Well what about the kids why cry for a full week because they know they have to go back to mom because the summer is almost over (my kids started crying last night because they go back this Sunday). Not all kids are in your situation. What about dads who don't have to work anymore? Now that one puzzles me? I read this measure a couple times. I must have missed the part that dads no longer have to work. Maybe you are refferring to the moms who don't work because they live off child support payments. You know it is increasingly more difficult to stay civil on this topic. Cusotdial mothers like you come here and spew this kind of garbage. You are EXACTLY the kind of person that compels people to draft measures like this. "

supermom wrote on Aug 21, 2007 1:15 AM:

" Ok, so what happens to the kids that beg and cry not to go with for just a weekend? What happens when they are forced to go for half the year? What happens when a child is used to a lifestyle of privilage; financially, emotionally, etc, and then has to go to a house that has absolutely no financial stability for half of a year, the only stability is from the welfare system? How is this fair for a child to have to get used to? To be constantly told no we cant go do this or that cause we dont have the money cause daddy doesnt have to work anymore, when that child is used to being able to go swimming, fishing, camping, vacations, etc. Have a new pair of shoes for school, instead of worn out one's saved from an older child. What about the kids who are six or seven years old or older who are used to a lifestyle, a daily routine, and are thrown into a totally different world. My son had not met his "father" (his choice) until he was five years old, not that it matters but no child support or visitation or even a birthday card. Then after five years he decided he was ready to be a dad, (not financially) and my son is forced to go. The judge said herself a deadbeat dad is better than no dad! How is this right or even moral? You can't force someone to be a dad or mom, it most definitely goes both ways!! I see deadbeat moms all the time. Actually, anyone can be a dad but it takes a MAN to be a father! We cant possibly let this go threw!! It is not fair to most kids!! Some intances yeah it would be great, but when u really think it out, how many children would this effect poorly? A lot more than people want to admit! We have to stand up for our kids and shoot it down like the last time! "

Amy wrote on Aug 20, 2007 11:30 PM:

" Mike-I hope it does work for you in the best of ways, but my experience has shown me that people who are control freaks and have their control taken away or altered, don't react so well. I do wish you the best. "

JIm S wrote on Aug 20, 2007 11:24 PM:

" Fact of the matter is, the law we have now works for to few. new laws are made or old ones revamped if they no longer meet the majority. It is time for change. Family has changed. The mother is not always the one staying home anymore to raise the children. Women have fought for the right to compete in the work force and have demanded equality. men can and often do raise the children and it is time we be given the same oppertunity. Maybe the best remidy is to make it harder to get married or to get divorced. If a child is born out of wedlock, the baby should go up for adoption? There are plenty of good people out there that want kids and can't. Just a thought. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 20, 2007 10:24 PM:

" Amy: Different people have different situations. I don't know your exact situation. Maybe you were justified in leaving if he was to busy for his family. I treated my wife like a queen. She and my kids were my life. Everything revolved around them. She just went through some mid-life crisis thing. I can understand it because I know what happened to her in her childhood and that shaped her into the person she is today. She enjoys control. She never had it as a kid - she lived in a dictator type of environment where she was treated more harshly than most animals. Now she is seeking total control in every part of her life - no matter what. I am absolutely certain that if she lost that control, it would bring her back to reality. In my case, the law would be ideal. Once she loses the control, she would not be nearly so vindictive and cruel. Like I said, that is my situation. Maybe the law wouldn't be the answer in your situation but it would be in mine. The new law works for me. The old law works for you. Is there middle ground? I don't know, but for now I am going to fight for what I know is right for my situation. "

Amy wrote on Aug 20, 2007 10:07 PM:

" Mike R.-I don't know your situation and I won't claim that I do. What I do know is there are some mean, vindictive people in this world and there are other's who are this way due to the circumstances that surround them. I am not a vindictive person but sometimes I have to try very hard not to let my feelings come arise. You state she wouldn't have left you if she was being selfless, but I guess you could claim that I that I too am selfish because I chose to leave my daughter's father, but I do know that I have spent three years making our daughter available to him to spend time with but I am tired of trying. I can drive her the 200 miles that separate us and make her available to him but he is too busy with his own life which was the reason I left in the first place. I collect nothing from him financially and the brief periods her does spend with her make my life more difficult as he has no rules for his daughter and I will say these things can make me feel quite vindictive, which is why I receive support through counselors and I make sure my daughter has her needs met. I don't think making a law to teach families how to be a good family is the way. There are many laws that are in our system that truly work against what the law was suppose to do. I feel if we are forced to work together as a family through counseling and parenting classes there will be a better reception. Course that is only my opinion. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 20, 2007 9:13 PM:

" Amy: How do you suggest that we make a vindictive troll into a selfless parent? In my case, if she was so selfless, she wouldn't have left in the first place. I agree that it would be best if there was a way to make that happen, but there isn't. The law is the next best option, and that is where we are focusing for now. You think that it will create more conflict, and for a few people it might. I happen to think that it would force parents to work together. It may be tough at first, but when they figure out that they can't use visitation as a weapon, they may realize that they have no choice but to cooperate. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 20, 2007 7:55 PM:

" Who said I live in Bismarck? I live in a small town of 320 and my x lives 14 miles away in a town of 850. Kids here can stay out until 11pm. "

Amy wrote on Aug 20, 2007 7:35 PM:

" Funny-curfew for a 14yo in the City of Bismarck is 10:30PM. Your child can be picked up and cited and Social Services would be speaking to both you and your ex-wife. So I guess you and wife are still on the same page regarding some issues. I am not against this issue. I believe there are people out there getting the short end of the stick regarding visitation and custodial parents that are abusing their rights, but making a law won't make it better. Becoming two selfless parents is the only thing that will make things work and counseling is probably a much better way of handling things. "

JIm S wrote on Aug 20, 2007 7:28 PM:

" Heck, if you beleive the Bible, women ARE the mans property. "

JIm S wrote on Aug 20, 2007 7:27 PM:

" What goes on in your5 home is your business and what goes on in my home is my business. Example: My 14 yr old daughter gets to stay out until 1:30 am at her moms house. She is the custodial parent. At my house she gets to stay out until 11pm. I don't like that my 14yo gets to stay out that late because nothing good happens after midnight. But, it is at her house where this happens and i can not do anything about it except to try to instill in my daughter that she is really too young to be out so late and that nothing good ever happens after midnight.Amy, you don't have to make this any harder than it already is. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 20, 2007 6:51 PM:

" Amy, I so agree with you. I said it before. Joint custody won't work if both parents are not on board. I think in SOME cases it can work GREAT, but it's not going to work for everybody, that's just the way it is. Making it a viable option is one thing; making it the standard is something entirely different. I just don't think this new law will improve anything, only maybe for those who aren't able to see their kids now, but there should be legal remedies in place for parental alienation syndrome then, if that's truely the issue. It will be interesting to see what happens. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 20, 2007 6:36 PM:

" To Amy you are 100% wrong we do not have 50/50 but I do have them alot we do not for the most part get along but we do agree on one thing we love our kids and want the best for them. When they are grounded or in trouble we COMMUNICATE!!! "

Amy wrote on Aug 20, 2007 4:58 PM:

" I can't believe you guys are referring to children as property, no fault divorces and the amount of money that one pays to the custodial parent. I have had my child for three years with no support (monetary or visitation) because of choices he made. The only choice I had to make was "Did I want to raise our daughter around the vices he was bringing home?" and my answer was no. Being a full time parent or even 50/50 will not even things out. Both parties will have to agree what TV programs can be watched, what bedtime hours are plus everything else that goes along with it. It won't get any better by passing this because if you can't get along now in making decisions that are in the best interest of the children - a law won't make it happen. My bet will be the bitterness will increase between the two parents which will directly affect the child. "

Freedom wrote on Aug 20, 2007 3:55 PM:

" Freedom is receiving child support from your ex-wife : ) "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 20, 2007 2:45 PM:

" Sweetie, NO offense, but I probably earn more money than you! Like, I said, you think you know it all...In the same token, How do I KNOW you pay child support? How do I know you aren't a deadbeat? It goes both ways. Stop responding to my posts then, if they are so OFFENSIVE to you. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 20, 2007 1:28 PM:

" Because educated people would read the article of debate and not put themselves in a position look get Rebrock breath. As far as the welfare statement, well, I am not sure about you but, if it were not true, would you have got so defensive again? "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 20, 2007 11:52 AM:

" To Jim, what EVER gave you the idea that I am on WELFARE! I am college-educated with a GOOD paying job! Boy, you SURE think you know it all don't you!! And why is everything I say always hitting a nerve with you? Am I not entitled to my opinion? As far as my ex goes, HE is the one who is uneducated and will use this bill to his OWN financial advantage. Never mind about his kids, he doesn't care! And since you like to nit pick at EVERY LITTLE THING I SAY, like a batty old lady, I read the initative AFTER the child support comment, so glad to see you all wised up and took it out this time, MAYBE it'll pass now! "

Jim S wrote on Aug 20, 2007 10:18 AM:

" My prediction is you have NOT read this measure. Why should kids have to give up one parent just because the parents give up on eachother? If I need to post the measaure on here so you all can get informed I will. I would rather you go get it yourself so you know it is orriginal and untweeked. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 20, 2007 10:13 AM:

" To High Again, You are right, it is tiresome. The people who make these claims are usually the uneducated people that rely off of the welfair system and child support as their primary if not sole means of income. Not only are the uneducated in terms of having no more than a highschool diploma, but as in notafundelmentalist case, fail to read the measure. She states that she did read it and still can not see what it reads. These are usually people that are hiding behind the system because without it, they will have to do what you and I do and that would be to get a full time job outside of the house. Heck, back when I was a kid, there was nothing set up for my mom to get child support. I lived with my mom right after the divorce and when mom couldn't provide for my brother and me, we went to live with our dad. I was able to go back and live with my mom later during the last part of my highschool years. My parents didn't always get along but did listen to us kids and did what was best for us. In most cases moms were given custody because she was the primary caregiver as the male was the bread winner and worked outside the home. Now days women are in the work place and have fought for and recieved equality in the workplace. As time has progressed and the male is not always the bread winner as the female has taken the business world by storm making the father take more of a caregiver role. Most things have gone 50/50 and it is time for the law to catch up to the times. "

Prediction wrote on Aug 20, 2007 10:10 AM:

" I predict this measure will not pass. Children are innocent bystanders in divorce. A measure requiring joint physicial custody is a measure that would allow a child to be uprooted. Forcing a child to split school years so each parent could feel as though he or she is getting a fair shake out of the custody arrangement is not in the best interest of the child, in most realistic situations. Further, it is sad to see the "Norm" being presented on here as a mother who squanders child support away on extravagant purchases. Many mothers in North Dakota use child support to pay the day care bill (all if they are lucky and oftentimes, only part of it) so they can hold down jobs to pay for the regular household bills. While shared parenting is a great idea, it should be worked out in mediation in situations where it is ideal, and not a requirement for the many situations where it would make the child pay for the parents' decision to divorce. "

Online Editor wrote on Aug 20, 2007 10:08 AM:

" To Jim S: I will answer your question without posting your comment to avoid a fight. The comments came from different IP addresses, so they are probably different people. "

JIm S wrote on Aug 20, 2007 9:57 AM:

" NotafundleMENTAList commented to another poster yesturday that she hadn't read this measure then comeback and says she did. Shows who really lies. I hope her ex comes and takes what is rightfully his. I have a feeling that he is not what she says he is. Her kids do not deserve to be with her. Under current law, she should be the non-custodial parent. NotafundleMENTAList is what this law is about. Strip the power grubbing abilities from her. She is going to have to get out and get a job as hopefully her welfare ride will end. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 20, 2007 9:14 AM:

" I am a little tired of hearing how stupid the writters of this measure are, the SYSTEM told us what was wrong with the last one, so we fixed it. Not thought out??? There has been alot of research on this, we are not the first state to try this, but we will be the first to get it to pass because it is written so WELL and that is why the custodial parent are all freaking out. Putting their foot in their mouth is putting it mildly, DHS and the attorneys haven't said a word yet, what is there to say? Although I am sure they will think of something! Face it you can't fight against what is right, fair and equal. The system was built with good intentions and has made an impact I guess taking away drivers licenses and putting deadbeats in jail made a difference. They did such a good job a generation later non-custodial parents want 50/50. Becareful what you ask for you might get it. The stystem was built out of glass and it has a very big crack in it, the custodial parent will no longer be able to hide behind the law. Laws are made to protect people not take advantage of them. We as non-custodial parents are only trying to take back what was ours in the first place. It is a parents constitutional right to parent outlined in Troxel v. Granville supreme court case. every fit parent has fundamental, constitutional rights to direct care, custody, education, and upbringing of their children. Justices affirmed that the right to parent is a fundamental, INALIENABLE, Constitutional right. I for one am tired of being taken advantage of and my children are proud that I AM DOING WHAT IS RIGHT, if I have anything to do with it, THEY WILL NEVER HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS. "

MIke R wrote on Aug 20, 2007 6:17 AM:

" Notafundamentalist: If you have already read the measure, how could you possibley make such an uninformed statement as you did on Aug 19th where you stated that you could not support this unless the child support thing was taken completely out of it? The child support thing IS taken completely out of it. If you knew that, why would you even say what you did? You made it sound like the child support was still attached to the measure or at best you weren't sure either way. Maybe you are just trying to stir the pot to get the truely uninformed up in arms. Maybe you are purposely trying to cast a shadow on the whole thing? Last year, the anti's complained that the measure was too long and included to much. Now you are complaining that it is short and basic. I was right from the start. You really are one of the people where no amount of facts is going to change your mind. You came here and stated that you had an open mind and would give consideration to what we had to say, but every comment you make is more closed minded than the last. Open mind? I doubt it. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 20, 2007 12:48 AM:

" Matt, I think it is too hard to determine where the money goes. I like you idea but it just makes better sense that CS is set to cover the basics. Both parents have rent or a morgage, both need utilities, daycare and all other costs with school activities, doctor bills, even the premium for medical insurance be split 50/50. The way CS is now is so stupid. The courts claim when I was married my child had access to all the money I made. My child only had access to what I give her. $5 here $20 there, definately noy $600 per month. I am not sure how many parents in Bismarck give their kid a $600 per month allowance. After we get this measure approved, then hopefully if the courts won't make a fair CS ruling, then we will be back at it in 2010. "

"to Matt" wrote on Aug 20, 2007 12:21 AM:

" Sure thing, no problem, let's see... receipt for house payment, heat, water, lights, cable TV, internet, school lunches, car payment, oh my, I haven't actually spent anything "on" the kids. I just provided them with the basics to live. Like it was said earlier, these bills at the amount they are would not accure if i didn't have 4 kids living with me. You have a lot of nerve, not all divorced moms, drink, do drugs, go out on the town or buy tons of shoes, etc....some of us actually raise the children that WE planned for and wanted. Maybe all of the non-custodials should turn their receipts in so we can see what they are waisting their money on, maybe then my child support could be raised. Or better yet, I had a friend who's ex-husband wanted to give his child support directly to the two boys. That way they could decide what they needed, makes perfect sense to me, cause I know my house could use an extra $600 in Pokeman cards. "

Matt wrote on Aug 19, 2007 11:07 PM:

" Joint custody and child support (maintenance) are separate issues. Child support being the most heated I suppose. Although it is necessary and works okay with sensible people and a fair judge, I still think the whole concept is legalized extortion and the courts have to be complicit for this to work because the decree, the enforcement, etc. provide the leverage/force. One way, I think to insure that the support is going where it is needed would be to require a financial statement of some kind from the custodial parent showing the money trail. If the Clerk of Court enforces the collection and distributes the support, maybe it sould also receive receipts. No more distribution goes out until reciepts are shown. It is kind of an enforcement from both ends. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 19, 2007 10:29 PM:

" Actually, I HAVE read it. How IMPRESSED should I be?? The court MUST grant joint custody when either parent requests it?? Oh yeah....if neither parent is found to be unfit or a danger to the child by clear and convincing evidence....WOW!!!! Thanks sooooo much for throwing THAT it there! Sounds like THAT was well THOUGHT OUT! How long did it actually take to rewrite THAT one!! That should cover EVERYTHING NOW!! "

Mike R wrote on Aug 19, 2007 10:27 PM:

" Eye opener: Sounds to me like your position on the matter is affected a great deal by the fact that your ex ran off with someone else. Just so you know that has nothing to do with his ability to be a father. If he hasn't seen his daughter in 3 years, that is unexcusable. But why even mention that he ran off with someone else, unless that is a major part of why you despise him? I think in far to many cases, it is resentment against the ex-spouse and not his ability to be a parent that causes many people to file for sole custody. Maybe that is why so many are agains this measure. They wouldn't be able to use the kids as weapons to punish the ex for all thier bad deeds. That scares the heck out of a lot of people. Maybe they should be scared. Then they might have to use reason and logic and other life skills to deal with thier ex instead of punishing them with child cusody matters. Maybe Jim and I get so many responses because we are on to something here. We struck a nerve. At least the truth is coming out. Never fear the truth. Long live the truth. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 19, 2007 8:59 PM:

" To "to eye opener": How quickly you forget, I said I am all in favor of the background checks. What other information did she give? Oh yeah, that right. She gave a long winded sob story about her life and how bad her ex is. So she has it bad personally? That doesn't mean anything to anyone not in her situation. You see I am not scared of the truth at all. The TRUTH is that she is in a situation that is far different from a lot of us non-custodial parents out there. Her situation has no bearing at all on what this measure is about - none what-so-ever. That is the TRUTH. "

Sunshine wrote on Aug 19, 2007 8:55 PM:

" To the last comment-- I was always told that the truth shall set you free--LOL "

to EYE OPENER wrote on Aug 19, 2007 8:33 PM:

" shhhh, not so loud, and for gods sake, don't tell the truth.....cause they will call you "bitter!!!!!" shhhhhhh "

Mike R wrote on Aug 19, 2007 6:20 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: Go read the measure already for crying out loud. Child support is not mentioned anywhere at all in it what-so-ever. Please read it before making any more uninformed comments. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 19, 2007 6:16 PM:

" I know I said this last fall on these blogs, but for the record I will say this again. I too am a remarried single father. I have been denied visitation so many times I need to take my socks and shoes off to count the times. I have fought for 7 years and many times in and our of court, to the tune of $70k. I fially got my ex on contempt and got everything close to 50/50. What my daughter has gone through the past 7 years was worse than what she did when we went through the actual divorce. My daughter asked me to go and have the judge get visitation for her cause her mom never let her come visit and always called me names. I am a supporter of this law to help both mothers and fathers have an equal part in their childs lives. My current wife is a big advocate also as she is one of the few females in my situation. I am close to having full custody cause all she has to do is screw up one more time and it goes back to court. Next week she goes to court with the father of the other child and this could weigh in on my favor. If this law were into effect before I had spent the better part of 70K my daughters life would be a lolt less messed up than what it is now and more money would still be in savings to help pay for my childs education. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 19, 2007 5:57 PM:

" To eye opener, I know....scarey isn't it? My ex threatened me the last time too; I'm sure he will again before November of next year. His sole motivation LAST time was child support. Unless the child support thing is completely taken out, I'm SURE that will be his motivation again THIS time. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 19, 2007 5:51 PM:

" To eye opener. And just to think you married him. LOL And you think you are better than him. Sounds to me you are resentful and miffed that you got "stuck" with the kid. Maybe what he did is true(it does happen alot) unfortinately. But to come on here says you are looking for pitty. Stop crying, this measure probably would not pertain to you. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 19, 2007 5:48 PM:

" notafundelMENTAist, you really need to quit here until you go read the meaasure. Everytime you open your mouth you stick your foot in it. Did anyone here ever say that everything will go without sometype of glitch. DUH GO read it and come back, If you for some reason don't kow how to find it, let me know and I will send you a copy. It is really easy to read and understand. Even a caveman can understand it. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 19, 2007 5:46 PM:

" Eye opener: Yeah that's a good idea - background checks. I love it. But be careful what you wish for. It may work to your advantage in your situation, but I would be willing to bet that there are a lot of non-custodial parents out there with a heck of a lot cleaner records than the custodial parents. I say lets do the background checks and let the chips fall where they may, but make sure that the background checks are done for both parents. I could definitely live with that. At least it would be a level playing field then. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 19, 2007 5:44 PM:

" Fundamentalist: If you really wanted exact wording of the measure, you could have asked for it. It is very readily available. That tells me that you really didn't want the information that badly. Yes the joint custody could be disputed, but only if there was a reason. You couldn't say I want sole custody so I am going to fight for it. That excuse would no longer work and I would venture to say that is what scares most custodial parents to death. And no I cannot promise that the non-custodial parent who hasn't seen his kids in years wouldn't come back and fight for joint custody, but can you promise that they won't come back and fight for sole custody under the current law? The truth is you can't promise anything either way. As far as the definition of unfit, no there is no clear defintion in the century code, but it is defined time and time again in case law. Social services uses the term unfit every day to remove children from bad situations. If the term is so useless and vague, then how come they use it all the time? I think this about fear for you and I am not sure why you are scared to death of this. I think if you wanted more information on this measure, you would have gotten it by now. You choose not to do that. That tells me something about you and your position on the matter. It really does. "

EYE OPENER for all you supporters.. wrote on Aug 19, 2007 5:20 PM:

" I am a single mother of a 16 year old daughter who has not seen her father in three years!! He ran off with his bleach blonde bimbo of a girlfriend and has felt the need to take care of her needs before his own child's !! He has made more EMPTY promises than one little girl should have to listen to ! Time and time again he called and said, we'll do this or that , we'll go camping, or go to a movie >>>> guess what??? None of it EVER happened. Frankly, I am sick and tired of giving this poor excuse for a father one chance after another ..... I do not want this, dare I say "man" to have any more chances to tear my child's heart out ! She has shed too many tears and gone through too much heartache to allow this man to claw at her time and time again. It is ridiculous to think that a man is going to change after 46 years of drinking, smoking dope and partying!! I think the photo I have of this man smoking his dope with beer bottles all around him should be enough damming evidence to show any judge !! He has done nothing but damaged my daughter's spirit and confidence and I for ONE, will not allow this man to continue to abuse my precious child. I am sure he will try to call again and make all kinds of threats since that is what he did the last time these "BRAINS" came up with this good idea- let's start doing back ground checks on these so called GREAT fathers who want to see their children>>> better yet, maybe the kid's need to have a say in whether they have had enough crappy treatment from their father's in their short lives. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 19, 2007 5:07 PM:

" Keeping an open mind about change is one thing, but it is naive to think a new law would be without problems. It will not be a fix all. I personally would like to read the new wording and judge for myself how poorly or well written it is, and if it DOES truely take special situations into account. If it could ever be produced, that is. I think there is ALOT of confusion out there specifically because there are a lot of mixed messages about what the bill really says and what it would really do. "Joint custody will be the norm, but one can fight for sole custody anyway; all kids have right to equal access to their parents, but a parent who is unfit won't get custody...and apparently won't try?? because why bother worrying if your ex is a deadbeat anyway, they won't try to get custody, and if they do try as long as you have a novel documented and photographic evidence that they are unfit you are okay?" I'm curious how many people actually have evidence that their exes are unfit; even though they truely feel their ex is unfit. And 'unfit' is defined exactly how?? I've never seen exact wording, I've never seen a definition. "The new law won't decrease court battles but won't increase the either..." It goes on and on. It fascinates me how many people on this board have crystal balls and know exactly what the ramifications will and won't be. I would LOVE that kind of talent, I would constantly buy lottery tickets.... "

Jim S wrote on Aug 19, 2007 2:54 PM:

" Mike, good points, i will tell you what I beleive is the reason so many people think this law is not good. 1st, people fear that they are going to loose control and not have an upper hand because the playing field will be level. 2nd, change. It does not matter what the issue is people have a hard time with change. 3rd, uneducated veiws and opinions. People (even one the first measaure) never even botherd to actually read the measure. They read the tittle and assumed that was all they needed to know. I for one for example, looked at what was playing at the show hall and thought nothing hre looks good so i stayed at home. After hearing from some friends that actually went to see and some who actually read the intro and watched the trailer on the website, turns out it was an excellent movie. Sure glad I got told to go read about it cause I would have missed a great movie. When you hear complaints like 50/50 will not work because, "we live 200 miles apart and you can't put a kid in one school and finish in another or my x never wanted anything to do with them before now with this law he will have full access to them ect. Everyone also thinks that this law will automatically change things for everyone. Wrong, one will have to take it back to court. That is the way it is now so that will not change. People need to use their heads and common sense. If both parents would realize what is best for the child they would look at the whole sytem as a whole and not nessesarily their own. Put yourselves in your kids shoes. Try to imagine if your parents were divorced if they weren't. I know my daughter always told me she feels bad when she sees another child has both parents and she would have one but not the other unless it was to exercise visitation. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 19, 2007 1:50 PM:

" Notafundamentalist: I am not sure that this measure will reduce the court battles, but there are a lot of people claiming how it will dramatically increase the court battles. I cannot understand that arguement for a second. As it is now, one parent decides to fight for custody and it is a custody fight - unless the other parent is willing to just walk away from his kids. With the new measure, one parent wants joint custody and it is a custody fight if the other parent chooses to fight for sole custody. What would be the difference? One parent wants a fight instead of being civil and its a fight - either way. Under the old law, joint custody is not an option unless both parents want it. It is almost always an all or nothing battle. Under the new law, joint custody will be the norm - not the exception. I think that would make fewer fights than everyone fighting for all or nothing. I am not so sure what makes everyone else think otherwise. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 19, 2007 1:13 PM:

" Matt, that's an interesting perspective. I think one of the things this new initiative is SUPPOSED to do is have less involvement from the courts. Whether this will actually happen or not is open for alot of "we'll see." Personally, I don't think it will. Those who are having difficulty now with custody issues, I don't see them having less difficulty getting their exes to do an about face just because of a new law. In order to have joint actually work, both parents have to be on board with it and all the support systems have to be in place. I speculate that the courts will be PRETTY busy helping to write alot of parenting plans in the future when the two parents still can't agree on anything. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 19, 2007 12:49 PM:

" Matt: I think you are 100 percent correct. No fault divorce causes a lot of problems. You don't need a reason to destroy the kids lives, you can do it just because you want to. Courts mandating counseling would be a great idea, but it isn't going to happen. I find it alarming that it is easier to get out of a marriage than it is do to get out of a cell phone contract. Where are the priorities? What are we teaching our youth? Our "instant gratification" and "I can do what-ever I want" society has turned us into a people who thinks nothing of our kids, nothing of thier future, and only of ourselves (in a lot of cases). I want a divorce so I will get one, regardless if I have grounds or not, regardless of what it does to the kids, I do it because I want it for myself and the courts say it is OK. I know, let's blame it all on TV or something else. Let's not take responsibility for our own actions. This is what this country is coming to. I for one and proud to stand up and go against the trend. And that is what this measure is truely all about. "

Matt wrote on Aug 19, 2007 11:36 AM:

" There just isn't a good answer in child custody matters. Custody in a lot of cases means a legal way to extract money from the non custodial parent. Joint custody sounds a lot like putting children in the same category as sharing other property. Similar to joint tenancy. Boil it down to the breakdown of the family (divorce) and maybe look for an answer. Courts, I think should do more to try and preserve marriages by mandating counseling, if necessary to save the family. No fault divorce has contributed to the seemingly unmanagable problem this has become. "

Bystander wrote on Aug 19, 2007 10:00 AM:

" To Mike R--I think you said it well. Sounds like Amy has had a tough time.But, we aren't talking about all custodial parents! That is why ND needs to fix the situation. And, I think it's going to pass this time. My husband is one who will definately love to see it passed. There has to be help for the non-custodial parent,too. Unless you have walked in their shoes, put up with a Mother who has no best interest for the child, revenge & bitterness, and only thinks of herself,($)-- please don't think people are bashing you. Don't be offended if it is not pertaining to you! The truth of the matter is, they know who they are! "

Mike R wrote on Aug 19, 2007 9:34 AM:

" Amy: You are right. We shouldn't need a law to tell us to have the best intrest of the child in mind, but the sad reality is that we do need it. People are not rational much of the time. We shouldn't need all of the laws protecting children from sexual predators either, but we have them. It is a sad fact of life, but it is the world we live in. I said earlier that I realize I am kind of harsh on the custodial parents, but if you went through half of what I did, you would understand. Maybe this measure isn't a cure-all for everything, but it sure is a step in the right direction. Unless you have walked in our shoes and seen what we go through day in and day out, you might never understand. Like I have said many times before, if what we are describing doesn't fit the kind of person you are, then you shouldn't be offended - you are not the kind of person we are talking about. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 19, 2007 12:48 AM:

" Jim S: I didn't think she was ever bashed either. She said that she had some concerns but would vote yes if we could prove her concerns would be addressed by this new measure. One by one those concerns were addressed. The more we proved that she had nothing to be concerned about, the more irrate she became. She started bashing supporters of this measure, but now comes out how she was bashed. Maybe she is one of those people who are scared of the truth? "

Amy wrote on Aug 18, 2007 8:22 PM:

" It is truly amazing that supporters of this measure spend their entire time bashing the custodial parents. Not all custodial parents are what you are saying. We should not need a law to tell us how to parent a child or what would be best for the child. I am separated and I also am the custodial parent. When we were together he was too busy with friends and bars to be a part of a family and now that we are separated he is too busy to see her. Or if he sees her (she is 4yrs old) he lets her ride in the front seat with no booster or seatbelt or teaches our daughter that it is OK to call her mom a B****. My daughter says it OK to call me that because Daddy does. So now that I have filed for child support he quits his job and works for cash (which I can't prove) so he won't have to pay support, but he just bought a 2007 Dodge Truck. Doesn't seem fair that everyone just bickering back and forth. We should not need a law to tell us what is best for our child - if you have the best interest of your child in mind - it will just happen naturally. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 18, 2007 6:21 PM:

" What is really bad was that this notafundaMENTAList was never bashed when she came on here and was not bashed until stupid stood up. If you come here and can stand a debate and post logical facts or even logical beliefs great. But when you come in here talkin more smack than a drunken sailor, you are gonna get put in your place as is the case with motafundleMENTAlist. The scarey thing is that this gal sounds so much like my exwife it is scarey to know there are two exactly alike. Not one true thing will ever come out of her mouth. My ex has more contempt of court charges against her for failed visitations than Elvis had hits. The thing with fundleMENTAList is that I was not mean to her, she never got bashed, just showed the facts and obviously the truth hurts sometimes.. but them again, love is tough!!! "

Mike R wrote on Aug 18, 2007 4:17 PM:

" Wow Jim, you REALLY hit a nerve. "

Sad wrote on Aug 18, 2007 4:15 PM:

" Ask many kids from divorced homes how "happy and well adjusted" they really were when deprived of the love and support of one of their parents. They learn to cope and survive and make a life - but it isn't what 99% of children wish for. My brother-in-law has custody of his young daughter. Her mother is a drunk and bounces from man to man without regard to her daughter. Is the child better off without her - yes - but explain that to a little girl who looks around at all her little friends with their moms. Explain that to a little boy who sees his friends and their daddies doing things together. They never forget and they never truly understand. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 18, 2007 11:54 AM:

" Yeah, I'm SURE you ARE thrilled for all the support on this board! And for those who oppose this measure, you get to bash on regular basis if they don't agree with you. Nice! I hardly need a maturity lesson from any of YOU, but here's some advice for YOU! Maybe you should post a disclaimer on this board that anyone who disagrees with this measure will be bashed and insulted, so post at your own risk. I wish you all the best of luck getting your measure passed SUCCESSFULLY this time, but I personally won't be voting for it; as my kids are happy and well-adjusted now WITHOUT their father's involvement; and should it pass and should he ever sue me for joint custody to get out of paying child support; I will GLADLY fill him in on ALL the costs it takes to raise a child, and by the time I am through, he will have reconsidered! "

Jim S wrote on Aug 17, 2007 7:30 PM:

" I am just thrilled for all the support that has shown here on this blog. And to notafundleMENTAList, it is too bad for your kids. My ex always screams that seperation anixiety thingie regarding her youngest that she had with the guy she had an affair with. Even a child psycoligist said that she is the one who has it, NOT the child as is with most cases. I think it is fathersrights.com or org that talks about how important it is not to have just both parents involved but how more important it is to have the fathers involved. NotafundalMENTAList will be back, they always come back. "

Fathers need time with their children too wrote on Aug 17, 2007 4:42 PM:

" To notafundamentalist: my brother has bonded with his children from the very second they were born and he spent hours speaking to them in the womb. There is no way I could possibly believe that he is any less bonded with his children than their mother. Many Many Many of today's fathers bond deeply with their children and to have them then only be allowed to see their children every other weekend and 1 week in the summertime is cruel not only to the fathers but the children suffer as well. Grow Up - you're attitude is one that hurts the children the most - your attitude is why this initiative is so very very very important. By the way - I am a mother (not a father) and the father of my children and I share our children together - and it works really really well and the children are very heathly, well-adjusted, and secure. "

Devoted Father wrote on Aug 17, 2007 3:13 PM:

" To notafundamentalist: If you’re really interested in what there is for “proof”, you should take a look at the research of Dr. Warren Farrell, which you can easily find on the Web. He spent over thirteen years compiling research from over 200 scientific research studies, the largest compilation of such research ever done on this topic. Based upon that work, he reports that “Shared parenting (or equal parenting) arrangements are far superior for children of divorce in every way when there are two fit parents.” As for arguments about breastfeeding, separation anxiety, disability, and anything else that can be conceived of as an issue where an infant or child would need to move from one household to another… any single mother (or father), who needs to or chooses to go off to work, deals with the same issues of transporting their child to another caregiver and not being with them fulltime. And, it’s only harmful to the child, to the extent that the parent makes an emotional issue of it with the child. Especially see the studies on parental behavior that leads to separation anxiety, along with the prevention and resolution of it. "

Nevergiveup wrote on Aug 17, 2007 2:51 PM:

" I live in CA so this measure will not help my situation. But hopefully the voters in ND are more sophisticated than notafundamentalist. I wouldn't waste any more key strokes attempting to reason with her. She has an axe to grind and that's unfortunate. Perhaps if she wasn't so bitter her children's father would come around and spend time with his children. Some father's, unfortunately for their children, don't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with those who only see the glass as half empty. Joint parenting is a win-win for children and yes that makes the glass half full! "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 17, 2007 2:40 PM:

" Jim I think you hit a cord wow! nonfundamentalist if it is 50/50 then both would be the primary wouldn't they? Children with special needs, I would think that most parents would do the right thing, and with the nursing baby I am pretty sure they sell breast pumps just like when women go out to work and the daycare provider has to feed them with a b-o-t-t-l-e! Give it up!!! "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 17, 2007 12:52 PM:

" And Jim, just to EDUCATE you a little on child development since you seem have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE, I was referring to when a child is at a STAGE in their development when they are experiencing seperation anxiety! Yeah, GREAT idea to seperate them from their PRIMARY CAREGIVER at that time! REAL SMART!! "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 17, 2007 12:50 PM:

" Jim, you are the one who is simple-minded! So obvious everytime you post! If you REALLY had your kids' and other kids' best interest at heart, you wouldn't make such ridiculous comments all the time and constantly bash custodial parents. And just because my ex CHOOSES not to spend time with his kids, DOESN'T MEAN he CAN'T. You are the one with no clue. Until you all decide to come up with an INTELLIGENT bill, it won't pass and people like me WON'T support you! So good luck with that!! I'm outta here! Better things to do! "

Amazed wrote on Aug 17, 2007 11:12 AM:

" Gosh, Jim, you said exctly what I would say! Good for you!! I didn't have to say it. "

JIm S wrote on Aug 17, 2007 10:52 AM:

" Who has seperation anaxiaties, the mother or the child? usually the mother. Notafundelmentalist, who are you to say that just because a child is the way they are that they are noit entittled to both parents. HOW DARE YOU. You are a selfrightous, selfish simpleminded person with no clue about anything outside your own little box. You say you let your x see the kids when ever he wants; but, you stated earlier that he wants nothing to do with them. You are trying to make yourself sound bigger than you really are. It is too bad that your x doesn't spend more time with the kids because I would bet it is you that is keeping him away. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 17, 2007 9:35 AM:

" I care if this changes because if you guys are gonna do this, then do it RIGHT and INTELLIGENTLY and take all situations into account. What worries me from all of your posts is you all seem to be stuck on the fact that parents have a "right" to have equal access to their kids. That may very well be. But what if in the circumstance, equal access is NOT in the best interest of the child? I don't like the all or nothing attitude on this board, that has been pretty much the theme throughout. Like I said, if you are gonna do this, and said this LAST time; then do it RIGHT! Because how you word things determines how it is interpreted; and I would hate to see, for example, a baby who is nursing having to spend half the time with his father, and then his mom can't nurse him, or a child who is in a wheelchair or with specials have to be shuffled back and forth all the time between homes when it is physically challenging. Or a toddler who is at a stage where he or she has seperation anxiety when away from his primary caregiver. These situaions have emotional outcome, I don't think in cases like that, it IS in the best interest of the child to be shuffled around. And if you aren't taking situations like this into account, then you will have a poorly written measure that is going to make someone's life MORE difficult than better. That is why I SAID, in case you didn't catch it the first time, "an "individulized" parenting plan that is in the child's BEST interest" rather than a straight "joint physical and joint legal custody". Judges aren't going to care if an infant is nursing, they aren't going to care if the child has special needs or is disabled, or has emotional or seperational difficulties. So at least think about that please. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 17, 2007 6:48 AM:

" notafundamentalist: I am a little confused, if the kids get to see your ex when ever they want and when ever he wants then why would you care if this changes? Another thing you are not understanding is that this is not manditory only if ONE wants it. What solutions are you offering? I have offered solutions since I was divorced, if the custodial parents were willing to listen to us then we would not have to go to these lengths, offer a solution that is fair we might listen. "

MIke R wrote on Aug 17, 2007 6:23 AM:

" Naotafundamentalist: You are looking at the situation that you are in and thinking everyone has it the same way. You might let you ex see the kids when-ever he wants to, but i can assure you that there are thousands of non-custodial parents who do not have it that way. Just because you are able to be civil about it is not an indication of how others have it. I will agree that in part non-custodial parents are thinking about themselves. They want to be able to see thier own kids more often. You say that like it is a bad thing, but I can absolutely assure you that if your kids were suddenly taken from you, you would want to see them on a regular basis again. Why condemn others for doing EXACTLY what we all know that you would do yourself? As far as the best intrest of the kids, I honestly do think that equal access to both parents is in thier best intrest. You ask me to be able to prove that. Can you prove that equal access to both parents is NOT in the kids best intrest (in most normal situations)? You are using a very tired old arguement - you are just doing it for yourself not for the kids. Just like some people argue that traffic laws are just to make money and promate safety. Just like some people argue that all laws are designed soley for the purpose of eroding personal freedoms. You argument has been around since the very first law was past. Don't you think it deserves a rest already? Isn't it possible that joint custody might benefit the non-custodial parent AND the kids at the same time? Open your mind and experience the possibilities. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 17, 2007 12:05 AM:

" notafundalmentalist, you said you would support a measure that didn't lump CS and Custody in one measure. Well, I guess we will see you in the yes line in November of 08. Oh and I have some extra signature papers you can have to help us collect signatures. Welcome aboard. "

Bystander wrote on Aug 16, 2007 9:49 PM:

" I have sat and watched my husband do his best to get his court ordered vistations, but "THE CUSTODIAL PARENT" always seems to try to get the last word because she thinks has the POWER OF BEING THE CUSTODIAL PARENT. She reminds him of that so often. The child is so confused because she wants to be with her daddy , but yet doesn't want to hurt her mothers feelings? Is that in the best interest of the child? I think parents should put their bitterness and revenge back where it belongs (in the past). Most ( not all) custodial parents only see dollar signs, not Love for the child and what is best for them. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 16, 2007 9:30 PM:

" To never give up, FIRST of all, I don't HAVE to prove myself to anyone. My ex sees his kids whenever he wants to and whenever the kids WAN'T to see him! He doesn't NEED joint custody for that! Second of all, failing to listen to suggestions made by people who OPPOSE this measure is a miscalculation on YOUR part, because you won't have the support you need when you don't listen to others concerns. I am trying to offer solutions, which is more than you are obviously doing. And honey, don't bother praying for MY kids, they are just fine! Pray for your OWN! The time you spend on this board is time you COULD be spending with the kids you claim to value so much!! And to Mike R, with all do respect, everyone's posts who support this measure imply that very thing. Show me otherwise and I'll give ya that! "

Mike R wrote on Aug 16, 2007 8:56 PM:

" father: Obviously, you have never been there, but choose to tell us how it is anyway. Any father can be part of thier kids life - EXCEPT WHEN THE CUSTODIAL PARENT DOESN'T ALLOW IT. And we should just get along and all would be OK? The truth is that it doesn't really take 2 people to tangle. You can be as polite and accomidating as Christ himself but if your ex is vindictive and using the kids as weapons THERE ISN'T ANYTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT - NOT ANYTHING. Notafundamentalist: There for a while I thought you could be reasoned with. But one comment proved otherwise "Joint custody, no matter what, no exceptions no special circumstances" Please show me where it says that. I can show you exactly where the measure specificall does make exceptions. Can you show me where it says no exceptions no matter what? I didn't think so. "

Nevergiveup wrote on Aug 16, 2007 7:49 PM:

" To notafundamentalist: you are definitely part of the problem and not the solution. Your rationale is to create 101 reasons why the other parent shouldn't be a part of the childs life. Certainly those parents that are unfit will not benefit from this bill. However, there are too many good parents being forced out of their children's life because of the so-called bitterness and vindictiveness that you accuse those that support this measure of having. Prove yourself and get behind this measure that unites children with the two people that love them the most - their biological parents. If not, I pray for your children because their following your example. "

what wrote on Aug 16, 2007 7:29 PM:

" to: notafundamentalist - I could not agree with you more! You nailed that one right on the nose!!! And to the ones that responded to my last blog - your words speak for themselves!! Good luck on the vote! "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 16, 2007 6:31 PM:

" So that's what this REALLY is about then huh, winning! The tone of most of these posts on here is bitter and hateful and disgusting for the most part. Everyone claims to have the best interest of kids at heart, but nowhere on this board is that TRULY reflected. Maybe if it was, more people would be on board. The initiative is parent centered and money driven obviously, not CHILD centered. The bottom line is JOINT custody no matter WHAT! No exceptions, no special circumstances! That's why a lot of people are not on board with this if you want to know the honest truth. Custody should be "individualized to meet the needs of the child in the BEST possible way", that is NOT ALWAYS going to be JOINT custody! Until you write an intelligent bill that takes all kinds of circumstances into account, you would have custodial parents on board! And until you stop bashing custodial parents you DEFINATELY won't have us on board! I wish you luck! "

divorced dad wrote on Aug 16, 2007 4:32 PM:

" to "divorced" : i am appauled by your bias of cheaters. you assume that the cheater in a relationship is always the man. let me give you some additive to your education, I also am divorced with 2 kids and my ex wife is the one who cheated to end the relationship. I had to fight during the divorce procedings to get the custody arragement setup as it is which is joint physical custody. It dropped my child support figures by half. I constantly question my ex wife's moral values because of her previous actions. She is always claiming that her cost of living is too high, electricity/heating costs her lot rent etc. these are things that were coming out of my paycheck when we were together. now she doesnt have that income and is trying to rely solely on the child support as her main income. She does run a business but has never pulled a paycheck out of it. So according to her, the system, and other biased people, I am to pay even more for being cheated on and having to start my life over from scratch and Im just supposed to be happy with that? appearantly its my fault because my ex stepped out on me i have to foot the bill instead of telling her to get a job that pays. The system is flawed and favors the female in the situation far too much!! I can say that the only thing that keeps me in Bismarck is my kids!!! I refuse to let my ex raise them on her own or with any of her boyfriends that she has had . I am a responsible father who sees his kids for more than just an every other weekend visitation . ends dont meet on my current income and if i seek any additional employment to make ends meet, then my support goes up. In my case the immoral cheater "won" all the way around. "

Nevergiveup wrote on Aug 16, 2007 4:15 PM:

" To all the non-custodial parents out there that have seen their beloved children unfairly taken from them because of gender bias, racial prejudice and a vindictive revenge seeking ex-spouse...never give up! I have a 25 y/o son whose mom I never married. She played every trick in the book. Today he and I have a great relationship because I never gave up on him. It's not about C/S. It's about loving your children. I'm currently dealing with an ex-wife, with whom we had two kids, who supported that relationship. Now that she's on the otherside, she's even my vile and wicked than my oldest son's mother. Trust me God will judge those who abuse children more severely than others. "

father wrote on Aug 16, 2007 3:57 PM:

" A divorced parent always can participate fully in the life of his or child. You don't have to have "joint custody" to do that. If you are serious about helping to raise your child in a loving and responsible way after you have separated from the other parent, you can help by letting go of total control and admit that you and your spouse had some serious problems in living together and working things out. Don't make divorce and separation worse for the children by continuing the tensions. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Aug 16, 2007 1:52 PM:

" Suppose a non custodial parent wants joint custody of a new born baby who is nursing? Should they get it? Are there going to be ANY limits, or should the mom just stop nursing, for example? "

Devoted Father wrote on Aug 16, 2007 8:51 AM:

" To what: If you think it's appropriate for someone to decide that one parent shouldn't have full participation in their children's lives, after divorce, perhaps you'd support a law that would allow the State to examine all parent's, divorced or not, and decide which parent should participate fully in their chidren's lives and which one should be relegated to an occassional visitor. Makes about as much sense. "

Jim S wrote on Aug 15, 2007 11:48 PM:

" To what; What do you think that the current law does? Everything is supposed to be about the kids and when someone says "I", did it accure to you that "I" in parent can mean for the best interest of the child? In divorce cases(most anyway) it is about everyone involved. How can the child be well taken care of if both or one of the parents can't afford to live let alone get by? I am impressed, this blog started out with a lot of megativity in it but i think the pendelum has tilted. Just one person with blinders on. Not too bad being there always has to be one. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 15, 2007 7:06 PM:

" To What: As if the law is not set one way now! I want to spend more time with my kids but I want to be able to do things with them besides watch a movie or play board games. I want to be able to take them shopping or buy them something special or I WOULD LIKE TO BUY BIRTHDAY PRESENTS. "I" am pretty sure that "I" think that a one way street is not fair!!!!!! "I" am pretty sure that the state is not an expert on MY kids. "I" am pretty sure that this measure is going to pass. "

what? wrote on Aug 15, 2007 1:26 PM:

" In reading most of these comments, all that I see, is people saying "I", "I" and "I". I spend this amount in CS, I have to buy my kids clothes, and i have to pay for half of day care. Well, you want to know what? You people that wrote and complained about what they spend each month on raising their kids are exactly the reason that people should vote against 50/50 custody laws. You don't have the best interest of your child in mind, all you are thinking about is the $ you have to spend. I didn't really read anything on the lines of, I want to spend more time with my child, I want to be there more for my child, I want to be more apart of the decision making in my childs life. 50/50 custody should be a joint decision that is made by 2 loving parents that are not living in the same household. Every parent split has a different story, and different factors. One set law to determine the fate of every child in a split family situation is a recipe for disaster. Please think of your children instead of your pocketbooks!!! "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 15, 2007 1:04 PM:

" I went to the web site NDSPI.ORG and volunteered to help get signatures. "

Tommy wrote on Aug 15, 2007 8:33 AM:

" Well lets get behind this thing and support it this time.. the only way we are going to get it done is to push it.. talk to your rep. make a difference instead of just complaining about it.. I know time is limited and most of us have to work 2 jobs just to pay our CS.. "

Hi Again wrote on Aug 15, 2007 6:21 AM:

" I know exactly what this measure is about. But I want to say one more thing about the "LAW" Were they considering there federal funding matches when they gave custody to one or the other? This measure is truely about what is right and fair and equal on all sides. "

Bismarck, North Dakota News

Another go at joint custody initiative