Back From The Dead (Sort Of) And More News To Make You Mostly Nauseous

Hello, Hello - It's Been Too Long....

What can I say? I know I mentioned back in April of 2006 that I had taken a new job which I anticipated would severely limit my blogging opportunities. What even I did not realize then was how much this position would take away from my "blogging time."

Those who have spent much time with me (And you are out there ~ I've been getting your emails!) may have noticed that 95% of my posts were made during what is generally work hours on weekdays. Every once in a great while I would blog from home because I simply had to say something right away - but for the most part I allowed my company to pay me to blog.

This is not to say they minded, as they did not. Nor is it to say that it took away from the quality of my work, as it certainly did not. But that I took advantage of the free time I had during my workday and spent my nights and weekends enjoying my wonderful little family and not allowing myself to be consumed with this horrible reality 24 hours a day.

Where I was generally on the road for around a month a week at my last job - now, I am lucky to be home for a whole week at a time. Where my last position seemed to go from manic to dead and average about the same time period of each - this job never seems to dip below steady rush. Where I used to make catty comments about people who had a cell phone permanently attached to their ear - I recently sucked it up and bought the blue tooth headset thing as I swear I was starting to suffer from wrist fatigue. Where I used to scoff at airline mileage programs as I did not fly nearly enough to warrant understanding all the fine print - I just flew my sister to and from Hawaii for a wedding on miles alone.

This job has certainly changed a lot about my life.

And the point of all of this... It has turned me into a lousy blogger. More, it has made me the kind of blogger I hate - those who post on what appears to be a quarterly basis for what can be assumed no other point but to amuse the four friends who may check in or in the desperate hope to continue to accumulate a few cents from adsense.

I assure you I am neither - but you certainly couldn't tell from my abysmal posting of late.

My job slowly ramped up that by the end of the holidays I was functioning at full speed (or more so) and it seems if I am not in a meeting, or on a plane, in court, or driving (always, of course, on my cell phone), at soccer, baseball, basketball, football, class parties, feeding the gaggle of children my step son has brought home, or trying to have a meaningful conversation with my husband, I am crumpled into a small ball on the couch of the hotel of the day or preferably in my living room. Blogging has fallen precipitously on the list of priorities. If it makes you feel any better, I had to quit my book club outright.

And yet, when I (extremely infrequently) find time to check my personal email, I see new subscribers to the blog signing up almost daily and lots of email from readers checking in to see if I am still kicking around somewhere. Thank you all for your kind notes ~ I truly appreciate your thoughts.

I feel desperately uninformed lately. I have no idea if all the links on the site are still active and I could not provide any idea as to the state of my fellow bloggers. I have received suggestions for reciprocal links that I have ignored, requests for help or information that I have been unable to answer, and reader questions that continue to sit in my inbox (I suppose with the idea that someday soon I will sit down and answer them all in some great flourish).

And as I sit here on my first Friday evening home in three weeks - I mostly feel anxious to wrap this up.

But I owe you better than that - and I glanced at the most recent newsletter from Glenn Sacks which contained some (surprise, surprise) horrific examples of legal inequities and feminist nonsense that I feel compelled to pass on.

But first, let me be clear that I don't anticipate (unless I get fired) my postings to get any more frequent. And the little I have posted lately has for the most part been a regurgitation of information that can easily be found in readily available sources. I can't recall that last post I made in which I included a reasoned argument of my own. And while I will leave the blog up because I feel it continues to serve as a good resource - my contributions will be minimal and likely detached from the movement as a whole.

So... that being said, if there are any readers out there who feel as though they could "pick up the torch" so to speak and would like be able to post on the blog, please just shoot me an email (which I probably will not look at for several weeks - but be patient, eventually I will). You can find my email address under the links session on the main page. I have little criteria except for a belief that joint custody (legal and physical) should be the default and custody arrangements outside of this breakdown should have to be justified, move aways should never be allowed except under the most necessary and extreme circumstances, that there are both crazy/bad mothers and fathers, that when dealing with issues of family, divorce and custody there can be no absolutes, that kids (who have to be children of divorce) fair SUBSTANTIALLY better with two involved and cooperative parents, that this blog will always allow for dissent, that this blog will always provide reasoned and articulated positions with supporting evidence if at all possible and that this blog will never be used as a pulpit to simply attack those of other opinions or genders.

Hmm, maybe I had more criteria than I thought.

I started this blog in January 2004 - it has been a big part of my life up until recently. While I would love to have additional people to post, I would like to stay true to the reasons I began it in the first place.

Enough about all of that ~ on to the news....

All of the following came from a Glenn Sacks newsletter which you can access yourself by clicking here....

Colorado has a new paternity fraud bill SB 56.

Glenn wrote the following article: 'Duped Dad' Bill Could Foster Closer Ties.

Excerpts from the article:

SB 56, the new Colorado paternity fraud bill, addresses the dilemma faced by men who discover that the children they are paying child support for are not biologically theirs. The bill would allow “duped dads” to terminate their support obligations by utilizing DNA evidence.

Carroll and others seem to equate child support with fatherhood. There is nothing in SB 56 which prevents a father from continuing his relationship with the children, or from financially supporting them, as long as the mother allows it. If the bill’s opponents want to effectively preserve the bonds between these duped dads and their nonbiological children, their focus should not be on child support but instead on creating a presumption of shared parenting after a divorce or separation. Under this presumption, as long as both parents (including nonbiological fathers) are fit, they will each have the right to substantially equal physical time with their children. Such legislation would greatly reduce the number of men seeking to disestablish paternity.

On Point: Suffer the children offer a different point of view. Excerpts:

Dads, if you are the picky type whose parental love depends on a genetic link with your child, make sure to get a DNA test during a divorce. That way you can establish without a doubt whether your wife deceived you - and if the kid isn't yours, you may be able to toss the tyke overboard with a minimum of fuss, avoiding that everlasting nuisance of child support.

What's that, you say? A kid might grow to love or depend upon a "duped dad" as much as if the two shared a genetic profile? Tough luck. This is an age when adult convenience and autonomy trumps the interests and expectations of mere children. And that, not incidentally, is why it's so important that all right-thinking adults (or at least right-thinking men) support Senate Bill 56, which would allow a duped dad to take the DNA test any time during a child's life with an eye toward ditching child support.

Take a look at this press release about Sherri Donovan's new book Hit Him Where It Hurt$: The Take-No-Prisoners Guide to Divorce - Alimony, Custody, Child Support. My favorite excerpt:

Eighty-five percent of the time, it is the woman who initiates the divorce. Amidst the staggering emotional turmoil, they too often make hasty decisions and "play-nice" to get the proceedings behind them. The result: They get screwed.

I suppose at least she admitted women initiate the majority of divorces.

On a better note, Utah Senator Mark Madsen sounds like he might be a reasonable guy. In this article, Child-support delinquency could cost parents their licenses, it stated:

Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Lehi, said he wanted to see more punishments for those who interfered with the visitation rights of non-custodial parents before he could support another measure for collecting child-support payments.

"I'd like to see some parity," Madsen said. "There is already a disproportionate amount of methods (for punishing those who don't pay their child support)."

There is lots more in the newsletter like:

"A study in the January/February issue of the journal Child Development found that when nonresident fathers are involved with their adolescent children, the youths are less likely to take part in delinquent behavior such as drug and alcohol use, violence, property crime and school problems like truancy and cheating.

and

"Meanwhile, lobbyist Mike Robinson said that he has found multiple sponsors to draft legislation that would amend California's domestic-violence laws to apply to 'victims,' rather than only to women. He said the language has been approved by the Legislative Counsel. There are several Republicans who have said they are willing to sponsor the legislation, Robinson said, but he is trying to line up a Democratic co-author."

and

"Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.

plus

I've written before about the highly-publicized ruling in the Virginia/Vermont lesbian child custody battle between former civil union partners Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl's life.

I've noted that Miller's actions read like a checklist of what heterosexual women sometimes do to the fathers of their children, including: move the child far away; deny the noncustodial parent the opportunity to visit or co-parent the child; make an unsupported, dubious and oh-so-convenient accusation of abuse against the noncustodial parent; and pretend that the noncustodial parent is out-of-line or acting against the child's best interests by wanting to continue the relationship with the child.

Like most divorced dads do, Jenkins soft-pedals her ex-partner's appalling behavior, trying to avoid conflict in the interests of their child. She says that if she does win custody (which she should), she will be very careful to make sure that her former partner's relationship with her daughter is protected and respected.

and finally (though there is more I haven't mentioned in the newsletter)

"A proposed bill may force some Kansas parents to pay child support until their child reaches age 23. The bill was introduced last week in Topeka by the judiciary committee.

So visit Glenn Sacks to read the newsletter in its entirety.

Finally - Signs, Pictures and Billboards I Like (Or Don't)

What the hell is this? Apparently a marketing scheme by Court TV....

borrowed from Cartoon Barry Blog

We have seen this one before from ACFC:

As well as this one from NHCustody.org:

Collaborative divorce is gaining fans in Santa Fe - New Mexico

Article available at the Free New Mexican

Excerpts:

Divorce is almost always emotionally and financially painful for couples. But it doesn’t have to end in a costly, all-out war over the house, the bank account, the kids — or even the cat.

Collaborative practice is different from mediation, where a neutral, third party helps the disputing parties settle their case. In collaborative practice, the spouses and their attorneys make these decisions in fourway discussions.

In some cases, the divorcing couple might select a specialist to represent their children and a neutral financial expert in addition to their collaborative lawyers.

Advocates say this model is cheaper and faster than traditional divorce, reduces family conflict and results in higher compliance with agreements.

You keep control of the process without going to court. Children’s needs are given priority. You and your partner commit to reaching agreement through a problem-solving approach. An atmosphere of respect preserves self-esteem. Open communication provides tools for effective problem solving in the future. There is full disclosure of facts and information. Face-to-face meetings allow for mutually created resolutions. Process helps couple plan for their futures.

Attorneys, therapists push for new divorce model -Indiana

News Sentinel 04/19/2005 Attorneys, therapists push for new divorce model

Excerpts:

“Divorce is an emotionally charged process. It can be very expensive and can have horrible effects on both children and adults,” Brandt said.

But Brandt, several other attorneys, local magistrates and mental health professionals are spearheading a new program in Allen County advocating what is known elsewhere as “cooperative” and “collaborative” divorce. The new model emphasizes the attorney’s role as part of a multidisciplinary team that includes financial planners, accountants and therapists. The attorney takes on a role of “problem-solver rather than the old warrior model,” Brandt said. “In the traditional model, the attorneys are not really concerned about the clients. They’re there to win.”

In Allen County, 90 percent of divorce cases are settled out of court, but “how much threatening, how much posturing, how much animosity was generated before you reached the settlement?” In most cases, more than any attorney cares to recall, Brandt said.

The pure collaborative law model takes cooperative divorce a step further. The lawyers who enter into the shared commitment agree that if the parties cannot successfully resolve the issues in dispute, both lawyers will withdraw, and new lawyers will be hired to liti-gate the dispute.

“If things don’t turn out well, then they can go back to being the warrior.”

But that warrior approach – parent to parent, attorney to attorney – emotionally damages the child, said Allen Circuit Court Magistrate Craig Bobay.

“Parental conflict is a specific indicator of juvenile delinquency,” said Bobay, who presides over divorce and other family court cases but has handled juvenile cases in the past.

Minnesota 'An event instead of a tragedy'

St. Paul Pioneer Press

Excerpts:

The Collaborative Law Institute of Minnesota (www.collaborativelaw.org) was started here about 15 years ago by Minneapolis attorney Stu Webb. Today, less than 5 percent of the divorces in Minnesota are settled through collaborative law, a school of thought that, according to Hennepin County Family Court Judge Stephen Aldrich, "is making the divorce process an event instead of a tragedy."

According to the group's Web site, collaborative law's values are:

• A focus on solutions that meet the needs of the entire family.

• Recognizing that relationships need to continue after the marriage ends.

• Making decisions that mitigate the impact of divorce on children.

• Developing a "future focused" strategy rather than dwelling on the past.

• To work together respectfully, honestly and in good faith.

But what is attracting a lot of couples to collaborative law is its focus on reducing the impact of divorce on children. As a result, many collaborative law cases result in joint physical custody, a statistical anomaly in Minnesota when divorce is litigated through the courts.

"Sometimes it's just labeled a 'parenting plan,'" said Ousky. "Whatever it's called, it gets parents away from the formulas and guidelines that can trip them up."

There have been collaborative law cases that have resulted in sole physical custody being given to one parent, "but not usually," Ousky said.

"They typically don't want one person identified as the sole custodial parent because they come into it understanding that the kids need both parents to be actively and amicably involved."

"I've litigated for 20-some years and my top-five adversarial clients — the very best and easiest — are probably less satisfied than the average collaborative law client."

And judges like it, too.

"They've been very supportive of it," said Ousky. "Most judges tell clients that they're better off making their own decisions, which is what they're doing in collaborative law."

Co-parenting: A good divorce is worth the effort

Co-parenting: A good divorce is worth the effort from the Times Mail, Bedford Indiana.

By CAROL JOHNSON, Times-Mail Staff Writer

"They (the children) understand that just because we didn't get along, it wasn't their fault. They are so important to us, we're willing to put aside our feelings for their behalf." - Gina Sullivan

Divorce may end the marriage, but if children are involved, the relationship between former spouses never really ends.

Weekend visits, holidays, summer vacations medical bills and school events are on the short list of issues that come up for discussion between former spouses who share children. Vickie and Kevin Moon's marriage ended seven years ago. They were married 14 years and have two children, 12 and 11."When we divorced, we knew we wanted the kids to know we get along," said Vickie of Paoli.

It was hard in the beginning. But both were committed to getting along and avoiding petty disagreements. Kevin remarried and Vickie is in a relationship."We talk every day or every other day. If not with him, then I talk with his wife about what the kids are doing," she said. When the kids have sporting events, Vickie often joins Kevin and his wife Doris on the sidelines. Vickie and Kevin attend parent-teacher conferences together."Teachers always say, if every parent would put their differences aside like you have, it would be easier on them," Vickie said.

Visitation is shared equally. A schedule allows each parent to spend time with the children and avoid any work conflicts. Discipline, another potential pitfall, is shared."We honor each other's discipline and respect each other enough we don't say, 'That's your problem, not mine,' " Vickie said.

"It takes a tremendous amount of strength and psychological energy to have what we'd call a 'good' divorce," said Robert Billingham, an associate professor in Indiana University Bloomington's Department of Applied Health science. Billingham has been studying divorce and its aftermath since 1986. As divorce has become commonplace, divorces have become more cordial, he said.

Research since the 1990s has shown that children benefit immensely from good relationships with both parents. Courts are beginning to realize they must protect the children's relationships with their parents if they want to protect the children, he said. More and more courts are moving away from awarding custody to one parent and adopting co-parenting plans. The old system of sole custody fed the anger that was at the heart of the divorce, Billingham said."When you look at divorce, one parent gets the child and the other gets visits, it's structured so parents have to fight each other," he said.

Divorce, in its previous form, discouraged good parenting, Billingham said."Number one, one parent became a visiting parent. Two, only one parent knew what was best. And three, was the idea that one parent had supreme authority over the child's life."In that culture the mom was considered supremely important and the father was irrelevant."Co-parenting puts each parent on a level plane and sets them up to cooperate.

Indiana is moving toward co-parenting, Billingham said, in cases where abuse and violence are not factors. Vickie Moon said the effort they have put into a cordial divorce has paid off for everyone."I get along great with their stepmom," she said. "She's really a good stepmother, helps them with homework, whatever they need."

Kenny and Gina Sullivan of Greene County each had one divorce behind them when they married. Both had children from their first marriages. His are grown; hers are still at home. They have one son together. Gina's sons, now 13 and 9, struggled with the divorce in the beginning and the mixed emotions that arise when a step-parent joins the family.

She's had to reassure them it's OK to enjoy their time with Kenny and still love their dad."I've told them, 'He's not trying to take your dad's place. Your dad will always be your dad,' "she said. "It's always important to let kids know they can love their parent and be close to their step-parent."

Children are better able to love parents and step-parents if they are not pressured to choose one over the other, Billingham said. Making the children choose usually backfires."It's not the divorce that causes bad things to happen, it's the relationship kids live in that we find is so detrimental," he said. Holidays can be a flashpoint even for divorced families that get along the rest of the year. Billingham recommends working out holiday visits ahead of time, but also encourages parents to be flexible when necessary.

That's what the Sullivans do."It's not worth a huge argument," Gina said. "Because they live with me so much of the time, I let him have them on any holiday he wants them. We're not so stuck on things that if something comes up, the other won't bend."

The Sullivans have put their divorce and experience as a blended family to work for others. They lead the Divorce Care group at Crossroads Community Church."I've been there and know how it hurts," Kenny said. "We can relate to people who come through our class."Divorce Care covers several topics, including loneliness, financial issues, fear, rejection issues and avoiding putting children in the middle of disputes.

You don't have to like an ex-spouse to get along with him or her, Billingham said. But how well ex-spouses do get along is critical to children surviving divorce."It's made a world of difference," Gina said. "They understand that just because we didn't get along, it wasn't their fault. They are so important to us, we're willing to put aside our feelings for their behalf."

Times-Mail Staff Writer Carol Johnson can be reached at 277-7252 or at carol@tmnews.com.

Divorce Care What: 13-week course for adults who are divorced or going through a divorce. When: Tuesday nights, 7-9 p.m. Where: Crossroads Community Church, Ind. 37 and Trogden Lane. Information: Call 279-0131 to find out when the next session begins.