Visitation Rights Revoked for Agnostic Father

[jclalor 12]

If it had been a Christian father this would have been all over the news. This judge should be tossed.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rh_QyvDs9A

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

If it had been a Christian father this would have been all over the news.

If it had been a Muslim father the blogosphere would have gone orgasmic over sticking it to a religion of peacer.

If it had been a Hindu father, they would have had a cow.

[SkyjunkySean 0]

Gotta be more to the story than just that.

The clip posted only shows one sentence of what I am SURE is a very lenghty ruling. Having been through a custody battle myself, Iguarentee you the rulling was NOT just one sentence long.

I will say this....if the predominant reason given in the ruling IS due to religious differences, the judge needs to be removed. Period.

Unfortunately, we will probablynever know the entire truth, and the kids get screwed by a court system that failed them.

Believe this or, not. The guy/galwilling to spend the most money wins in the charade that has become "family law" .... spoken from experience. No not sour grapes. I won, and rightfully so, but I was lucky.

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

Gotta be more to the story than just that.

http://heraldbulletin.com/local/x1897758594/Father-says-his-faith-cost-his-custody

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=35572316329

[livendive 8]

How many Craig Scarberry's are there in Indiana who like to use religion to make a name for themselves? My guess is one.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[topdocker 0]

The real problem in all the family courts is that the system is based on the parents "fighting" for time. The greater the time you have with the child(ren) the more money you get or the less you pay. So find any excuse to make the ex look like a poor parent.

If they based child support on 50/50 custody and the further you got from that the less support is paid, there would be a lot less "he said/she said" crap tying up the courts and the cops.

top

Jump more, post less!

[livendive 8]

Quote

The real problem in all the family courts is that the system is based on the parents "fighting" for time. The greater the time you have with the child(ren) the more money you get or the less you pay. So find any excuse to make the ex look like a poor parent.

If they based child support on 50/50 custody and the further you got from that the less support is paid, there would be a lot less "he said/she said" crap tying up the courts and the cops.

top

So the deadbeat dad slaps his kids a couple times, gets visitation revoked, and never has to pay child support again?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[topdocker 0]

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

So the deadbeat dad slaps his kids a couple times, gets visitation revoked, and never has to pay child support again?

Blues,
Dave

Backwards. The more custody you have, the more support you receive. The less you have, the more you pay. I if you have no access to the kid you are the sole payer. If you are the custodial parent you are the sole payee.

[billvon 3,132]

>If if you have no access to the kid you are the sole payer. If you are
>the custodial parent you are the sole payee.

A financial incentive to have a lot of kids (from different fathers) and then deny them access! This might be a good study of "the law of unintended consequences" if implemented.

[lawrocket 3]

Yeah. Child support in Cali is based upon the respective incomes of the parents and the respective timeshares. So if both parents make $3k per month and have equal timeshare, support will be zero. If both make $3k and one parent has kid 75% of the time, then support will be a few hundred. If one parent has no time, then that parent will probably pay over a grand. It gets draconian past 90%.

And, yeah. The money is a big thing. It's real jacked right now, too, now that Cali has taken it from the individual counties and started with the State Distribution Unit. It's Charlie Fox right now. Money lost, not distributed. A mess.

[Hr]

As far as the original story, it looks like someone parsed through the order and found some stuff about religion. It doesn't appear to be disposiive at all but explains some of what was going on between the parents. I'd bet that the dad couldn't quite get along. I reckon he had a problem with temper and acting inappropriately in front of the kids. Wife probably prodded him nicely, as well.

But dad blew it. Probably a bunch of times. Dad probably didn't present a good picture. And something was not quite right. But I SERIOUSLY doubt that religion played a role in the decision.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

>If if you have no access to the kid you are the sole payer. If you are
>the custodial parent you are the sole payee.

A financial incentive to have a lot of kids (from different fathers) and then deny them access! This might be a good study of "the law of unintended consequences" if implemented.

What do you mean "if implemented?"

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"