Thursday, September 4, 2008

Comments on the notion of shared and equal custody

The following are some initial comments from the viewing of the article that appeared on the Sault News forum. Debate on this issue is important and it can help to clarify the intent of our goal for shared and equal parenting.

Anonymous Anonymous #1 said...
What a disgusting idea. I hope rights for fathers are further stripped away - this sick effort is going to do nothing but spur a movement of child molesting fathers and allow resentful dads to employ the law to forcefully abduct the kids they have no right to be near. Do you want dads out there diddling their kids? I didn't think so.
September 2, 2008 2:07 AM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous # 2 said...
I don't think men should really have any time with their kids unsupervised.
September 2, 2008 2:11 AM

Anonymous Anonymous #3 said...
nice analysis. looks like somebody else learned psychology on a random geocities website! ~!~You Go Bro~~1 :)
September 3, 2008 4:23 PM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous # 4 said...
Courts are put in place to protect Canadian citizens, especially children. It is with good reason that the Canadian legal system keeps fathers away from their children: Men are inherantly (sic) violent and irresponsible people. You can moan and complain about them being"biased" all you want, but the system will not change since they REALIZE childrens' saftey (sic) is at stake!

While I do not agree with "shared parenthood", I do agree that men should get 2 or 3 supervised hours of visitation with their children every week.
September 3, 2008 5:07 PM




Blogger Michael J. Murphy said...
to Anonymous #1
You appear to be pathologically impacted by some traumatic event. You have my sympathy for having such a distorted view of the world and men. I also sympathize with your children as they will obviously have relationship problems with men given the strength of your unhealthy views. I believe, as I have observed in my own dispute that serious counselling would be appropriate. Get some for the sake of your children.
September 2, 2008 8:26 AM
Delete




Blogger Michael J. Murphy said...
To anonymous # 2 You indicate "men" should not have access to children unless it is supervised. Do you really believe that all men should be grouped in such a negative light because of your experiences. What ever happened to the notion that men and women were equal. That is misandry which is not unlike saying all people of one race are bad because of one person. I do sympathize if you have had bad experiences with a man or some men. We are not all that bad. We are, like you, less than perfect but most men do love their children and want to do the best they can for them. I am writing a book on my experiences and will include these comments in it.
September 2, 2008 8:56 AM



Blogger Michael J. Murphy said...
To anonymous #3 your quote --->
"nice analysis. looks like somebody else learned psychology on a random geocities website! ~!~You Go Bro~~1 :)"

Yours is an interesting comment in that you are likely a woman using rap talk. Intriguing.

I hope you have had a thorough look at the site and this is what I had hoped people would do.

Creating a dialogue is the first step toward a reasoned approach to important decisions.

Glad you could spend this much time here.
September 3, 2008 9:48 PM




Blogger Michael J. Murphy said... to anonymous #4
Thank you for your observation.

I will respectfully disagree with you. To cast all men with a broad brush such as you have would be called racist if you applied it to a visible minority. Surely some, indeed most of us, are not this way with our children?

But your comments make our case. The definition of bias is
A) preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
B) An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice
September 3, 2008 5:56 PM

This comment is in response to my observation that the voting was being hacked and I would report it to their ISP's. This individual also commented above. Do you think they are a little miffed they got caught? hmmm....you be the judge.

Anonymous Anonymous #4 said... (same as above)
I don't give a shit. Go ahead and report me to Interpol, NATO,or whoever the fuck it is you think gives a shit about mass voting on awebsite for butthurt (sic) dads. I eagerly anticipate the paragraph warningthat whatever ISP representative will copy-paste into an e-mail I getand never open. Cheers, mate.
September 3, 2008 11:43 PM
Delete


Blogger Michael J. Murphy said...Well # 4
This is the level of intelligence that victimizes men and can get away with it. Pity isn't it! :)
September 3, 2008 11:47 PM
Delete


Blogger Michael J. Murphy said...
This is a general note to dispel fears that someone, male or female, who is a provable danger to children would then be dealt with through the court process and, if warranted, would have no access or supervised access given the circumstances. Keep in mind this applies to either parent not just men. In my case my ex was the only parent to both physically and psychologically abuse the children. The family court gave the "hen house" to the "fox". Fathers-4-Justice Canada believes there should be a "presumption" of equality for shared parenting" but in no manner would assume someone who could be a danger gets it carte blanche. The following is a quote from an online petition at: "http://www.petitiononline.com/rpesp2ca/petition.html. If you haven't signed this petition do it now before you forget.

"WHEREAS the vast majority of the public supports legislation which requires a presumption of equal shared parenting arrangements of children after divorce for those parents with no proven criminal abuse towards their children, and the Federal Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access supported equal shared parenting in its 1998 Report titled – ‘For The Sake Of The Children’,"

September 2, 2008 9:16 AM

Keep the comments coming. It is healthy and who knows, perhaps those of you who see our goal as not in keeping with your own views may come to see it has advantages to reduce the overall enmity and, god forbid, the cash that goes into a lawyer's pocket, out of the pockets of our children's future legacy, that comes from a family break up. If your spouse is a provable danger to your children then a presumption of equality is not appropriate but that would be dealt with by the individuals involved through the court process without impacting the general rule of equality..
Posted from the Sault News forum with the permission of the poster who's ID is Longing:
Member

Posts: 6



« Reply #1 on: Today at 01:51:30 PM »


Congratulations to you! I am so very happy to see such an organization started in our community, God knows we need it, not just here but throughout Canada!

I was honestly shocked and disappointed when I went to your website and read the comments that were posted by annonymous 1 and 2. I have to wonder if I know exactly who those people are. It is a very unfortunate world that we are living in when a woman can take the father of her children to court and waste thousands of dollars that SHOULD be going towards the cost of raising children or could easily provide these children with a fantastic education. But rather "women" are using an unfair family court system to hurt and humiliate the fathers of thier children! And not only are they using the system to thier own revenge, but they are teaching our children the art of manipulation as well!

I have dealt with this system for many years, not with children of my own, but instead as the stepmother who has had to watch as her husbands heart was ripped out and stomped everytime the first wife got a new boyfriend or felt that her children preferred their fathers affection over her own.

I could never understand why a person would put her own children through so much hell, I could never understand how anyone could harbour so much hate within her heart and live a happy life. But I have seen the after effect, and I have witnessed what happens to these children that are raised to believe their father is a horrible person and the way these children learn to use the law to punish those whom they are angry with.

I sit here everyday feeling as though my stepchildren have been abducted and are still missing, rather than face the fact that they finally found a way into the heart of their mother through lies and manipulation against their father. I try to remind myself that even through all of the fighting and court I still have very good memories of the first years I had with those children.

But I cant happen but wonder, if the family court system was different, if only fathers had equal rights and PAS was a punishable offense, would I still have those children to love?

The following is my response on the Sault News Forum.




thoughtful_spokesperson
Member

Posts: 2


« Reply #2 on: Today at 03:07:26 PM »


Longing:

Your description of Parental Alienation is classic. No one will ever know what it is like until they have walked in our shoes. It is the most heart wrenching emotional pain to have your children, in my case those I raised from infancy, emotionally kidnapped from you and to see them hurl epithets drawn from the alienating parent's own twisted view of her ex. It is tragic psychological abuse that has been condoned, or in the case of the Children's Aid Society, out of their jurisdiction. They can deal with a bruise to the arm because it can be seen. That bruise will be gone within a week but perhaps not the underlying trauma. They cannot deal with a child's bruised psyche which could last a lifetime and there is no other organization in the Soo, or many other places, that can deal with it at all. Lawyer's don't give a darn about the children only that they get paid for their services by the hurtful parent.

The impact of this abuse on the target is hard to believe. The affected parent goes through a grieving process everyday but unlike a death where it diminishes over time this never lessens in intensity. Your children are out there but lost to you emotionally.

Could I use your comments on the blog posted as anonymous? Thank you for posting.

Mike Murphy

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

nice analysis. looks like somebody else learned psychology on a random geocities website! ~!~You Go Bro~~1 :)

Anonymous said...

Courts are put in place to protect Canadian citizens, especially children. It is with good reason that the Canadian legal system keeps fathers away from their children: Men are inherantly violent and irresponsible people. You can moan and complain about them being "biased" all you want, but the system will not change since they REALIZE childrens' saftey is at stake!

While I do not agree with "shared parenthood", I do agree that men should get 2 or 3 supervised hours of visitation with their children every week.

Michael J. Murphy said...

Thank you for your observation.

I will respectfully disagree with you. To cast all men with a broad brush such as you have would be called racist if you applied it to a visible minority. Surely some, indeed most of us, are not this way with our children?

But your comments make our case. The definition of bias is
A) preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
B) An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice

Michael J. Murphy said...

To anonymous #3 your quote --->
"nice analysis. looks like somebody else learned psychology on a random geocities website! ~!~You Go Bro~~1 :)"

Yours is an interesting comment in that you are likely a woman using rap talk. Intriguing.

I hope you have had a thorough look at the site and this is what I had hoped people would do.

Creating a dialogue is the first step toward a reasoned approach to important decisions.

Glad you could spend this much time here.

The work of Fathers 4 Justice and the Pain of Fathers ~ Activism in the UK

Equal and Shared Parenting ~ The Movie