Page 3

 PRIMER FOR DADDY WHO WANTS CUSTODY
      BY  Jack Hopkins, Esq.


Divorce is the hated necessity. These words were intoned by the Prophet Mohammed and is probably the last politically correct sentence you will read in this tome. The woman's liberation movement has brought to us the politics of the identity wherein your gender, sexual preference, racial background is somehow to be considered in the application or the administration of the law. We are no longer Mama and Daddy, we are co-parents. Custody litigation now filled with the think-speak of correctness and the politics of identity. Consider how long the author of the below quoted judicial opinion could remain elected to the bench in the light of the new equality of women. The foregoing excerpt from the charge is taken verbatim from 1 Lee, N.C. Family Law s 82, p. 316 (3d Ed., 1963). The portion in quotations is Judge Meldrim's familiar excursus on nagging, which, since Justice Hill of the Georgia Supreme Court included it in his opinion in Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 159 Ga. 332, 339, 125 S.E. 856, 859, has often reappeared in the picturesque speech columns of both legal and popular periodicals.

The constant nagging and berating of the husband by the wife may, under a given factual situation, constitute indignities. A certain amount of nagging and fussing by one's wife is apparently a thing to be taken and borne as part of the `buyer-beware' marital burden of the male, but when the nagging and criticism of the husband continues practically daily for a long period of time, there is a point reached where patience is no longer a virtue, and the law should afford relief. As the Supreme Court of Georgia so well said, in WILKINSON against WILKINSON, quoting the trial judge:
                 `From the days of Socrates and Xantippe, men and women have known what is meant by nagging, although philology cannot define it or legal chemistry dissolve it into its elements. Humor cannot soften or wit divert it. Prayers avail nothing and threats are idle. Soft words but increase its velocity and harsh ones its violence. Darkness has for it no terrors, and the long hours of the night draw no drapery of the couch around it. The chamber where love and peace should dwell becomes an inferno, driving the poor man to the saloon, the rich one to the club, and both to the arms of the harlot. It takes the sparkle out of the wine of life and turns at night into ashes the fruits of the labor of the day.' And to this he might well have added the words of Solomon that `It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.

The present political climate prohibits us from drawing any distinctions regarding the fundamental emotional disposition of male and female. We somehow seem to ignore that the word hysteria is the same group word as hysterectomy. Three thousand years ago the Greeks recognized that women somehow react to a given situation on different emotional plane than men. While never mentioned and more often energetically occulted, the historical role and disposition of Father and Mother are theoretically ignored in any specie of a custody action but nonetheless are worshiped in a contrived rationale to arrive at a predetermined disposition without expressing this disposition in specifically clear language. This is a tome written for fathers. This is written for fathers engaged in negotiations, mediations or litigation on the issue of custody, visitation, child support and peripheral arrangements needed to manage the divided family. Further, it is written for a particular kind or specie of Father, which does not exist in reality. If you subscribe to the mythology created by the women's liberation movement, the Department of Social Services and regretfully too often in the minds of judge and if you subscribe to the basic tenets as expounded by the women's liberation movement, put this book down now for you are approaching a dangerous condition where as you will have an attack of apoplexy. In the world of political correctness were one has a foreperson at work, street maintenance is accomplished by entering the underground installations of a municipality through the people-hole-cover. The control area of an airplane piloted by an aviatrix should be denominated as a pussy pit. Generally speaking, the exponents of women's liberation, do not have sufficient intellectual capacity to distinguish between physical and grammatical gender; however, they do have the arrogance to attempt to rework 1000 years of evolution of the English language, which is developed into the practical world standard of inter cultural communication. Those exponents of politically correct speech and their Hinchpersons fail to recognize there are some biological, hormonal and culturally dictated dispositions that differ between men and women.

These differences are underscored in rubric and capital letters, in large type when the discussion begins on the issues of children and the role of mother and father. This tome assumes that (1) you are father, (2). You have a sincere motivation for the welfare of your children in terms of lasting values that will equip them to deal with a real-world. That is somewhat different than a pristine and Pollyanna feminist view of propriety. (3). You are beginning to feel somewhat shut aside, excluded and your role as a parent is relegated to your legal obligation to provide a support check on a regular basis. It would be less unrealistic to assume that there were not a substantial number of individuals who pretend to the use of title of Father, and are interested in a custody visitation dispute as a ploy to reduce their child support, or as a method of inflicting pain all the mother of your children, for having the audacity to have found happiness in the arms of another. Judges often fail to do perceive the hidden agenda that a party could or might have in a custody dispute. It is certainly easier to settle a visitation or custody case with a plain-vanilla recitation of the goal of the "best interests of the children." This will slice the baby into two pieces giving both parents, some technical participation and leave the holy war in place. T

This tome is written for those fathers who have no agenda other than maintaining a healthy and appropriate environment for their children, maintaining a continuing and loving relationship with their children. If you are victimized by political correctness, the Department of Social Services, the cultural bias that believes that a bad mother is better than a good father, read on . If you have begun to understand full well the significance of some specie of the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), read on. Should be familiar with Dr. Gardner's work on this subject. If not, I suggest that you immediately go into WWW.PASkids.com and familiarize yourself with the three stages of alienation, and they three levels of activity of the alienator. The parental alienation syndrome deals primarily with a child's hostility towards the father, as a product more often than not than a brainwashing program initiated by the mother in retribution for her disappointment, betrayal and abandonment by the father. It is obvious that Mama can take 10 penny nails, drive them into the child, and then use the child as a club to get the father in order to afflict maximum pain and discomfort on the father with a calm righteous assurance that such tactics are in no way harmful to the child. If the mother of your child provide you with notices of recitals and sports events so that you can participate, will rearrange visitation courteously with the initiation of a telephone call by either party, where weekends or exchanged or pick up for delivery times are modified or accommodate the unanticipated events, which infiltrate our daily lives, then fall on your knees than an ever, loving God for the joy of a successful divorce in the face of an impropitious marriage. If the mother teaches your children that their father is a decent and loving individual worthy of respect and affection, and individual to be emulated and from whom great learning may be achieved, you need not then read any further. If you're oppressed with an in-your-face holy war were your children are years as a thermonuclear device, then read on this tome is for you.

STEP ONE. Fillus nulus? Who's child is it anyway? Mothers have no problem in extoling the opinion that childbirth is the open door for the canonization of sainthood and that there's an in filling of divinely inspired wisdom postpartum. It is ipse dixit that all decisions made by mother or the wise ones, all views expressed by the father are somewhat inatefficient and represent an inconvenience to the mother, and therefore by extension, is not in the best interests of the child which of course is the only thought that rest between the ears of mother. The view that the mother should be in total control of the child without any integration by father is correct. They suppose it 10% of the time, but not for the reason that would be first propounded. While it is unthinkable that mother would enjoy a dalliance with another, while living with the father, the present high state of DNA investigations, now demonstrate that approximately 10% of the children have been sired by someone other than the purported father. This is a particularly profound confusing and deeply injurious emotional blow to the father's ego and of the father's total orientation, if he is already bonded to the child. If you want to take the one chance in 10 that your child is a de facto adopted child, don't bother to get the DNA test. It was Plinney, the Younger, who commented that it is "truly a wise son, who knows his father" while pointing out that maternity was never in dispute. The history of the efforts to afix paternity are almost comical in their progress away from the old English test of paternity as being that the father would have to be " beyond the four Seas" for 11 months prior to the birth of the child. If there was any opportunity of access by the father to the mother/wife, the question of extracurricular conception would not be entertained by the court. This a default from a blood test, wherein certain Rh factors could exclude paternity and on rare occasion, salvaged a father from years of support of another's child, and having someone out of his bloodline inherit his property. The DNA test, until recently required both the presence, and thereby the cooperation, of the mother in order to do three party check of blood samples. With the advance of medical technology, a simple swab of the saliva of the father and the child for the purpose of determination of paternity. While the husband/father should always be with the wife at the time of birth, it would be even nicer if the husband/father were with the mother at the time of conception. If the DNA test seems a little bit over vigorous, there is one very good reason for doing it upfront before any action is filed for child support. Should a father go into court and agree to or fail to appeal and order for child support and later discovers that he was not present at the moment of conception, many courts will not allow the father to later raise a question of paternity as a question of paternity was "res judicata" (finally settled and not to be re litigated) by the action wherein the father was adjudicated as a responsible parent. This leaves mis-denominated father in the position that he perhaps can bring an action against the mother, alleging perjury, conspiracy and seek a money judgment to reimburse them for the child support that he is paying under another court wherein he may go to jail for content should be fail to play. One needs to practice law for about 15 minutes before one will learn that a judgment against a beggar will only produce lice in that any judgment is contingent on the capacity of the judgment debtor to pay. Side of the coin on the question of whether a child fathered by her spouse is maniacally obsessed female who wishes sever all relationships with her former spouse and as it punish him by denying him the legitimate heirs. Many jurisdictions prohibit testimony by a female which will bastardized her child. Nonetheless it is a tactic that has been observed when the motivation of revenge and punishment is greater than reason. Fortunately the advances of science, the quick DNA testing allows one to establish genetic paternity with 99% probability. Once the decision to separate has been made, a quick and relatively inexpensive visit to a roadside emergency care facility to request a DNA test can put your issues to rest almost immediately irrespective of your great confidence in loyalty and faithfulness of one who now wants to control your children while simultaneously allow you to pay for the privilege.

YOU ARE NOT FIT TO BE IN THE PRESENCE OF YOUR CHILDREN. There is no more deeply wounding insult than those words uttered to a parent. In the horrors of a custody dispute this is often the opening ploy. Starting with this accusation is guaranteed to make a custody dispute bitter, costly and to wreak havoc in the lives of the children sub judice. The effects of a contested custody battle are the demonstration of the efficacy of the Biblical enjoinder that the sins of the father will be visited until the 3rdhas generation. A contested custody matter in the court has complicating considerations questions of child support, post separation spousal support, Alimony, division of property such as furniture automobiles and the like: distribution of retirement funds, bank accounts, future tax exemptions for support of the children, visitation, the permanent residence of the child distance from one parent, the influence of present lovers, future spouses, the role of grandparents in the lives of the children and the management of the demands of oppressive bureaucracy should some form of a Department of Social Services enter into the dispute. There's very little custody "law" and therefore we need to speak of "traditions" which is the usual manner in which courts attempt to resolve the holy war of contesting parents. The oft quoted refrain that "the welfare of the children is the polar star guiding the court"is the theoretical motivating force in the court's decision in a custody matter. The reality is that the court and the lawyers are attempting to find a momentary patch that hope will be a basis for the parents develop their own sensible and appropriate appropriate resolution to the divided family. From the lawyers point of view the most ideal of situations is when Mama and Daddy both are in love with another person and are willing to do almost anything to clear the deck so they may be employed full-time squeezing the new object of their affection. The resolution of questions of property, visitation, custody, support find quick solutions. The purported solution is most likely to unravel after about a year or two when passion comes routine. When one has been betrayed, put down, set aside and ignored and the former passion of one's life has become a constant source of irritation and anger, the very best way to seek your vengeance and to compound the misery in the life of another in retribution for that which you are suffering. There is no wooden iron, no dry water, and no friendly divorce. There does exist those rare occasions when a divorcing couples understands that overt ranker serves no purpose and the frustration and disappointment of fractured marriage is suppressed as a matter of practicality. This pamphlet will not be a saccharine instruction and how to be nice or a noble encouragement to think of the children. Your writer will attempt to set out the problems, what to protect yourself from and how to combat the tactics of the self-sacrificing parent who only wants to operate "for the children". There seems to be a cultural disposition that when one announces it is "for the children" that immediately the speaker is robed with the sanctimonious garb of near sainthood and that the individual announcing his motivation is "for the children" should not be questioned about any alternative agenda that that individual might have and certainly since their plans are "for the children" that anyone who would oppose the speaker's plans is obviously a vile and evil person. If this proposition seems a bit far-fetched, then I invite your attention to the expansion of the scope services, the authority granted to, the size of the bureaucracy of all the social programs instituted by government. Invariably, these Programs began "for the children" which is banned the wage by which the federal and state governments have increasingly inserted themselves into every corner of an individual's personal life. Below the reader will receive pointers in how to Marshall the forces of the child abuse industry and acquire the resources of the virtually limitless budget of social workers to wreak havoc misery and trouble into the life of of your estranged spouse and simultaneously destroy the future of your children. If the previous sentence seems a bit crass, then you are invited to interview someone from the Department of Social Services who will tell you of the great work they have done in removing children from homes, damning them to foster care, providing shelter economic support and legal services to an individual dedicated to destroy their former spouse. The joy, efficiency and reduced cost of mediated settlement. The family counselors, psychologists, members of the clergy, well-meaning friends and your wallet will dictate possible consideration of having a mediated settlement of any contested issues regarding custody visitation support. The reasons for such a mediated process is that it is less rancorous than a contested court action, it allows for each party to participate in understanding and reasonable resolution of items of mutual concern. It will be appreciated by the most judges in that saves them a great deal of work since contested the action consumes an inordinate amount of court time. Fostering a spirit of mutual cooperation and understanding, coming coming together with the assistance of a trained professional will expand the platform of understanding future cooperation benefit of the children. Mediation brings a rational and cooperative spirit to the issues confronting the coparents and thus Building basis future understanding and cooperation to the long-term benefit of the children. If any of the above psychobabble makes sense to you, you might consider a reality check. A mediated settlement is possible when the parents have a good problem-solving capacity and are able to suppress their feelings of disappointment and loss. Of course if such ideal conditions exist, parents may solve their problems themselves or with the assistance of their respective attorneys thereby obviate the need to pay a mediator and most likely attorneys time charges to sit at the mediation. Mediation is very effective one parties has already decided that all is lost and maybe to manipulated at the time of the mediation thereby granting a mediator one more gold star to put on the mediator's Sunday school chart. Mediators have a great deal of "experience". Mediators have a great deal of "empathy". With rare exception to mediators have illegal knowledge necessary to deal with a complex considerations of a divorce and custody contest. If mediation is required by the court prior to hearing and you must participate in a mediated settlement attempt, then attend and repeat endlessly that your position is in the best long-term interests of the children and that the mother does not understand the implications of her proposals. Mediation is very much in vogue and is touted as they "sensible" method of resolving issues of child custody. Mediation is proposed by social engineers who believe they have the magic touch and with a few deft words overcome the irrational rancor that has precipitated the divorce. Mediators because of the limitation of time and circumstances as well as their own oblivious such reality or to all impervious to the hidden agendas and secondary motivations present in the recesses of an outraged female mentality.

THE ALIGNMENT OF TROOPS FOR THE ORDER OF BATTLE An intimate relationship, sometimes called marriage, that produces children is by its very nature one of compromise, consideration and elasticity. In the marriage relationship, the individual learns to keep in constant consideration to biases, wishes, prejudices and joys of their partner. The opinion of partner is reflected in practically every decision made. The groceries that are pulled from the shelf, the television viewing schedule, the color of garments as well as occasional economic decision are constantly guided and directed by the perceived potential reaction of the partner. A couple who are able to enjoy each other's company companionship and cooperation without treading too heavily on the toes of the other can produce a lasting relationship that many find very rewarding . In the marriage relationship is a matter of Habit as well as self-preservation to be ever mindful of the opinions of your partner. This idyllic state of affairs continues until the point that the relationship is ruptured. The habit that is hard to break, is that constant attention to the opinion, desires, and predispositions of your former partner. It is difficult to accept that the former game plan that existed between two people no longer is extant and a new battle plan must be devised and executed. Those who would pretend that this is an amicable separation and that everyone desires a conflict-less parting are the very persons who are most damaged long run into decisions that make regarding the purported amicable separation. The oft touted and rarely celebrated amicable separation is fraught with land mines because of unexpected or unannounced hidden agendas. The most frequent hidden agenda which later becomes explosive is a clandestine lover. When Susie announced to her attorney that her husband is a fine man, a fine father, a responsible citizen who is attentive, hard-working individual but regretfully she has "fallen out of love" and that if you're married to someone there should be love. Susie does not wish to hurt her husband, and realizes the importance of his continued participation in the lives of the children. This claptrap could only be believed by the congenitally gullible who perceives is in their best interest to go along with this fairytale. The reality often is that Susie is carrying on a undiscovered and clandestine affair and wishes to arrange her life so that her sexual liaisons need not be furtive or inconvenient. Switch the gender and the obverse is equally valid. This happy state of civilized dissolution will last until Susie's next lover strikes the children in anger, does not want the ex-husband to have any communication with Susie, or Susie has elected new employment on the backside of the moon which will make visitation by the father either physical or economic impossibility. And other agenda which must be classified as a developing agenda as opposed to a hidden agenda is the realization that the options elected by Susie are much to her detriment. While Johnny looks at football, does not pat her fanny was sufficient regularity and is less than energetic and his assumption of shared household duties, Susie's anger, hostility and discontent are ever exacerbating to the point that the much we anticipated orange blossom scented rapture previously contemplated is nowhere to be found at home. The solution of this dilemma is quite easy, Susie may trade one set of problems for a new set of problems. Once established in a residence apart from Johnny, as a single parent, and without a parade of Jaguars rolling up before her door to whisk her off to Cancun for the weekend, Susie might begin to regret her decision to abandon a regularly employed, bill paying, sober, drug-free, occasionally horny and constantly dull companion for the misery she now now enjoys. The fact that she made this decision and is raising consequences of her own election never occurs to Susie. Her present for state of affairs is a product of the treachery, and diffidence and callousness of Johnny for which he must now be made to pay. While I have couched this example in feminist terms it most frequently occurs with the female as a primary protagonist. Given this developed agenda, is easy to opine that child support is either too much or too little, that visitation is either withheld or excessive, that the level of affection and concern that noncustodial parent for the welfare of a child is in direct proportion to the capacity of the custodial parent to inflict a hurtful wound in retribution. Imagine the frustration of Susie is she makes this trade of problems and discovers that her new set of problems is even greater and worst of all results, Johnny is discovering a new level of liberation filled with compliant females while the enjoys the freedom of returning to his parental home where in his laundry and board are covered at no are only a fraction of the expense required to maintain Susie and he encounters a female with considerably more sexual enthusiasm that Susie has demonstrated of late. It is axiomatic that no one's child ever marries well enough. Ambivalence is been defined as when you see your mother-in-law drive off cliff in your new Cadillac. The myriad of folk tales about mother-in-law problems have a well grounded foundation in reality. When there's a rupture of the marital relationship, often grandparents become significantly involved in the lives of the children. When daughter moves home with her two children, grandmother is overjoyed she has her baby back and the new perfect infant that she can raise properly, overcoming the deficiencies employed by her baby (Susie) and correct GrandMa's previous oversights in raising the former baby (Susie). When the son moves home, grandmother can no longer pop in to visit her grandchildren, take them for an afternoon to Burger King and the park but must negotiate every grand parental visitation on a schedule which is dictated by the custodial mother. It is a very short step for grandmother began to agitate for the father/son to obtain custody to overcome the injurious effects of an uncaring mother in the lives of her precious grandchildren. This scenario is particularly true when the children have conducted themselves in less than ideal format, dropping out of high school and college, not pursuing the goals of their respective parents and this joint misadventure gives Grandmama and opportunity to raise a child and do it right this time without repeating the mistakes that produce the less than optimum results the first time around. The unanticipated intervention by grandparent is rarely foreseen when negotiating the future visitation custodial and support arrangements for the children over ruptured relationship. The numbing bitterness of disappointment that grows from a ruptured relationship ever increasingly poisons the environment in which the children are located. While a parent might extol the virtue of the other parent in regard to child-rearing and assert itself laudatory enthusiasm their desire to nurture continuing relationship that is positive between the children and both parents the fact that the reality of separation can wear the bubling affability of an individual to a boiling hostility. While never overtly expressed and certainly the children are told that "your daddy is a fine person and loves you". The supersensitive antennae of small children receive loud and clear the implication of snide remarks, uncomplimentary references and jocular ridicule of the other parent. When a seven-year-old child tells the father that he does not know how to manage money or tells mother that she is a poor housekeeper there's little doubt of the source of that idea implanted in the child's mind. If the rapprochement and detente has been hereto successful, this will be the opening round in trench warfare. There have been some courts with sufficient bravery to risk adverse public opinion and sufficient concern for the welfare children if see to deal with this problem. The Court will remove custody from the parent which demeans the other in hopes that to the child may be placed in environment where both parents are praised by both parents. There are judges that can recognize the parent who began his poisoning the mind of a child irrespective of the blight inadvertence to the consequences of their incessant snide remarks. The removal of a child my reason of consistent pejorative remarks does make the point that both parents need to keep their hostile comments out of the hearing of the children. It certainly is very noble to effect a separation agreement or consent order relying on the protestations of the adverse party of their best efforts will welfare of the children and their constant respect of the role of the other parent in the child's life, such a disposition is an amount to engaging in a conversation regarding the future plans of the rattlesnake facing you. If this seems rather harsh it is not to say that the good thoughts and good intentions of the opposite party is not real and sincere at the time; the problem is will those good thoughts and good intentions last over the next twelve years in the case of a seven-year old child. The sincere, cooperative and well-meaning parent might demonstrate this high order of conduct for a number of years until their next spouse intervenes in the lives of your children and the custodial parent, not wishing to be a two-time loser or wishing to preserve domestic tranquility in their own household adopts a new set of guidelines and values in dealing with your relationship with your own children. One preventative device is a clause in a separation agreement or custody order that states is the custodial party moves more than 35 miles from their present residence custody automatically vests in the noncustodial parent until a hearing maybe conducted by the court regarding the future welfare of the child. This stops the telephone calls announcing that your children now have a new and distant residence. If Napoleon once commented that God is on the side of the army with the most artillery. Often merely the display of your artillery is sufficient to suppress any unexpected attacks. Subtract your youngest child's age from 19 and then realize that this is the number of years that you'll have to protect yourself from an unplanned for, unexpected, unanticipated attack from the source not contemplated at a time not considered and possibly by collateral enemies such as future spouses, heretofore benign grandparents and bureaucratic intervention by a self-righteous predisposed functionary of child protection services who is been prompted to action by a Pearl Harbor attack accusing you or future spouse of child molestation, abandonment, domestic violence, drunkenness, drug addiction. Whether or not such allegations at any merit in fact, this self-righteous and lethargic bureaucracy of the Department of Social Services will wreak havoc into your life. From that moment forward, any accusation will have a life of its own in that the accusation is often regarded as truthful. This disposition is mandatory by the CYA requirements of any bureaucracy where they cannot accept the risk that if they inadroitly or improperly absolve you of any of these accusations, their lack of precaution will effect poorly on their job performance and thus interfere with promotion. Once a government agency enters a custody fight the motivating force of the bureaucrats will to be sure that they do nothing wrong as opposed to accomplishing any tangible or positive results. An accusation of potential injury to a child will cause a bureaucracy to err so strongly on the side of precaution that you will next see your children after their 18th birthday, provided they know how to contact you. You may be assured that there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate overreaction or conclusion jumping on the part of child protective services but there is a polyether of anecdotal fairy tales of how the social worker with a silver bullet Lone Ranger style has ridden into a family, court orders blazing to do something for the children. If the above sequence of hypotheticals is bleak and frightening, then dear reader, you are understanding the reality of the consequences of a contested custody action. I have little patience with people who pretested they have supported the atrocities of an abusive spouse for the children, since an abusive relationship fraught with hostility is certainly more injurious to children then separated parents; however, if in fear that your spouse will employ the damning services of Department of Social Services by promulgating an accusation of injury to the child, you might be well advised to either get their first or stay home and suffer in silence until the youngest child reaches 18. An experienced attorney is well aware of the potential adverse circumstances which could occur even years away and would be able to assist you in guarding against and diminishing the risk of adverse consequences. It is sheer folly to negotiate at the kitchen table along with your spouse regarding the conditions of custody visitation and support without having been previously armed with the knowledge of those factors which could adversely affect your future. The sweet caterpillar of cordiality with whom you are negotiating could well turn into a 20 foot python ready to crush life from your bones.

CRITERIA FOR CUSTODY; WHAT THE COURTS LOOK FOR. Should you be contemplating a custody action and there's little point otherwise in reading this tome, a quick review of the factors which will considered by court or a mediator are the attorneys in attempting to arrive at a settlement agreement or a court approved consent order. The first order of business to be to disabuse one of the usual gossip, biased observations and regurgitated complaints of individuals who have been involved previously in a court action. 
     1. MAMA ALWAYS WINS; men win about 65 percent of the contested custody actions contrary up to the accumulated wisdom that one may gather gossiping such matters. The reason is quite simple people men are more frequently and economically superior position and can afford the cost of protracted custody litigation. This is not mean to imply that man get custody 65 percent of time as frequently custody is agreed between the parties with mother having the primary physical responsibility for children. Society is arranged for female employees with children. When Mama reports or employer that she must go to the babysitter, it is an acceptable inconvenience that must be tolerated. When Daddy reports to the employer that he must go to the babysitter, Daddy is frequently informed directly or indirectly that unless he gets his house in order is not all have a job to earn money to pay the babysitter. When speaking of children of less than 13 years old, generally speaking the most convenient circumstances for the the children is with the mother therefore the bulk of custody actions are resolved by agreement or by resignation or by the attorneys leading the father to such an arrangement motivated by considerations of time, cost and probability of success. There's an interesting pattern of behavior in children placed with the mother by default at the time separation when the children reach 13. This is for referred to as a judge Greyhound court order in that the child announces that he will live with the other parent irrespective of anyone else's wishes and it necessary will get on a Greyhound bus to achieve that result. The judge Greyhound court order will be discussed below when we reach the subject of tactics in a custody action. The victorious father is one who is willing to spend the time money effort to mount a full-fledged custody action frequently will be motivated by serious and sound reasons, has the tenacity in advancing the question of custody in the face on the tendency of the court to avoid possible a full-fledged custody hearing. The father who will over come the proclivity of the attorneys to believe they can negotiate a settlement in the face of insurmountable recalcitrance. The custody actions by the father are usually one that are successful at round three or four and very rarely at the first pop out-of-the-box. The father with the tenacity and willingness to hang in there in the custody action is more often than not motivated my sincere desire to establish a value system in children and create an environment of morality and positive thought as opposed to the today only consideration of convenience in environment dedicated to instantaneous gratification. The father in the custody action who is motivated by the long-term welfare of his children as opposed to the immediate convenience of the moment of eventually frequently does prevail. One device used by some attorneys is to suggest to a father in a custody action that he will in future need money for private detectives, psychological counselors, educational valuations and the like and therefore the father should deposit some amount on a every paycheck basis a given some of money to be deposited in the attorneys trust account for the purpose of the accumulation of a reserve for such potential needed expenses. The attorneys then waits to measure the father's dedication to the plan. The father who has no motivation other than vengeance or retribution and is diluded that he can stack the children with grandmother for less cost than court ordered child support will soon find a series of excuses why the regular contribution for a reserve find needs to be postponed or omitted or ignored and the attorney having established the true motivation of this particular client can resign the case and warmly recommend his worst enemy as his successor attorney. T

    2. HE CHILD WANTS: children under the age of 13 do not make family decisions. They do not have the car keys, the checkbook, they do not decide their diet, their schooling or their companions. The biggest waste of time in the custody action is a protracted discussion of why the child wants this or wants that while the child is unhappy with this or that in the environment of the other parent. Generally speaking the courts will not entertain such evidence or even listen to it as often is a product of brainwashing and subtle promotion by vindictive parent. If the parents cannot decide the better environment for the children between themselves in an amicable manner, the court is going to make the decision. The best way to lose a case is to hire an attorney who is so oblivious as to pay attention to the winding sniveling desires of the spoiled eight-year-old. Age 12 is sometimes considered as the age of discretion wherein the court will hear but certainly not be directed by the wishes of the child. Should the child express some valid reason preferring the environment of one parent over the other such as being able to attend a preferred school with participation in a program unique to that school of particular interest of the child, the presence of a quarrelsome stepparent jealous of the parents attention to the child, blatant favoritism towards the (often younger) step sibling by stepparent. Should the child having specific reference to reside with one family and has reach the age of discretion, the courts often will hear the wishes of the child. This is a hard road to hoe since the child is often conflicted and does not wish to hurt the other parent's feelings. SUPERIOR ENVIRONMENT: the welfare of the child is the guiding polar star to direct the court in this determination of matters of custody. This patent phrases repeated time and time again in the reports of the appellate court hearing matters of custody. There exists a cultural predisposition to place children with the mother although the statutes now specifically set out that there is no presumption of superiority of one parent over the other. That presumption is more often than not rebutted by the predisposition of the trial judge. To win a custody case, the parent must demonstrate a superior environment. The question of what constitutes a superior environment is analogous to the argument of St. Thomas Aquinas regarding the number of angels that may dance on the head of a pin. This is where the selection of attorney who knows the judge and has some indication of the peculiar proclivities and levels of importance of issues of child rearing and the mind of the judge. A superior environment does not mean and luxurious residence. A superior environment could mean a quiet well ordered neighborhood in contrast to a brawling drunk infested trailer park. A superior environment could mean a two adult orderly lifestyle as contrasted with a single parent on rotating shift work with constantly change of babysitters of all hours a day and night. PARENTAL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS: the best way to lose a custody fight is to find every excuse pretext and circumstance imaginable to conjure vapid excuses to disobey a court order. The judges have a tendency to become a bit hostile when their orders are not obeyed. Given two contesting parents who have virtually equal home environments and both demonstrate capacity to adequately provide for the child the court will reposes confidence in that parent who is obeying the court orders and will find a manner of making it very clear the courts displeasure to the parent who cannot follow visitation schedules, who cannot provide medical information, who cannot advise the other party of recitals and sports events even though ordered to do so.

LIVE IN PARRAMORES: it is very difficult to explain to a heart palpating 16-year-old female why she should be a locked kneed virgin in the light of mother having shacked up with a boyfriend for the last six years or that Daddy's very nice girlfriend keeps her clothes and cosmetics and Daddy's bachelor pad. There are those judges to do not regard as an adverse circumstance extramarital relationships between custodial or noncustodial parents and accept this is the new standard of the times. Generally judges would be a bit more conservative and traditional in their view of a proper moral environment for a child.

THE UNFIT PARENT: decades ago one would have to demonstrate that a mother was "totally unfit" to over come a very rich strong presumption that a child is best with the mother. This test has been slowly eroded at the courthouse but nonetheless remains in the minds of many as the requirement for custody by father. This misdirection of evaluation often causes the parents seeking a changing custody to cover the courthouse walls with all the dirt, nasty comments, pejorative statements, vile innuendos, calumny and vituperation that a hard heart and a mean spirit could contrive. Surely there exists somewhere a judge so limited an intellect that attention would be paid to this vein of commentary and surely there exists some attorney who permit his client to ventilate and express his hostility in the mistaken belief that he would achieve some furtherance of a goal. An admittedly contrived set of circumstances which would demonstrate the circumstances in which a father could win is as follows. Mama and Daddy are both CPAs earning equal salaries and living in virtually identical with apartment complexes with all of the usual niceties for family life. The Mama by the nature for practice must travel out-of-town 4 to 9 days every month were as Daddy has a babysitter service in the office building where he works 9-to-5 so the child may ride to and from day care with Daddy. Daddy has an understanding employer who does not object to Daddy taking the child to the dentist or the physician when necessary. The Daddy enters the court and extols the virtue of mother stating that every moment the child spends with Mama is a positive event in the child's life and that he wishes to do all within his power to facilitate maximum contacting communication between mother in child, however he is able to provide 24 hour per day hands-on parental care where the child may sleep and and rise from the same bad everyday and does provide a positive consistency in the life of the child. Nothing else appearing other than this limited set of facts Daddy wins.

JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY; the hidden meaning and that phase is the court does not want to hear custody case, will look for an excuse to avoid hearing a custody case, will attempt to resolve the case by discussion with the attorneys in chambers and referral to a mediation service or a family counseling service. A custody cases are emotional, taxing on the time, invariably produce result that will bring the judge under great deal of criticism that may be noted at the next election by not only the dissatisfied parent but a phalanx of aunts uncles grandparents, cousins, neighbors, co-workers and neighborhood gossips. A home improvement contractor once pointed out that should he do a good job for a particular person he will be lucky if that person would mention it to one or two others; however, if there is some defect in the job he may rest assured that it will be mention to at least another hundred people. This is the mind that the judge finds himself on hearing a custody case. The total incapacity of a parent losing a custody case to grasp, accept or understand the basis for an appropriate and rational decision by judge creates a lifelong grunge against the judge, the attorneys for both parties, and the judicial system in general. why people have custody fights. The rapture of romance is extolled in thousands of works a great literature as well as the pulp press designed to appeal to the vicarious participation of the semi literate. There's no need to reiterate the exhilaration, the satisfaction, the preoccupation that a romantic or sexual attraction creates an human psyche. From our first crush, to our present "squeeze" to our present lasting relationship are maniacal and excessive attraction towards another person, however acquired we are all familiar with the high created by "love". Desmond Morris's "The Naked Ape" sets out in a near convincing style that we are victims of our evolutionary biological programming that has its foundations when mankind was roaming the plains of Africa as a hunter and gather. Morris explains quite clearly the often noted seven-year itch effect that plagues so many marriages. The seven-year in which has been described as the point in one's life were some action is taken as a result of the two-year age which has existed for the last five years. From the exhilaration of the honeymoon, the relationship matures into one of contentment, satisfaction, mutual interdependence, support, companionship and a lasting pair bonding, if all goes well and as intended. It is the unintended consequences of a raging hormones or misplaced expectations are unrequited confidence that eventually turn to an enviornment of exhilarated happiness to a living hell. This metamorphosis from unbounded joy to soul wearing misery occurs in approximately 50 percent of the marriages in the USA Today In today's social environment where political correctness is mandatory. Many would consider it gauche to refer to the problems of marriage divorce and custody in blatant sexiest terminology. Political correctness is been described as the ability to use language with the delusion that you may lift a turd by the clean end. Therefore we have chairperson, firefighter, salesperson, wait staff, etc. ad nauseam. The fact is that there are different orientations towards marriage family and custody on the part of men and women and the cultural disposition to which we are preprogrammed over ages is so that notable patterns reveal themselves better determined by the gender of the individual concern. If you are offended by "sexiest terminology" put this book down now and read no further in that your political disposition will make you impervious to any observations that might otherwise be of value to you when involved in the custody action. The utopian socialist of the world believe they can repeal 800 years of English language up and further or unable to making distinction between grammatical gender and physical gender. It is the height of arrogance and conceit to believe that you may succeed where the Soviet Union failed and impose a plan of a "think speak" in a brave new world redesigned by the incisive intellectual force of a utopian reformer. This monologue of recapitulation of my experiences as a 35 year veteran of domestic court will speak in terms of mothers, fathers, wives, male and female has been the observations that are generally true and fairly consistent. It is always understood that there are husbands who functioned in the role of a wife and vice versa and of course in such instances one would need the intellectual dexterity due merely reverse the analogy. While there are many couples to on unable to achieve a "successful marriage" he is that rare and unusual couple that can achieve a successful divorce. A friendly divorce is as a matter of practicality an oxymoron. If you and your strange spouse or able to chat pleasantly on the telephone, arrange a variation visitation schedule, provide for joint participation in special events such as recitals, sports events in school place and figure out how to arrange summer vacation that is the least inconvenient to all, then fall on your knees and thank a beneficent god who has provided you with an ex-spouse that does not stand every waking moment of his or her life attempting to use the children as a club and punish you for their present rejection. Some of the potential excuses for post separation bitterness are as follows; 1. Extreme anger at one's self for having entered into a hasty or ill-advised marriage that was doomed from the beginning. It is very difficult remain angry at one's self for protracted period of time therefore the easier route to direct your anger to a another person has been the source of all of your present difficulties and resulting need be dedicated to making them pay the full price in misery for the great disservice done to the angry spouse. This effect of course is not limited to the marital relationship but is the natural fodder of every politician who selects a class of self ordained victims and us embarks on the difficult course of explaining to these people that their problems are created by another person but certainly not by any deficiency, inattention or plain stupidity on their part. Since the breakup the marriage was the fault of the individual, that individual does not deserve to have custody or be in the Company of his children since it is obvious that that individual is insensitive, incompetent and uncaring and therefore the children will be improperly nurtured and must be salvaged from victimization as was the spouse. 

    The snit effect is the most interesting of the marriage disasters in that it starts during the courtship and constantly exacerbates itself to the level of misery and intolerance. Homer and Susie are dating and the suggestion is made it they attend a movie. The selection consist of movie "A" movie "B"; to which Susie replies that she would like to see movie "B" to which Homer responds that movie "B" stupid or dull or uninteresting or all of the above to which Susie replies that that is quite all right that she would enjoy movie "A". The pattern is now established that when there is a conflict in preferences between Homer and Susie, Homer throws a snit and Susie backs off and submits to his preference. This pattern continues for the rest of the relationship, Susie having been inculcated by her mother or her church or society in general that the role of a wife is to obey the husband and to be the subservient partner of the relationship. Should Susie have responded that an election could be made about which one of the two movies they would see first and that if one is elected this time the next time they go out, the other movie could be enjoyed. When Susie's stands her ground on a quality of selection of the movie contrary to Homer's predisposition to be in control of the relationship, there being no second date and relationship will progress until the Homer can find himself some pliable female who jump and squat and every twitch of his eyebrow up This self-effacing and cooperative Susie continues in this relationship and resulting snit's exercised by Homer become ever more frequent, ever more exacerbated and may even evolve to the point of physical violence. Finally the scope, intensity and violence in the snit's ever rise to level of intolerance even for the culturally conditioned Susie at which point Homer is served with the divorce papers and his outrage since he is made such great efforts to "teach her the right things to do". Homer is well aware that a snit will produce a positive result in the will get his way. The Homer is well aware that life is very convenient to have a pliable and compliant house servant and ready object of his sexual urges therefore all Homer needs to do is to have a grand and glorious snit in order to return his world to an environment of his liking. The ultimate snit is "you are a unfit mother and I am going to get custody the children". The Susie's unrelenting confidence in Homer's capacity to persuade anybody to do anything stays home, reconciles, and returns to life of subjugation. 3. Sexual betrayal is almost guaranteed to produce a hostility and vengeance that will outlive the college graduation of the grandchildren. Since the other party should be eternally grateful for what ever favors they have been able to achieve on the body of the individual betrayed, and it is inconceivable that the betraying party has actually engaged in what the betrayed has frequently contemplated. Sexual betrayal usually is the progenitor of the parental alienation syndrome discussed in later chapter. The above are three of the more frequent progenitors of a custody jihad. Of course there are as many reasons are combinations of reasons as there are people who decide that bitterness is a better route. The only constant in life is change. Consider the environment in which your grandparent was raised and compare that to the social and technological and environment in which you live today. Some individuals manage to adjust themselves with the ever shifting change in technology and social values while others time work themselves back to a period of time and live in the '50s or the seventies or the '90s and do not consider any variation in their lifestyle my reason of technology or shifting social values. A study at Stanford University investigated persons who were first-time entries into the criminal justice system, psychiatric hospitalizations or suffer from psychosomatic illnesses and found that "change points" were highly predictive and determining factor. There was an arbitrary system of points awarded for change in one's life such as a new job, a new mortgage, a promotion, marriage, death of parent, death of the child. With wide individual variances, this study tended to show that change created stress to the level that individual's were unable to cope with their day-to-day problems. This study arbitrarily set 50 points as the value of of getting married. The study pointed out that individual who graduated from college, obtained a job, moved another city, purchased a home, got married, and had a child born, got a promotion had created enough change points to drive and individual to the Looney Bin. it was totally irrelevant that each of the change point inducing events was actively sought by the individual and considered to be a positive step forward. There seems to be some basic and essential wisdom in the natural tendency of humankind to resist change. While 50 points was assessed at the value of marriage divorce was assessed at 65 points.

Usually in divorce, mother stays in the residence and continues her basic routine with one less person to cook and clean for and related to the obligation of sexual participation with a individual she has truly learned to loath and despise. Whereas the father must find a new place to live, and new method to get his socks washed, new sexual accompaniment or in the alternative live a life of monastic confinement. Further along the provisions for the economic maintenance of a wife and children we discussed in greater detail but for the present suffice it to say that there are ample and swift legal steps that may be taken to preserve the status quo in the life of the mother and the children. The bitterness engendered by the perceived favoritism of the legal system for the life all too frequently creates an environment where in the husband feels inappropriately oppressed. The reaction to this feeling provokes an abandonment of interest in the children by the father and an in alienation of the parental relationship. Coupled with the victim or betrayal approach to the problem by the wife the effect of the truly single mom and the runaway papa is brought to fruition. Child support The noncustodial parent is required by law to make a contribution for the maintenance of the child. There exists a mathematical formula called the child support guidelines which takes into consideration the relative income of the parties, expenses for medical insurance and expenses for babysitting services indication of a working custodial parent .

The child support GUIDELINES is for the bureaucrats dream come true, since the formula is mathematical and you merely have to park and the numbers in order to produce a "fair result" that does not require thought, discretion or fairness. The child support guidelines may usually be found on the Internet for a particular state and one can work out what the presumptive child support would be by filling out the form. The child support guidelines is a device conceived by experts in the field of family needs to have provided both the social workers and the court and often the attorneys involved a simple straightforward method of calculating child support without a great deal of evidence being needed to arrive at a number. Generally speaking the child support guidelines are not unreasonable and are tolerable.

As historical note we might observe that a previous system for determining child support was 17 percent of gross income of the noncustodial parent for one child; 21 percent of gross income for two children and 25 percent of gross income for three children. The flat percentage method of arriving at child support opens the door to numerous arguments concerning the relative income of the parties and expenses borne by one particular party such as child care and medical insurance. The conflict contentions occupied a great deal of lawyer and court time and required the members of the Department of Social Services to have their otherwise task filled day consumed by discussions with irate parents. The solution was quite simple, the problem was turned over to individuals with exceptional mathematical skills who were able to project a mathematical model which would produce virtually the same percentage result, irrespective of variations in the income of the parents. This gave the illusion that a divergence of income was being taken into consideration while producing the previously acceptable result and removing from the negotiations in conversations that hostile contentions of the parties and why percentage method produced a result which was not appropriate considering the divergence of income. As any other activity in which divergent opinions are at issue, there's immediately discovered a method to skewer the result of any given rule to the advantage of a particular party. In the question of child support the first method to produce a happy result for party is to lie about the income, suppressed cash income, inflate cost of health insurance, claime grandmother is being paid $200 a month for babysitting services when in fact grandmother regards her time with the children as one of the most positive events in her daily life and would not think of charging money. Even when a grandmother is given some small emolument to offset the cost of keeping it child, the purported amount of the monument emolument is misrepresented in order to achieve the desired end of raising our suppressing the child support obligation. The parties may agree to child support amount irrespective of the guidelines. Such agreements are usually achieved when one party agrees to make a car payment or promises not to pursue an issue of custody or make some concession regarding jointly held furniture or housing. The danger in deviating from the child support guidelines is that while one may achieve a result that would appear to be beneficial, the question of child support is always open and may be raised later after a brief time frame of agreement.

My way of example, the father agrees the the mother residing in their joint premises, using the car, and for the insurance, picking up the furniture payments, making a direct contribution for the babysitter or have someone in his family care for the child while mother works and thus achieves an agreed reduction from the guidelines support. This happy condition last until the mother can find the Department of Social Services who will without any charge for attorneys fees the like to bring up the near the child support question and then in and mindless abeyance to guidelines state to overturn the agreement of the parties to the detriment of the father. The father is reticent to permit payments on charge cards, insurance, automobile liens or furniture purchases in the hands of a mother who is incapable of basic prudent economic management and although he may then with withhold agreed payments for Allied expenses of family when the guidelines child support is put in place the net result is the father's credit is severely damaged when mother is spending money "for the children" and does not have sufficient funds to meet the time payment obligations to which the parties contracted. The tax exemption for the children usually will follow the primary custodian and the benefit is not truly determined until the end of the tax year. By claiming a number of exemptions, for example three instead of 1 when there are two children, will influence the amount of standard deduction required to be withheld by the employer. For those people who can only think from paycheck to paycheck, the number of exemptions claimed produces a result in their weekly or biweekly paycheck. When one parent is taxed at a rate considerably higher than the other, the value of the tax exemption is fixed by the top rate for tax purposes of the custodial parent unless by agreement to claim may be made by noncustodial parent. A big bucks earning father might be well served to pay some small amount above the sanctified child support guidelines and considered that as a purchase of the tax benefit for child exemption.

Keep in mind that alimony or post separation spousal support is tax deductible to the payer and income to the payee. The downside of alimony is that is forever. Large amounts of alimony or often an inducement to the recipient to live in sin, engage in quasi monogamous relationships without benefit of clergy in order to keep the punishment of an alimony check in place. Although the child support guidelines is a mindless method of determining child support promoted by the Department of Social Services, and adept lawyer or individual can devise several plans to vary the amount of post separation spousal support which usually termination in one year., alimony and child support so as to maximize the economic benefits it could or might be achieved by contractually affixing the right for the child exemption on the federal and state tax returns. A calculated economic analysis of the varying effects of moving the child tax exemption might be the only win/win negotiation in which to contesting parties will achieve. A seemingly unintended consequences of the women's liberation movement is that when a father obtains custody, the mother will have to pay guidelines child support. The father may then avail himself of the Department of Social Services and their able and adept social workers and government employed attorneys to obtain and enforce child support. The father in this position must be resigned that the social workers will hold their nose while being of sensible assistance of the father but concomitantly begrudging the fact that an equal application of law is intrinsically unfair. The alacrity, dedication, enthusiasm and interest which the Department of Social Services will pursue a child support claim on behalf of a father on many occasions is found to be somewhat lacking if not hostile. Some child support guidelines have provisions that if number of overnight spent with the noncustodial parent exceeds a certain number, there is a reduction in the amount to be paid. There's also provisions for split custody were in for example Daddy has one child and Mama has two and also for shared custody, were a child spends halftime with both parents. If there is significant disparity in the income to parents the shared custody guidelines could result in the more economically productive parent making a contribution to the economy of the other despite the fact that the child or children spend one-half of their time with both parents. Generally speaking child support is not contingent on visitation and whether or not the custodial parent is cooperative or complying with any visitation order or agreement, child support nonetheless must be paid. A frequent result is that Mama withholds visitation, getting garnishee withheld child support. If Daddy is making direct payments to Mama, and withholds support by reason of no-visitation, Mama cites the father for contempt for failing to pay child support, the father is called into court adjudged in contempt, required to pay back child support and not infrequently pay for the mother's attorneys fees in enforcing the order. The father's only solace in this circumstances that he may frequently anticipate "tut- tut, you should do right” admonitions from the court while the mother continues her calculated program of alienation of the child from the father. The father's only remedy, in most states, is to file an independent motion to hold the mother in contempt for violations of provisions of the visitation order and hope (rarely realized) that the court will award the father attorneys fees for seeking enforcement of an existing order. When child support is affixed by the gracious intervention of the Department of Social Services the issue of visitation is not included in the action and efforts to include visitation or often thwarted by the that's-not-in-my-department response of the Department of Social Services bureaucrats. There are a few states where the court state and equitable point of view that the custodial parent may not avail themselves of the services of the court to enforce that portion of the court order which they enjoy while flaunting another provision of the same order which they find inconvenient. This is basically the no-see-no-pay-rule. This rule is opposed by the professionals of the child support industry as it foils their atmosphere of noble pursuit of benefits for the children. When the child support enforcement is in hands of Department of Social Services coupled with special session support for purpose of enforcement and coupled with a judge who is bored by the process are concerned about his image for reelection time as he does not wish to appear that he is not ready to serve “for the children” will take a a regular formal court session and reduce it to a wallaby court as it does not rise to level of a full-grown kangaroo. 

THE ALIGNMENT OF TROOPS FOR THE ORDER OF BATTLE An intimate relationship, sometimes called marriage, that produces children is by its very nature one of compromise, consideration and elasticity. In the marriage relationship, the individual learns to keep in constant consideration to biases, wishes, prejudices and joys of their partner. The opinion of partner is reflected in practically every decision made. The groceries that are pulled from the shelf, the television viewing schedule, the color of garments as well as occasional economic decision are constantly guided and directed by the perceived potential reaction of the partner. A couple who are able to enjoy each other's company companionship and cooperation without treading too heavily on the toes of the other can produce a lasting relationship that many find very rewarding . In the marriage relationship is a matter of Habit as well as self-preservation to be ever mindful of the opinions of your partner. This idyllic state of affairs continues until the point that the relationship is ruptured. The habit that is hard to break, is that constant attention to the opinion, desires, and predispositions of your former partner. It is difficult to accept that the former game plan that existed between two people no longer is extant and a new battle plan must be devised and executed. Those who would pretend that this is an amicable separation and that everyone desires a conflictless parting are the very persons who are most damaged long run into decisions that make regarding the purported amicable separation. The oft touted and rarely celebrated amicable separation is fraught with landmines because of unexpected or unannounced hidden agendas.

The most frequent hidden agenda which later becomes explosive is a clandestine lover. When Susie announced to her attorney that her husband is a fine man, a fine father, a responsible citizen who is attentive, hard-working individual but regretfully she has "fallen out of love" and that if you're married to someone there should be love. Susie does not wish to hurt her husband, and realizes the importance of his continued participation in the lives of the children. This claptrap could only be believed by the congenitally gullible who perceives is in their best interest to go along with this fairytale. The reality often is that Susie is carrying on a undiscovered and clandestine affair and wishes to arrange her life so that her sexual liaisons need not be furtive or inconvenient. Switch the gender and the obverse is equally valid. This happy state of civilized dissolution will last until Susie's next lover strikes the children in anger, does not want the ex-husband to have any communication were Susie, has elected new employment on the backside of the moon which will make visitation by the father either physical or economic impossibility. And other agenda which must be classified as a developing agenda as opposed to a hidden agenda is the realization that the options elected by Susie are much to her detriment. While Johnny looks at football, does not pat her fanny was sufficient regularity and is less than energetic and his assumption of shared household duties, Susie's anger, hostility and discontent are ever exacerbating to the point that the much we anticipated orange blossom scented rapture previously contemplated is nowhere to be found at home. The solution of this dilemma is quite easy, Susie may trade one set of problems for a new set of problems. Once established in a residence apart from Johnny, as a single parent, and without a parade of Jaguars rolling up before her door to whisk her off to Cancun for the weekend, Susie might begin to regret her decision to abandon a regularly employed, bill paying, sober, drug-free, occasionally horny and constantly dull companion for the misery which she now enjoys. The fact that she made this decision and is raising consequences of her own election never occurs to Susie. Her present for state of affairs is a product of the treachery, and difference and callousness of Johnny for which he must now be made to pay.

While I have couched this example in feminist terms it most frequently occurs with the mail as a primary protagonists. Given this developed agenda, is easy to arrive at visitation that child support is either too much or too little, that visitation is either withheld or excessive. The level of affection and concern that noncustodial parent as for the welfare of a child is in direct proportion to the capacity of the custodial parent to inflict a hurtful wound in retribution. Imagine the frustration of Susie is she makes this trade of problems and discovers that her new set of problems is even greater and worst of all results, Johnny is discovering a new level of liberation filled with compliant females while the enjoys the freedom of returning to his parental home where in his laundry and board are covered at no are only a fraction of the expense required to maintain Susie. It is axiomatic that no one's child ever marries well enough. Ambivalence is been defined as when you see your mother-in-law drive off cliff in your new Cadillac.

The myriad of folk tales about mother-in-law problems have a well grounded foundation in reality. When there's a rupture of the marital relationship, often grandparents become significantly involved in the lives of the children. When daughter moves home with her two children, grandmother is overjoyed she has her baby back and to the perfect infants that she can raise properly and overcoming the deficiencies employed by her baby and raising the new baby. When the son moves home, grandmother can no longer pop in to visit her grandchildren, take them for an afternoon to Burger King and the park but must negotiate every grand parental visitation on a schedule which is dictated by the custodial mother. It is a very short step for grandmother began to agitate for the father/son to obtain custody to overcome the injurious effects of an uncaring mother in the lives of her precious grandchildren. This scenario is particularly true when the children have conducted themselves in less than ideal format, dropping out of high school and college, not pursuing the goals of their respective parents and this joint venture gives Grandmama and opportunity to raise a child and do it right this time without repeating the mistakes that produce the less than optimum results the first time around.

The unanticipated intervention by grandparent is rarely foreseen when negotiating the future visitation custodial and support arrangements for the children over ruptured relationship. The numbing bitterness of disappointment that grows from a ruptured relationship ever increasingly poisonous environment in which the children are located. While a parent might extol the virtue of the other parent in regard to child-rearing and assert itself laudatory enthusiasm their desire to nurture continuing relationship that is positive between the children and both parents the fact that the reality of separation can wear the bumbling affability of an individual to a boiling hostility. While never overtly expressed and certainly the children are told that "your daddy is a fine person and loves you" the supersensitive antennae of small children received loud and clear the implication of snide remarks, uncomplimentary references and jocular ridicule of the other parent. When a seven-year -old child tells the father that he does not know how to manage money or tells her mother that she is a poor housekeeper there's little doubt of the source of that idea implanted in the child's mind. If the rapprochement and detante has been hereto successful, this will be the opening round in trench warfare. There have been some courts with sufficient bravery to risk adverse public opinion and sufficient concern for the welfare children, that the parent who began his poisoning the mind of a child irrespective of the blight inadvertence to the consequences of their incessant snide remarks, will remove custody from the parent which demeans the other in hopes that to the child may be placed in environment where both parents are praised by both parents. The removal of a child my reason of consistent pejorative remarks does make the point that both parents need to keep their hostile comments out of the hearing of the children.

It certainly is very noble to effect a separation agreement or consent order relying on the protestations of the adverse party of their best efforts will welfare of the children and their constant respect of the role of the other parent in the child's life, such a disposition is an amount to engaging in a conversation regarding the future plans of the rattlesnake facing you. If this seems rather harsh it is not to say that the good thoughts and good intentions of the opposite party is not real and sincere at the time; the problem is will those good thoughts and good intentions last over the next twelve years in the case of a seven-year old child. The sincere, cooperative and well-meaning parent might demonstrate this high order of conduct for a number of years until their next spouse intervenes in the lives of your children and the custodial parent, not wishing to be a two-time loser or wishing to preserve domestic tranquility in their own household adopts a new set of guidelines and values in dealing with your relationship with your own children.

One preventative device is a clause in a separation agreement or custody order that states is the custodial party moves more than 35 miles from their present residence custody automatically vests in the noncustodial parent until a hearing maybe conducted by the court regarding the future welfare of the child. This stops the telephone calls announcing that your children now have a new and distant residence. 

Napoleon once commented that God is on the side of the army with the most artillery. Often merely the display of your artillery is sufficient to suppress any unexpected attacks. Subtract your youngest child's age from 19 and then realize that this is the number of years that you'll have to protect yourself from an unplanned for, unexpected, unanticipated attack from the source not contemplated at a time not considered and possibly by collateral enemies such as future spouses, heretofore benign grandparents and bureaucratic intervention by a self-righteous predispose functionary of child protection services who is been prompted to action by Pearl Harbor attack accusing you or future spouse of child molestation, abandonment, domestic violence, drunkenness, drug addiction. Whether or not such allegations at any merit in fact, this self-righteous and lethargic bureaucracy of the Department of Social Services will wreak havoc into your life from that moment forward any accusation will have a life of its own in that the accusation is often regarded as truthful. This disposition is virtually required by the CYA requirements of any bureaucracy where they cannot accept the risk that if they in adroitly or improperly absolve you of any of these accusations, their lack of precaution will effect poorly on their job performance and thus interfere with promotion. Once a government agency enters a custody fight the motivating force of the bureaucrats will to be sure that they do nothing wrong as opposed to accomplishing any tangible or positive results. And accusation of potential injury to a child will cause a bureaucracy to err so strongly on the side of precaution that she will next see your children after their 18th birthday provided they know how to contact you. You may be assured that there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate overreaction or conclusion jumping on the part of child protective services but there is a polethera  anecdotal fairy tales of how the social worker with a silver bullet Lone Ranger style ridden into a family, court orders blazing to do something for the children. If the above sequence of hypotheticals is bleak and frightening then dear reader you are understanding the reality of the consequences of a contested custody action.

I have little patience with people who protested they have supported the atrocities of an abusive spouse for the children, since an abusive relationship fraught with hostility is certainly more injurious to children then separated parents; however, if in fear that your spouse will employ the damning services of Department of Social Services by promulgating an accusation of injury to the child, you might be well advised to either get their first or stay home and suffer in silence until the youngest child reaches 18. An experienced attorney is well aware of the potential adverse circumstances which could occur even years away and would be able to assist you in guarding against and diminishing the risk of adverse consequences. It is sheer folly to negotiate at the kitchen table along with your spouse regarding the conditions of custody visitation and support without having been previously armed with the knowledge of those factors which could adversely affect your future. The sweet caterpillar of cordiality with whom you are negotiating could well turn into a 20 foot python ready to crush life from your bones. 

CRITERIA FOR CUSTODY; WHAT THE COURTS LOOK FOR. Should you be contemplating a custody action and there's little point otherwise in reading this tome, a quick review of the factors which will considered by court or a mediator are the attorneys in attempting to arrive at a settlement agreement or a court approved consent order. The first order of business to be to disabuse one of the usual gossip, biased observations and regurgitated complaints of individuals who have been involved previously in a court action. One. MAMA ALWAYS WINS; men win about 65 percent of the contested custody actions contrary up to the accumulated wisdom the one may gather  in discussing such matters. The reason is quite simple people men are more frequently and economically superior position and can afford the cost of protracted custody litigation. This is not mean to imply that man get custody 65 percent of time as frequently custody is agreed between the parties with mother having the primary physical responsibility for children. Society is arranged for female employees with children. When Mama reports or employer that she must go to the babysitter, is acceptable inconvenience that must be tolerated. When Daddy reports to the employer that he must go to the babysitter, Daddy is frequently informed directly or indirectly that unless he gets his house in order is not all have a job to earn money to pay the babysitter. When speaking of children of less than 13 years old, generally speaking the most convenient circumstances for the the children is with the mother therefore the bulk of custody actions are resolved by agreement or by resignation or by the attorneys leading the father to such an arrangement motivated by considerations of time, cost and probability of success.

There's an interesting pattern of behavior in children placed with the mother by default at the time separation when the children reach 13. This is for referred to as a judge Greyhound court order in that the child announces that he will live with the other parent irrespective of anyone else's wishes and it necessary will get on a Greyhound bus to achieve that result. The judge Greyhound court order will be discussed below when we reach the subject of tactics in a custody action. The father who is willing to spend the time money effort to mount a full-fledged custody action frequently will be motivated by serious and sound reasons and has the tenacity advancing to question of custody in the face on the tendency of the court to avoid possible a full-fledged custody hearing and the proclivity of the attorneys to believe they can negotiate a settlement in the face of insurmountable recalcitrance.

Custody actions by the father are usually won at round three or four and very rarely at the first pop out-of-the-box. The father with the tenacity and willingness to hang in there in the custody action is more often than not motivated my sincere desire to establish a value system in children and create an environment of morality and positive thought as opposed to pay today only consideration of convenience in environment dedicated to instantaneous gratification up the father in the custody action who is motivated by the long-term welfare of his children as opposed to the immediate convenience of the moment of eventually frequently does prevail.

One device used by some attorneys is to suggest to a father in a custody action that he will in future need money for private detectives, psychological counselors, educational valuations and the like and therefore the father should deposit some amount on a every paycheck basis a given some of money to be deposited in the attorneys trust account for the purpose of the accumulation of a reserve for such potential needed expenses. The attorneys then waits to measure the father's dedication to the plan. The father who has no motivation other than vengeance or retribution and is diluted that he can stack the children with grandmother for less cost than court ordered child support will soon find a series of excuses why the regular contribution for a reserve find needs to be postponed or omitted or ignored and the attorney having established the true motivation of this particular client can resign the case and warmly recommend his worst enemy as his successor attorney.

THE CHILD WANTS: children under the age of 13 do not make family decisions. They do not have the car keys, the checkbook, they do not decide their diet, their schooling or their companions. The biggest waste of time in the custody action is a protracted discussion of why the child wants this or wants that while the child is unhappy with this or that in the environment of the other parent. Generally speaking the courts will not entertain such evidence or even listen to it as often is a product of brainwashing and subtle promotion by vindictive parent. If the parents cannot decide the better environment for the children between themselves in an amicable manner, the court is going to make the decision. The best way to lose a case is to hire an attorney who is so oblivious as to pay attention to the winding sniveling desires of the spoiled eight-year-old. Age 12 is sometimes considered as the age of discretion wherein the court will hear but certainly not be directed by the wishes of the child. Should the child express some valid reason preferring the environment of one parent over the other such as being able to attend a preferred school with participation in a program unique to that school of particular interest of the child, the presence of a quarrelsome stepparent jealous of the parents attention to the child, blatant favoritism towards the (often younger) step sibling by stepparent. Should the child having specific reference to reside with one family and has reach the age of discretion, the courts often will hear the wishes of the child. This is a hard road to hoe since the child is often conflicted and does not wish to hurt the other parent's feelings.

SUPERIOR ENVIRONMENT: the welfare of the child is the guiding polar star to direct the court in this determination of matters of custody. This patent phrases repeated time and time again in the reports of the appellate court hearing matters of custody. There exists a cultural predisposition to place children with the mother although the statutes now specifically set out that there is no presumption of superiority of one parent over the other. That presumption is more often than not rebutted by the predisposition of the trial judge. To win a custody case, the parent must demonstrate a superior environment. The question of what constitutes a superior environment is analogous to the argument of St. Thomas Aquinas regarding the number of angels that may dance on the head of a pin. This is where the selection of attorney who knows the judge and has some indication of the peculiar proclivities and levels of importance of issues of child rearing and the mind of the judge. A superior environment does not mean and luxurious residence. A superior environment could mean a quiet well ordered neighborhood in contrast to a brawling drunk infested trailer park. A superior environment could mean a two adult orderly lifestyle as contrasted with a single parent on rotating shift work with constantly change of babysitters of all hours a day and night.

PARENTAL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS: the best way to lose a custody fight is defined every excuse pretext and circumstance imaginable to conjure vein and work-arounds to a court order. The judges have a tendency to become a bit hostile when their orders are not obeyed. Given two contesting parents who have virtually equal home environments and both demonstrate capacity to adequately provide for the child the court will reposes confidence in that parent who is obeying the court orders and will find a manner of making it very clear the courts displeasure to the parent who cannot follow visitation schedules, who cannot provide medical information, who cannot advise the other party of recitals and sports events even though ordered to do so.

LIVE IN PARRAMORES: it is very difficult to explain to a heart palpating 16-year-old female why she should be a locked kneed virgin in the light of mother having shacked up with a boyfriend for the last six years or that Daddy's very nice girlfriend keeps her clothes and cosmetics and Daddy's bachelor pad. There are those judges to do not regard as an adverse circumstance extramarital relationships between custodial or noncustodial parents and accept this is the new standard of the times. Generally judges would be a bit more conservative and traditional in their view of a proper moral environment for a child.

THE UNFIT PARENT: decades ago one would have to demonstrate that a mother was "totally unfit" to over come a very rich strong presumption that a child is best with the mother. This test has been slowly eroded at the courthouse but nonetheless remains in the minds of many as the requirement for custody by father. This misdirection of evaluation often causes the parents seeking a changing custody to cover the courthouse walls with all the dirt, nasty comments, pejorative statements, vile innuendos, calumny and vituperation that a hard heart and a mean spirit could contrive. Surely there exists somewhere a judge so limited an intellect that attention would be paid to this vein of commentary and surely there exists some attorney who permit his client to ventilate and express his hostility in the mistaken belief that he would achieve some furtherance of a goal. An admittedly contrived set of circumstances which would demonstrate the circumstances in which a father could win is as follows. Mama and Daddy are both CPAs earning equal salaries and living in virtually identical with apartment complexes with all of the usual niceties for family life. The Mama by the nature for practice must travel out-of-town 4 to 9 days every month were as Daddy has a babysitter service in the office building where he works 9-to-5 so the child may ride to and from day care with Daddy. Daddy has an understanding employer who does not object to Daddy taking the child to the dentist or the physician when necessary. The Daddy enters the court and extols the virtue of mother stating that every moment the child spends with Mama is a positive act in the child's life and that he wishes to do all within his power to facilitate maximum contacting communication between mother in child, however he is able to provide 24 hour per day hands-on parental care where the child may sleep and and rise from the same bad everyday and does provide a positive consistency in the life of the child. Nothing else appearing other than this limited set of facts Daddy wins.

JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY; the hidden meaning and that phase is the court does not want to hear why people have custody fights. The rapture of romance is extolled in thousands of works a great literature as well as the pulp press designed to appeal to the vicarious participation of the semi literate. There's no need to reiterate the exhilaration, the satisfaction, the preoccupation that a romantic or sexual attraction creates an human psyche. From our first crush, to our present "squeeze" to our present lasting relationship are maniacal and excessive attraction towards another person, however acquired we are all familiar with the high created by "love". Desmond Morris  of "The Naked Ape" sets out in a near convincing style that we are victims of our evolutionary biological programming that has its foundations when mankind was roaming the plains of Africa as a hunter and gather. Desmond Morris explains quite clearly the often noted seven-year itch effect that plagues so many marriages. The seven-year in which has been described as the point in one's life were some action is taken as a result of the two-year age which has existed for the last five years. From the exhilaration of the honeymoon, the relationship matures into one of contentment, satisfaction, mutual interdependence, support, companionship and a lasting pair bonding, if all goes well and as intended. It is the unintended consequences of a raging hormones or misplaced expectations are unrequited confidence that eventually turn and then garment of exhilarated happiness to a living hell. This metamorphosis from unbounded joy to soul wearing misery occurs in approximately 50 percent of the marriages in the USA Today In today's social environment where political correctness is mandatory. Many would consider it gauche to refer to the problems of marriage divorce and custody in blatant sexiest terminology. Political correctness is been described as the ability to use language with the delusion that you may lift a turd by the clean end. Therefore we have chairperson, firefighter, salesperson, wait staff, etc. ad nauseam. The fact is that there are different orientations towards marriage family and custody on the part of men and women and the cultural disposition to which we are preprogrammed age is so that notable patterns reveal themselves better determined by the gender of the individual concern. If you are offended by "sexiest terminology" put this book down now and read no further in that your political disposition will make you impervious to any observations that might otherwise be of value to you when involved in the custody action. The utopian socialist of the world believe they can repeal 800 years of English language up and further or unable to making distinction between grammatical gender and physical gender. It is the height of arrogance and conceit to believe that you may succeed where the Soviet Union failed and impose a plan of a "think speak" in a brave new world redesigned by the incisive intellectual force of a utopian reformer. This monologue of recapitulation of my experiences as a 35 year veteran of domestic court will speak in terms of mothers, fathers, wives, male and female has been the observations that are generally true and fairly consistent. It is always understood that there are husbands who functioned in the role of a wife and vice versa and of course in such instances one would need the intellectual dexterity due merely reverse the analogy. While there are many couples to on unable to achieve a "successful marriage" it  is that rare and unusual couple that can achieve a successful divorce. A friendly divorce is as a matter of practicality an oxymoron. If you and your strange spouse or able to chat pleasantly on the telephone, arrange a variation visitation schedule, provide for joint participation in special events such as recitals, sports events in school place and figure out how to arrange summer vacation that is the least inconvenient to all, then fall on your knees and thank a beneficent god who has provided you with an ex-spouse that does not stand every waking moment of his or her life attempting to use the children as a club and punish you for their present rejection.

Some of the potential excuses for post separation bitterness are as follows; 

Extreme anger at one's self for having entered into a hasty or ill-advised marriage that was doomed from the beginning. It is very difficult remain angry at one's self for protracted period of time therefore the easier route to direct your anger to a another person has been the source of all of your present difficulties and resulting need be dedicated to making them pay the full price in misery for the great disservice done to the angry spouse. This effect of course is not limited to the marital relationship but is the natural fodder of every politician who selects a class of self ordained victims and us embarks on the difficult course of explaining to these people that their problems are created by another person but certainly not by any deficiency, inattention or plain stupidity on their part. Since the breakup the marriage was the fault of the individual, that individual does not deserve to have custody or be in the Company of his children since it is obvious that that individual is insensitive, incompetent and uncaring and therefore the children will be improperly nurtured and must be salvaged from victimization as was the spouse. 2. The snit effect is the most interesting of the marriage disasters in that it starts during the courtship and constantly exacerbates itself to the level of misery and intolerance. Homer and Susie are dating and the suggestion is made it they attend a movie. The selection consist of movie "A" movie "B"; to which Susie replies that she would like to see movie "B" to which homer responds that movie "B" stupid or dull or uninteresting or all of the above to which Susie replies that that is quite all right that she would enjoy movie "A". The pattern is now established that when there is a conflict in preferences between Homer and Susie, Homer throws a snit and Susie backs off and submits to his preference. This pattern continues for the rest of the relationship, Susie having been inculcated by her mother or her church or society in general that the role of a wife is to obey the husband and to be the subservient partmer of the relationship. Should Susie have responded that charge could be made about which one of the two movies; they would see first and that if one is elected this time the next time they go out, the other movie could be enjoyed. When Susie's stands her ground on a quality of selection of the movie contrary to Homer's predisposition to be in control of the relationship, there being no second date and relationship will progress until the Homer can find himself some pliable female who jump and squat and every twitch of his eyebrow. This self-effacing and cooperative Susie continues in this relationship and resulting snit's exercised by Homer become ever more frequent, ever more exacerbated and may even evolve to the point of physical violence. Finally the scope city and violence in the snit's ever risen to level of intolerance even for the culturally conditioned Susie at which point Homer is served with the divorce papers and his outrage since he is made such great efforts to "teach her the right things to do". Homer is well aware that a snit will produce a positive result in the will get his way. The Homer is well aware that life is very convenient to have a pliable and compliant house servant and ready object of his sexual urges therefore all Homer needs to do is to have a grand and glorious snit in order to return his world to an environment of his liking. The ultimate snit is "you are a unfit mother and I am going to get custody the children". The Susie's unrelenting confidence in Homer's capacity to persuade anybody to do anything stays in reconciles, and returns to life of subjugation. 

Sexual betrayal is almost guaranteed to produce a hostility and vengeance that will outlive the college graduation of the grandchildren. Since the other party should be eternally grateful for what ever favors they have been able to achieve on the body of the individual betrayed, and it is inconceivable that the betraying party has actually engaged in what the betrayed has frequently contemplated. Sexual betrayal usually is the progenitor of the parental alienation syndrome. The above are three of the more frequent progenitors of a custody jihad. Of course there are as many reasons are combinations of reasons as there are people who decide that bitterness is a better route. The only constant in life is change. Consider the environment in which your grandparent was raised and compare that to the social and technological and environment in which you live today. Some individuals cannot modify modify themselves with the ever shifting change in technology and social values while others time work themselves back to a period of time and live in the '50s are the seventies of the '90s and do not consider any variation in their lifestyle my reason of technology or shifting social values.

A study at Stanford University investigated persons who were first-time entries into the criminal justice system, psychiatric hospitalizations or suffer from psychosomatic illnesses and found that "change points" were highly predictive and determining factor. There was an arbitrary  system of points awarded for change in one's life such as a new job, a new mortgage, a promotion, marriage, death of parent, death of the child. With wide individual variances, this study tended to show that change created stress to the level that individual's were unable to cope with their day-to-day problems. This study arbitrarily set 50 points as the value of of getting married. The study pointed out that individual who graduated from college, obtained a job, moved another city, purchased a home, got married, and child born, got a promotion had created enough change points to drive any individual to the Looney Bin. it was totally irrelevant that each of the change point inducing events was actively sought by the individual and considered to be a positive step forward. There seems to be some basic and essential wisdom in the natural tendency of humankind to resist change. While 50 points was assessed at the value of marriage divorce was assessed at 65 points. Usually in divorce, mother stays in the residence and continues her basic routine with one less person to cook and clean for and related to the obligation of sexual participation with a individual she has truly learned to load and despise. Whereas the father must find a new place to live, and new method to get his socks washed, new sexual accompaniment or in the alternative live a life of monastic confinement. Further along the provisions for the economic maintenance of a wife and children we discussed in greater detail but for the present suffice it to say that there are ample and swift legal steps that may be taken to preserve the status quo in the life of the mother and the children. The bitterness engendered by the perceived favoritism of the legal system for the life all too frequently creates an environment where in the husband feels inappropriately oppressed. The reaction to this feeling provokes an abandonment of interest in the children by the father and an in alienation of the parental relationship. Coupled with the victim or betrayal approach to the problem by the wife the effect of the truly single mom and the runaway popa is brought to fruition. custody case, will look for an excuse to avoid hearing a custody case, will attempt to resolve the case by discussion with the attorneys in chambers and referral to a mediation service or a family counseling service. A custody cases are emotional, taxing on the time, invariably produce result that will bring the judge under great deal of criticism that may be noted at the next election by not only the dissatisfied parent but a phalanx of aunts uncles grandparents, cousins, neighbors, co-workers and neighborhood gossips. A home improvement contractor once pointed out that should he do a good job for a particular person he will be lucky if that person would mention it to one or two others; however, if there is some defect in the job he may rest assured that it will be mention to at least another hundred people. This is the mind that the judge finds himself on hearing a custody case. The total incapacity of a parent losing a custody case to grasp, except our understanding the basis for an appropriate and rational decision by judge creates a lifelong grunge against the judge, the attorneys for both parties, and the judicial system in general.