Parental Abduction is Child Abuse

“The Hindu Marriages Act has broken more homes than uniting,” a vacation Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and G S Singhvi observed.

The apex court regretted that the growing number of divorce cases in the country was having a disastrous effect on children of families which get broken in such a manner.

“Ego should get dissolved for the sake of the child,” the Bench remarked even as the separated parents tried to air their views.

READ ARTICLE HERE

In 2004, a public policy question was put to Massachusetts voters regarding shared parenting. Shared parenting is a rebuttable presumption that parents should have joint physical and legal custody of children, which may be rebutted by evidence that one parent is unfit (i.e., he or she is drug dependent, violent, absent, abusive, neglectful, etc.) or that it is not workable through no fault of one of the parents.

The public policy question was put on about 25 percent of all districts and garnered 87 percent public support. Because the number of districts was so high, its accuracy as a barometer of public sentiment is beyond all reasonable dispute.

However, two legislative cycles after the landmark 2004 public policy question, shared parenting did not become the law in Massachusetts. Gov. Deval Patrick has publically indicated his support for shared parenting, yet that has not prevented shared parenting legislation from twice dying. Given such overwhelming support by the Massachusetts voting public and the psychological community, why hasn’t shared parenting been passed into law?

feminist extremists and greedy trial lawyers is the ANSWER

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

Welcome to the world of court-ordered supervised visitation, where thousands of fathers are considered guilty until proven innocent. Read this excellent report on the horrors of court ordered supervised child visitation. No wonder fathers commit suicides

READ ARTICLE HERE

A growing body of evidence suggests that normalizing divorce and surrounding it with expectations of cooperative behavior is far better for everyone than the two extremes of trying to prevent people from divorcing at all or encouraging them to “win” or prove fault in a divorce dispute. Especially when children are involved.
There are instances, however, when divorce does make things worse for kids, and it is precisely the behaviors associated with adversarial divorce that have the worst effects. Children suffer when parents assign fault, justify their own behavior, compete for their children’s loyalty, bad-mouth each other, or ask the children to take sides, keep secrets or tattle on the former spouse
Constance Ahrons’s 20-year look at 173 children from 98 divorced families showed that when divorced parents were able to maintain a civil and at least minimally cooperative relationship with each other, the children experienced no long-term problems associated with the divorce. But when parents remained in conflict or totally disengaged from each other, their children continued to be distressed even 20 years later.

READ WSJ ARTICLE HERE

Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men’s Marriage Strike?

Men prefer being solo over a bad marriage: study

Glenn Sacks article on the issue

Indian SC asks a 7 yr. old minor who has been fatherless for over an year and likely being brainwashed if she wants to stay with mother or father to decide custody. Is this OUTRAGEOUS or what? In the process the SC overturned both US and Calcutta HC orders. WAY TO GO SC…!!!!!!!!!

Does the judiciary realize that putting a child in a situation where she has to choose between her parents is insane?

Does the judiciary realize that children too have survival instincts and in cases of parental alienation will always do whatever it takes to please the alienating parent even if that means deriding/abusing/abhorring the left behind parent?

Does the judiciary realize that its prime goal is to rule keeping in mind the welfare of the child and that children are not always the best judge of their welfare, especially minors and alienated children?

READ THE ARTICLE HERE

A few days ago, i wrote on my blog about a potential utility based economic theory to try and explain why women and men do what they do? Interestingly enough I ran today into an article by the “no nonsense man” Marc Rudov himself which confirms several of my own thoughts earlier. In this article Marc discusses the controversial topic of whether the arrival of children generally results in reduced happiness in the marriage and recommends that spouses should not subordinate one another for their children but instead keep each other number 1 on their priority list.

He also postulates that Women marry to have legitimate children and receive financial support for themselves and those children. I believe this because women bring 70% of divorces. Men, on the other hand, given the highly expected financial and child-custody losses, take huge matrimonial risk because they genuinely want to be married and to have families. There’s no other way to explain the respective nuptial decisions of men and women.

read the entire article here

Also read this very insightful piece in the American law and economics review trying to explain why women are mostly divorce filers

Premiere Screening today May 17th in San Diego

SUPPORT? is a film that covers the everyday issues of stress, family, struggle, and suffering that families experience when put through the detrimental, winding maneuvers of the Family Court systems, which are flooded with more cases than the labor force can handle or chooses NOT to handle.

Finally, a shocking documentary that exposes the truth! Hear what experts say about how some have figured out how to make money by emphasizing on divorce and child support issues between men and women through court orders. Parents are made to pay exorbitant amounts of money in exchange for their CREDIT, HOMES, BANK ACCOUNTS, and even their FREEDOM!

Corruption “It’s Billions of Dollars - It’s Far Beyond What The Mafia Ever Did”

Its About The Kids “Parental Suicide Does Go Up Five Times For Fit Parents That Are Removed From Their Children”

Divorce Is Ugly Business “Every County in America and Every State in America is Financially Incentivized to Ruin Families”

War Is Hell - Child Support Doesn’t Have To Be! “They (Military Reservists) go off to war and they have been paying child support based on an income they are no longer making”

Some women do real horrible things that are beyond belief. Take this example

• Husband goes to war in Iraq
• Wife cleans him out without his knowledge (forges his signature, takes out his money, buys a new house, sells the old house etc.)
• files for divorce and takes custody of the chidren
• husband comes back to devastation, homelessness, and penniless
• courts do not convict wife, gets stayed sentence for check forgery
• husband will likely lose custody of the children and husband will be asked to pay support

read the story here

Many women do this, stabbing husbands in the back and walking away w/ their kids for no apparent reason. Mostly women initiate this and husbands are the ones who hold out in hopes of reconciliation. WHY? Maybe the answer lies in utility theory, which postulates that people make choices in life that maximize their utility

• The utility from marriage for women is in childbirth, raising the children, being loved by someone, and the money that the husband earns which helps run the family
• Over time the utility of marriage decreases because children are born, they reach a certain age where they need not be cared for intensely, and love dwindles over time in most marriages unless BOTH husband and wife work hard to maintain it. The only utility that remains is from the money that husbands earn
• The utility of the alternative (splitting up and taking the children and living with old parents or independently) increases over time especially if women can access the money (they steal some and the rest is granted to them by courts as child/spousal support
• So why do husband’s hold out in the hope of reconciliation? Because most husbands go to work everyday and earn money for their family, so they can keep their wives happy and raise the kids to be honorable citizens. That is how they derive utility from the marriage and it does not decrease over time, in fact it increases over time as kids grow older, demands for money increase (kids have to go to college etc) and husbands work even harder to hold the family together
• Now when the wife initiates divorce husbands find themselves stuck doing the job to pay child/spousal support, hardly get to see their kids, and have of course lost their wife, have suffered at the hands of the skeptical society that thinks they must have done some wrong etc. So the utility of the situation they are in is really really low and they are unable to find an alternative with higher utility. This is what also leads to SUICIDES

Hence it is imperative to keep the flame of love going since the utility of love for the woman has to be kept high–that is the only hope for men. The courts cannot provide love and love cannot be bought. OR men have to find an alternative with higher utility which is made extremely hard by the family court system and is especially hard when kids are involved.

MAKE SENSE???? PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS

Many have seen this case in the media over the years and followed it. However we may not have looked at it in its entirety

This case fascinates me because it seems to be a classic example of the stupidity of parents (in this case it seems the stupidity was initiated by the mom) who cannot rise above the pettiness of their squibbles over the child in the best interests of the child. It is also an example where the parents started out very rationally and logically but then things went downhill from there. This case is also a classic example where the child was a football, treated as such not only by the parents but also by the courts. It also seems to be an example where as far as custody of daughter is concerned, a woman does not need to resort to false allegations, helping daughter grow up during puberty is enough. Finally i think this case clearly shows that parents should not expect the courts to sort out their family problems for them but try their best to work out solutions themselves. Unfortunately divorce destroys the mind of both parents and they cannot talk and reason rationally with each other any more. This case also shows that Indian courts and law do not give two hoots about joint custody, the LAWS NEED TO CHANGE. In this particular case an order of joint custody was challenged and overturned in a very short period of time and this violation of justice never came up in any of the SC proceedings at all.

I have attached the relevant judgements here but here is a summary that proves my above points

1. Marriage dissolved by mutual consent in 1999

2. Both parents agree to be joint guardians and custodians with child shifting alternate weeks between both parents — STARTED OUT REALLY WELL, NO FALSE ALLEGATIONS

3. Mommy soon after marries Anil Kumble and starts filing in family court for permanent custody and for taking child abroad, possibly for cricket matches — WHAT HAPPENED, AGREES IN APRIL 1999 FOR JOINT AND IN A FEW MONTHS FILES FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY??

4. Family court agrees for child being taken abroad with certain conditions but does not change custody decree

5. Mom challenges family court order in HC who gives custody for one year to mom and visitation to Dad Jahgirdar–THIS IS WHEN THINGS START GOING DOWNHILL…..DID THE HC REALIZE THE IMPLICATIONS OF MODIFYING THE CUSTODY ORDER ON DAD?

6. Jahgirdar and mom each file for sole custody in family court and appeals HC order in Supreme court

7. In April 2001, SC decides not to overturn HC judgement, orders family court to decide expeditiously in 4 months and orders family court to not be influenced by the HC order which SC was not convinced was in the best interests of the child–IF SO WHY DID SC NOT OVERTURN IT, DOES IT EXPECT THE FAMILY COURT TO OVERTURN THE JUDGEMENT OF A HIGHER COURT?? DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

8. Family court in April 2002 gives custody to dad and visitation rights to mommy

9. In dec 2002 HC on appeal by mom gave custody to mom and visitation rights to dad

10. Dad appealed in SC again, In Jan 2004, SC did not overrule HC and felt that since child was near puberty being with mom was best. It however said that when mommy traveled abroad, child should stay with father.

11. Since then father has been fighting for custody in family courts.

12. In 2007 something happened during a visitation which led to the daughter filing a police complaint against the dad Jahgirdar (dad claims it is a false complaint) apprehending a threat to her life. read the news article here

13. Further the wife got a stay from the HC against permanent custody proceedings initiated by father in family court on the grounds of this being a mischevious application designed to disturb custody of the child. read the news article here

SO WHERE WILL THIS END UP? WHO KNOWS? BUT SOON THE DAUGHTER WILL BE 18 WHEN SHE CAN DECIDE HOW HER LIFE SHOULD PROCEED. AFTER ALL SHE HAS BEEN EMBROILED IN THIS BULLSHIT BETWEEN HER PARENTS SINCE SHE WAS 6 YRS. OLD AND PERSONALLY I WOULD NOT BLAME HER IF SHE DECIDES TO KICK BOTH HER PARENTS TO THE CURB AND HEAD OFF ON HER OWN.

READ THE 2001 SC JUDGEMENT HERE

READ THE 2004 SC JUDGEMENT HERE