“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
Posted in activist movements, child custody, child rights, divorce, fathers, gender bias, legal articles, state and family
Tagged DEVAL PATRICK, EXTREMIST FEMINISTS, HOUSE BILL 1460, MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE, shared parenting
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
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
Posted in child custody, child rights, divorce, fatherless society, fathers, gender bias, indian child custody, judgements, parental child abduction
Tagged brainwashing, calcutta high court, child custody, indian supreme court, nalini chowdhuri, parental alienation, rana ray, US court order, webcam sessions with child
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