Parenting

Discuss all aspects of Parenting in the modern world.

Setting down bags...

We're home!

Post your parenting trials and tribulations, joys and questions, here.

2. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 9:49:44 AM

How do you wake up a teenager boy on a Saturday morning when he was up past 1 a.m. last night at a party?

Time-sensitive question.

3. PelleNilsson - 1/27/2001 9:58:34 AM

Trust Rosetta to go for the essential issues right from the start.

4. Shannon - 1/27/2001 10:01:40 AM

Hi Erin!

Personally, I'd love to find a way to make mine sleep later in the mornings. yawn

5. Erin R. - 1/27/2001 10:13:32 AM

Mine is still asleep with dad. Both are night owls who like to sleep in.

Shannon, you might try giving him benadryl before bed. Or even now--it's not too late.

Rosetta, might I suggest a bucket of ice water?

6. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 10:17:47 AM

Mose likes to sleep late on weekends and we let her, since she has to get up so early every weekday, and her dad and I have always been late sleepers. My philosophy on child-rearing and mornings, is teach them to use the remote and open the refrigerator as young as possible.

Is there a reason he needs to be up, Rose, are do you just want to irritate him? (perish the thought!)

7. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 10:23:55 AM

or

8. Shannon - 1/27/2001 10:49:31 AM

Well, mine got up this morning and filled the dog's water bowl with canteloupe and crackers. What were they thinking?

For the most part, they do OK without us in the mornings. But son is an extreme extrovert, and will wake us up just to talk to us. Not as much now that he can talk to his sister more.

9. Erin R. - 1/27/2001 10:56:36 AM

Shannon, my son *eats* the contents of the dog bowl if you allow him access.

10. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 10:58:12 AM

Haha...brings back memories Erin.

11. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 11:00:18 AM

Erin...I teach a College section on Parenting, am one, and have great interest in such. Thanks for hosting and introducing this topic.

12. Erin R. - 1/27/2001 11:01:39 AM

Please tell me he won't be doing this the morning we pack him off for college.

They should make baby food in the form of kibble.

13. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 11:03:12 AM

I have actually tasted dog food and I've had worse.

14. vw - 1/27/2001 11:21:47 AM

How do you wake up a teenager boy on a Saturday morning when he was up past 1 a.m. last night at a party?

My mother was an evil, evil woman. She would keep 7 or 8 big metal ball bearings in the freezer. If you didn’t get out of bed the third time she called you, she would pull back your covers and throw the cold ball bearings in there with you.

15. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 11:38:12 AM

Wow, that beats my mom banging a pot with the pot lid right next to my head...by a long shot. Brrrrrr.

16. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 12:03:24 PM

Let's make this thread a GUILT FREE ZONE where we can brag or moan w/o inhibition.

17. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 12:05:58 PM

Or diasagee with eachother.

18. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 12:06:18 PM

dis.

19. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 12:16:06 PM

Sorry...disagree...I am trying to interview College wannabes and I am jumping here between visits...I guess what I want to say is that hopefully we can disagree with each other on parenting practice w/o taking the difference personally...this is difficult to be sure.

20. CalGal - 1/27/2001 12:20:39 PM

Gosh. Spawn gets his own self up and it's the rare exception when he oversleeps. I am quite cranky when he oversleeps, as he did yesterday.

But I hear that the teen years turn into up all night and sleep all day. However, I plan on instituting a week night bed time for a lot more years.

When he was little, he always got up by himself and played or watched TV without waking me. Still does--I woke up this morning to find him snuggled on the couch, watching The Man Who Would Be King.

Although lately, I've been limiting his TV watching quite a bit. For years, he was able to get his school work done and make his own choices. But as his responsibilities increase (both in school and at home), I've found that I've really cut down on his hours.

21. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 12:27:16 PM

Congratulations on Spawn's SATs and getting into the program, Cal. Tell him congratulations! I know he'll love it.

Mose had a hard time adjusting her sleep, schoolwork, music, socializing, and all the stuff she wanted to do throughout her early teens. Now she has her own system and she's doing better than she ever has. Unless she starts really dragging around or getting sick, I let her set her own schedule, with a limit on weeknights. She's so busy right now I really don't see how she's doing it. I never could have done what I see many top high schoolers doing when I was their age.

The junior high age group a lot of adjustments to make, and the transition period is quite an experience--both good and bad. At least it certainly was for us.

22. Shannon - 1/27/2001 12:28:41 PM

The first time Q ever got up and made his own breakfast, he came running back to tell us. "Mommy and Daddy! I made cereal for me and Maia!"

He'd done fine. She was sitting there eating, his bowl was at the table, there was no mess. But he still had to wake us up. It's a mystery how we produced such an extrovert. He's not nearly as good at playing by himself as his sister, who's 2 years younger.

And here he is, back to talk to me again. He ran out of the room a couple of minutes ago, saying "I'll be back to talk to you some more in a minute."

23. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 12:37:31 PM

That's so sweet!

24. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 12:59:41 PM

Maybe it's important to him to keep in touch with you...trust me, there will come a day when you will look back on this trait fondly. (Not that you don't now...this was just a set-up for my punchline.)

Like when he is 38 and hasn't called in a week. :-)

25. CalGal - 1/27/2001 1:04:07 PM

That is really sweet.

Thanks, Arky! I told Spawn and he said thanks, too.

I wonder if Spawn will find his own activities. He used to, but now that I've put him in the small private school there aren't nearly as many opportunities to just sign up for things--he and I have to hunt them out. Still, he generally does his own reading of newspapers and other material to find things that interest him. Right now he's just switched schools so between school and music lessons, I've decided to hold on that for a month or two to see how things play out.

26. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 1:11:05 PM

All Mose is signed up for is band and taking piano, but that's very time consuming, because she's in jazz band and concert band. She had to give up choir, where she was doing well, to take jazz band. She's also in the honors program, so all her classes are advanced. She thinks they're easier than last year, but they're not, and I can see that she's studying more and more efficiently. Plus, we have the boyfriend, and they have to allot some time for eachother, and he's in both bands and is a golfer who also works in addition to giving some lessons at the country club, so between the two of them they do quite a bit of time juggling, which is better than other kinds of juggling, imo--I hope they stay this busy until he goes off to college this fall.

And his mom's one of those who has so much energy and is always inviting us over and sending us care packages of leftovers, etc. Makes me look like a slob of a parent in comparison.

27. Shannon - 1/27/2001 1:11:55 PM

Speaking of music lessons, what's a good age for kids to start piano lessons? I've heard it depends somewhat on the size of their hands.

I have no musical ablity. DH plays guitar and comes from a pretty musical family. I'm hoping the kids will inherit the music gene from his side. So far, Maia seems a bit more into music than Quentin. She started Kindermusik again today. DH said she got really into it. In the past, she's been kind of slow to start participating--she's a little reserved with strangers. But there were 3 or 4 kids she knew from previous classes, so I guess she felt more comfortable. And of course she's older now and more familiar with the whole process.

Our first attempt at a team sport starts soon. We've signed Q up for t-ball. I'm not sure how he'll like it--there might be too much standing around for his taste. But he likes the idea of baseball a lot, and he loves to play with his little bat and ball set. So we'll see how it goes. That starts in March.

28. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 1:22:47 PM

From my own experience it doesn't matter how young they are if they have a good teacher for their age...whenever they show interest and as long as they're progressing. Mine lost interest for a time, though, and we didn't let her quit soon enough, which was a mistake. She had the best teacher at the time I've ever seen, and I knew the young woman wouldn't be available long and was trying to get Mose to stick it out through the year to learn as much as she could from such a phenomenal teacher before she moved on to bigger and better places.

Mose continued to play and was always very involved in music, though, and has begged for the past year to get back in piano lessons, and she's 16 and doing beautifully. Her new teacher is thrilled to have her.

29. Shannon - 1/27/2001 1:28:12 PM

We don't have a piano currently. We'd both like to get one soon. I'm doubtful I could ever really learn to play, but DH could probably pick up a bit and would enjoy having it around.

30. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 1:36:05 PM

We've got a cool 100 year old upright which Mose thinks she's too good to play, but which sounds good, imo. She has a fairly expensive electric piano that's whatchamacallit-sensitive (some synapse which connects my brain to my vocabulary has sure been misfiring a lot lately), but is starting to prod for an acoustic piano. Ain't gonna happen, though.

If you can get someone to help you who knows what they're doing you can shop around and find a good used one pretty easily. The universities occasionally sell off their pianos and we get invitation cards for the sales in the mail, but those things have been played to death, I imagine. They sure look worn out in the practice studios on campus, anyway.

31. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 1:42:04 PM

Arky:

I love your upright and Mose plays so well....I was literally blown away that morning when she began to play. Glad she's taking lessons again and doing so well otherwise, too.

And I want to add, you are so lucky in the young man she chose...he is an extremely bright young man and so personable. Not to mention cute! But he should be, to match HER...

Well, I wish Keoni would get back from his appointment so we can leave and I won't have to look at my name in half a dozen threads as last poster....

32. CalGal - 1/27/2001 1:51:17 PM

Spawn signed up for trumpet of his own volition when he was in fourth grade. He has continued with it--even practicing, occasionally--to the point that he was first chair trumpet in a quite respectable school band as a seventh grader. When I pulled him out of public school his music teacher fortunately gave private lessons so we're continuing with him. There are a few marching band organizations around here--as well as one of the drum and bugle corps (the Vanguards). So we'll eventually sign him up for one of those. It's funny--Spawn has always been less than ideally behaved in school and sports--but in band, he was a leader and never got into any trouble.

As far as age goes, I think any age is appropriate to start, particularly if any interest is shown.

It's not that all talent or interest inevitably leads to fame and fortune, and I certainly don't think that kids should be pressured to perform. But it seems to me that children feel complimented if their parents notice a particular interest of theirs and gives them more opportunity to enjoy it. Also, it exposes them to a wider variety of teaching and learning methods.

33. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 1:55:13 PM

Why thank you Judith! I'll pass that along to the two of them!

34. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 2:00:39 PM

Cal,
I'm just hoping it doesn't lead to wanting to be a band director. I'll bite my tongue, but I won't like it a speck.

"It's funny--Spawn has always been less than ideally behaved in school and sports--but in band, he was a leader and never got into any trouble."

A great director and band program can be one of the most rewarding things for a student to participate in at school. The main thing I don't like about the program where Mose is is that they have a mentality similar to that of athletics--live it and breathe it, and everything else is secondary. And most of the kids agree 100%.

35. Shannon - 1/27/2001 2:02:36 PM

I totally agree that it's very useful and valuable to be exposed to different methods of learning. I don't expect I'd have been very talented if I had received any kind of music lessons. But I think it would have been a worthwhile thing to learn anyway. I think you certainly are a better listener and appreciate music more if you've had some kind of music training.

Well, speaking of music, we've got symphony tickets tonight, and my mom is having the kids stay over. So we're going to go bring them out to her house shortly. Then we'll go floor-shopping before we have to meet our friends for dinner before the concert. Talk to y'all later.

36. mgleason - 1/27/2001 2:14:56 PM

Thanks for your good wishes in the other thread, Arky.

The opportunity to perform as a youngster is one of those things for which I'll always be eternally grateful. I don't play a musical instrument, but I sang in good choirs beginning in grade school, and also acted in many productions, both in school and in community threater. As an adult, those skills aided me tremendously when it came to public speaking and leading training seminars. The self-confidence that comes from knowing how to put something across is invaluable.

37. Uzmakk - 1/27/2001 2:45:37 PM

How does one wake a sleeping teenager who was out at a party past 1:00 last night?

Speak softly and address him as"Mr. teenager, sir."

38. labwabbit - 1/27/2001 2:48:00 PM

Looking forward to grand-parenting!

Son and wife have been married for three years...both professionals...doesn't look good anytime soon.

Daughter getting married in May...both professionals...

Damn! Wanted to be young enough to not just enjoy(spoil)them, but at least have a freakin chance to keep up with them.

39. bubbaette - 1/27/2001 3:16:48 PM

Damn! Wanted to be young enough to not just enjoy(spoil)them, but at least have a freakin chance to keep up with them.

I highly recommend being an aunt for just such reasons.

40. labwabbit - 1/27/2001 3:50:53 PM

I highly recommend being an aunt for just such reasons.

That would be a little tough for me. I don't think they would buy the "Auntie" title the first time I am caught wandering around the yard with no shirt on.

(Besides I look really terrible in a two piece) ;->

41. bubbaette - 1/27/2001 4:06:42 PM

Same principle being an uncle -- wind em up and send em home.

42. labwabbit - 1/27/2001 4:12:58 PM

Heh-heh.

Ya..you know what they say about payback...


I miss that ever since moving here though. (Thought it would be impossible to miss the screaming, destructive forces, but...) It sure is nice to get the snail-mail and email letters from many of them on a steady basis. Just not the same as playing the wise-old, slightly eccentric, uncle in person though.

43. Rosetta Stone - 1/28/2001 9:20:41 AM

Next question: How do you get girls to stop calling your house looking for oldest son? We have three lines and the phones are almost always active.

Like the women of mote, these females are horny, aggressive and say outragious things to attractive boys.

For example: On a speakerphone late one evening when the house was shutting down for the night, mother overheard one 10th-grader female flirting with son (who isn't interested in her, he claims) telling him what she was wearing.

Or, to be exact, what she wasn't wearing.

I blame a lot of this on cable's MTV programming, something that we have now dropped for the school year.

44. Erin R. - 1/28/2001 10:32:35 AM

I have a cute son, too, and as he gets older, I'm sure he'll only get cuter.

So I'll be listening in on this response.

45. CalGal - 1/28/2001 11:09:42 AM

It's odd how the conflicting portrayals teen girls as depressed, mopey, tragic heroines suffering from self-esteem and man-hungry whores regularly pop up in media and parenting books.

If my son were receiving calls from girls and saying, regularly, that he wasn't interested, I would inform him that I disliked liars, and I find it most unlikely that a straight teenage boy would not be interested in girls calling the house. If he truly is uninterested, then I'd tell him I'd expect him to tell the girl so in no uncertain terms and then any time she called the house again he would hang up on her. I would tell him to give me the names of the girl(s) so that I could make sure that he wasn't pestered, poor sweetie, and inform all callers with that name that my son couldn't stand them.

Since I suspect he would not want this and would say so, I would then kick his ass around for giving mixed messages. Most probably, he doesn't like the girl but does like the attention and is using the girl for attention in the same way that he will eventually try and use her for sex.

It is difficult to know how to address this, since I can hardly blame my kid for taking advantage of what is freely offered--even if I loathe the girls (and eventual women) who find this way of achieving status to be acceptable. But I will insist that it be properly presented: he's using them, and he won't be allowed to present himself as just a helpless victims of their "aggression". If he really dislikes it, I'll show him how to stop it. If he is using the girls, then I'll make damn sure he says so--and to the extent possible, I'll do my best to ensure that he learns how to choose for himself, rather than passively accept the attentions of those chicks who decide to pursue him.

46. CalGal - 1/28/2001 11:12:11 AM

Mind you, I find it incredibly improbable that Stone's son suffers from this problem--presumably, Stone copied his post from a Dear Abby.

47. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 11:14:58 AM

Some parenting questions/thoughts I have...

1) How important are we?

2) What are our goals and dreams for our children and how do they relate to how we parent?

3) Do we admit to ourselves what we really care about...our children surely find out no matter what we say.

4) Isn't it interesting that parenting strategies(eg authoritative, authoritarian, permissive) and techniques vary so widely, and that so many of us are convinced that we know what we are doing.

5) How does the intellectual component of parenting compare with the emotional.

6) Children have long memories for our mistakes, but seem to forgive easier than we do.

7) Our mistakes can make us better parents if we admit them to ourselves.

8) The talents of our children are right in front of us if we see their world thru eyes other than our own.

9) Do we really want our children to be independent...most parent-child conflict grows out of control issues.

10) Are we consistent about our "buttons", and do we have too few or too many?

110 Do we like our children...even when they are becoming (teens) and have become adults. They know the answer to this question.

48. Erin R. - 1/28/2001 11:18:36 AM

My brother is tall and handsome, and girls have always pursued him. But he has never pursued girls, and now he is with one of the silliest, childish women I have ever met. But then, he was pretty childish for most of his life, and has only started to grow up within the past year.

I hate to say this, but he can do better. I hope he dumps her.

49. Erin R. - 1/28/2001 11:24:26 AM

I want my son to use the gifts he so obviously has. Intelligence, an interest in music are so apparent even though he is only 16 months old. So I'll probably do some pushing.

The rest, I'll have to get back to you later.

50. ycmeehan - 1/28/2001 12:16:24 PM

How important are we?

IMHO, very important since relationship between parent and child is more than likely to promote certain attitudes on his part towards others.

51. joezan - 1/28/2001 12:34:44 PM

PP:

Good questions.

As far as parenting styles, I think the parents need to decide early (of course), and then be very consistent. But the choice cannot be arbitrary. You have to take your cues from your children -not from books, how you were raised, how you see your friends' relationships with their little monsters (or angels), etc.

Our older daughter has been very easy going from the start, and we have had absolutely no problems being permissive with her. She's never - not once - disappointed us. She's only 9, and will, of course, disappoint us in the future. The trick will be not over-reacting when that happens.

You always wonder, of course, if you are doing the right thing - raising them "correctly". Of all her accomplishments, small and large, though, the most affirming event my wife and I have experienced in this regard occurred a few weeks ago, when two kids on her bus failed to go straight home from the bus stop, not showing up till almost an hour later, which started a chain of events that threatened to be blown out of all proportion - newspapers and what-not. Apparently, these two had cooked up a story with several other kids which put the blame solely on the busdriver, a new driver who had unfortunately ditched the bus in a snow storm a week earlier, and so was an easy target.

The next day, the principal of the school called our house asking to speak to our daughter. Why our daughter?, my wife asked before agreeing. Because she is the most honest, sensible kid he knows, he replied, as if that should have been obvious.

52. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 1:01:43 PM

That is such a compliment not only to your daughter, Joezan, but to you and your wife.


I agree that the techniques of raising a child depend on so many variables, one can never know if they are doing it "right" at the time. The things I did in raising my son up to the age of 10 were drastically different than what I did thereafter because things had been changed...he was no longer an only child who was bright and precocious and fun-loving and daring but he was all those things and a kid with cancer.

The discipline problems with a child who is presumed to be dying are quite different from those of a kid who has his entire life ahead of him. Add to this a young mother who is practically insane from having to deal with this when prior to it, the only difficult decisions were shall we let him wear his hair longer and get him a motocross bike for his birthday? But you muddle through and science is kind and he is suddenly a grown man and a wonderfully normal one at that.

Psych Prof, I think your questions were great and gave us all food for thought.

53. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 1:17:39 PM

Judith,
Your posts on your son, especially coming through it all and looking back, offer a great perspective. I'm so glad things worked out the way they did.

We went to the all-region concert yesterday. Mose was in 2nd band and her b/f was in 1st band, and Bob noted how nice it was that both of them had all of their grandparents healthy and in attendance. Kind of nice to see sort of a chain of parenting at work there. Afterward we went to b/f's house and had a great time with both his sets of grandparents, and as always, his mother cooked a great meal then sent us home with a dish of schnitzel and rice.

54. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 1:37:12 PM

Arky:

Thanks...I think I told you about finding my journal from that time recently and how surprizing it was to read through it. I do feel lucky, both for how things turned out for him and that I have retained what amount of sanity I have !

(did you get my e-mail yesterday about the dates?)

55. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 1:46:57 PM

A very nice thread here. As PP observes, it is very interesting (and thought-provoking) to see the different styles of parenting that people display.

My own child, a daughter whom I may as well refer to as Eve, as she began a new world for me, is now 9, in 4th grade and beginning, under the influence of MTV et al, to take on, with definite intent, what she sees as "teen-age" affectations, most of which involve "looking sexy" (though she is still reluctant to acknowledge sex). This is somewhat distressing, but I keep a light hand on the situation (as I do on most), occasionally remarking on the fraudulent, market-oriented way that the stuff is presented to her. My general intention is to be seen to be on top of the scene but not regulating her behavior unless and until I think I see something dangerous, physically and morally, and then tell her why I think so, and legislating as little as possible (though of course we have school-night bedtimes, and homework before TV regs, etc). I've always done this with more childish matters, like eating habits and crossing streets, etc, and she's always been happy to think and take an intelligent course of action. So far so good, in other words.

56. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 1:47:11 PM

I respond of course to my own upbringing, which, while not inhumane at all, was badly screwed up, in the weird combination of both spoiling and over-disciplining. The son of two very young parents (for their scene anyway; 24 & 20) who had never lived on their own before marriage, I was to some extent a spoiled-rich-kid type kid, but I was also raised in good part by rigid, formalist forces—namely, frozen in time, all-boy, all-elite-driven schools, and a most unfortunate Victorian-style nanny. Naturally or not (for many of my cohort simply became the bond salesmen they were expected to become), I became a neurotic and unhappy teen, until about the age of 35, when I was finally able to make my own life.

So that informs my essentially permissive parenting style (though the old world reappears in what I think is (ironically) a salubrious way, in a tendency to watch very carefully and worry, perhaps too much). Anyway, the two things I want to do are, 1) let her lead, and 2) in making sure she doesn't walk over any cliffs, try to be persuasive rather than demanding. One thing I hope this policy may lead to is that if my worry-wart old-fart persona takes over at some point, and I flatly refuse something—as I feel certain I'll have to do at some point—in terms more suited to my old world than her new one, that she'll be impressed enough by the display to rethink whatever the issue is, on the grounds that having never denied her about much else, this must be a big deal indeed, etc.

57. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 1:49:24 PM

Juditha, you indeed deserve congratulations, both on good fortune (the outcome) and, it seems, on your capacity to deal well with bad.

58. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 1:51:00 PM

Rosetta, I'd be inclined to say that if there's nothing special happening, there's no reason to get the kid up at all. Let him sleep, what do you care?

59. CalGal - 1/28/2001 1:52:17 PM

Judith,

Your story, as always, reminds me how very much of my parenting decisions are premised on the great good fortune I have in having a healthy child. And I then take a moment to thank genes and luck, along with any particular god(s) and the cosmos, for that fortune.

60. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 1:52:40 PM

Arky, your kids sound great (as does your parenting style, imo). (BTW, does "schnitzel" mean, in definition, "breaded veal cutlets"?)

61. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 1:57:16 PM

Judith...difficult for me to put in words the respect I have for you.

62. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 1:58:27 PM

Cal, I agree with your #59, enthusiastically. My most important piece of parental "preaching"—almost the only one, really—is that ingratitude for our remarkable good fortune, in being a healthy happy family in relatively care-free circumstances—constitutes a potentially disastrous moral error. Disastrous to one's own mental health, I mean, more or less. (And, too, inattention can lose these gifts from the cosmos.)

63. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 1:59:49 PM

I think I would have been a terrible parent of an only child. Having 5 kids, very close in age, made the task of parenting very much easier in some respects. They provided a lot of company and stimulation for each other which I would have found difficult to provide.

My style was largely "hands off". The kids essentially set their own boundaries and I was perhaps fortunate that we were all comfortable with the limits they set for themselves. They're all adults now and I can honestly say that during their childhood and teenage years I never worried for one moment about what they might be doing, since I never expected them to be doing anything that I needed to be worried about, and that turned out to be the case.

64. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 2:01:52 PM

Judith,

You have my great admiration.

65. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 2:10:39 PM

Ah, SnowOwl, the consummation devoutly to be wished...! Congrats.

66. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 2:15:01 PM

SnowOwl

I'm supposed to do a write-up on the connection between economics and the number of children. I won't bore you with the details. Why did you decide to have as many as five kids? How would you describe the underlying cost/benefit analysis (there is always one)?

This is nosey - no problems if you don't answer.

67. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 2:20:42 PM

Thank you all for your nice words...I think you'd all be surprised at what you are able to do when you have no choice but to do it, though.

68. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 2:21:36 PM

FOR PELLE

69. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 2:43:41 PM

Thanks CM! I only have one, though. The other's her boyfriend. I'm flawed as a parent, no doubt, and there are things about my personality that aren't very conducive to parenting; but Mose has turned out well in spite of me, and I do love her dearly. I, like most parents--including mine, I try to remember--do the best I can. Her dad is great, and that helps a bunch.

As for schnitzel (assuming I'm spelling it right) in this case is pork tenderloin filled with ham, lightly breaded, and cooked in a mushroom gravy, served with rice.

Judith,
I remember you telling me about the journal, and I think it's fascinating how it was gone so long and reappeared like it did. If you had found it ten or fifteen years earlier, would the effect of reading it have been the same, I wonder?

And I did get your email. I'll get back with you on specifics, but the end of Feb looks best for us at the moment, if it's good for y'all.

As far as boundaries, etc, I have one main concern about Mose now that she's a teen besides her general health, accidents, etc, and that's driving. Of all the kids I've taught, that by far has been the most dangerous activity (occasionally combined with drugs and alcohol--I can only think of two instances offhand--but also very often not), and where we live it makes me particularly nervous. The big question is when is she really ready, and I don't feel good about it right now. Her b/f, thank goodness, is an excellent driver.

70. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 2:51:40 PM

Arky:

Remember what Keoni said when Bob asked him what age he thought was good for teenagers to start driving? "Never"

I can understand your concerns quite well after driving those roads for a couple of days. And kids feel so invincible behind the wheel. But Mose is sensible and she has good role models...

71. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 2:53:09 PM

Pelle,

I'm not sure there was any real decision involved. I come from a fairly small family myself. I have 2 sisters, but the youngest is the same age as my oldest son so essentially I grew up with only one sister. My husband is one of 7 and he was not keen on having a large family himself. I saw only advantages in having a lot of kids while he saw only disadvantages. In the end we compromised. I wanted more than we had, he wanted fewer.

Having so many kids has kept us poor. Although none of them has been demanding in terms of wanting material possessions there is a cost in simply raising them. They have all been to University and continued on to higher degrees (apart from one). This means that they've remained at home for longer than they would have done had they simply left school and begun work, or even finished Uni after completing a bachelors degree. While they've been largely self-supporting in terms of paying for their own scholastic costs the fact that they remained at home as young adults has certainly been a drain on our limited family resources.

If we had not had such a big family we wouldn't have remained living where we are. Our area is fairly depressed and there's not much opportunity for young people here. My husband was at sea for much of the kids' growing up and we could have lived anywhere during that period. However, the logistics of moving them all rather put me off, together with the fact that there were educational benefits to remaining where we are. Our city is renowned for its schools and its University. If we'd moved it might have been more difficult for the kids to get the same excellent educational opportunities they had here. Moving elsewhere now would provide my husband with more business opportunities but the cost is prohibitive. What we would get for our house if we sold it would not even pay the deposit on a house in more populated northern centres.

72. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 2:53:32 PM

One of the many benefits of raising a kid in Manhattan is, no teen driving worries.

73. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 2:57:53 PM

Arky,

One of the things which surprised me about my kids was that they never showed any interest in driving. Even now only 2 of them have licences. It's been relatively easy for them here, as we live in a very small city with a reasonable public transport system although mostly they've always walked everywhere.

74. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 2:59:14 PM

"But Mose is sensible and she has good role models..."

Heh heh. You didn't ever ride in a vehicle with me driving while y'all were here, did you?

Seriously, it's the experience. She needs to be driving more with us in the car, but she drives by herself in town all the time. She keeps her car at my parents' house.

75. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:03:19 PM

Snow,
(Very interesting posts, btw)
We live 15 miles from town and currently our daily commute totals about 100 miles per day, so driving for her is a necessity. She's not really interested in it either, and that's a big part of the problem, because she's not practicing enough for me to feel comfortable with her driving alone.

76. CalGal - 1/28/2001 3:03:50 PM

My ex informed me that I was not allowed to teach Spawn to drive. I responded that, unfortunately, I probably already had. Spawn thinks my driving is a hoot.

An interesting dynamic on teen driving--there is little doubt that it is one of the most dangerous activities a teen can do. There are all sorts of restrictions proposed on teen driving these days, at least in California--they can only drive certain hours, to and from work, etc. All almost completely unworkable. These ideas have a fair amount of popular support.

But there is no support for what would seem to be the obvious solution--up the driving age to 18. Why? Parental convenience.

77. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:03:54 PM

That is the commute which involves going the opposite direction from where we work to take her to school and pick her up every day.

78. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 3:08:31 PM

That is a real problems, arky. I'm not sure how I would have felt if my kids had wanted to drive. I wouldn't have stopped them, obviously, but I would never have been comfortable with it. Even now I detest being a passenger in a car. It's a control issue with me, I hate feeling that I'm at the mercy of somebody else.

Since it is important that your daughter does drive though I guess there's nothing you can do but encourage her to practise so you feel more comfortable about her driving long distances by herself.

79. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:10:11 PM

I agree, Cal, in fact here kids can get a "hardship" license fairly easily as soon as they turn 15. Of course in the towns and in the country a number of kids have been driving since way younger than that.

One of the worst tragedies in my little world involved a 13 year old who had been driving by herself some, left in the car, and head-on collided with a truck with a teen she knew, the report being that one or both vehicles were acting crazy and playing "chicken" in the middle of the afternoon on an isolated road. She had passengers who were thrown from the vehicle, but for her it was instant death. She was an only child, and the devastation her family suffered was very hard to witness, and it was too late and pointlessly cruel to state the obvious.

80. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:12:06 PM

"Even now I detest being a passenger in a car. It's a control issue with me, I hate feeling that I'm at the mercy of somebody else."

You sound exactly like Bob.

81. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:12:49 PM

It was an absolute that my sons drive, drive early, and drive well. Their activites, at 16 and following, made that the case. It was scarie, and I sat up many a night waiting for the lights in the driveway.

82. CalGal - 1/28/2001 3:14:35 PM

PP asked about control. I don't think there is any doubt that many parental/kid conflicts involve control. This has never been one of my particular hot buttons--temper and consistency remain the parental problems that plague me.

I have found that giving my son a great deal of authority and autonomy (which is the flip side of giving up control) has allowed him to use his creativity in ways that I hadn't expected. He also quite often solves unexpected problems independently even when he shouldn't--there are many times when the answer to a particular problem was "Call Mom or Dad" but he will instead solve it himself and put a lot of pressure on himself in the event that his solution has problems. And of course, his independence has resulted in a different set of priorities--he decided that schoolwork wasn't all that important, for example, and got the chain very firmly yanked.

I have never been a lax parent, but I have found that while I could rely on his decision-making priorities as a 9 and 10 year old, I actually have to pull back on the relative scope of his autonomy now that he is a teenager. It's not a matter of control, it's just that there are so many more opportunities, so much more temptation, so much less reward for doing the right thing.

As a result, giving Spawn the same authority over his own life that he'd had at an earlier age produced some real problems that we are now in the process of fixing. He is understanding (as are we) that we have to give him less control until he can prove that he's capable of the far greater responsibility involved in just being a teenager. It has been an interesting lesson, albeit a stressful one.

83. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:19:34 PM

PP,
Yes, that's a big part of it too. When kids are involved in practices, ballgames, etc, it's hard to juggle schedules to get them where they need to be. I used to hate to get home after working all day, then have to turn right around and go to town for something Mose had to be there for, say at 5:00 until 7:00, and have no place in town to roost besides my parents'. I love them, but after working all day I just want to be home, but there's not enough time to go home and relax and then drive back, and we'd always have to eat out.... We could have lived in town, I guess, but we love where we are and we're the third generation here, and it seems crazy to trade a few years of inconvenience for a lifetime of living where you don't want to be.

84. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:24:21 PM

"As a result, giving Spawn the same authority over his own life that he'd had at an earlier age produced some real problems that we are now in the process of fixing. He is understanding (as are we) that we have to give him less control until he can prove that he's capable of the far greater responsibility involved in just being a teenager. It has been an interesting lesson, albeit a stressful one."

And it seems to hit fairly suddenly, catching you off-guard when you've gotten used to things being a certain way. Not enough can be said, imo, about that strange transition period between childhood and teenage.

85. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:25:29 PM

Arky...more than that to me. At 16, no more than two years were available to prepare for the leaving of home. I always knew that once my boys heard the siren of the world, they would be off and running. I saw it as my job to prepare them best I could. We talk everyday on the phone, but they have now left the nest as I knew they would...

86. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:27:56 PM

Very true.

87. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:32:42 PM

Quite so...if they had to return to their bedroom after college, they told me they would die. I see them at least once a month, but it is not enough for me or MsPP. Thank God for the cell phone and liberal corporate policy regarding such...we have a personal sprint number that usetabe outa sight.

88. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:38:36 PM

One(22) lives in Manhatten...maybe he and CMBoyce, with much in common, can share a brew somtime.

89. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 3:39:23 PM

SnowOwl

Thank you very much. Economics is a heartless science. It looks at the decision to have children in two ways. The first is as a form of consumtion. Because having children has a cost the family must cut down on other items of consumption. This was clearly your choice. The second is as investment, when the family needs the children first as labour and then as an old-age insurance. This is moot in the West but still valid in many developing countries.

The time for your trip to Sweden draws near. Are you going to spend any time in Stockholm? What about meeting for a beer or something?

90. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 3:42:50 PM

One of the things I found interesting about my family was the difference in the length of childhood experienced by my kids, when compared with mine and my husband's.

We were both raised in working-class homes. The expectation amongst our peer groups was that we would all leave school and begin work as soon as we were able. Therefore, when I began high school I knew I was only going to be there for 3 years, until I reached school leaving age. High school for me was just a fill-in until I could start work. Once I was working and earning an adult wage (at 15), I became completely autonomous. I could leave home whenever I wanted to, I was not reliant on my parents for anything.

In contrast, my kids always assumed that they would stay at school and attend University. School for them was preparatory to further education. As as result they remained financially dependent on us for a lot longer than we did on our parents.

This is all a rather garbled way of saying that I think young people today have an extended childhood compared to what some (most??) of us experienced in the past, and this might contribute to the tensions that some families experience, when kids begin to extend their wings in a setting where parents still feel as though they should have total control.

91. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:46:18 PM

Snowowl...that problem can be minimized by not using money as a controling agent...the giving of financial assistance can be a gift with no strings attached.

92. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 3:50:22 PM

Pelle,

The idea of kids as labour is not quite so moot in the west as you might think. My husband was expected to leave school and begin contributing to the family finances, despite being "tagged" by the school as scholarship material and a person who could go on to do very well at Uni.

I am, of course, hoping that my kids will keep me in my old age. So far I'm not doing very well on that score. I'm still keeping 3 of them, and old age is rapidly advancing towards me.

I'd love to have a beer with you. We're not in Stockholm for long, but I should be able to arrange a meeting at a mutually convenient time. I'll e you and we'll see if we can organise something.

93. concerned - 1/28/2001 3:52:21 PM

Re.90 -

Where could a '15 year old' get an adult wage (meaning non-minimum)? When I was trying to find work during high school, minimum wage was all I could find, unless I wanted to sign up for a union, which I wasn't interested in because I definitely intended to go to college.

94. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 3:53:43 PM

PP,

I agree, but I don't think that's the case in a lot of families. I know too many who believe that while they control the purse-strings they also control the recipients.

95. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:55:05 PM

Snowowl...the price of such control is very high.

96. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 3:56:18 PM

I'm not an American, concerned. I also suspect I'm a lot older than you. In my country we did not have such a thing as a "youth" wage. Any worker doing a particular job was paid the going rate for that job. Unfortunately, the world has caught up with us and we now do have youth wages and the like. This has led to a host of problems but this is not the thread to discuss them.

97. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 4:08:54 PM

SnowOwl

Excellent. I'm pretty much in control of my working hours from lunchtime onwards so there shouldn't be any difficulties.

98. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 4:11:02 PM

I can't see your e address anywhere, Pelle. You can reach me at moonbeam@es.co.nz if you like.

99. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 4:16:52 PM

Off topic: Isn't the Internet great? What are the odds that 2 people from opposite ends of the earth can plan to have a drink together after conversing back and forth for a year or so and plan it in a matter of minutes like this?

I'm in awe of how this medium has opened part of the world to me and introduced me to so many interesting people in that world...

100. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 4:18:15 PM

SnowOwl

What, what, what? I'm on the e-mail list available in the Cafe. But to save you the trouble click here.

101. concerned - 1/28/2001 4:18:40 PM

When is everybody going to get broadband, or better yet, fiber to the curb? That's when I'll start being 'impressed'. Off topic, but....

102. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 4:21:58 PM

Concerned:

You're impressed with the technical, I with the personal...takes both kinds. :-)

103. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 4:34:44 PM

Judith

I agree completely.

104. jonesatlaw - 1/28/2001 5:40:25 PM

What a great thread! So much to say but much is already said better than I could.

On driving though, I would offer my mother's example. One of her finest moments as a parent was taking me out when I was 15 on a saturday afternoon to a local school parking lot during the a snow storm. She had me drive in the snow across the huge lot, telling me to get the car up to 25 mph. Then she had me stop as fast as I could. I slid all over hell's half-acre. She then told me to modulate the brake so as not to lock up the front wheels. We repeated the process several times until I could stop in a relatively straight line. She also had me try to accelerate as fast as I could on the snow and ice, and taught me to steer out of a skid. Finally she had me try to drive through around corners in the parking lot without skidding. Mind you I had not been out on the road more than 3 or 4 times on dry pavement before this. It was scary going into that first skid and I always respected road conditions when I was a teen driver thereafter (still do). Finally I should let you know that my mother is one of the worst white knuckle drivers and "co-pilots" in the world. Yet she remained very calm during our lesson. Afterwards she had a bit more confidence in my driving and judgment. I certainly had a lesson that they only talk about in driver's ed. I heartily reccomend this lesson, as the same things you do in snow are what you need to remember in skids on dry pavement and it is in effect a slow motion lesson in emergency manuevering. Mom certainly rose to the occaision. Dad later taught me how to drive on gravel and mud, and bootlegger turns, but much later. Mom still doesn't know about the handbrake turns.

105. jonesatlaw - 1/28/2001 5:42:30 PM

I didn't mention it, but the parking lot was absolutely empty. Important detail.

106. Uzmakk - 1/28/2001 7:51:27 PM

I have just read most of this thread. Very enjoyable. Look forward to putting in my two cents soon.

107. labwabbit - 1/29/2001 1:19:15 PM

When all has been said and done, and when looking back at all the "events" or "non-events" that occurred with respect to driving, education, and parenting...we realize,(evermore so everyday that passes), how extremely fortunate we were. Although it wasn't apparent at all as young parents, we are truly amazed now at how much faith we had in the next day. And as a result did not lose our sanity over how many things could have gone wrong in an instant that could have changed everything.

108. MsIvoryTower - 1/29/2001 2:49:53 PM

This is a good thread to find upon returning to "the fray" a/k/a the mote.

With respect to sleeping issues; my daughter, now 13, is free to sleep as long as she likes on the weekends. I simply cannot get worked up about this issue. Perhaps that's because I'm a single parent, and one of my mottos is to pick and choose my battles very carefully.

However, there has been a fairly noticable change in her over the last year, as she's officially entered the teen years. She's less willing to share all her thoughts, is frequently more pensive, and has noticable mood swings (where she gets angry at friends and then not, etc.).

It should be an interesting next few years.


But when she eventually leaves the nest....

ah, that will be a hard day, I know.

109. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 2:55:04 PM

Well Missie...I am told that all paths lead back to where they started...with planes, trains, and cell phones we will survive...most of the seniors I teach go home after they graduate, in any case. Good to see you here...

110. MsIvoryTower - 1/29/2001 2:57:50 PM

PP

Yes, I expect she'll be back for many years after leaving the nest, but as you said in an earlier post, it isn't the same. Still, raising a child to be independent, confident and capable is the what we aspire to, isn't it.

A child well raised is a painful joy.

111. cmboyce - 1/29/2001 3:04:50 PM

PP, I'd be delighted to meet your son, and, of course, you. Perhaps some time when you're down for a visit...

112. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 3:05:52 PM

CM...good.

113. labwabbit - 1/29/2001 3:06:53 PM

A child well raised is a painful joy

No better proof of the truth in those words, than saying I hear that and really understanding it.

114. cmboyce - 1/29/2001 3:08:28 PM

jonesatlaw, great driving lesson! Great mother! (And is a bootlegger turn the same as a handbrake turn, where one turns 180 degrees, at speed? And how do you do it?)

(Motie parents: Regard this as on topic in the sense that most of us, unlike Jones' father, would not dream of instructing a teenage boy in this matter. (Compare and contrast.))

115. PelleNilsson - 1/29/2001 3:11:16 PM

cm

Start the turn. Pull the handbrake. Great fun. But to achieve exactly 180 degrees required practice, in particular on ice. Easier on gravel.

116. janjon - 1/29/2001 3:11:48 PM

Too soon to tell, but I think having a child (our oldest, girl now 14) go off to boarding school will help in terms of the ultimate empty nest syndrome. Even though both my wife and I had done it, we saw or remembered the separation from the child's point of view, not the parents'. We thus thought we were able to help prepare our daughter for the beginning homesickness, even possibly the feeling of abandonment (even though our daughter had pushed to go away for school.) We weren't really prepared for our own feelings of loss.

What I find most troublesome is the feeling that we will indeed be missing more than we want of her most complex growing up years and that as a consequence we won't be able to be of as much help etc. So far, none of that seems to be coming true, in part because of the modern boarding school schedules - the kids are home a lot more often and for longer periods.

At any rate, she has adjusted well and loves school. And, our son (five years younger) seems to be thriving due perhaps to the more or less undivided attention he now receives.

117. theDiva - 1/29/2001 3:34:49 PM

jan

I've never known anyone who's sent his child to boarding school...well, wait, Dusty's son goes to one...anyway, do you mind if I ask, what do you see as the advantage to your daughter going away for high school? Did you and your wife decide to do it simply because you'd both been, or was something else driving the decision? IAC, I can imagine that it was very painful to adjust to her absence.

118. CalGal - 1/29/2001 3:42:59 PM

I mean no offense to anyone when I say I would keel over dead before I would send Spawn away to school and stay put. If it was clearly going to do him worlds of good, then I would move closer. Part of it is because I do have so few years left with him as a child before he goes off to be his independent self, and I don't want to lose any of those years. But part of it is also what JanJon mentions--if you aren't around, do you have the same opportunity to share in their life?

Jones,

I already teach Spawn about turning into a skid and not to use the brakes suddenly--something that he has seen me do more than once. I reinforce quite often the fact that braking is rarely the best thing to do and almost never is it the only thing to do. I like the idea of taking him to a parking lot in the rain.

119. janjon - 1/29/2001 3:46:47 PM

Diva - it was a complex number of reasons and I am sure that even trying to articulate or rank them will end up being somewhat distorting. Certainly we would not have done it (even though both my wife and I had ended up enjoying our own experiences) if our daughter hadn't been so emphatic that she wanted to. Part of that certainly stemmed from our decision to move back to the City. She knew that that would mean one of the private day schools here in the City with a whole new set of friends, etc. She also, by osmosis more than our having been emphatic or purposeful about it, had obviously picked up on the fact that her mother and I had enjoyed it. Also, a number of her friends - both where we then lived and through other circles - were going on to boarding school (although none are in fact at hers), so it didn't seem like such an alien thing to her.

We really didn't want to do it, for our own concerns and desires not to miss out on these years. But, just like we each had and continued to have with our own parents, our relationship with our daughter was (and is - subject to the teenage bumps and occasional theatrics) a good one.

Who in hell knows what age 15 and up will bring. Right now, it all looks like it was a good decision by and for all - including, as I said above, for our nine year old son who is finally beginning to snap out of his prolonged "dreamy" phase.

120. PelleNilsson - 1/29/2001 3:56:22 PM

CalGal

Don't be offended. Have you thought the thought that Spawn may not become independent?

121. CalGal - 1/29/2001 3:59:21 PM

Spawn already is independent. I'm not a clingy mother, and raising a child who is capable of going off into the world and being his own person is, after all, much of the point.

Janjon,

Moves during the teen years are tough.

122. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:01:58 PM

As I said before, most of the seniors I teach in college report to me that they will go home after graduation, try to live in the town or general area they are from, and wish to be close to their parents/home. They indicate their mother will help raise their children...and they are quite sure of this path.

123. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:04:35 PM

PsychProf. That seems like a remarkably parochial attitude those seniors have (especially to the point of already believing that their mothers will help raise their own children). I would have thought the desire to stretch one's wings would be a lot more prevalent.

124. CalGal - 1/29/2001 4:06:58 PM

My kid better not expect me to help raise his kids. Give me a break. What a bunch of sexist slobs you've taught, Prof.

125. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:07:18 PM

Jan

Interesting. Basically she's grown up in a home where it's an accepted part of life, so she expects and accepts that it will be so for her. Yes?

Prof

Now that is amazing, especially since so many women of mother's generation (i.e., dames only a bit older than I) work outside the home. Or is this a socio-economic class different than the one in which I live?

126. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:07:37 PM

JanJon...me too. It is even worse than I am saying...last week I asked my Intro students(mostly freshman) how many wished to live and work in the town they "grew up" in....over eighty percent said they did.

127. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:09:13 PM

Deev...these are middle/upper middle class students...75% women.

128. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:11:45 PM

My God. I understand the desire to be near home, now, but at that age I wanted and fully intended to cut the strings and be well and truly out on my own with no help whatsoever from my folks. It was what they expected of us.

129. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:12:02 PM

Diva. Yes, I think that is definitely a large part of it. It certainly wasn't seen by her as any form of "punishment" or rejection. And, although she already was rather independent in many ways (she is a self-starter and if anything obsessed a bit too much about being timely in homework, etc.), we can see that being away has attenuated that. (I am very glad, however, that we have a ritual of talking with her at least every other day. I also am glad that - unlike when I was away - the schools encourage this. I also am glad that her school is now co-ed. I am glad about a lot of things.)

130. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:13:03 PM

So overall it's been positive...that's great. How far away is she?

131. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:14:50 PM

about 5-6 hours, depending.

132. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 4:15:08 PM

PP:

Are these students implying their mothers will care for their children while they and their spouses work or that they are going to end up single parents whose moms will take over?

133. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:16:18 PM

PsychProf - are these kids who for the most part come from families where the parents didn't go away to college? Are these kids who are going to go on to graduate school?

134. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:19:26 PM

Judith...they all assume only others get divorced. Their mother/parents will care for their child while they and their spouse work. Some say they will be rich and just stay home, while others indicate they will hire a "Nannie" or have a "friend" sit with the kids. Very few say they will do it themseves, make whatever sacrifice is needed, or use Day Care. They are generally pissed at me for even asking.

135. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:20:31 PM

BTW, I ask in the context of the Child Development section of Intro, not at the personal level. They are free to say nothing.

136. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:20:32 PM

Jan

Wow. I have to say, I admire parents who are able to let go in this way. It has always been a struggle for me...perhaps because she has been my only. It drives her crazy, too...I find it hard to send her on a field trip without me as chaperone. Nuts, I know. I have tried to pull back as much as possible, not wanting her to become clingy or dependent, and I think we've done fairly well. She is a fearless and feisty little thing.

137. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:21:41 PM

Prof

Astonishing, the shift in attitudes. I wonder why they don't see themselves as doing their own childrearing. How very odd.

138. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:22:18 PM

JanJon...some are first gen college students, some aren't...since most graduate schools cost bucks, living at home is the option of choice.

139. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 4:22:31 PM

PP:

Very few say they will do it themseves, make whatever sacrifice is needed, or use Day Care. They are generally pissed at me for even asking.

I don't care if these are college students...they are idiots.

140. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:25:49 PM

Diva - the thought that it would end up being helpful for our son (which so far it has) didn't hurt. Also, peeling the grape a bit more, my wife/their mother has a very demanding career and travels often. In short, the kids are used to having neither of us there from time to time, or one or the other of us gone. Multitasking could have been invented in our household.

141. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:27:04 PM

So your son is away at school as well?

142. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:27:08 PM

Judith...my job is to get them to think about what they say...frankly, they have other events on their mind, and I understand that. But...they can drink and fuck on their own time...my class is for "cogitatin".

143. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:33:17 PM

I have thought for a while now that ages 18-22 are now a hell of a lot younger than used to be, if you know what I mean. My unmarried niece/goddaughter, age 20, had a baby in September and last week gave him up for adoption, saying it was 'too hard' (this despite living with her mother and having that support available to her)...I think of Greg's mom with three in diapers at age 20, my former mother-in-law ditto, my mother at 22 with me, and I just wonder (of course all three were married, but that generation, the fathers basically brought home the $$ and that was it.) I am not condemning Nikki for her decision because quite frankly I think the baby will have a better life now, but I feel so sad....

144. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:33:55 PM

wait, FOUR in diapers at age 21. Lordy, lordy, Rosie.

145. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:34:03 PM

Diva. Oh no. He's only nine. Have no idea whether he will want or be ready to go off to school in, say, four years. It may just be the predictable difference between girls and boys (talking about generalities!) but he is much less mature/more visibly needing of support and care than his sister was at the same age.

At any rate, we deliberately picked a school for him here in the City that goes through 12th grade instead of one that ends at the 8th or 9th.

146. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:35:23 PM

Oh, okay. Isn't it funny, how sibs can be so different from one another?

147. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 4:38:45 PM

Diva:

I had my son one month shy of my 19th birthday...I agree with you.

148. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:41:30 PM

Thing is, Judith, I even think that applies to my own generation to a certain extent. I had Gracie at 27 and I still had a lot of growing up to do...I know for certain theDiva at 21 would not have been ready for motherhood.

149. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 4:43:17 PM

Diva:

I know for certain I wasn't ready but I got that way pretty quickly. Luckily, my mom was nearby and helped me tremendously.

150. PelleNilsson - 1/29/2001 4:43:53 PM

I spoke to a colleague of mine today. His daughter, 16, has been accepted for a scholarship and will go to New Zealand for a year. He was quite happy about it and saw it as a great opportunity for her to develop her independence.

151. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:45:52 PM

Hmmm...that's the thing about parenting. You're never really 100% ready, for what else can prepare you but doing it? I suppose what I mean is there are certain levels of maturity you may achieve which make it less difficult (as opposed to easier). I think as with any significant emotional event, it can make you a better person.

152. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:46:41 PM

Judith. I find more compelling that that means you had to cope with your son/only child having what you feared was terminal cancer when you were only 29.

153. CalGal - 1/29/2001 4:46:56 PM

That assumes that going away is the only way to develop independence, which is hardly true. I hope that Spawn is independent without requiring it.

I don't know how I'd feel about a year away, but my feelings about it are different than boarding school.

154. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:47:06 PM

Pelle

gasp

Halfway around the globe. I would die. She's talking about going to UVA, which is in Charlottesville and two hours away, and already I'm hyperventilating.

155. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:48:16 PM

Jan

Yes. My admiration for Judith....I cannot express.

156. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:49:46 PM

Well, I had fun with my teenage sons...we hung out.

157. CalGal - 1/29/2001 4:51:03 PM

I had Spawn right before I turned 26, and what is interesting is that I have to go back four generations to find a *-grandmother who had a child at a younger age than me.

My mother, sister, grandmother, and great-grandmother all had their first child at 27 or older.

158. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:51:19 PM

We have concluded that you never can be totally prepared for parenting and that indeed it inevitably takes unexpected turns and lurches.

Anyone else of the same view as we - there are innumerable guides/classes/organized support systems out there to help you HAVE the baby, but damned few of same for what to do thereafter?

159. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:52:31 PM

Prof

ha! Oh yes. Gracie and I were sitting there Friday night watching something or other, kibitzing, laughing and snacking and I thought 'This is really the best ever. This kid is my bud.' Such an indescribably wonderful feeling

160. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:52:47 PM

Vodka and coffee...see ya guys.

161. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:54:24 PM

Jan

Oh, definitely less. For how can you quantify and instruct on something that has an infinite number of situations, variables, etc. I think if you're lucky you have a good support system, a strong relationship with your own parents, and some experienced buds with terrific grown kids (nod to PP) who can tell you how they did it.

162. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:55:06 PM

I agree that you don't have to go away to become independent. We would never have done it with our daughter if we hadn't thought that she already had a healthy degree of independence. And, one of the arguments that we used with her to try to get her to change her mind was our own view that in many ways she could be even more independent and learn/experience more by going to day school here in the City.

163. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:55:07 PM

see ya Prof!

Speaking of childbirth, and as an aside, our Lamaze instructor recommended we take Gracie into the L&D room for the birth. Loopy.

164. PelleNilsson - 1/29/2001 4:55:54 PM

CalGal

I don't want to quarrel with you. This is my experience. When I was 18 I thought I was independent. I had quarrelled a lot with my mother about this (my parents were divorced, I hated my stepfather). She let go of the reins when I was 16. But she was still there when I had problems (even if we quarreled over them). It was not until I did my National Service that I did become truly independent. There I had to tackle my problems alone.

165. CalGal - 1/29/2001 4:56:27 PM

Yes, I agree that there is less in the way of support for parents, but I don't see any need for it, either.

I would rather there were a lot clearer laws for parenting, though. More absolutes on safety, for example.

166. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:56:34 PM

That is carrying togetherness a bit far, in my opinion, Diva.

167. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:57:25 PM

Isn't that insane? How inappropriate. And she was very insistent, too!

168. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 4:57:37 PM

janjon:

I was 29 and had a fairly charmed life of ease...then, I grew up in about 2 weeks time. Looking back, I see it was like a crucible and I came out the other side hardened and changed but it all worked out for the best.

I take nothing for granted today, that's for sure.

169. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:58:59 PM

This may be too personal, but how many years did it take before you could relax even a bit and conclude that your son had made it?

170. CalGal - 1/29/2001 4:59:25 PM

Pelle,

I didn't see you as quarreling. I was just pointing out that there is no one critical experience that ensures kids will be independent. It is a function of parenting and, to some extent, the personality of the kid in question.

Deev,

My stepdaughter not only was in the room when Spawn was born, she cut the cord. She had just turned 11.

171. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 5:00:31 PM

Diva:

Our friends had their baby girl at home a few months ago and their 5 year son was there for it...they are happy with the result.

172. theDiva - 1/29/2001 5:02:53 PM

Cal

You have a stepdaughter?! I had no idea.

I have a friend who had numbers three, four and five of six at home, with the others in attendance...apparently it was a positive experience for all concerned, and I think that's great. Just can't see it working for me and mine, though.

173. janjon - 1/29/2001 5:03:15 PM

In terms of support for parents, I suppose I was focusing on the infancy stage - those feelings of helplessness, anger, guilt over those times when you are being angry at the baby, the first time you want to throw it against the wall, etc.

174. theDiva - 1/29/2001 5:04:55 PM

oh God, and colic....colic.....shudder

I'm hoping this baby will be an easy one to make up for the rough pregnancy I've had.

Anywho, gotta run. Later, y'all.

175. CalGal - 1/29/2001 5:05:00 PM

Deev,

My ex has a 24 year old daughter. She lived with us fully half-time for all of our time living together (married or no).

Jan,

I never wanted to throw Spawn against the wall. In any event, though, I think the ones that actually do throw their kids against the wall or hurt them are not those that will be helped by a support group.

176. janjon - 1/29/2001 5:10:28 PM

Not thinking about support groups, per se, although I can see situations where that might be helpful. More about having sources to learn/be reassured that the disillusion and occasional anger that comes with dealing with infancy (usually, at least in our experience, coupled with those moments of frustration or fear over not being able to help a baby who is in obvious distress for reasons that you can't figure out) doesn't mean that you, the parent, are a bad person or that the feelings are unique or not normal.

177. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 5:10:45 PM

janjon:

This may be too personal, but how many years did it take before you could relax even a bit and conclude that your son had made it?

He is 38 and I still become chilled to the bone if he develops even a cough...hence, he doesn't call me much during allergy season. :-)

Seriously, it was not until he was in his early 20s that I relaxed somewhat because when he was hired by the local defense plant, he obtained a doctors certificate that said "cured". But 2 years ago, he had a stroke and we both went bananas for the 4 days he was in ICU...it brought it all back, the hospital experience, etc. (He came out of that unscathed and is fine now.)

I don't think you ever grow "unaware" but you do become less frantic.

178. Shannon - 1/29/2001 5:21:40 PM

Judith,
I can only imagine. My daughter had some complications after birth and was in NICU for a couple of weeks. Nothing potentially fatal, but I think I'd flip if she had to be in the hospital for any reason. My son (older) had tubes as a baby, and I didn't think anything of it. If she'd needed them, I think I'd have been much more nervous, even for something so minor and routine. Luckily, we've been free of hospital visits since her issues cleared up.

179. DanDillon - 1/29/2001 6:45:36 PM

Wonderful thread!

180. Erin R. - 1/29/2001 7:39:59 PM

You know, my sister went to a state-sponsored boarding school. She loved it--I wouldn't rule it out just yet, Cal.

181. Erin R. - 1/29/2001 7:43:38 PM

Cal,

Our stepdaughters are around the same age. I hope yours has her act together better than mine does!

182. MsIvoryTower - 1/29/2001 11:05:16 PM

I considered looking into a girls boarding school for my daughter for the secondary level, but now that the time is nearing I find the thought of her going away unbearable.

I comfort myself with the thought that I always told her she should go away someplace far for college, so perhaps I'll be better prepared by then.

Calgal expressed my feelings somewhere back there: I feel I've only got a few years left before she spreads her wings and makes her own path in the world, and I don't want to miss any of these coming years.

I suppose that's a bit selfish.

Btw, my mother went to an all girls high school and boarded, but she was only a town away from her home, so I think the experience was a bit different. She had a blast during those years, and has classic stories of schoolgirl antics among the nuns.

183. Wombat - 1/30/2001 8:23:54 AM

I was eager to go to boarding school after 9th Grade. My parents and I were headed down a path that would have probably gotten me into some trouble if I had stayed (due mostly to my bad attitude). Boarding school was a nice change of scene, and allowed me to find myself (to some extent) and to get into a good college. It also made the transition to college painless.

If Wombette and Wombino become interested in going to boarding school, I would not get upset (my wife would).

184. PsychProf - 1/30/2001 10:53:53 AM

Our local boarding schools(s) are quite well known and cost $15-20,000 per year...the cost of college for my boys was more than $200,000...some of you guys have big bucks! There is no way I could have afforded private school as well as college. But the truth is much simpler...I wanted them around in their teens.

185. CalGal - 1/30/2001 11:08:53 AM

I pay for private school, but not a super pricey private school--mainly because Spawn isn't the sort who could easily get accepted to them. Neither his father or I have any connections and Spawn, like his mother, doesn't play the game of good behavior. Although I did more of this as a child then I do as an adult.

From a discipline perspective, I'd say we spend more time than ever before on trying to get Spawn to understand the game of good behavior, and how to play it. As kids get older, the parameters change and their expanding list of options gives them more opportunities to screw up.

186. CalGal - 1/30/2001 11:10:53 AM

Something I have realized lately: Spawn used to have bright and interesting friends. Recently, I've noticed that I really don't like any of his friends. They're not thugs, they're just....boring. Not particularly bright. Not well-read, not even pop culturally up on things. Dull and dullardly. This was not a problem of the few friends he had prior to the age of 11 who were generally like Spawn: quirky, imaginative, bright.

I put this together with his grade descent over the past two years (until we moved him out of public school) and went, hmmm. Without making a huge issue of it or refusing to let him play with these kids completely, my ex and I are working on ways to restrict his time with these kids and also finding other group activities where he can hopefully form friendships with kids who are more interesting, challenging, and focused.

I spoke to a counsellor about it and she said that there are so many kids in their pre- and early teens whose parents just check out on them. They aren't abusive, they just figure "Hell, they don't need daycare or feeding, so my work is done." The kids lose time and attention at the very time they need it most. In other words, these kids may actually have been bright and interesting kids when they were 10 and 11--but they are growing up without parental interest and support.

Very sad.

I don't wish to sound as if I've become a purist on the issue of Spawn's friends, or that they all must pass an IQ test. But when all of them are completely uninterested not only in school, but in brain activity of any sort, unmotivated, and without any incentive to grow and develop, it becomes clear that it's not a good peer environment for Spawn. Is it fixable? I don't know yet. But I've received reassurance from the counsellor that it's actually better that he spend more time by himself than with kids who continually show him what a low standard he can slink by with.

187. janjon - 1/30/2001 11:20:44 AM

Perhaps impossible for you to tell, but is it at least in part a quirk that there really weren't many interesting kids in his particular class? In other words, not a matter of selection as much as no choice? This certainly can happen - especially as kids approach teenage where many formerly alert, bright, what have you kids find those traits to be uncool.

188. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 11:22:01 AM

I went through that with my son and had a very hard time getting him to seek out others...he liked those kids and that was it, as far as he was concerned. We had the added pressure of holding that fine line between saying, "They're bums; drop them" and allowing him to choose people he felt comfortable with because he was "different"...this because most of the kids at his school regarded him as some sort of "case"...the kid who was supposed to die soon. (Kids back then were just as cruel as today.) Even the teachers contributed to this weirdness...

Also, many times, a kid will seek out a group he can feel superior in...I think my son did this to some extent. No competition, in other words...his friends were all in awe of him and he liked that, at the time.

Plus you have to realize, many kiddos resist anything the parents try because it's their way of feeling in control. They are trying to assert their independence in whatever ways they can and going against the parents ideas of which friends they can have is age old story of resistance.

189. PsychProf - 1/30/2001 11:31:50 AM

Parenting is such a high wire act...to intervene or not to intervene, that is the question....

190. CalGal - 1/30/2001 11:40:15 AM

Janjon,

I certainly agree that there are going to be relatively few bright kids in any public school. I also think that this particular public school was just a lousy school. Spawn very much wanted to go to a different one in the district, but it had a lottery and he wasn't chosen.

So yes, it is possible that the problems that arose when he moved to junior high had to do with the lack of available kids in his peer group.

In either event, removing him from the environment was a start. Now we have to do a bit more and cut his available time to be around them--without, as Judith says, giving them the "bum's rush".

Also, many times, a kid will seek out a group he can feel superior in...I think my son did this to some extent.

Spawn doesn't do this--quite the contrary, I think he'd be better off if he did exert more leadership among his friends. His own instincts are relatively sound but he just joins in and says "Sure!" to disastrous ideas if they are proposed by friends.

191. janjon - 1/30/2001 11:45:14 AM

Oh, there are many public schools with lots of bright kids. We were blessed with one before moving back to the City. But, even then, some grades (or sections) are "better"/more conducive to interesting mind-stretching activities than others. Given teachers make a difference. As you obviously know, you have to keep on top of it and, I think, approach it all with a very cynical eye.

The trick may very well be to, somehow, "help" your son find an activity (or two) outside school which both interests him and which provides the milleu you want.

Quite a trick, but hopefully doable.

192. janjon - 1/30/2001 11:47:15 AM

Incidentally, by no means do I think that private schools, day or boarding, are a panacea either. Same potential for the same problems, with the one possible difference being that most private schools have a better teacher/support staff to student ratio and, frequently, a wider range of activities to hopefully snag a kid's attention. The better ones also seem to have more of an overall attitude that academics do matter and can be fun, even exciting.

193. PsychProf - 1/30/2001 11:47:57 AM

JanJon...I live in an upscale community, and the HS has a number of bright kids...playing three sports also keeps them tired.

194. SnowOwl - 1/30/2001 2:03:38 PM

We have few private schools here, and the ones we do have are mostly church-affiliated. A number of the public schools have boarding establishments, since we have such a large rural population, spread out over huge distances. In terms of academic achievement the public schools do better than the private establishments.

195. arkymalarky - 1/30/2001 6:09:26 PM

Same here, as I've said many times in the past. In the larger LR districts, If you have a kid who can pass advanced coursework it's like going to a free private school, and students are very well prepared to pass AP tests and get into great universities; and AR School of Math and Sciences is a free public boarding school that admits top students from around the state whose schools may be smaller or poorer, and thus have more limited course offerings, computers, and equipment. Its SAT9 scores are always higher than any of the other schools because they get the cream of the crop, and their scholarship list and list of senior admittance into top national schools is very impressive. Private schools, at least here, do better on the elementary and sometimes middle school level, but they simply don't have the resources to offer what public high schools do.

196. arkymalarky - 1/30/2001 6:11:08 PM

As far as boarding schools, or whatever ed choices parents make, different kids have different needs, and as long as those stay the priority, kids will do well.

197. janjon - 1/30/2001 6:18:15 PM

Well put, Arky. Different strokes for different people and different contexts. As long as the core concern is what is best for the kid.

198. jonesatlaw - 1/31/2001 12:01:07 AM

Speaking of teenagers- I have to share how one of my friends dealt with finding her 16 year old son's stash of Playboy and Penthouse magazines. She was in midst of a divorce, and things were a bit tense in the house. She didn't want a confrontation with this son, as he was generally her most obedient and responsible kid. However, she didn't want the porno pile to grow. She called a friend of hers over, made a pitcher of martini's and got out two black magic markers. The two moms then enjoyed a drink, and colored black panties and bras on every model. They then replaced the stash back in his room, and finished the pitcher in high spirits. The next cleaning forray into his room produced no porno. Nothing further was ever said.

199. cmboyce - 1/31/2001 12:18:41 AM

Hahaha, that's funny, Jones. But a bit weird, on consideration.

Aside from making a much less droll story, I think it would be have been much better to have told the kid how the stuff offended her (though given the pleasure she took in drawing on it, it's hard to be sure it really did), and asked that he please at least keep them where she won't be stumbling on them, though she'd rather he didn't have them at all. Then let him do what he will about it. I'd think it might get the same result. Talking about it keeps communications open, too, I'd think, whereas this coup de main can only offend. I imagine his silence is, to say the least, mortified and defensive. When she wants to talk to him next about some such behavioral thing, he may not feel she's necessarily on his side.

And I can't say I see much of a problem, here, anyway. Kids will and probably should have secrets, and if Playboy and Penthouse are the extent of this boy's hidden life...

AND, whatever it may be, I'm sure it will be better hidden, now.

200. jonesatlaw - 1/31/2001 12:27:07 AM

cmboyce- the story is an old one. Her son is now a father. I agree that some direct communication is probably how I would handle it, but then I'm a dad, and anything too far removed from the direct approach is beyond my repetoire.

201. joezan - 1/31/2001 12:37:28 AM

My mom told our priest about my stash. He confronted me at the earliest opportunity, admonished me a bit, then asked whether I had seen the Barbara Bach issue.

202. CalGal - 1/31/2001 12:48:09 AM

Good lord. I'm sorry, but I have serious reservations about a mom who colors bikinis on Playboy bunnies.

I would treat the discovery of most porn as pretty standard stuff, nothing to be commented on. If I noticed it getting too far down the hardcore path, I'd have a talk with him about it.

203. Erin R. - 1/31/2001 10:20:39 AM

I don't think I'd do anything about a Playboy and Penthouse stash. Hustler would bother me a bit more.

204. janjon - 1/31/2001 10:36:39 AM

studs, cuffs and whips would be a bothersome find.

205. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 10:39:19 AM

Not to mention the Weekly Standard or National Review.

206. janjon - 1/31/2001 10:41:41 AM

lets not get into obscenity, Jade!!!

207. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 10:41:47 AM

Few parents tell their children what to do in terms of sexual behavior...the concentration is almost always on what not to do. Since over 60% of high school students engage in you know what, this turns out to be an important distinction, and indeed, lack of information.

208. theDiva - 1/31/2001 10:51:19 AM

hm. You don't have to deal with porn if you've got a daughter. I hope. I'm not sure what I'd do. I have strong objections to the stuff and I would not want it in my house, but I can't see myself coloring bikinis on all the ladies, either (unless it was Greg's stash, and then we'd have an opera in the house for sure.)

I found, growing up, that my mother was much more forthright than most on the issue of sex. I've taken my cues from her and presented to Gracie what my views and morals are, in addition to the usual mechanics talk. The next few years will tell me whether I've been effective....right now she is at the stage where, though she's in puberty, she is interested in boys in the abstract. I was thinking the other day how nice it would be if she met someone and we had a similar situation to what Arky describes for Mose....nice boy, families socialize together, etc. It sounds so lovely and so healthy.

209. Erin R. - 1/31/2001 11:11:28 AM

I used to have porn stashed under my mattress as a teen. My mother found it, but didn't mention it until 15 years later, as she attended me in labor.

Guess she couldn't hold back any longer.

210. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:14:22 AM

Seems like a very odd thing to bring up at that point in time. Was this part of a general reminiscing about how her little girl was now so grown up, etc.?

211. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:15:45 AM

I wouldn't consider it porn but when I was 13, I was reading DH Lawrence and Thomas Hardy...pretty heady stuff for a neophyte. My mom would've blown a cok had she known...

212. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:16:43 AM

GOOD LORD!!!! a coRk, a cork a cork A CORK!!!! Sorry, mom!

213. Erin R. - 1/31/2001 11:16:48 AM

No, I just commented on the fact that watching a baby emerge is quite a contrast to what is depicted of women's genitalia in Playboy.

214. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:17:43 AM

Ooooooh, Judith. You'd better hope that certain of the gang don't see that one.

215. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:19:11 AM

I doomed....talk about Freudian slips!

216. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:20:11 AM

Well, what with Texas accents and all, maybe no one will get it. As in COKE.

Right.

217. theDiva - 1/31/2001 11:21:03 AM

Judith's followup is funnier than the actual slip.

218. Jenerator - 1/31/2001 11:24:52 AM

The first nekkid picture I saw was the famous centerfold of Burt Reynolds in Cosmopolitan. I was maybe 10 years old and it made me so embarassed.

219. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:27:01 AM

and fuzzy warm and tingly, perhaps?

220. Jenerator - 1/31/2001 11:28:50 AM

Janjon,

I felt weird. I knew that I was seeing something I was supposed to see, and Burt was so hairy! It was shocking, mortifying and bewildering. I was more scared than anything else. Of course Marshame seemd to intuitively know that I was looking at something I wasn't supposed to, and so she came in and saw me looking at the picture and I felt even worse!

221. Jenerator - 1/31/2001 11:29:38 AM

something I WASN'T supposed to see..


Good grief, Judith what have you done to me!;-)

222. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:29:53 AM

Hey, I still have that copy of Cosmo, if you wanna check it out again, Jen!

223. Jenerator - 1/31/2001 11:31:23 AM

Judith,

Does Burt Reynolds look like my kinda guy?

224. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 11:32:50 AM

That is a very American reaction, Jenerator. I'm sure a child raised in Europe or South America wouldn't feel as you did.

Take a look at Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents. It will offer an insight as to why you felt as you did.

225. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:34:13 AM

But seriously, folks...what Janjon asked Jen brings up a point...there's no need for hidden porn these days because kids can see so much blatant sexuality on MTV, ABC, in movies, and in ads from magazines and TV. So just how DO they deal with those weird and tingly feelings that sort of stuff is meant to engender? I think kids are maturing early on because of exposure to and reaction to these sorts of stimuli...amongst other reasons like diet, etc.

226. Jenerator - 1/31/2001 11:35:45 AM

Jade,

I know why I felt the way I did. Seeing a grown-up man who was hairy (and unattractive IMO)and naked wasn't the normal routine for me. Full frontal male nudity wasn't something I grew up around, and I don't think that my shyness about it was bad or Freudian.

227. Jenerator - 1/31/2001 11:38:14 AM

In England there was a series on The Sexual Anatomy featuring a different body part each week. PRIME TIME showed an investigation into the clitorus...how woman masturbated, what their physiological responses were, the different looks they could have, and what transsexual females looked like. My male roommates loved the show, us females were shocked.

Primetime, right after the Simpsons.

228. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:39:58 AM

no question. One would hope that parents in any event would decide to be open with and talk to their kids about sexuality, etc., starting certainly at puberty. What with all the opportunities for kids to see nudity and have sex (well at least heavy innuendo) thrown at them in tv and ads, the age at which those talks should start has obviously dropped.'

We started talking with our daughter about sexuality generally and then, hopefully as appropriate and with the right touch, at age 11.
Plan on doing the same with the boy.

229. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 11:40:04 AM

Of course it wasn't bad, Jenerator. Shyness or discomfort is a response to repression.

It was, however, quite Freudian.

230. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:42:50 AM

It was, however, quite Freudian.

Well, what isn't ?

231. DanDillon - 1/31/2001 11:44:13 AM

It was what it was.

232. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:45:05 AM

janjon:

I heard the other day that some girls are hitting puberty as early as 8 or 9 in this country. I really do think it has a lot to do with hormone treated beef from fast food joints.

233. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 11:47:56 AM

Right, Judith. What isn't?

Repression, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Freud says that a certain amount is necessary to achieve a safe and secure society. It is when repression is so great that it causes psychological problems that we have to be concerned.

I fear we Americans have not achieved that healthy balance when it comes to human sexuality.

234. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:53:38 AM

Well, I am sure it differs child to child and in some cases depending on the locale. (Although I wouldn't be so sure of that - there is no such thing as a truly sheltered place these days, unless you are talking perhaps about some back hollow where families don't have tvs and home teach, etc. Talk about repression opportunities.)

At any rate, with our daughter we just started out with a few general questions about what she had noticed or heard about or was curious about when it came to men and women or boys and girls and the way they relate to one another. That went pretty easily, perhaps because at the time she really hadn't heard too much or wasn't very curious (at least so she said.) Within a few months, we had reached the stage where we thought it appropriate to mention masturbation and how it is a normal, healthy part of growing up. I would like to think that we helped her start out correctly in understanding and (ultimately, natch) enjoying her sexuality, but at age 14 it is really only just beginning. No doubt there will be bumps in the road.

235. DanDillon - 1/31/2001 11:57:56 AM

You know what they say: the greater the bumps on the chest, the greater the bumps in the road.

236. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:58:22 AM

I fear we Americans have not achieved that healthy balance when it comes to human sexuality.

And we never will. This country thrives on repressed feelings and instincts. Thrives badly, in most cases.

We have a strict religious upbringing for the most part and pay for it throughout our lives.

237. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 12:04:31 PM

The odd thing, Judith, is that religiosity and sexuality are mutually exclusive.

238. janjon - 1/31/2001 12:07:27 PM

Jade - substitute "should be" for "are" in your 237 and, unfortunately, it would be more accurate. Too many religions tread much more heavily than they should when it comes to trying to deal with sexuality. (and, I'm not talking about something as refined as morals or ethics vis-a-vis sexual situations, just plain old sexuality.)

239. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 12:13:27 PM

That was my point, janjon. I would suggest that it is the interpretation of religions that tread heavily.

In Brazil, for instance, the population is heavily Catholic (with some Macumba thrown in for good measure). Yet, Brazilians have a positive and healthy attitude toward sexuality.

240. joezan - 1/31/2001 12:20:17 PM

Yes...breeding like flies beginning at age 13 so that your kids may grow up to live in the garbage dump is a very healthy attitude toward sex.

Maybe the good ol' USA is on the right track after all, eh Jade?

241. janjon - 1/31/2001 12:22:20 PM

And, look at the Italians. Certainly among the most Catholic of countries. Yet, one of the lowest birth rates going (which does not mean that they aren't engaging in sex) and with there having been various votes (I'm not sure they were on the national level, but certainly on the "state" level) where over 80% voted in favor of abortion rights.

Not exactly about sexuality per se, but it meshes.

242. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 12:41:22 PM

JZ:

Sexuality is only for the purpose of procreating?

How sad for you and your wife.

243. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 1:53:59 PM

Jade...what I saw in Rio was not healthy...you must be talkin about rich Brazilians.

244. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 3:04:39 PM

PP:

I differentiate between sexuality and reproductive health issues. Certainly, Brazil has many problems with respect to reproductive health issues. This is primarily due to a lack of education and access to adequate healthcare.

245. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 3:18:41 PM

Jade - The odd thing . . . is that religiosity and sexuality are mutually exclusive.

You never met the Catholic girls I dated in high school.

246. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 3:25:43 PM

Jade...I understand that you separate the two...unfortunately, the body does not.

247. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 3:44:29 PM

>You never met the Catholic girls I dated in high school.

Thank goodness.

You're not using their faith as an excuse for your celibacy, are you?

248. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 3:46:50 PM

There have been studies which indicate that diet has a great deal to do with the onset of puberty in girls. Specifically, they found that diets high in animal protein and fat led to earlier maturation. The article I read used Japan as an example. In the 50's when the Japanese diet was mostly rice and vegetables, the onset of menses in girls was generally between 15 and 17. By the 80's when the article was written, the Japanese diet contained much more meat and fat and correspondingly the onset of menses had dropped to 12-14.

249. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 3:48:46 PM

JJ...I guess that answers Jade's question.

250. CalGal - 1/31/2001 3:50:13 PM

I really wish we could figure out a way to change that. Girls don't need the extra boost in maturity, and women could sure use another 10 years of fertility at the backend (regardless of what individuals may think of it personally).

251. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 3:50:46 PM

Jade - Celibacy? I lost my virginity to a good Catholic girl at the age of 14. Perhaps you should ask Mel Reynolds about Catholic school girls. I understand he is the expert.

252. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 3:53:12 PM

That is JJBiener's Immaculate Perception.

253. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 3:58:30 PM

Psych - Reynolds' behavior is not my perception. There are tapes of him setting up a sexual encounter with 15 year-old, Catholic school girl. I believe his words were, "I guess I hit the lotto."

254. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 4:01:33 PM

No No JJ...I meant your own encounter...it was posted with a smile...so easy to miscommunicate here...sorry.

255. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 4:05:51 PM

Psych - Oh, immaculate perception. No, I think you misspelled immaculate. It should be spelled ejac....(g)

256. PelleNilsson - 1/31/2001 4:27:31 PM

I thought it was the artist formerly known as niner who was the connoiseur when it comes to catholic schoolgirls.

257. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 4:28:22 PM

Confabulation and heresay.

258. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 4:32:17 PM

Pelle - I am sure Niner's experience is far more current than my own. I have been married to a good Protestant girl for over 16 years.

259. mizphys - 1/31/2001 4:35:16 PM

Don't all men who went to Catholic schools have a thing about girls in plaid skirts? Last Halloween my husband saw a couple of chicks in skimpy school girl outfits, and he couldn't stop looking. He had to mop the drool off his chin, and he's not usually one to ogle. I think it was all those years watching girls from the back of the classroom.As good girls, they were forbidden fruit, and he was too shy to talk to them back then.

260. theDiva - 1/31/2001 4:36:10 PM

(former Catholic School Girl remains silent)

261. CalGal - 1/31/2001 4:37:27 PM

(but her look speaks volumes)

262. mizphys - 1/31/2001 4:38:10 PM

She remains silent while hiking her plaid skirt and batting her eyelashes fetchingly.

263. theDiva - 1/31/2001 4:38:36 PM

haw!

264. rubberducky - 1/31/2001 4:40:19 PM

Don't all men who went to Catholic schools have a thing about girls in plaid skirts?

um, not all

265. PelleNilsson - 1/31/2001 5:13:54 PM

Young presbyterian Scots in kilts?

266. cmboyce - 1/31/2001 6:11:11 PM

There was a piece in the NYT some time ago, about the lowering age of menarche. Diet was pointed out to be the most pointed-out factor, but a case was made—apparently a newly arisen cause for a number of seemingly highly-regarded researchers—that the general presence of sexuality in the culture (MTV, mags, et al) could have an effect on hormonal production. I think this makes some sense (though it sounds hard to prove). I know that in the pre-industrial world, marriage ages varied a good deal, both between (European & British) regions, and within them in chronological terms, in response to things like war, famine, and prosperity. And with age of marriage, so moved age of menarche (I forget how measured—but there is some way to see it in "the world we have lost" (to cite Peter Laslett)). So the thing is manipulible, even if only unconsciously by the society-at-large. And the thesis is that we are doing it, now, in our culture of (to say no more) great sexual access (which is of course a by-product of birth control).

267. CalGal - 1/31/2001 6:18:35 PM

This subject is probably best for another thread, but I think that early menarche itself isn't so much a problem as it is what it means for women's fertility at the other end of the equation.

Towards that end, I think the argument that monthly menstrual cycles are, in fact, unnatural is a good one. In earlier times, the average woman might have 5-10 periods over a lifetime, or something like that.

We could do the same thing today by taking birth control pills and skipping the 7 day placebo pill, or whatever. But the pill isn't good to women over 35, so it'd be nice if they came up with another method.

268. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 6:21:15 PM

cm - It would be interesting to see a study that compared the onset of puberty between girls who were sexually abused or otherwise sexually active at a young age and those who weren't. That might shed some light. I am not aware of any study that has looked at those factors.

269. Autodaffy - 1/31/2001 10:37:06 PM

Someone wrote:
"Girls don't need the extra boost in maturity, and women could sure
use another 10 years of fertility at the backend (regardless of what individuals may think of it personally)."

Personally, I love the backend, but nobody ever told me that you could be fertile there, except in the sense of keeping the garden green.

270. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 11:12:03 PM

Daffy - Personally, I love the backend, but nobody ever told me that you could be fertile there

Where do you think lawyers come from?

271. Autodaffy - 1/31/2001 11:26:01 PM

JJ:

You have your biology all mixed up. Lawyers are like weeds in the garden. They are no sign of fertility at the backend, a place I consider holy.

272. jonesatlaw - 2/1/2001 8:00:48 PM

An off color lawyer joke kills the thread. Let's play nice.

273. DanDillon - 2/1/2001 8:09:14 PM

Speaking of girls reaching puberty too early, I crossed paths with a student today, and I could have sworn she was in her late 20s (probably a junior or a senior). Her garments of choice certainly, um, boosted her advanced-age appearance.

Hyper-sexualization, folks. It's nuts.

274. CalGal - 2/1/2001 8:10:58 PM

There was an article in Time about that. They're blaming Britney, but the sexualization of girls has gone on far longer than that little twit has been sentient, much less popular. I remember reading articles about it in the early 80s.

275. DanDillon - 2/1/2001 8:14:01 PM

Shit. It's been going on since the dawn of time. Surely, media outlets like Time, etc. have simply publicized (and to a large degree legitimized) it since, say, 1968 or so.

276. ChristinO - 2/1/2001 8:19:54 PM

Is early menarche being noted world-wide or just in the U.S?

277. wabbit - 2/1/2001 8:20:11 PM

278. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 10:23:24 PM

Christin - Is early menarche being noted world-wide or just in the U.S?

I believe it is occurring in most industrialized nations.

279. joezan - 2/1/2001 10:26:00 PM

Christin:

Is early menarche being noted world-wide or just in the U.S?

At the risk of repeating myself (although it was probably a couple of years ago that I posted on this):

A shrink I used to work with, who was born and raised in Puerto Rico, told me 20 years ago that early female development was a HUGE problem there. The, ummm... immediately obvious implications were noticable for quite some time. But, Puerto Ricans being Puerto Ricans, they didn't really mind. It was always pretty common for girls there to be married by age 12 or 13 anyway, so no biggie.

...Until a story broke in the US about an epidemic of pregnancy in PR girls under the age of ten. This guy attributed it to the unregulated use of milk-producing hormones in Puerto Rican dairy cattle.

280. janjon - 2/2/2001 10:46:16 AM

Here is a horrible story that appeared in today's New York Times: How Could She and The Kids Have Traveled Cross-Country On Amtrak Without People Noticing

I understand that calls are going out for people to provide both money and needed services (like top notch plastic surgery) for these poor kids.

281. JudithAtHome - 2/2/2001 10:58:42 AM

That woman is not a mother...she is a monster.

282. janjon - 2/2/2001 11:01:29 AM

She is terribly disturbed. The authorities made a really bad error in judgment when they gave her custody again.

283. JudithAtHome - 2/2/2001 11:09:31 AM

And just imagine: we only hear about the high profile cases like this one. Think how many mothers and fathers (and I use the terms loosely)are torturing their children on a daily basis, either physically or mentally, and getting away with it.

284. janjon - 2/2/2001 11:11:34 AM

Think how many situations there out there which are comparable except for the slashing and other visible signs. The abuse has comparable impact on the kids but so often just goes by without anyone detecting it. Until the kids act out in one way or another in, say, their mid to late teens.

285. Uzmakk - 2/2/2001 5:22:51 PM

Have only read the past several posts but I know of a case where the courts gave two young girls back to a mother who had tried to gas them and herself in a closed car.

286. Uzmakk - 2/3/2001 8:04:14 AM

Local story in the paper this morning-- Mother held her two month old baby against a radiator for two minutes. Baby required skin grafts.

287. PsychProf - 2/3/2001 1:50:37 PM

288. JudithAtHome - 2/3/2001 1:53:04 PM

PP:

Nice antidote to the last few stories...thanks!

289. PsychProf - 2/3/2001 1:53:46 PM

Ah Judith...you understand me.

290. JudithAtHome - 2/3/2001 1:55:45 PM

PP:

But I thought it was your job to undestand me ? :-)

291. Uzmakk - 2/3/2001 2:37:05 PM

I think I understand you PP -- my life is good.

292. CalGal - 2/3/2001 2:39:26 PM

One of the things I find very irritating about our societal attitude towards parenting is that our primary emphasis seems to be on not having to support the child.

So we will tolerate an inordinate amount of abusive parents because if we remove the child from the environment the society will have to pay for the upkeep of the child--or, if we are already paying for the welfare, we'll have to pay more for social services to find foster parents and so on. (one of the reasons we pay welfare is because it is cheaper than any other solution for the kids.)

When we talk about removing these kids from their parents, there is a huge amount of blather about how careful we have to be in removing a parent's rights before removing them, blah blah blah.

Yet switch to another arena: divorce. Parents, usually fathers, are regularly stripped of their legal rights. If two parents can't come to agreement in divorce court and the judge gets fed up, it's a fairly simple solution to grant legal custody to one parent, depriving the other of any right to contest the decisions made. No fuss about parental rights there.

Why? Because having your legal custody stripped away doesn't interfere with your mandatory right to provide for your child. So your rights can be removed, making the parents less likely to clog the court system and cost money, and the child still has a parent who either provides for or receives money providing for the upkeep.

293. CalGal - 2/3/2001 2:39:47 PM

So it requires an incredible amount of procedure to remove a parents rights in the event of abuse if the child will become a ward of the state. It requires only a judge's whim (or even the parents whim) to remove the rights if the child will still be someone else's responsibility.

We really don't seem to care much about children or their right to live in a non-abusive situation--much less have regular access to both parents, in the event that they've been involved in their lives up to then. All we care about is how cheaply we can get away with making sure they are provided for.

294. Uzmakk - 2/3/2001 4:23:13 PM

Cal:

You certainly like to think about the hard stuff.

295. Uzmakk - 2/3/2001 4:25:19 PM

But I sure like PP's suggestion that we simply brag and crow.

296. JudithAtHome - 2/3/2001 7:30:05 PM

So is Erin ever coming back?

297. Autodaffy - 2/3/2001 10:26:19 PM

I have always considered it proof of our disregard for children that parents can regularly murder their children and then get sentences that other people get for shoplifting.

California passed a law some time ago saying that a child not secured in a car by the means specified in law and killed would result in a harsh sentence for the parent who failed to secure him. Then the first instance came along and all you could hear about was how the parents had been punished enough by his loss and should not be brought to justice. It is sickening.

298. arkymalarky - 2/3/2001 11:26:01 PM

Did anyone see that program on PBS about juvenile justice, highlighting several young boys and following them in their process through the system? It was very good and enlightening, I thought.

299. arkymalarky - 2/3/2001 11:33:42 PM

PS--reading the previous posts brought it to mind, since their family lives were so screwed up, for the most part. I've always wished as a teacher that we had the authority to discipline the parents, and it's sad how many kids schools try to help who are often pretty much doomed by the time I see them in high school, many of whom had potential and desire to succeed, but grew tired of fighting against the tide for so long. It can really make you feel helpless, and the available agencies don't seem to do the kids a lot of good. It would be nice if foster care meant caring foster parents like JJ and SuzyQ and a few rl people I know, but it rarely does, at least here.

300. PsychProf - 2/4/2001 10:37:29 AM

Uzmak...not so. Cal brings up point(s) of intense interest("hard stuff") and importance to me. If you read backposts, you will see that I am concerned with far more than brag and crow. So, if you meant the comment as an offhand remark, you are wrong. Here is a repeat of questions/comments I thought might stimulate discussion...

1) How important are we?

2) What are our goals and dreams for our children and how do they relate to how we parent?

3) Do we admit to ourselves what we really care about...our children surely find out no matter what we say.

4) Isn't it interesting that parenting strategies(eg authoritative, authoritarian, permissive) and techniques vary so widely, and that so many of us are convinced that we know what we are doing.

5) How does the intellectual component of parenting compare with the emotional.

6) Children have long memories for our mistakes, but seem to forgive easier than we do.

7) Our mistakes can make us better parents if we admit them to ourselves.

8) The talents of our children are right in front of us if we see their world thru eyes other than our own.

9) Do we really want our children to be independent...most parent-child conflict grows out of control issues.

10) Are we consistent about our "buttons", and do we have too few or too many?

110 Do we like our children...even when they are becoming (teens) and have become adults. They know the answer to this question.

301. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 11:30:31 AM

PP:

I would like to make a post or two on this thread and will. All very short. Don't have time to address all of those very worthy questions. A quick question. I have an next door neighbor who is a PP. He mentions three psychological profiles. One where no interests peak, one where a small number of interests or abilities peak, and one where a large number of interests or abilities peak. Generally the people with the small number of peaks are the most successful because they are able to focus and get down to it. Does this sound familiar? Do I understand this correctly? Is it bullshit?

302. PsychProf - 2/4/2001 11:45:47 AM

Ya know Uz...I don't have a clue unless I see the data. See if you can get her/him to give a reference for this. This is such a general statement that opinion is worthless on my part.

303. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 1:15:18 PM

My 13 year old is in the back yard trying to rig a string to a tree branch so that it can be pulled away as the squirrels jump from tree to tree causing the squirrels to fall to the ground with tails spinning and then to scurry away in embarrasment. Now theres a good lad.

When we ask him what he thinks of certain friends and aquaintences a favorite line is, "He has been corrupted".

304. PsychProf - 2/4/2001 1:18:58 PM

Uz...ya gotta cut back on the vodka....

305. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 1:20:34 PM

PP:

?? ??!!

306. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 1:24:17 PM

Questions PP? The vodka statement seems a nonsequitur from this end.

307. JudithAtHome - 2/4/2001 1:28:24 PM

Did you know Ronald Reagan used to see to it that the squirrels on the White House grounds were fed? They grew to expect being fed and were non-threatened...they came to trust humans.

When Big George Bush became president, he loosed his dogs on them and told the press "They're history now."

I like squirrels and thought that was an interesting story.

I don't think your squirrels will be around very long, Uz...

308. PsychProf - 2/4/2001 1:28:35 PM

Well...I was trying to make heads and tails of Message # 303...probably my own confusion.

309. PsychProf - 2/4/2001 1:29:35 PM

No way Judith...squirrels lose only to truck tires.

310. JudithAtHome - 2/4/2001 1:31:35 PM

I thought maybe they would grow to distrust the trees...

311. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 1:49:52 PM

Sorry PP. Tried to get a paragraph into the final sentence. The boy seems a good healthy 13 year old to me. MTV bothers him and he is not impressed by popular culture and many an acquaintence. And there is now a string running from a maple branch to my dining room window. Good day, sir.

312. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 1:52:07 PM

And squirrels were put on this earth for young boys to match wits with.
Feed them, ha.

313. PsychProf - 2/4/2001 1:52:35 PM

Ha...good. You can give that string a yank whenever needed....very cathartic.

314. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 5:10:09 PM

I hate to go on about squirrels but you do recall the running of the squirrels advertisement during the superbowl do you not? "To run with the squirrels you have to think like a squirrel." Screen shows a close-up of the the feverishly active head of a squirrel. Sometimes I think you people are not with it. (God damn big screen barkeep.)

315. JudithAtHome - 2/4/2001 5:13:09 PM

But Uz, they are so cute! And haven't you ever seen National Velvet ?

316. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 5:18:59 PM

I have never seen NV. About horses, yes? I recall a short Hitchcock piece with a very disturbing squirrel scene in it.

317. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 5:20:24 PM

squirrel = tree rats

318. JudithAtHome - 2/4/2001 5:25:30 PM

Liz taylor has a pet squirrel who sat on her shoulder in NV...and I think later she had something to do with a horse but the squirrel was the star....

:-)

319. JudithAtHome - 2/4/2001 5:26:23 PM

...and who can forget the literary opus of Nutkins ?

320. Erin R. - 2/5/2001 10:13:42 AM

Hey, I never went away...I just don't have much to say about the current conversations. I have a 16-month-old boy. My parenting experience is pretty low compared to others here.

321. PsychProf - 2/5/2001 10:26:04 AM

Haha...Erin...I see people that know how to parent and they have no offspring so feel free to fire away...let's see...16 months...heading for the twos...lotsa running with no sense of where they are going...the start of what I call the "swing from the rafters" stage...vocab about to exponentially blossom...liberal use of the word no...sphincters about to kick in, so toilet training is possible...

322. theDiva - 2/5/2001 10:43:03 AM

"I see people that know how to parent and they have no offspring"

hahahahaha

They know more about the subject than those of us in the trenches! I knew so much more about parenting before I had Gracie. All my genius evaporated at delivery.

323. Erin R. - 2/5/2001 10:47:47 AM

He's starting some targeted vocalizing..."diaper" is something like "duh-duh." He can say "mama" and "dada" and is getting the gist of usage. My husband is the at-home parent, and is better at deciphering his language.

He climbs. He runs. He falls out and has a fit when we don't let him crank up the volume on the stereo. He removes his diaper when he's wet or dirty.

324. theDiva - 2/5/2001 10:53:28 AM

aha! Step one towards potty-training! Great!

325. Erin R. - 2/5/2001 10:54:50 AM

Really?

He already mimics my husband standing at the toilet...except he doesn't *do* it at the toilet.

326. theDiva - 2/5/2001 10:57:17 AM

oh, absolutely. It signals that he's aware of the connection between that uncomfortable feeling and what's causing it. It may take months before he does anything else, but that awareness is key. That is so cool.

How does your husband like being the at-home parent? Greg and I are considering a similar arrangement.

327. Erin R. - 2/5/2001 11:03:58 AM

He likes it, but he's getting a bit batty these days. I think it'll get better when the weather's nicer and he can take the toddler to the park. Where he (my husband) will be cooed over by the SAHMs.

328. theDiva - 2/5/2001 11:07:30 AM

ha! I know what you mean about the cooing. Greg works evenings right now, so he picks up Gracie and a couple other kids at school. The parking-lot moms just love him. 'Oh you're so sweet to do this for your wife.' Can you imagine?

I think he'll like being home, once he gets over the initial shock of how hard it is to deal with a baby....we'll be sharing those duties for the first three months. He'll probably work PT and go to school evenings starting in the fall.

329. Erin R. - 2/5/2001 11:15:48 AM

My husband is agitating for another baby. He'd like to have a bunch, I'd be happy with just one or two.

Some days he loves being an at-home parent. Other days, I'll come home and have to peel him off the ceiling.

330. theDiva - 2/5/2001 11:47:36 AM

Yeah, I remember feeling that way when I was a SAHM. It ain't always easy.

331. PsychProf - 2/5/2001 12:48:34 PM

Deev...the free counseling offer I gave was for you. Greg gets Anchor Steam and a personal copy of The Matrix.

332. janjon - 2/5/2001 1:18:54 PM

There was a followup story on those poor boys and the overall family situation over the weekend in the Times.

It of course came as no surprise to learn that disfunction abounds. The mother has fought drug addiction for many years, has been a prostitute, and on and on.

Unfortunately, also not a surprise to learn that much of the close family indeed drew into a protective circle towards her in that they knew or feared that the kids were being abused (one of the reasons she apparently took them out of school and abruptly on to California was that she realized that the school/child welfare people weren't buying into her stories about how the kids had been injured - one had a broken hand, another had razor cuts on his head that she claimed were an accident when she was cutting his hair.) They were reluctant to seek help because of trying to protect the mother and because they feared reactions by others in the family.

The father continues to express his love-forever-for-the-mother-because-she-didn't-mean-to-hurt-the-boys,-she-just-couldn't-help-herself.

Ah my.

333. theDiva - 2/5/2001 1:54:05 PM

Prof

ha! Would you believe, I actually bought him a DVD copy for Christmas? Ah, what love does to us....

334. JudithAtHome - 2/5/2001 1:58:38 PM

janjon:

I hope the two young boys have inherited their relatives abilities to deny what is happening before their very eyes; seems the only way they can survive a living hell like this and come out with any sanity at all.

335. janjon - 2/5/2001 2:01:23 PM

the article I read also indicated that when the father visited the hospital and saw one of his sons he didn't recognize him and asked whether he had been sent to the burn unit. One can only imagine...and cry.

336. Wombat - 2/5/2001 2:39:17 PM

The Wombat family is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel! No more pull-ups for the Wombino! (Extra underpants, sheets, and pajamas, however).

When Wombino turned four last month, we decided that one-and-a-half years of positive reinforcement, bribery, wheedling, propaganda, letting his diapers fester, and letting him do it at his own speed was not acheiving its goal. We started going cold turkey. Unfortunately, Wombino thinks of many things before the status of his bodily functions, so without constant reminders to sit on the potty, it kind of slips his mind.

This manifested itself one day, when, after agreeing to to sit on the potty, he took so long to decide which plastic animal he wanted to hold while sitting, that he wet himself while literally standing over the potty!

We then switched to the Genghis Khan school of toilet training. If he appeared more interested in his toy dinosaurs than in recognizing when he needed to go...no more toy dinosaurs. They now reside on top of a bookcase, to be restored one at a time upon the successful completion of urination or defecation. As my wife put it: "he might complain about how mean his parents were to him when he's in psychoanalysis at the age of 30, but at least he'll be toilet-trained."

337. Shannon - 2/5/2001 2:45:00 PM

Wombat, I think with some kids you just have to do something Genghis-like. My son had no interest. It would never have occurred to him to take his diaper off like Erin's son does. He'd sit happily playing in a dirty diaper. If you offered to change it, he'd say "I'm OK." We didn't have to take any of his toys away, but we bribed him pretty heavily. I don't think we'll have to do that as much with daughter, as she objects to wet/dirty diapers and is happy to "help" with changing.

I have a friend who took away Nintendo to get her kid trained. Worked like a charm in very short order.

338. Erin R. - 2/5/2001 5:02:32 PM

The kid had a Nintendo...what, was he 14?

339. Shannon - 2/5/2001 5:06:51 PM

Funny, Erin. It was officially the parents' Nintendo, but the kid liked to play.

I hate video games myself and will avoid them as much as possible for the kids. They do have games on the PC, however, so...

340. MsIvoryTower - 2/5/2001 7:44:12 PM

Ah, potty training.

I remember being terrified at the prospect of having to be consistent enough to actually get my daughter out of diapers.

What actually happened is that she got the chicken pox, and got sores in some cough cough unmentionable places, hence she couldn't wear diapers for almost a week. During that time, she connected the whole thing and I managed to point her in the direction of the potty enough times to reinforce the experience.

She emerged almost fully trained, and finishing the job didn't tax my parenting skills as I had feared they would.

Hahaha, that was a good story to remember.

My motto for potty training: let them go nekkid.

341. CalGal - 2/5/2001 7:52:00 PM

I didn't have to potty-train Spawn. We'd done some of the sitting at the toilet stuff, but nothing major. He was 2 and a half, which meant it was time to switch him from an infant-toddler center to a pre-school program, and the pre-school said they'd take care of it. Which they did. He regressed slightly when the ex and I split up, about 3 months later, and we put him back in pull ups without comment. He was fine 6 weeks later.

At least, during the daytime. Night-time, no matter what we did, he wet the bed until he was nearly 7. I remember when he was 5 we took him to the pediatrician to make sure there was nothing wrong. The pediatrician recommended waking him up every three hours, which I tried for about four days and decided that I could live without this particular solution and put him back in pullups. We quit even thinking about it and it was no big deal when he was finally dry through the night.

342. mgleason - 2/5/2001 7:58:39 PM

My mother, an ingenious woman eternally squicked by the prospect of dealing with bodily functions, would prop me in the potty chair and say 'Pssssst' while I was, ah, conducting my business, to try and forge a connection between the sound and the action (all before I could speak, natch). Damned if she didn't have me waking her in the night by hissing at her when I had to go, whereupon she'd whisk me onto the chair, and Voila! no diapers to change. We had a few accidents, but she was out of the diaper business PDQ.

343. ycmeehan - 2/5/2001 10:20:58 PM

Would you have done what the young mother did in the following situation?

The boy was five year-old. Every morning from eight to twelve he went to a nursery school. The teachers were happy to have him at first but lately there were concerns. He has asked two little girls to show him as he put it "what they have between their legs". The teachers were told of this request as were his parents. The teachers, the father, the mother, and the older brother tried to explain to the boy some facts of proper behavior and he seemed to understand very well. Then another incident: the boy crawled under the door and surprised a little girl sitting on the toilette. Screams, pandemonium...the parents were faced with the realization that they may have a little pervert at home. A scandal was afoot.

Then the young mother asked him this question: Tell me, why do you want to know what's between little girls' legs? A question no one had asked him before so upset everyone was at the time. The boy answered: I know what I have, what my brother has but I know nothing about girls except they are different than us boys. The mother then went to buy a girl-doll and showed it to the boy. He scornfully looked at her and at the doll which he threw angrily aside. I want to see a real girl, I just want to know how a girl is made. That's all I want, he insisted.

Well, the young mother made up her mind to take care of the situation herself and the incidents soon were forgotten and the boy now grown-up has no memory of it and no pervert is he.

344. JudithAtHome - 2/5/2001 11:22:08 PM

YC:

Had that happened yesterday, the mother would be in jail or at the very least, had her child removed from the home. Sadly, that is seen as the proper way to handle such down to earth situations in this country...

345. joezan - 2/6/2001 12:05:17 AM

Precisely - it's as if common sense has been outlawed.

346. Wombat - 2/6/2001 11:35:33 AM

The Womblings bathe together, so have seen each other's genitals. Since Wombette will be seven on her next birthday, we and/or she might have to consider alternative arrangements.

I remember being very curious about what little girls had down there. Fortunately, I had a friend with a baby sister, so a few glances during diaper changing satisfied my curiosity.

347. PsychProf - 2/6/2001 11:39:09 AM

"Takes a lot to screw a child up"

A Psychologist I admire.

348. Erin R. - 2/6/2001 2:35:33 PM

Quiet in here.

349. labwabbit - 2/6/2001 5:58:45 PM

kids are asleep...

350. Shannon - 2/6/2001 8:20:14 PM

Mine are off at the Y with dad. I should be there too, but I'm just beat. So I'm having a beer and will probably go to bed early.

351. CalGal - 2/6/2001 11:12:37 PM

We have been going to counselling with Spawn. While it is incredibly frustrating, it has also been very enlightening. I realize how well Spawn has learned to play to my blind spots, and how he is not talking about problems he has at school because he's so bent on solving them himself (and where did he get that from, I wonder?).

He is doing extremely well at school since we switched him, but his behavior is spotty--in large part because most of his school day is spent with kids two or three years older than he is and he's trying to mark his territory. And of course he's still trying to get away with not doing homework.

But the counselling is well worth the money. For one thing, it forces Spawn to realize that his parents are completely united in their determination to stop letting him slide. For another, it lets my ex realize that I'm usually right, and that is only partially a joke. Usually he doesn't want to agree with my problem analysis, and resists my solutions. In therapy, I find that the solutions are generally pretty close to what I would suggest, and because it's coming from a third party, he accepts it more readily.

Which is not to say that I'm not learning, too. But I'm learning more about problems that I hadn't been aware of. Once I'm aware of things, I'm pretty good at fixing them.

352. joezan - 2/7/2001 7:38:41 AM

Following a SCAN (Stop Childhood Abuse and Neglect) presentation at my daughter's school last week, she took the school counselor up on her offer to the kids to come and talk about anything that might be bothering them.

My wife gets a call - is incredulous, and pissed - calls me at work, relates her conversation with the counselor. I'm pissed. I fly out the door, make it to the school in 20 minutes, demand to see the counselor. She relates what my daughter told her, and tells me she needs "healing". I beg to differ.

Five minutes later, I'm even more pissed. I tell the counselor to leave my daughter and everyone involved alone, and stop trying to brainwash her.

The incident she "needs healing" from? Two years ago when she was seven, she was playing with the two kids across the street, whose parents are friends of ours. While climbing up the hill covering their root cellar (one of their favorite games at the time) the other two decided to pull down her pants and pinch her butt. They were 5 (girl) and 3 (boy) at the time.

She got mad and embarassed, came home and told my wife, who called the other mom, who took care of it admirably.

I know we haven't heard the last of this, because the last thing the counselor told me was, I hope you're right. But I know from experience that your daughter was traumatized - otherwise, why would she have mentioned it. Believe me - this issue is not resolved, and will pop up again, but worse, when she is 12 or 13.

"Traumatized".

Two more sessions with this wacko, and that would be a virtual certainty.

Ai-yi-yi.

353. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 7:41:25 AM

Joe...excactly. A good counselor NEVER does not this unless it is absolutely needed.

354. joezan - 2/7/2001 7:49:23 AM

PP:

She also signalled - albeit cryptically - that she had "concerns" about the other two kids...didn't I think it a bit unusual for a brother and sister to be behaving that way?

(GULP!)

Geez -where'd my folks go wrong?

When we were kids, there was nothing more delightful than embarassing and torturing one's friends.

355. Erin R. - 2/7/2001 3:38:08 PM

Is TT up? I'm having trouble logging in.

356. Shannon - 2/7/2001 3:40:35 PM

It was very slow for me earlier today, Erin. I haven't tried lately.

357. Erin R. - 2/7/2001 3:43:53 PM

Well, let's talk about our kids here, then!

Lately, my son has been putting different articles of clothing on his head. This past weekend, it was my cotton undies. The past couple of days, he's been trying to get his own pants down over his head.

358. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 3:47:20 PM

Sounds bout right Erin...

359. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 3:48:45 PM

I believe as a youth my favorite was brushed nylon, but who can remember...

360. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 3:57:25 PM

BAUMRIND'S PARENTING STYLES

361. Erin R. - 2/7/2001 4:05:44 PM

Hm...what are we to take from that?

362. JudithAtHome - 2/7/2001 4:08:44 PM

That it takes all kinds....?

Just a thought.

363. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 4:12:46 PM

All of the styles have implications for the character and personality development of the child(Baumrind is quite respected, and has spent her life studying parenting)...at least that is what Baumrind(she) sez. I thought perhaps we might want to think about them...and where we fit in.

364. Erin R. - 2/7/2001 4:19:25 PM

I don't know that the page gives enough information to make that determination.

365. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 4:26:47 PM

Well Erin, it's a start...eg..."Their children cope the best, are individuated, mature, resilient,
achievement oriented, self-regulated and responsible, and have the highest scores on tests of cognitive
competence."...for Authoritative

366. joezan - 2/7/2001 4:46:08 PM

Overheard, not two minutes ago in the court lobby:

15 y.o. boy to mother:Ahright..you just shut up and lemme talk. I'm gonna tell 'em...(unintelligible).

Mom: Head cocked to one side, looks at son with a bemused, slightly confused expression.But....

Boy: No -I'm for realz, dog - don't say nuttin!

What parenting style would you say that was?

367. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 4:55:09 PM

The quiet thoughtfull approach...

368. Shannon - 2/7/2001 11:53:37 PM

My son had his first homework today. He was very proud of himself. He announced it as soon as I picked him up from school: "Mommy, guess what I have in my book sack! I have homework!"

369. MsIvoryTower - 2/8/2001 9:35:13 AM

How bittersweet, Shannon.

I'm always amazed at how eager young children are to experience learning, and to become responsible enough to "get" schoolwork. The really awful thing is how we (as parents, as school organizations) take such eagerness and kill it in the majority of children by the time they get out of the 4th grade.

370. PsychProf - 2/8/2001 3:30:53 PM

Sometimes I miss my sons as kids so much that it hurts to the bone...

371. Shannon - 2/8/2001 3:38:20 PM

How old are they now, Prof?

372. labwabbit - 2/8/2001 3:39:50 PM

Aye...
So do I, miss my son/daughter, so much...


Like right now.

373. JudithAtHome - 2/8/2001 3:45:44 PM

Proximity doesn't guarantee you'll see them any more often. My son lives here in town but works 2 jobs, not because he needs money but because he can't stand being idle...and I see him infrequently. But he calls and tomorrow night is coming for dinner.

He says.... ha!

374. PsychProf - 2/8/2001 3:47:25 PM

Shannon...26(right) and 22.


>

375. Jenerator - 2/8/2001 3:50:46 PM

BABE ALERT!! BABE ALERT!!

376. JudithAtHome - 2/8/2001 3:52:34 PM

(Jen...I sent you a little e-mail...)

377. OhioSTOPAS - 2/8/2001 3:52:46 PM

And you an engaged bride-to-be . . .

378. PsychProf - 2/8/2001 3:56:14 PM

We talk daily on the phone(one lives in Manhattan and the other in North Carolina...they see eachother often...in a week they are taking a vacation in Myrtle Beach...babes and golf I am told)), make it a point to get together at least once a month, but time moves on and I miss the daliy contact that once was.

379. Jenerator - 2/8/2001 3:57:37 PM

Judi,

Did you send it to my yahoo address?

Ohio,

I can admire objective beauty!

380. JudithAtHome - 2/8/2001 3:58:33 PM

Jen...yes.

381. Jenerator - 2/8/2001 4:05:34 PM

Judith,

Right back atcha!;-) Oh and can I ask you a question related to parenting? I hope this isn't stupid, but how do mothers lose weight breastfeeding? (This was mentioned in the cafe) I know that once the milk is gone, obviously there's a weight loss, but does the body lose weight too? If so, how?

382. JudithAtHome - 2/8/2001 4:08:53 PM

I have no idea, Jen...I mixed formula.

383. OhioSTOPAS - 2/8/2001 4:30:36 PM

"Ohio,

I can admire objective beauty!"


Really? I'm not allowed to! (says Mrs. Ohio)

384. PsychProf - 2/9/2001 7:41:48 AM

Anyone interested in discussing their experiences with youth and high school sports, and how these relate to Parenting...my family was literally consumed with athletics, as is the town we live in.

385. Shannon - 2/9/2001 8:21:18 AM

We're about to make our first foray into the world of organized sports. Son is signed up for T-ball starting next month. He's the child of 2 pretty non-athletic parents, but I suspect he'll be pretty good at sports. He's very physical, well-coordinated, and fearless. And he's definitely interested in sports.

386. JudithAtHome - 2/9/2001 8:48:18 AM

I have some stuff on that subject but it will have to wait til I return from an estate sale...

387. theDiva - 2/9/2001 10:39:22 AM

Jen

Breastfeeding helps you lose weight because it uses your fat stores quicker than if you bottlefeed. In addition, it stimulates production of a hormone which helps your uterus shrink back to pre-pregnancy size more quickly. Not only that, but kids who are breastfed are healthier in general because they get Momma's immunities, and are less prone to ear infections than bottleged babies. Then there is the bonding factor which cannot be overstated.

I recommend it unreservedly and wholeheartedly.

Prof

I know what you mean about missing them as kids, even though Gracie technically still is one. There was just something about those elementary school years. IAC, I think it's great you are still so close to them.

388. PsychProf - 2/9/2001 10:47:15 AM

Well Deev, yer about to rectify that situation...

389. theDiva - 2/9/2001 10:54:06 AM

ha! What an adventure this will be....they say #2 is usually totally different from #1. Once we got through colic, it was easy and has remained so. I just wonder what we're in for this time.

390. Adrianne - 2/9/2001 10:56:57 AM

Breastfeeding also helps you lose weight because your body is actually working to manufacture milk. Depending on your metabolism and available fat stores, breastmilk production is estimated to burn 200-400 calories per day.

391. theDiva - 2/9/2001 11:28:46 AM

go boobies, go boobies, go 'head, get busy, it's your birthday....

392. Frankster - 2/9/2001 11:30:41 AM

Whose birthday ?

Shannon,

Re: 385

Maybe PP would be a better one to ask on that, since he has two athletically gifted sons. I personally think that nurture, just as in every other aspect of child rearing, plays a HUGE role here. Keep his interests as high as you possibly can without pressing him, and more than likely, he will gravitate toward toward those other physical, well cordinated and fearless athletes.

From personal experience, I think you have to also expose him to great athletes, be it his peers or professionals ( I hope he just doesn't pick up some of their off court/field habits. Hee-hee ) in order to mimic them as much as possible. He must play against the best in order to hone his skills, and also realize what limits he has. There was never a dearth of athletes where I grew up to observe, so picking up moves and, thereby, "game", came somewhat easy.

(sigh) It seemed as if it were only yesterday...

393. Adrianne - 2/9/2001 11:56:18 AM

DIVA!! BWAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!

Here's some nice sentimental stuff that makes me gack, yet get misty all at once.

"For the parents:

This is for all the parents who froze their buns off on metal bleachers at football games Friday night instead of watching from cars, so that when their kids asked, "Did you see me?" they could say, "Of course, I wouldn't have missed it for the world," and mean it.

This is for all the parents who have sat up all night with sick toddlers in their arms, wiping up barf laced with Oscar Mayer wieners and cherry Kool-Aid saying, "It's OK honey, I'm here."

This is for the parents who created babies they'll never see, and the parents who took those babies and gave them homes.

For all the parents of the victims of the Colorado shooting, and the parents of the murderers. For the moms and dads of the survivors, and the moms and dads who sat in front of their TVs in horror, hugging their child who just came home from school, safely.

For all the parents who run carpools and make cookies and sew Halloween costumes. And all the parents who DON'T.

What makes a good parent anyway? Is it patience? Compassion? The ability to feed a baby, cook dinner, and sew a button on a shirt, all at the same time? To

Or is it heart?

Is it the ache you feel when you watch your son or daughter disappear down the street, walking to school alone for the very first time?

The jolt that takes you from sleep to dread, from bed to crib at 2A.M. to put your hand on the back of a sleeping baby?

The need to flee from wherever you are and hug your child when you hear news of a school shooting, a fire, a car accident, a baby dying?

So this is for all the parents who sat down with their children and explained all about making babies. And for all the parents who wanted to but just couldn't.

394. Adrianne - 2/9/2001 11:56:28 AM

This is for reading "Goodnight, Moon" twice a night for a year. And reading it again. "Just one more time."

This is for all the moms and dads who mess up. Who yell at their kids in the grocery store and swat them in despair and stomp their feet like a tired 2-year-old who wants ice cream before dinner.

This is for all the parents who taught their daughters to tie their shoelaces before they started school. And for all the parents who opted for Velcro instead.


For all the parents who bite their lips - sometimes until they bleed - when their 14 year olds dye their hair green.

This is for all the parents who show up at work with spit-up in their hair and milk stains on their shirts and diapers in their briefcase.

This is for all the parents who teach their sons to cook and their daughters to sink a jump shot.

This is for all parents whose heads turn automatically when a little voice calls "Mom? Dad?" in a crowd, even though they know their own offspring are at home.

This is for parents who put pinwheels and teddy bears on their children's graves.

This is for parents whose children have gone astray, who can't find the words to reach them.

This is for all the parents who sent their sons to school with stomach-aches, assuring them they'd be just FINE once they got there, only to get calls from the school nurse an hour later, asking them to please pick them up. Right away.

This is for young parents stumbling through diaper changes and sleep deprivation. And mature parents, learning to let go.

For working parents and stay-at-home parents mothers. Single parents married parents. Parents with money, parents without.

This is for you all.

Home is where we land when we fall - and we all fall."

395. theDiva - 2/9/2001 12:04:08 PM

that is one hell of a thing to post in the presence of a hormonal woman.

sniffle

This one got me:

"Is it the ache you feel when you watch your son or daughter disappear down the street, walking to school alone for the very first time?"

I still feel that when I drop her off in the morning...watching her go off fearlessly and with her head high to face the day, knobby knees, ankle socks, and all.

sniffle

396. Frankster - 2/9/2001 12:16:22 PM

Adrianne, Deev:

The big age gap twixt my sister and I has provided me with kind of a peek at what you two are describing. I'm not a parent yet, but...

I remember when we sent her to some kind of camp for a week when she was about nine or ten years old, and seeing her tiny head barely make the edge of the Greyhound bus window as it pulled away. When she came back, I told her we had missed her, and I asked her if she had missed us and did she cry at all during her week away from us. Her response was this:

Nope, I wasn't like the other kids. They cried on the bus and a-a-a-a-l-l-l of the first day at camp ... I didn't cry until the third day...

(snif)

397. theDiva - 2/9/2001 12:19:49 PM

aaaaawwwwwww.......

398. Frankster - 2/9/2001 12:26:19 PM

Deev, Ad:

Let me add that by no means did I mean to imply that I know what it is actually like to be a fleah and blood parent of a son or daughter as you two have been describing, but with lil' sis, and all the neices and nephews here in town, I believe I have some teensy-weensy idea of what you guys might be talking about...I think.

399. Frankster - 2/9/2001 12:27:24 PM

fleah = FLESH

400. labwabbit - 2/9/2001 12:34:02 PM

This is for parents who, despite their best efforts, live in fear that someone(thing) else could undo those efforts it in a heartbeat, and yet still find the courage to teach independence.

401. PsychProf - 2/9/2001 1:16:14 PM

Ad, Deev, Frank et al...what a great group of posts to return to after meeting with a troubled teenager/freshman here at the University. Lab... your post comes strait from the LabWabbit heart...

402. theDiva - 2/9/2001 1:18:57 PM

Frankie

well, I figured as much.

Prof

Thanks. These guys have got me sniffling still.

403. Frankster - 2/9/2001 1:21:06 PM

PP,

I hope you were able to assist that teen ?

404. PsychProf - 2/9/2001 1:24:07 PM

Frank...maybe in the future, but what has happened cannot be changed. Now I will have to deal with anger, guilt, and subsequent emotion on the part of the parents.

405. theDiva - 2/9/2001 1:27:40 PM

that doesn't sound good.

406. Frankster - 2/9/2001 1:28:25 PM

Sounds pretty heavy, PP. I wish you the best in your efforts. I feel for everyone involved.

407. labwabbit - 2/9/2001 1:49:37 PM

Thanks PP.

Difficult to be a good teacher without involvement...yet involvement most always means difficult.

408. PsychProf - 2/11/2001 11:24:04 AM

NEW MEMBER FOR DRUG OF THE MONTH CLUB

409. PsychProf - 2/11/2001 11:29:10 AM

WHAT DO YA THINK MOTEHEADS?

click on image

410. joezan - 2/11/2001 11:38:04 AM

PP:

Haven't read the entire thing yet (that's a long article), but it seems to me it's something that may be quite refreshing for the 1% of people possessed of both the means and the opportunity to do something like that, and whose children aren't too young.

411. PsychProf - 2/11/2001 11:44:23 AM

Sorry for the length of the file...I was hoping we might discuss the issues, especially in light of parenting effects...

412. joezan - 2/11/2001 11:48:24 AM

..like, perhaps it's a good idea to give our kids a break from us?

413. labwabbit - 2/11/2001 2:37:16 PM

PP

Forwarded that to "someone special" on your behalf. Insightful. Thanks for the link.

414. rubberducky - 2/12/2001 11:31:43 AM

so how are the parents of younger kids thinking (assuming they are) about handling the subject of drugs and/or sex with the young 'uns?

what's the right age?

415. JudithAtHome - 2/12/2001 11:37:36 AM

Judging from some of the stuff I've read lately in the paper, pre-K for both!

416. CalGal - 2/12/2001 11:38:01 AM

Drugs:

Younger--you tell them never ever ever ever to take anything that looks like a pill, even if someone tells you its candy.

Older--I think it depends. There are two schools of thought, generally. One school focuses on the safety of drug use; the other focuses on complete rejection of all drug use.

417. theDiva - 2/12/2001 11:40:30 AM

marriage sabbatical ain't for me. I can't get enough of my family.

sniffle

418. PsychProf - 2/12/2001 12:55:03 PM

Joe and Diva...thanks for responding to my link...it's a heated topic among faculty and students here.

419. theDiva - 2/12/2001 1:02:37 PM

Prof

I want to read it when I have a bit more time because my immediate reaction is not positive or based on having read the entire article. But first impression is what I posted previously. Even with all the aggravation and compromise and stresses of daily life, I wouldn't want to leave my beloveds for any length of time. I miss them when I'm at work, for Godsake. Maybe I'm just a psycho.

420. theDiva - 2/12/2001 1:05:06 PM

speaking of whom, I've got to scoot. Gracie is in a spelling bee at 2.

421. PsychProf - 2/12/2001 1:06:35 PM

Haha...sabbatical that.

422. labwabbit - 2/12/2001 1:48:50 PM

Hurummmph...

423. Shannon - 2/12/2001 1:55:50 PM

I gave the article a quick, not terribly thorough read. I really can't relate to the women featured. Maybe I'm just bitchy (g), but I don't have such a hard time getting things done when I need to. Now, I can't focus on my own stuff all the time. But I can certainly do it often enough that I don't need to get away from my family for 3 months a year.

And I'd have a hard time being away for more than a week or so, I think. I've gone on a couple of solo trips for 4-5 days, which was fine. I could do a week or so with hubby and no kids. But any longer than that, and I think I'd be ready to see the kids again.

424. CalGal - 2/12/2001 2:37:38 PM

Has anyone seen--or heard of--the documentary, Sound and Fury?

It is about two deaf parents who refuse to allow their deaf five year old daughter the opportunity to get cochlear implants because they feel that she is better off deaf. They also disown the father's hearing brother because he and his wife opt for cochlear implants for their young infant (18 months).

Repugnant story, really. "Deaf culture" is a spooky thing. The father was delighted that all three of his children were born deaf--it's better that way.

The health issue: for now, cochlear implants aren't a completely sure thing, but if you install them in young children (the younger the better) they have reading and comprehension skills equal to hearing kids. Whereas the average deaf adult can't read at the fourth grade level. The risk for faillure is relatively low, but the procedure does completely disconnect the existing hearing mechanism completely, so if it doesn't work you won't be able to use hearing aids or anything else that comes along later. On the other hand, once a pre-lingual deaf person gets past childhood, their brain doesn't seem to be able to make sense of sound, so the odds of success are extremely low.

But I'm more interested in the parenting issue: assume, for the moment, that the technology of cochlear implants improves so that a deaf infant will be given a near certain chance of growing up as a hearing person. Should their parents have the right to deny them the surgery?

425. arkymalarky - 2/12/2001 5:48:38 PM

I didn't want to say since I only skimmed it, but that article bugged me. When does her husband get to take his sabbatical?

426. labwabbit - 2/12/2001 5:51:13 PM

arky....


when she takes hers!

heh-heh

427. JudithAtHome - 2/12/2001 5:52:49 PM

I wondered about that, too, Arky...I guess it's assumed they never want or need one.

428. labwabbit - 2/12/2001 5:53:28 PM

probably helps her pack...

429. arkymalarky - 2/12/2001 5:55:16 PM

Message # 426

Hahaha.

430. theDiva - 2/13/2001 4:47:41 AM

Well, the kid won the spelling bee, so it's on to the Diocesan competition.

But quite honestly, I have never been so proud of Gracie as I was when she stopped the runner-up from leaving the stage (by gently placing her hand on the girl's arm), extended her hand for a shake, and said 'good job, thanks.'

Sabbatical, schmatical.

431. joezan - 2/13/2001 5:50:53 AM

Congrats to Gracie!

432. Shannon - 2/13/2001 8:21:34 AM

That's great, Diva. She sounds like a good kid.

433. PsychProf - 2/13/2001 9:01:48 AM

434. theDiva - 2/13/2001 9:03:35 AM

thanks, guys. She is a constant source of joy for me.

435. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 10:01:48 AM

That's great, Diva. You must have been so proud.

Cal, if my child was born deaf and there was a surgery that would correct it, I would go for it. I would agree that it's child abuse to not have it corrected, if it can be.

436. CalGal - 2/13/2001 10:15:11 AM

Congrats to Gracie!!!!

Erin,

The separatist "deaf culture" is spooky. This is probably a language issue, but it is interesting how the only disability that has formed a culture is the one that also has a separate form of communication.

437. jonesatlaw - 2/13/2001 10:21:07 AM

Congras Gracie. The handshake for the runner up is as wonderful as the win. She is well named, for winning with Grace is just about the highest aspiration one can have, isn't it?

438. jonesatlaw - 2/13/2001 10:22:45 AM

err, "congrats" to Gracie. Sheesh, compliment a spelling bee winner with a mispelled word!

439. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 10:26:50 AM

I don't know anything about the deaf culture. I don't, however, think it's wrong to develop a method of communication that is different from the spoken word, if the spoken word is not available to you.

440. mgleason - 2/13/2001 10:48:17 AM

In reading the discussion on Sound and Fury, one thing that worried me was the reluctance to explore the father's reasons for deciding against cochlear implants for his daughter. It bothers me that there is such a strong sense of it being Not the Done Thing to criticize his isolationist stance. The idea that the it is OK to refuse the implants on behalf of his child because they foster 'genocide,' the destruction of the deaf culture, is frightening and deeply selfish.

441. CalGal - 2/13/2001 11:12:51 AM

MGleason,

Crippling your child deliberately? Well, that's just parental choice--and besides, it's not like being deaf is being disabled. Some people like being deaf. To say otherwise is to admit that you're prejudiced against deafness. Of course, ask those same deaf parents what they would do if their kid were born blind and there were a cure--they wouldn't hesitate.

And I found several deaf sites that refer to the "decimation" of the deaf population by such atrocities as...cures or reduction of childhood illnesses.

Sound and Fury--here's the PBS website.

If cochlear implant's success rate is ever validated, I wonder if mandated reporting of deaf infants will come next.

442. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 11:22:43 AM

I'm home sick today. Baby is sick too, so I can't drop him off at the sitter's and try to get some work done. But I'm having fun slapping around a drinking mama in MWT.

I love parenthood.

443. CalGal - 2/13/2001 11:29:18 AM

I read that exchange--if you note, I said right off she was a drunk. (I'd already seen her posts in Women and Alcohol).

444. mgleason - 2/13/2001 11:30:53 AM

I'm looking forward to seeing the film. The Times has a good review, In the World of the Deaf, Hearing Poses Dangers:

"Sound and Fury" is asking some big questions. In a socially aware culture, people profess to believe that no skin color, religion, sexual orientation, political ideology, chronological age or physical attribute is superior to another. They say that differences should be celebrated; thus the corporate buzzword of the moment, diversity.

Are the deaf parents in this film calling the culture's bluff? Or is a physical disadvantage truly something that should be celebrated? Do parents have a right to keep their children at a remove from the hearing world just because, in their opinion and experience, deaf is beautiful? Have we gone so far in our fear of offending anyone that we now advocate disadvantages' being deliberately preserved? Or do the hearing- impaired have a right to rear their children within a somewhat separatist subculture? The Amish have been doing that for quite a while.

445. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 11:33:12 AM

Looks like she's leaving now...at least she says she is.

I hadn't seen the posts in Women and Alcohol before I started posting. It really looks like she's had her eye-opener this morning and decided it might be fun to post in MWT. Kind of an on-line version of drunk dialing.

I've heard of dwarves who feel that prenatal testing will decimate their numbers.

446. JudithAtHome - 2/13/2001 11:34:22 AM

that refer to the "decimation"

But wouldn't that be only reducing it by a tenth?

Sorry, couldn't resist...I know this is a serious discussion; carry on.

447. PsychProf - 2/13/2001 11:35:58 AM

Maria...you not only can look forward to seeing it, but hearing it also.

448. CalGal - 2/13/2001 11:36:21 AM

MGleason,

The reviews were astonishingly unanimous--it was an excellent movie, and they all wanted to kill the father.

449. CalGal - 2/13/2001 11:40:07 AM

I've heard of dwarves who feel that prenatal testing will decimate their numbers.


No doubt it would--and given that this involves abortion, I can understand their revulsion. It is hard to realize that your parents would most likely have chosen to abort you, which is quite different from a parent opting to "cure" you.

But you are right that the principle is the same.

I can't imagine finding this sentiment in the blind or wheelchair bound population, can you?

450. mgleason - 2/13/2001 11:42:42 AM

Yes, I can, Prof, but if I were deaf, I wouldn't deny my children the chance to hear just to validate my own condition.

451. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 11:45:14 AM

No, I can't. I would think having all your parts working would be most desirable.

452. CalGal - 2/13/2001 12:23:35 PM

You know, that last statement of yours seems to be the sticking point. The deaf find it offensive--and many of them would apparently resist giving their child "working parts" because it offends them to think that deafness is a disability, ie, something isn't "working".

Where do parental rights end?

453. theDiva - 2/13/2001 12:56:26 PM

Thanks, gang, for your good wishes and congrats to Gracie. I'm so pleased she's riding this wave of accomplishments right now...science fair, honor band, and now spelling bee...her second quarter report card wasn't quite her usual stellar performance because she missed so much school due to illness, and she took it rather hard. The honors are boosting her self confidence and it's reflected in her weekly grades.

454. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 1:02:52 PM

I don't think deaf people in general have any idea what it's like to be hearing, so to them, it may not be a disability. I agree that parents should not be allowed to keep their children from having their disability fixed, if there is a definite way to do it.

455. theDiva - 2/13/2001 1:18:26 PM

Perhaps I am ignorant of this issue because I'm not deaf, or I'm just politically incorrect at heart, because I cannot fathom how anyone could think it desirable to leave their child deaf when the option to do otherwise is available. I just don't get it.

456. sakonige - 2/13/2001 1:20:46 PM

Kids are so much more enjoyable when you are not a parent. Even the most annoying kids' and their parents are a lot easier to get along with as someone who doesn't live with children. I just have to be careful to not smile too much.

457. CalGal - 2/13/2001 1:27:30 PM

Deev,

They resent the notion that being deaf is any sort of a disability. (I haven't noticed this resentment extending to a rejection of the ADA, however).

458. theDiva - 2/13/2001 1:33:09 PM

Cal

They only think that because they've never heard Ella Fitzgerald sing 'Misty'. Seriously. I cannot imagine life without music or the sound of my beloved's voice or even a thunderstorm. It must be awful, but of course if you haven't had something how can you miss it?

459. CalGal - 2/13/2001 1:36:44 PM

Diva,

But can you imagine a blind person saying they'd rather not see? A crippled person saying they're fine without their legs?

I think it must be deafness and the fact that they have a language that allows some of them to become...well, delusional, for lack of a better word. I mean, when someone says, "It's only your opinion that deafness is a disability, not reality!" you know you're dealing with people with a serious skew.

This is actually a big divide among deaf people themselves. Many of them are "normal", in that they accept it as a disability.

460. theDiva - 2/13/2001 1:39:23 PM

Gosh, no! I truly cannot fathom this attitude.

461. theDiva - 2/13/2001 1:41:11 PM

If nothing else, just in terms of physical vulnerability, why would anyone not want their child to be able to hear? Crossing the street...walking down the sidewalk...hearing a fire alarm in a crowded building....shudder

462. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 2:45:56 PM

I think it's fine for people with no other way to communicate to develop a means to communicate. That doesn't bother me. But suggesting that not being able to hear isn't a disability is just plain stupid.

463. PsychProf - 2/13/2001 4:03:20 PM

Erin...who sez that?

464. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:06:30 PM

People who think of themselves as Deaf rather than deaf. Didn't you see my post above? A father who was relieved that his children were born deaf, disowned a brother who chose cochlear implants for his child, and denied his own child cochlear implants because he wanted her to remain deaf.

And this is by no means unusual. "Deaf culture" is very odd.

465. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 4:07:19 PM

There's a conversation in MWT on Table Talk. Haven't been following it that closely, but from what CalGal is posting, this is what some deaf people are saying.

466. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:15:08 PM

Here are some of the choicer comments--some made by deaf people, some by hearing--keep in mind that I had expressed the POV that deaf parents who deliberately kept their child deaf were abusive and that I hoped eventually legislation would make this illegal.

I feel the same way about fundamentalists raising children, but it doesn't make them evil or sick. I personally don't like it, but that's my opinion. IMO, fundamentalists are also crippling their children, making it difficult for them to live and get along with others in this world, but that doesn't mean they should lose their children. ...Period. Deafness is not like leprosy or cancer; it will not kill the child if it isn't "fixed".

So... this is much like a black man only wanting a black woman to have children with, because he believes that being black is better than being white, even though black people suffer all sorts of racism and problems.

The man is not a monster because he is not rushing to cure his daughter of her deafness. His deafness to him is as natural as your curly hair is to you, it is another feature of his very being.

Not every deaf person views their deafness as disabling, it is a difficult concept for hearing people to grasp but nonetheless it exists. ...And passing on deafness, is no more abusive than passing on sickle cell or any other genetic disorder. It's a part of life.


and my personal favorite:

It is so ethnocentric as to say that hearing is the best.

467. PsychProf - 2/13/2001 4:16:00 PM

I have taught hearing disabled students(not deaf), and there are laws(Federal Disability Act) requiring certain accommodations for the classroom, and for my teaching. Hence my assumption that loss of a sense system implies disability, both legally and in practice.

468. theDiva - 2/13/2001 4:20:07 PM

Jaysus.

469. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 4:20:55 PM

I find it irritating when people want to compare everything to being black. It's stupid.

470. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:20:57 PM

Well, yes. One would think.

What are the current laws on Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists keeping their kids from medical treatment these days?

471. Shannon - 2/13/2001 4:21:15 PM

Well, CalGal. You can guess what I think, since I'm one of your cronies.

472. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:23:52 PM

Sorry, my 470 was in response to PP's post--you all snuck in.

Erin--I think the Times article Maria linked in above points that out. We've gotten to the point of trying to create an "equivalency" for everything. Hence black and deaf become identical in the cry for tolerance.

473. theDiva - 2/13/2001 4:23:57 PM

I love this one:

"So... this is much like a black man only wanting a black woman to have children with, because he believes that being black is better than being white, even though black people suffer all sorts of racism and problems."

Let me guess...the author of this particular gem is not a black male.

474. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:25:12 PM

Oops--should have put quotes around "tolerance".

Shannon, yes, I saw you in there. I just found it incredibly abusive. If you read the reviews of the movie, they are all pretty unanimous. One guy said he waanted to throw a brick at the dad.

Another reviewer pointed out that he saw it with deaf people and noticed that they laughed and applauded at entirely different places--suggesting that they were sympathetic with the father.

475. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 4:25:24 PM

I didn't realize that CalGal had cronies!

476. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:26:40 PM

Diva,

You are correct. She is hearing and probably white. She was much displeased with my "intolerance"--after all, it's not like deafness is a disease!

477. theDiva - 2/13/2001 4:28:06 PM

God save me from 'tolerant' white folks.

478. PsychProf - 2/13/2001 4:30:31 PM

Erin...nonsense. I am one of Calgals favorite cronies.

479. Shannon - 2/13/2001 4:31:44 PM

Erin,
According to some people she does. I guess they think she emails people offline and tells them what to say. Oh, and CalGal, I got an annoying-as-hell comment about my tagline the other day. I think I'm going to keep it forever now. Good way to ward off people who are still mentally in junior high, I've decided.

Oh, and good point about equivilancy in #472. I see lots of annoying claims along those lines.

480. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 4:34:57 PM

I like to think of myself as a CalGal Pal, not exactly a crony, though.

481. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:35:32 PM

Deev,

What was really frightening about the whole conversation was that it reinforced the dichotomy that the movie was addressing--that deaf people really will, if given the option, choose to disable their children. I'm sure not all of them will, but the ones who feel a part of "deaf culture" will.

I can't remember if I linked in the MSNBC piece on the movie--of 300 children who had cochlear implant surgery at this particular hospital, only two of them had deaf parents. And apparently it isn't all that uncommon for deaf parents to have deaf children.

482. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:37:06 PM

I love CalGal Pal. Someone else used to use that term--or I came up with it as a joke.

483. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 4:40:07 PM

I am having fun channeling you in the drunken mama thread. And you are quite restrained, I have to say.

484. CalGal - 2/13/2001 5:00:53 PM

Well, as a general rule, I take the hardline if no one else is doing it. But if someone else is willing to go for it, I will often stand back and watch. Also, I'm trying hard to not say what I think of the mother of a 13 year old who gobbles Prozac and gulps down three tumblers of wine (with ice) in two hours.

Don't get me wrong--there is a lot of addiction in my family, and I am extremely sympathetic to the problems of addiction. But there is something about being conscious enough to blabber on about it but not willing to do something about it that I just find very upsetting. The self-absorption is complete, and I just feel for the kid.

485. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 5:06:07 PM

I'm also finding it upsetting. I feel for that kid and am glad I don't put my child through that bullshit.

486. janjon - 2/13/2001 5:06:55 PM

I am sure I misread that post the first time. You are saying it is the mother who guzzles the prozac etc., not the 13 year old, right?

487. Shannon - 2/13/2001 5:08:15 PM

Erin, I think you're channeling quite well.

Janjon, it is the mother.

488. PelleNilsson - 2/13/2001 5:12:24 PM

I'm appalled at the lack of PC here. We all know that people are not deaf but hearing-impaired. Or, if stone-deaf, severely hearing-impaired.

As so many other things in today's social debate the question at hand is based on a garbled and mis-applied understanding of postmodernist thought. It is probably true that being deaf gives you a unique view of the world, a unique "standpoint" in the lingo. One can develop an ideology around that but the wish to have one's children share it by force of denying them treatment is perverse.

489. CalGal - 2/13/2001 5:12:56 PM

Ack.

Yes, Jan, it's the mother.

Periodically, at TT, someone will open a thread describing a completely outrageous problem, that reveals far more about a person than you wish to know--and for some reason, they are usually parents. In this case, this woman wanted to know why the cops came down on her so hard. After all, it was a party of 13 year olds that had become incredibly disruptive, and when they wanted to speak to the adult in charge they were not pleased to see that she was drunk.

She wanted to know what other mothers did about their drinking habits. Because, of course, everyone has to choose between getting blotto every night and being a good parent--so how do others handle it?

490. CalGal - 2/13/2001 5:14:41 PM

Incidentally, I'm referring to TT conversations because they bring up interesting parenting issues that seem relevant here, not because it's a chance to dish about TT.

Pelle,

I wonder if there is "deaf culture" in Sweden?

491. PelleNilsson - 2/13/2001 5:37:09 PM

CalGal

Having read this I wonder too, but I doubt it. Not because of Swedes being more rational (although we are) but because of arithmetics. The US is such a large country that even a very small percentage of wackos translates into a significant number of people.

492. CalGal - 2/13/2001 5:46:29 PM

Is it possible to do a web search on "deaf culture" and Sweden in Swedish? It'd be interesting to see.

493. PelleNilsson - 2/13/2001 5:47:36 PM

I'll do that, but tomorrow.

494. ChristinO - 2/13/2001 8:02:26 PM

No one would take seriously the plaints of a "redneck" who wanted to keep his children illiterate so as not to lose his rural cultural identity. There are laws against it even.

When will people learn that children are not posessions and NO ONE has a "right" to them?

495. joezan - 2/13/2001 9:54:45 PM

Update on The Nosy School Counselor drama:

Yesterday, our daughter came home from school and told us that the counselor had taken her out of her class, to talk more about her traumatic incident of two years ago, wherein her pants were pulled down by the two little kids across the street, who were 5 & 3 at the time.

In my first post on this, I think I mentioned that I told her to leave my daughter alone about this.

So you can imagine how pissed my wife and I were that she had deliberately defied our wishes. We talked, and decided that I would be the one to confront this woman, as I had had prior contact, and because my wife might strangle her. Of course, it was to late to do anything yesterday, and today I was scheduled to attend a conference 30 miles away, all day.

And I didn't want to do this over the phone.

And, the counselor doesn't work tomorrow. So, I'm left to stew on this for 2 more days.

I get to the conference, which is huge - 650 people. After listening to an opening speech, we follow our numbered, lettered nametags to our assigned groups - 20 different groups of around 30 people, to discuss ways to combat racism in our community.

I arrive at my assigned classroom at Hope College, and we split again into two smaller groups, of about 15.

Now, when I registered three weeks ago, I requested the Law and Government group, natch. But no. Someone screwed up, and I get stuck in the Education group.

And, after we break out into our small groups, I look around and see, sitting straight across from me, is the school counselor.

Who says there is no God?

496. PelleNilsson - 2/14/2001 4:27:48 AM

CalGal

The teram "deaf culture" exists in Swedidh but it seems to be used in the traditional manner, that is sign language, theater and so on. One Swedish site has links to American ones. Some are bizarre, e.g. "Deaf Lesbian Resources on Line".

To illustrate my point about numbers: There is a semi-official association for the deaf. It has 700 members, which is probably the vast majority of deaf people in Sweden. If we scale that up to the US level we get some 22,000 people. That's enough for various subcultures to develop supported by the Internet.

497. Laura C - 2/14/2001 9:30:41 AM

"Oh, and CalGal, I got an annoying-as-hell comment about my tagline the other day. I think I'm going to keep it forever now. Good way to ward off people who are still mentally in junior high, I've decided."

Shannon, I saw that and was appalled. The willful oh-no-not-US! obtuseness in that thread is amazing, as is the apparent belief that if you're not posting, you can't see what they're saying.

"No one would take seriously the plaints of a "redneck" who wanted to keep his children illiterate so as not to lose his rural cultural identity. There are laws against it even."

So what's the difference between the redneck and the Amish farmer?

498. PsychProf - 2/14/2001 9:32:07 AM

Pennsylvania.

499. Shannon - 2/14/2001 9:57:41 AM

Amazing obtuseness, indeed, Laura. Oh well, all the more reason to spend more time here.

So what happened with the counselor, joezan? You lived to tell the tale--did she?

500. theDiva - 2/14/2001 11:21:35 AM

speaking of incredibly stupid people in other online forums...

this woman on a Stepfamilies board posted a lengthy rant about her husband and his 10 y.o. daughter, how annoyed she was over the fact that he visited with the child 2x a week, that they talk on the phone every day, and the child cries because she misses her father. She thinks they ought to 'get on with their lives'.

So I did something I never do. I bitch slapped her. God, I feel good.

501. CalGal - 2/14/2001 11:28:42 AM

What's horrible is that there are so many men who would be encouraged to do exactly what she wants--by the courts, no less. Just give the mom the money, Dad. All you are is a wallet.

It's tragic that what she complains about is exactly what Ad's husband dreams about.

502. theDiva - 2/14/2001 11:40:04 AM

It seems that's exactly what she wants...for him to have as little involvement as possible in this child's life. I lectured her rather strongly on how blessed she was to be married to such a man because it indicated how committed a father he'd be to their own child (she's pregnant.) And would you believe the selfish wench has a 4 y.o. son?

'Get on with her life' indeed.

503. PsychProf - 2/14/2001 11:42:59 AM

Diva and CalGal...you are exactly right...and ya gotta love the Nickname "The Wallet" for any male...

504. theDiva - 2/14/2001 11:44:01 AM

Psych 'The Wallet' Prof

505. PsychProf - 2/14/2001 11:47:28 AM

Hahaha....

506. theDiva - 2/14/2001 11:55:46 AM

I want to talk more about that marriage sabbatical article. I read it the other night and quite honestly found it very difficult to get all the way through, seeing as how I was continually stopping to yell at my computer screen.

It was almost as if the author was suspended in the same mental/emotional state as she was when she was a college junior...seeking her 'self' and not wanting to have to attend to the needs of her family. What I feel she missed out on was the golden opportunity that marriage (good marriage) and parenting gives one to look outside oneself towards a greater good, and just how rewarding that can be.

Example, as I mentioned earlier when Gracie shook the hand of her opponent in the spelling bee. Nothing I have ever done in my professional life has given me as much satisfaction as my daughter's simple gesture. It showed me that I am doing something right and I am succeeding as a parent. What greater vocation could I possibly have? What more creative endeavor could I possibly undertake? AFAIC, a satisfying, fulfilling life is not about me, me, me...and that seems to be the opposite of what that woman was saying. As I read her whining about playing tennis even though she didn't enjoy it, I thought 'my God, what an upper middle class conundrum. Get some real problems, lady.'

Anyway, just some random thoughts.

507. Erin R. - 2/14/2001 11:56:41 AM

Oh...where is this infamous board? I'm finding lately that I enjoy (watching) a good slapping around.

508. theDiva - 2/14/2001 11:58:18 AM

Erin

e-mail me at jazzdeev@yahoo.com and I'll supply the link. I post there under my RL name and I don't want to link in here.

509. theDiva - 2/14/2001 11:59:14 AM

Incidentally, there is very much a 'you go girl' feeling to this board, plus I am generally too nice, so the bitch-slapping there is practically nonexistent and the one I administered was gentle by Mote standards.

510. theDiva - 2/14/2001 12:01:19 PM

Yippee! Hubby is here for our Valentine's day luncheon...later....

511. joezan - 2/14/2001 3:46:10 PM

Shannon - Message # 499:

So what happened with the counselor, joezan?

Oh, she gave me some very weak explanation about being "required" to get "closure" after an initial contact. I am more convinced than ever, though, that her real purpose in all of this was to pump my daughter for info on the other two kids. I listened to her politely, then told her that we have some philosophical differences, and seeing as there was no crime committed, she has no right to talk to my daughter any further in the absence of my permission to do so. I made her agree that she would never approach my daughter again on anything having to do with this incident.

I hope that's the end of it.

512. sakonige - 2/14/2001 6:46:35 PM

In every community, it does happen that some of the most intelligent and innovative youth are alienated from mainstream educational institutions. In a wealthy community, these kids are provided with education tailored to their inclinations, such as homeschooling, private acadamies, or programs for gifted students. In a very poor community, they often just drop out of school. I've noticed that remedial classes in very poor communities may contain both extremes of the most capable and the least capable students.

What a privilege it is to see the light of epiphany shine in a young person's eyes. Nothing I could have done as an engineer could have ever had the impact of pointing out the fundamental concepts of algebra and calculus to a few ragged American Indian kids. Looking into their eyes, I've finally become an adult.

513. arkymalarky - 2/14/2001 7:39:02 PM

Diva, I could only skim that article it bugged me so, but didn't I read right that the idiot had five kids? It would seem that she must be stupid beyond words to be realizing this late in the game that she needs her "space." She needs to take a sabbatica--dumped in the middle of some third world hut, imo.

514. arkymalarky - 2/14/2001 7:43:23 PM

Good for you, Sakonige--and for the kids too. I think people would be amazed at some of the truly intelligent and even brilliant kids who are buried in mediocre surroundings and never really do anything to indicate to the world at large what's there. To see it willfully done while parents stand by, especially to watch kids give up and change attitudes over a period of years from 7th through 12th grades, is one of the most frustrating parts of being a teacher, but seeing kids rise above their circumstances and do well when literally no one at home is rooting for them or helping them is great.

515. wonkers2 - 2/14/2001 9:15:01 PM

sakonige, I don't disagree with you, except to say that even in rich communities a fair number of the kids are alienated, underachievers, cheaters, drug and alcohol users. I'm not sure why that is. Lots of reasons I guess--single parent households, parents who drink too much, parents who put too much pressure for success on their children, parents who ignore their children, parents who are too permissive or too controlling, and high schools that are three times as big as they should be. I have something of a feel for such kids from my own three and from my wife's experience as a math tutor for the past 15 years or so. You wouldn't believe the tales the kids tell her about life in a large and supposedly excellent suburban high school. Of course, I'm not suggesting that conditions are not much better than in most inner city Detroit High Schools. They have all the above problems plus poverty, discrimination, parental drug addiction, etc.

And Arky, sometimes parents just stand by because they are at a loss for what to do. I went to parent-teacher conferences religiously for many years and did everything but beat one of my kids to get him to do his homework--cajolery, threats, rewards, recognition, withholding car privileges, counseling, etc. Sometimes it's hard to know what to do about an underachieving, alienated teenager. One of ours was a National Merit semi-finalist who cut lots of classes during his junior and senior years, got lousy grades and barely got into a not-so-good college. Once he got away from home he did well academically and graduated from a first rate law school. I don't know the answer--it must have had to do with family dynamics/peer influence/the school.

516. arkymalarky - 2/14/2001 9:27:01 PM

I agree, Wonk, and in fact I was that type of student--though not nearly so extreme in either intelligence or slacking--in high school. My daughter, otoh, is very self-motivated and driven, excepting a small and rather typical junior high school slump.

I'm thinking of kids whose parents aren't there for their kids at all--not just wrt what teachers see in their kids' education.

I've posted about her more than once in here, but I always think of one of my top seniors from a few years back whose dad remarried, after being divorced from her mother who left the kids with him, to a lady not much older than his daughter, then telling her she had to find somewhere else to live. She was 18 and really had very few options, but lived with friends, worked her ass off, and put herself through college, all with a great attitude. I've had lots of kids who were pretty much on their own by the time they were juniors at least, but she always stands out to me. I don't know where she is now or what she's doing. I need to try to find out.

517. labwabbit - 2/14/2001 9:30:53 PM

it bugged me so, but didn't I read right that the idiot had five kids? It would seem that she must be stupid beyond words to be realizing this late in the game that she needs her "space."

Arky,

I came up with a different solution than you, but every other sense was basically the same.

Talk about your "victimization/pity" syndrome. Not hard to imagine her being a single mother, no less a bad one.

518. wonkers2 - 2/14/2001 9:36:44 PM

It's a mystery. I know from my children's experience and my own experience that there is a certain amount of luck, good or bad, involved. An outstanding teacher or two or other adult who take an interest in a child can make a tremendous difference. The child I mentioned above simply wasn't very interested in any of his high school classes, except for English--he read whatever he could get his hands on novels, magazines, newspapers. So, he was learning a fair amount, but not from his classes.

519. labwabbit - 2/14/2001 10:15:43 PM

Message # 515
Wonkers

Good piece. There is no magical formulae to get identical results from two different individuals. The description of your child who was a National-Merit semi-finalist rings a the bell of wonder for me in relation to my son and daughter. Both National Honor Society inductees, both lettered and captained in varsity teams, both were registered tutors, both for math and history, both in band and marching band, (son was in State Honors and New England All Honors Program). Son was accepted to 3 great universities...MIT was one; daughter wasn't sure about what direction she wanted. Son after graduation from HS, got hooked up with present day wife (whom he met in State band)...and chose the Air Force!!! ('bout shit myself). Daughter got into a mediocre college (started toward Veterinarian work, changed to EDU, then settled in Biology...but is now a soon to (under)graduate Environmental Biology - minoring in math & philosophy.... and who has so many doors being offered and opened to her for her work, that the sky is the limit. (If asked 4 years ago...my prediction wouldn't have been close...for either.) In fact she is presently on a research project trip to New Mexico as we speak...left Monday.

Ya never know what lurks in the hearts of each person. Even when you think you know them better than they do.

520. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 9:52:35 AM

Coupla thoughts...Lab...MIT! I wonder if people understand what an accomplishment that is. In any case, your son chose what he wanted to do. So did your daughter. So did you...We can't control all that happens to our children. We can provide a parental model(talk about time and commitment!!) for them to see and incorporate... for what we want them to be and be like.

521. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 10:00:28 AM

I put this up at the SportsBar, but I thought it relevant here as well...sorry if it is a spam for you.



"I think what he meant to say was that he didn't know the spelling of her last name," Rudolf said. "When he was at Lamaze class, that came up."

click on photo

522. CalGal - 2/15/2001 11:39:41 AM

Goes to show again that dads ought to be able to have a "paper abortion".

523. theDiva - 2/15/2001 12:27:31 PM

then there's always

1. use a condom

or

2. keep it in the pants (a shocking concept, I know.)

524. CalGal - 2/15/2001 12:38:06 PM

Diva,

One can say the same thing about the right to an abortion for women. In fact, I recall that was the argument against it. Still is.

Fact is that men and women can behave equally irreponsibly. Only women have the ability to opt out of being a parent.

525. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 12:44:58 PM

My son has something wrong with him. Trying to get through to the doc.

526. CalGal - 2/15/2001 12:46:05 PM

Oh, no. What's the matter?

527. Shannon - 2/15/2001 12:46:39 PM

What's wrong, Erin?

528. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 12:50:13 PM

Re-posted from MWT:

I picked the baby up last night as he lay on the floor sucking a bottle, and transported him to another room. After finishing his bottle, he got up and started walking around with a noticeable limp. All evening. But he doesn't seem to be in any pain. My husband thinks I broke the baby.

Update: He is still limping this morning, has weakness in the leg, and is having trouble staying balanced. And he's really cranky.

God, I hope nothing is wrong!

529. theDiva - 2/15/2001 12:53:57 PM

Erin

Is his leg swollen or red anywhere?

530. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 12:57:16 PM

No. We probed him all night long looking for sore spots. I thought maybe I had dislocated something when I picked him up, but he's not in any pain. There's just a bit of weakness, and he's not really straightening the affected leg.

531. theDiva - 2/15/2001 1:00:00 PM

Hm. That's unusual, but if he's not in any pain then I doubt anything could be broken. Maybe he had a cramp or something in that leg and is now favoring it out of fear of the pain. They will do that sometimes.

532. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 1:01:39 PM

He's dragging the leg a bit. I'm worried.

533. theDiva - 2/15/2001 1:02:19 PM

Did you get through to the ped? When do they see him?

534. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 1:04:46 PM

I left a message for my husband to be called at home, or for me to be called at work. About 15 minutes ago.

Time to call and harrass.

535. theDiva - 2/15/2001 1:10:07 PM

pushy is good in these circumstances. Good luck...

536. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 1:11:40 PM

I wish I had my Mayo clinic baby book with me.

537. CalGal - 2/15/2001 1:32:37 PM

Erin,

Just off the web, obviously.

Leg Pain and Limping:

Toddler's fracture: this is a common cause of limping in younger children and it involves a fracture of one of the bones in the lower part of the leg (tibia) that can occur after a simple fall. Although your child may complain of pain and refuse to walk, there is usually minimal redness or swelling around the fracture, and so it can make this type of fracture difficult to diagnosis, but it should be suspected in children aged 2 - 4 years of age who refuse to walk or who are irritable.

538. ScottLoar - 2/15/2001 1:35:36 PM

Not to alarm you, but have a doctor check the baby. Now. Go.

539. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 1:43:34 PM

But he doesn't have any pain. None. I don't want to fly into a panic over nothing--I'm trying to get through to the doctor's office.

540. ScottLoar - 2/15/2001 1:57:42 PM

Don't fly into a panic. Act responsibly as you now are by calling the doctor's office, recount what you've seen, and express your concern. You're a mother concerned over her child - that should get you in to see the doc real fast. Insist so.

541. janjon - 2/15/2001 1:59:09 PM

Ditto.

Definitely a time to err on the side of caution.

542. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 2:13:47 PM

Doctor's office has no more appointments--is advising trip to the ER.

543. janjon - 2/15/2001 2:16:57 PM

Take their advice. I sense and can appreciate the reluctance. But, much better to be a bit "embarrassed" (but mostly relieved) if they tell you that there is nothing wrong than run the risk that there is something that needs attention.

544. joezan - 2/15/2001 2:17:50 PM

Ditto. Check for a hernia, too.

545. ScottLoar - 2/15/2001 2:19:13 PM

I doubt if anyone at the emergency room will laugh at a mother's concern, nor would they think a mother's concern for her baby misplaced.

546. janjon - 2/15/2001 2:22:01 PM

And, shame on that doctor's office. A regular appointment is one thing, but a baffling situation is another.

547. ScottLoar - 2/15/2001 2:28:46 PM

Well, Janjon, since you brought it up... I agree entirely. I'd go to the emergency room, solve that problem, and then find another pediatrician to solve the other problem.

548. wonkers2 - 2/15/2001 2:30:27 PM

Diva, easy to say, hard to do.

549. wonkers2 - 2/15/2001 2:32:46 PM

Keeping it in one's pants, that is.

550. janjon - 2/15/2001 2:33:30 PM

Loar. Yep.

551. CalGal - 2/15/2001 2:35:00 PM

The one thing that worries me, and I freely admit this is paranoia:

ERs have mandated reporting requirements and if Erin's little guy has a broken leg, no matter how common it is, it may have to get sent to CPS.

Worse yet, I wonder if that is why the ped's office sent her there. Because I agree that it is very odd for them not to tell her to bring him right in.

As I said, it is probably paranoia on my part. But damn CPS anyway for making me wonder about it.

552. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 2:38:55 PM

Take care of it through the ER and then get a new Ped...very unusual behavior on the part of the Ped.

553. Shannon - 2/15/2001 2:43:43 PM

I second getting a new ped. That's very odd.

554. janjon - 2/15/2001 2:45:52 PM

What is CPS? Some California state agency from which I deduce that Erin is in California?

555. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 2:45:57 PM

I didn't talk to the ped, only the nurse. They are not really equipped to deal with kiddie emergencies--only Children's Memorial here in Chicago is. So it's likely that they would send me there anyway.

I'm not worried about DCFS--it's not like he's covered in bruises.

Wrapping things up and rescheduling meetings. Should be out of here in a few minutes.

556. janjon - 2/15/2001 2:47:18 PM

Good for you, Erin.

Remember to take a book (um, or two) and whatever it is that will most easily pacify the kid. ERs can be frustrating.

557. CalGal - 2/15/2001 2:49:22 PM

Absolutely on the books. ERs make me nuts. Hurry up and wait. I've always told Spawn that the only way he and I are going to an ER is if he's sick enough that I know he'll get in first.

I think a leg problem on a toddler would qualify. Poor sweetie. Good luck.

558. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 2:54:26 PM

I'm anxious jest reading here...

559. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 3:00:17 PM

I'm replicating e-mail and taking my laptop. And probably board books and toys for him.

560. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 3:12:04 PM

Flask of Merlot...

561. CalGal - 2/15/2001 3:38:48 PM

I had a problem with Spawn last night. We went to Frys to pick up some new things, had a burger for dinner, just had a wonderful evening. Got home at 7:30, he had a Roman Civ test to study for. The test wasn't until Friday, but I told him he could spend two days prepping for it (part of the new austerity program). He asked if he could go online and I said no, not until he was done studying.

As I'm sure you've guessed, fifteen minutes later I picked up the phone to use it and lo! I got the crackles and whines. Kid disobeyed me. BLATANTLY. Utterly infuriating, especially since this wasn't even a slideby (well, you never said I couldn't go online, Mom!) but a total disregard.

Obviously, he loses the computer--and when he gets it back, it will have all of his programs uninstalled, the parental monitor set to the harshest standard, and so on.

But the problem was that I yelled at him for a good five minutes, purely because I was livid at the disobedience. I'm getting better overall at the yelling, but it remains my parental weakness.

When he was much younger, I instituted timeouts for disobedience or troublemaking. They did very well at cutting down on my yelling. I knew that I had made him miserable, he'd sit quietly, knowing that if he didn't he'd get more, and I didn't have to yell.

I realized last night that I yell because it is in and of itself a punishment, to me, and that if I want to get out of the habit I have to come up with a early teenage equivalent of a timeout. Not a restriction or a grounding--I can do those, but they don't have the instant gratification of knowing I have made the child miserable for daring to disregard She Who Must Be Obeyed.

562. CalGal - 2/15/2001 3:38:53 PM

So I'm trying to think of an immediate consequence that I can just say, "GO! DO!" and walk away, knowing that he's miserably doing the equivalent of a timeout, satisfied that suitable immediate discomfort has been inflicted without my raising my voice or being too hurtful.

I am thinking of the tedium of writing lines. "Disregarding She Who Must Be Obeyed Has Consequences." Maybe 150 times.

Any other ideas?

563. janjon - 2/15/2001 3:44:58 PM

Sounds good to me. The trick is - will that be enough for you to say to yourself that I now don't have the need to yell.

564. Fielding - 2/15/2001 3:45:30 PM

A complicated issue, to be sure.

Yelling isn't a bad thing, if you pick your spots carefully. It has diminishing returns if used more frequently.

If it was me, I probably would have pulled the plug out violently, then left the room. Sometimes silence is louder than yelling. But I can certainly understand why you lost it.

565. mgleason - 2/15/2001 3:47:37 PM

Oh, dear God. LINES!

My mother used to assign them to me, and I used to sneak in stuff like 'I hate you' in code, by randomly adding extra letters to words. All of my lines were perfectly aligned, so she couldn't even tell there was a misspelling unless she read every damned one, let alone break the code.

566. janjon - 2/15/2001 3:48:24 PM

Yes, I also was going to say that yelling isn't the end of the world. It is guilt-inducing but that goes with the parenting turf.
Certainly better than the alternatives/urges to slap etc.

567. CalGal - 2/15/2001 3:57:19 PM

will that be enough for you to say to yourself that I now don't have the need to yell.


That's exactly what I'm looking for, and I believe it is enough. But I'm looking for other satisfactory consequences in case it fails or doesn't do the trick.

I miss timeouts. They stop being effective or meaningful at about 8, and there are plenty of other consequences for behavior--but sometimes you just need something that will be immediately inconvenient enough to work as an inhibitor. After all, if you've already removed TV for a week for one offense, then it actually increases the possibility that they'll shrug at the next--in for a penny, and so on.

Fielding,

No, the sort of yelling I do never diminishes in effectiveness. It is, rather, too effective. Annoying me is a lousy idea. Oddly enough, I am very reasonable on most things parental (as Spawn himself will testify), and I am aware of how ferocious I am when I'm pissed. So as Spawn gets older, it's even more important that I model authority first, anger second.

Pulling the plug would have been a suitable ouch for Spawn. The problem is that it wouldn't have been enough for me, and as Janjon points out, that's what I'm looking for.

568. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:01:06 PM

Oh, I should be clear: I'm not the sort of parent who never raises her voice. I am a yeller. In fact, I go up a few decibels just to warn kids (I have often heard Spawn reassuring his friends--"don't worry, she's just warning, that's not her mad voice.")

I'm talking about yelling that is too close to the abuse level, because I'm furious. On a once in a while basis, it is okay. But throughout my life as a parent, I find there are times when I'm yelling as the default, rather than the exception, and that is always to be avoided when you've got a temper like mine. Particularly with early teens, when I think it's critical to maintain authority and respect.

569. Fielding - 2/15/2001 4:01:29 PM

CalGal:

With all due respect (and I am being sincere here), have you ever gone into therapy? It sounds like yelling satisfies certain short-term needs that are not in your long-term interest.

570. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:02:41 PM

Maria,

Ha! The reason I thought of lines is because Spawn has mild dysgraphia, so it would also be good practice. Don't tell him about your idea, though. I'd hate to have to read every line looking for secret messages.

571. PelleNilsson - 2/15/2001 4:06:13 PM

Let's have Spawn on line.

572. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 4:07:46 PM

Calgal...is your son aware of the fears and/or concerns you have that fuel your rections.

573. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:09:20 PM

Fielding,

I've been to therapy--what I'm dealing with now is the residual, not the real thing. It is precisely because I need coping mechanisms that I focus on it, because I will always have a temper, due to past problems.

Spawn goes to counselling now, too--not because he's "troubled", but because his dad and I want to have a resource when we run into the behavioral issues that are almost inevitable when you have a very bright, intense kid. I'm happy to report that, despite two quite wacky parents, Spawn is generally just fine.

574. labwabbit - 2/15/2001 4:13:09 PM

PP Message # 520

You know, after his disdain and rejection of such opportunities, things were never the same between us. Oh, it's great and all. We're still real close...but it wasn't the same. We worked just as hard, or harder, at getting there because we believed, (and I know he believed) this is what he really wanted. It wasn't an easy ride. But I now realize it has less to do with how he seen it than how I did. Having been active in the JROTC since 7th grade and having a private license to fly at 16...he thought this was the right path. I seen it as throwing away an opportunity too few will ever have and having wasted such committment and hard work in the academia. But happy is where the heart is. I know this. I'm happy for him. I guess what my point here is and the lesson learned through all this, is you can't live your dreams through your children even if you "think" they may be the same... you never can tell.

Now I happy...and anxiously...await grandchildren??? haha.

575. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:14:56 PM

PP,

Yeah, we're pretty open about it.

The problem is that since his problems at public school--when he decided to slack off an entire quarter and lie to me about it (no, I don't have any homework, Mom)--he has been on the hot seat. There is nothing that bothers me more than lying. So since November I've been more reactive than usual. I don't wish to imply that I've been a raving lunatic every second day, but whereas I might not blow up for a serious misdeed more than once a quarter, it's been more like once every other week, for offenses that would normally get a more appropriate reaction.

He knows that, too, and in fact the counsellor told him that he's not getting much sympathy from her about it, given that it is a direct consequence for his abuse of my trust.

But I still want a happier way out of it--one that keeps me in authority and not feeling bad later.

The good news about the bad school performance is that it gave me the ability to override the ex's usual objection to private school. Even he had to agree that a kid who was getting better scores on the SAT than some 18 year olds but Cs and Ds in school needed closer supervision and a hell of a lot more challenges.

576. mgleason - 2/15/2001 4:19:48 PM

According to my mother, I was a holy terror, CG. I got great grades, was involved in tons of extra-curricular activities, didn't drink or do drugs, but I was wildly independent, and this drove my mother bugfuck. On my seventh birthday I told her I was moving out when I was eighteen, and damned if I didn't (by living at school during term-time and spending the summers working in the Hamptons or Martha's Vineyard). She didn't want me to live at school, but I'd applied for all sorts of scholarships and grants, and even had extra money for books and incidentals after factoring in tuition and room and board, so it was out of her hands.

I had great empathy for my mother even as I did my best to thwart her.

577. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 4:20:02 PM

Cal...Good...frankly I have tried to avoid any discussion between us since I angered you last concerning SAT's...my intention was never to hurt your feelings there, and I know how much you love your son.

578. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:31:56 PM

Maria,

Spawn doesn't push for more independence than I want to give him, generally. We seem to have a good balance there. But then, I'm not a mom bent much on control. (I don't mean that your mom was, I'm just saying that it is notably not one of my hot spots.)

The problem is he's recently failed to demonstrate the ability to meet the priorities--for example, school. So he's definitely had a cutback in independence as a result--and to (I think) both our credit, he realizes it as a temporary necessity, until he demonstrates that he accepts the priorities. Interestingly enough, he doesn't disagree with the priority--in other words, he doesn't argue that school doesn't matter, or grades don't matter. He agrees with that priority and, once put in a different school, began working to his capacity, which is considerable.

Another observation I've made recently--he had had few behavior problems during the first quarter of the school year. But his grades were atrocious. In the new school he's working hard and doing generally awesome work--with more flashes of temper. Nothing terrible, but different from the last six months. I realized that the higher performance induces anxiety in him. If he stops caring, then he isn't worried.

That is a function of personality, obviously, and while we are stressing behavior and giving him coping skills, I've also told him that one of the things about being intense is that you're always going to care more. But that this doesn't involve dropping out and giving up to avoid the pressure. He's mulling on that one, because he too had noticed that he's a bit whippier now that he's working harder.

579. mgleason - 2/15/2001 4:43:13 PM

I think you're doing the right things, CG. My mom was very, very controlling, and had I not been such an anal achiever, I probably would have retaliated by being a slacker. Instead, I concentrated on doing everything my way. She was also pretty smart though, and my school work was one thing she never gave me any flak over, because she knew I was a much harsher taskmistress than she could ever be.

One thing I'd try were I in your shoes is to ask Spawn how he would handle the situation if your roles were reversed. It might be an eye-opening experience for you both.

580. wonkers2 - 2/15/2001 4:46:32 PM

Cal, Good luck with your son. We had a very similar problem with our oldest and never did solve the problem. It solved itself or he solved it himself after he went away to college. He almost didn't graduate from high school because he cut so many classes his last semester. We weren't aware of it because, as I recall, he was writing his own excuses. Anyway, he managed to graduate because he had a good guidance counselor who intervened because he didn't see what would have been accomplished by keeping him another semester. He finally got interested in school enough to get good grades during his sophomore year in college, and he graduated with honors and got a good job and then into a good law school. He passed the Calif bar last year and is being paid more than I ever was. When he was in high school we were at a loss for what to do about his lack of interest in school work. He seemed to be learning a fair amount (maxed out on the standardized MEAP math and reading tests)and he flew under the radar at the big high school because he was getting a C average composed of some A's and some D's depending whether he liked the teacher and was interested in the subject) and not getting into any serious trouble. There was hardly any concern by anyone at the school over the gap between his ability and his performance, so far as I could tell.

I have been told that my frequent and vocal criticism of him for not doing better in school was not helpful. I think I was unfairly comparing him to myself when I was in high school. I went to a small, nurturing high school where nobody flew under the radar and where I got pretty good grades and participated in a lot of activities and sports. My son was in a big (1400) suburban high school. Anyway, what you are facing is tough to deal with because you obviously care a lot about how your son is doing and naturally want him to perform up to his full potential. I wish I had a good suggestion for you, but I don't.

581. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:47:30 PM

That's an interesting idea. I'll try that tonight.

582. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:50:02 PM

That last was to mgleason.

I am not critical of Spawn getting poor grades. I'm pretty adamant that he learn how to work hard, which is a different thing. Too many bright kids don't ever learn how to extend themselves intellectually, because everything comes too easily.

So the grades are just the symptom. Were he getting all As but didn't seem to be working hard, I'd be equally crabby. Or if he were getting Cs but busting his ass in a particularly tough subject, I would be unconcerned.

583. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 4:51:11 PM

Wonkers...beware of those telling you what was helpful...is it not possible that your continued commitment to him was important...do we always have to agree with and support that with which we don't...can we not have values that are at odds with our children desires...why do so many tell us what they think.

584. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:55:27 PM

Wonkers,

Thanks for the good wishes.

There was hardly any concern by anyone at the school over the gap between his ability and his performance, so far as I could tell.


This is why I removed Spawn from public school. I was furious that they had allowed a kid with his test scores (which they knew about, given that it qualified him for the CTY Program) to get Cs and lower without even bothering to alert his parents. I wrote them an extremely caustic note about this failure when I pulled him.

As we've discussed in other threads, our public school system fails the brightest children. As a parent, I feel responsible to make up the slack. But a lot of times, as you point out, you just don't know about it.

585. ScottLoar - 2/15/2001 8:04:46 PM

Dare I say it? CalGal is a woman with a growing, young male in the house, and it ain't gonna' be easy to control him.

I heard a woman handler of monkeys once remark about the ostreperous male on the end of the leash words to the effect "He won't behave unless there's a man around".

586. arkymalarky - 2/15/2001 8:51:14 PM

I hope Erin's son is ok.

Lots of familiar-sounding stuff in here today. I'm unfortunately a yeller with a horrible temper, and I always have been, though I don't display it often, and rarely ever to anyone outside my immediate family--I do a good "catty" for the general population; but even when I don't think I'm yelling, Bob and Mose say I am. I think I'm just being emphatic. When I'm in a true rage, though, it's not a pretty sight.

"According to my mother, I was a holy terror, CG. I got great grades, was involved in tons of extra-curricular activities, didn't drink or do drugs, but I was wildly independent, and this drove my mother bugfuck. On my seventh birthday I told her I was moving out when I was eighteen, and damned if I didn't...."

I swear, Maria, you sound just like Mose. That doesn't bother me in her at all, though (even less now, knowing how she might turn out ;-)).

Until fairly recently I've tried not to post much about Mose, but in general I feel very lucky--no paying for my raising so far--despite the fact that she's incredibly independent-minded. But today she told me something interesting, which I'm hesitant to share. Mose is good about doing things, but hates to lie about them after the fact, so she usually ends up confessing and getting herself in trouble.

Well, today she left school with a friend in her car and saw her b/f who's home with the flu. A big nono on many, many levels. She's grounded from driving her car until after spring break, about six weeks from now. I told her if it happened again that I would call the school and it would not be pleasant. She didn't do anything "bad" while she was out, and I did much worse when I was younger than she was during school hours, as did her dad, but I was still appalled, yet grateful that she confessed it all.

587. arkymalarky - 2/15/2001 8:51:26 PM

I'm entering an interesting stage that's much easier day-to-day than pre-teenhood, but much scarier in lots of ways.

588. mgleason - 2/15/2001 8:55:27 PM

You're a sweetie, Arky. It says a lot about you that Mose was willing to confess.

589. wonkers2 - 2/15/2001 9:04:02 PM

The real grief will start when he gets his driver's license and takes off in the family car! In our town when the police stopped teenagers for minor offenses, at least, the first thing they did was call the parents and ask them to come and pick up their teenager. I can remember the calls I got almost verbatim, usually after I was in bed:

"Hello, is this Mr.Wonkers?"

"Yes."

"This is the police. Do you have a son named Jim Wonkers?

"Yes."

"Would you please come over to Maple and Evergreen? We stopped your son and some of his friends. They were pulling a sled tied with a rope behind your car in the street." (after big snow storm).

or

"Would you mind coming over to the Pontiac Silverdome and picking up your son. We are holding him and a bunch of his friends in a room next to the office. We picked them up drinking beer in a van in the parking lot after the concert."

Or

"Would you mind coming over to the school parking lot? We are holding your son there after stopping him for doing doughnuts in the snow in the lot."

Or

"Would you mind coming over to the police station and picking up your son? We just gave him a ticket for 60 in a 45 mph zone on Woodward Avenue. He has been drinking beer but is not intoxicated."

or

"Dad. I had a little accident with the new car. The road was slippery and I skidded into the split rail fence beside the road down by the park. The dents are only down one side. And it didn't hurt the fence much. I was able to mostly put it back together."

And, of course, brace yourself for huge increases in your car insurance premiums.

590. arkymalarky - 2/15/2001 9:05:34 PM

Thank you much, Maria. I hope she keeps that tendency. A little healthy guilt never hurt anybody, especially a teenager.

I'll tell you the biggest difference between you and her that disappoints me--she's not an avid reader, yet her standardized test scores in reading and language are 99%ile. I failed there some way. I hope she'll eventually get into reading more, but music is her thing and she devotes a great deal of her time to it. She used to write stories and poetry and illustrate them, but she's written a couple of very nice songs, too.

591. mgleason - 2/15/2001 9:09:36 PM

I don't think you failed her, Arky. Some people need to have their reading spark ignited by a specific book. With Ed, it was Peter Straub's Ghost Story, of all things.

592. arkymalarky - 2/15/2001 9:17:25 PM

I'll keep trying. I'm not an avid reader, but I think I'm a good reader, if that makes any sense. I'd like to see her at least get to that point. I've been disappointed in what are supposed to be her advanced English classes. They're not reading nearly enough and not enough of the "good stuff." My English class is much better than what her school's "honors" English is, imo.

593. Fielding - 2/15/2001 9:18:31 PM

ScottLoar:

"Dare I say it? CalGal is a woman with a growing, young male in the house, and it ain't gonna' be easy to control him.

I heard a woman handler of monkeys once remark about the ostreperous male on the end of the leash words to the effect "He won't behave unless there's a man around"."

You want to give me odds? I'd bet real money that CaGal does a better job setting and enforcing limits than 99% of fathers.

BTW, why are you so ornery today?

594. mgleason - 2/15/2001 9:26:05 PM

I was always very fortunate in my English teachers and librarians, and in my friends, too - most were readers. I had exposure to people with varied interests, and they opened many windows for me.

595. arkymalarky - 2/15/2001 9:30:39 PM

Mose has that in her family, for sure--lots of musicians, a PhD in lit grandfather who spends lots of time with her, etc, and her school is very good--it has achieved national honors, in fact. The English program there, though, is fairly weak for advanced students until the junior and senior years. I guess I should have gone to work there when I had the chance and I wouldn't be able to bitch about it, but it's just not that great, imo. It's not bad, but not nearly the level it could or should be, imo.

596. ScottLoar - 2/15/2001 9:32:27 PM

Fielding, yeah, maybe she's butch to the max. That still doesn't detract from my point.

597. Fielding - 2/15/2001 9:59:52 PM

Your point appeared to be that CalGal was screwed because there was no man around the house. A specious thesis, to be sure, but certaintly not a useful one.

598. CalGal - 2/15/2001 10:50:42 PM

CalGal is a woman with a growing, young male in the house, and it ain't gonna' be easy to control him.


Hardly. Women have been raising growing young males for centuries with no other men in the house and doing just fine. If I have trouble "controlling" Spawn as he grows into adulthood, it will be because I somehow screwed up as a parent. Not because I'm female.

599. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 5:55:42 AM

Women have not been raising growing young males for centures with no other men in the house and doing just fine. Look at the incidence of single females raising families alone. Look at the results. Ask single mothers (well, other than yourself who takes quick offense at the very thought of it) if raising boys alone is easy, ask the kids themselves - especially the boys in jail - if growing up without a father helped or hurt. Yes, I know impugning a woman's ability to raise children - especially boys - alone is unfashionable.

But, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn about your situation. You do as you see fit. I regret entering an opinion; I'll surely avoid further reading about CalGal's household travails.

600. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 6:03:15 AM

And in the background to this that monkey on the end of the female handler's leash just goes ape shit.

601. PsychProf - 2/16/2001 6:50:13 AM

It is good to see some differences of opinion in here...surely parents/people disagree on parenting strategy, parent role, etc...I maintain that we become a better parent, not by what we say we do right, but by judging our mistakes against what our goals are for our children. What kind of adult do we expect our child to be...we must let our child(teen) directly know what this is. BTW...Wonker's post on phone calls is right on. One day we are worried about too much TV, and the next our kid is behind the wheel of Camry with a condom in his pocket, a joint in her purse, more beer than they can drink.

602. joezan - 2/16/2001 7:44:01 AM

Loar's argument is often drowned out with the same sort of rebuttal one encounters when one bemoans, for instance, boys being forced to play Little League with girls.

There are always some examples of girls with an arm like a slingshot or a bat like a whip to point to and say, "There. Now, what were you saying about girls not being able to play at the same level as boys?"

It takes a certain amount of honesty, I guess, to admit that it's much easier to raise a child with two parents than with one - especially when the one doing the admitting is a single parent.

603. wonkers2 - 2/16/2001 8:05:23 AM

ScottBore, You are a nasty guy.

604. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 8:34:32 AM

Wonkers2, you have a simple mind.

605. theDiva - 2/16/2001 9:23:53 AM

#548

wonkers

I know.

And Erin, I agree with the rest of the crew. Time for a new ped.

606. theDiva - 2/16/2001 9:28:39 AM

Finally finished catching up...what has happened with Erin's baby, I wonder.

607. Laura C - 2/16/2001 10:00:51 AM

He's okay, probably just a muscle pull! She just posted in TT.

608. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 10:01:27 AM

He's OK. No fractures or neurological problems. Most likely he pulled a muscle. He was still limping this morning as I dressed him for the sitter's--my husband needed a mental health day.

But I hear that CalGal has been banned from TT. Still trying to figure out what's up with that.

609. Laura C - 2/16/2001 10:09:56 AM

Erin, check mini-MOD, or the Mote Cafe around 36635.

610. theDiva - 2/16/2001 10:12:05 AM

good news, Erin! Glad to hear it.

611. CalGal - 2/16/2001 10:17:05 AM

Women have not been raising growing young males for centures with no other men in the house and doing just fine.

Sure they have. The idyllic "daddy's off at the salt mines and mommy's at home vacuuming" lasted for what, 10 years?

For much of history, men were gone. They were either fighting wars, off in other towns working, or just gone in general. They most certainly weren't coming home at five to a tearful woman handing over a sullen grungy adolescent saying, tearfully, "I just don't know what to do with him!"

. Look at the incidence of single females raising families alone. Look at the results.

I guarantee you that the results for single women raising families with incomes like mine and well executed divorces are extremely good. There just aren't enough of them. And very few of their kids are in jail. Unless it's for white collar crime, of course.

In any event, I am not raising Spawn alone. You somehow managed to miss the regular mentions of his father, who is an active and involved parent.

Joe,

There are always some examples of girls with an arm like a slingshot or a bat like a whip to point to and say, "There. Now, what were you saying about girls not being able to play at the same level as boys?"


That may be true. But given that I'm the equivalent, parentally speaking, of the girl who can play better than most of the boys, what's your point? In this case, we were only talking about me, not all women.

There's also no "bravery" in scoffing at women's ability to raise kids "by themselves". You surely can't think your objections are original?

612. Fielding - 2/16/2001 10:23:36 AM

Joe:

All things being equal, it is indeed easier to raise children with two married parents in the household. So what. CalGal isn't married. Are you saying she should put her kid up for adoption?

When a single parent asks for advice, it doesn't do anybody any good to say "things would be better if you were married".

In anycase, I would guess that 95% of the time, when a single mother is having issues with a child, you'll find a father who isn't pulling his weight.

613. PsychProf - 2/16/2001 10:32:34 AM

Discussing who is a "good" parent, and who isn't is not very productive...so I will repeat myself...what do you want for your child and what parenting techniques/styles/enviornments are you providing to predict success for these goals? After all...if parenting is important at all, everything/anything done can't always be the best just because we did/do it..

614. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 10:34:12 AM

No, CalGal, men weren't "gone" during most of history. Most wars (I again emphasize most) didn't disturb the general run of the civilian populace until the 20th century, general conscription, and the advent of total war; migrant workers were not the rule in agricultural society nor even for most of the general population during the industrial age.

What is unique to our age of advanced industrialized nations is the advent of mass social welfare. You boast "a good income and well-executed divorce" (meaning you get prompt alimony payments?) which is the exception, and in any case it is not poverty alone that frustrates a single parent but the burden of acting as father and mother for the children. Or so I would think. And yet, I should have known, you of course are "the equivalent, parentally speaking, of the girl who can play better than most of the boys".

615. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 10:37:26 AM

The consequence of massive social welfare is independence, the independence of an individual from family, neighborhood, even the restraints of common custom and morality for one's livelihood is no longer dependent on conformity or the support of others, just dependence on welfare payments. Family, kinship, social relations can be answered by a gang of like minds and fuck the consequences.

616. PsychProf - 2/16/2001 10:38:53 AM

Loar is a first-rate pot stirrer.

617. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 10:50:03 AM

Seems that for most of human history, men had no idea that they were even the fathers of their children. Women bore and reared their children, not always alone, but with the understanding that they were the child's primary parent.

Lots of people have been reared by single parents. Let's talk about realities--pulling a Dr. Laura isn't helping anyone.

618. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 11:07:39 AM

Cal, are you still here? I want to send you a private e-mail, if you don't mind.

619. RickNelson - 2/16/2001 11:18:09 AM

Good direction in post 613 PP. I've purposely avoided much of this thread, but that question will have me lurking for responses.

My two cents is of minimal value. I think expressing love, asking about the childs life showing interest in any little detail, not being overly critical and if finding that overt criticism has been employed on an occasion has adversely affected the child make efforts to reconcile. Criticism during the teen years is proving to be something to use very, very sparingly. However, setting limits, laying down rules, exercising authority and boundries is still very much in the process.

620. Frankster - 2/16/2001 11:22:21 AM

Erin,

Great to hear that about your son!

621. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:41:03 AM

Erin,

Sure, you know my email address, yes?

Scott,

You boast "a good income and well-executed divorce" (meaning you get prompt alimony payments?) which is the exception, and in any case it is not poverty alone that frustrates a single parent but the burden of acting as father and mother for the children.

No, I don't mean alimony payments; I mean that our divorce was intended to cause our son minimal disruption, given the obvious trauma, and that both of us are fully involved parents--both in regards to our son and working together as parents. I don't receive alimony payments and have always been the primary financial supporter of our son.

And yet, I should have known, you of course are "the equivalent, parentally speaking, of the girl who can play better than most of the boys".

Perhaps I misunderstood Joe's analogy. I thought girls=single parents, boys=two parents. Based on all metrics of parenting I can think of, I provide as much or generally more--both financially and time-wise(I work far fewer hours, generally)--than most two parent families.

I don't much disagree with your conclusions about welfare. However, you did address the comment about single mothers to me, and none of your sweeping statements about income and time/resources to parent apply to me. Hence my objection.

622. JudithAtHome - 2/16/2001 11:54:04 AM

Erin:

I'm so glad things worked out okay for your son. I was apprehensive after Cal mentioned CPS yesterday. I have a story about my son that, had it happened today, might well have involved CPS. It happened over 37 years ago, though, and those sorts of things weren't so prevelant.

I was one month into being 19 when my son was born...he walked early and when we moved into our first house (as opposed to apt.) he immediately ran outside to his new backyard and raced around with abandon. The people who sold us the house had 3 German Shepard dogs and they had dug huge holes in the backyard...my son ran right into one of those holes and fell hard onto his side and back. That evening, he started to limp. The next morning, I was the first person in the doctors office and learned my doctor was in surgery so my son was seen by the other doctor...a new man I'd never met.

He stripped my son down to his little socks and took him out into the hallway, told him to walk down the hall and back. My son was scared of this man and began to cry, limping down the hallway. The doctor and I both noticed at the same time a rather large bruise on my sons back about level with his kidneys...this man turned to me and coldly asked me where THAT had come from...then he asked if I'd done it!

I will never forget how I felt at the realization this man thought I'd harmed my son. It made me very wary of stories I hear today about parents being accused of hurting their kids...

623. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:56:14 AM

Erin,

Shoot, I forgot to tell you how relieved I was that nothing was wrong. I'm glad you got it checked out.

624. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 12:07:28 PM

Thanks, Cal.

E-mail sent.

625. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 12:11:53 PM

Message # 617 You're wrong. Read history. Read social history. I give examples, you give attitude.

626. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 12:12:22 PM

I don't even know who the hell Dr. Laura is.

627. labwabbit - 2/16/2001 12:14:28 PM

You don't EVER want to either.

(Know about Dr.Laura that is)

628. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2001 1:06:58 PM

Seems that for most of human history, men had no idea that they were even the fathers of their children.

That's not true. In most societies the legitimacy of children was an important issuee, not least because of the matter of inheritance.

629. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2001 1:08:24 PM

Seems that for most of human history, men had no idea that they were even the fathers of their children.

That's not true. In most societies the legitimacy of children was an important issuee, not least because of the matter of inheritance.

630. labwabbit - 2/16/2001 1:11:04 PM

Seems that for most of human history, men had no idea that they were even the fathers of their children.

That's not true. In most societies the legitimacy of children was an important issuee, not least because of the matter of inheritance

...of the women.

631. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 1:11:07 PM

I'm talking about pre-history, before people realized that sex=babies.

And really, we can discuss ideal situations, or we can talk about the situation at hand.

632. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:13:48 PM

Message # 615 seems like just another right-wing myth passed off as great wisdom.

633. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:18:14 PM

Right wing myth passed of as great wisdom? I don't understand. I wasn't aware my thoughts had been accepted as right wing myth. Hell, I just wrote that thought down this morning as a consequence of the post preceding it.

You're looking for an argument. Okay. Go for it.

634. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:24:01 PM

Loar, you didn't just originate that thought this morning. That idea is a cliché which your brain unconsciously registered by osmosis.

635. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:24:17 PM

Erin, recorded history shows most societies are uniformly patrilineal, patrilocal and patriarchal save in some advanced, industrialized Western nations where some parts of the societies are more frequently showing exceptions. Seems that history belies the myth you advance of men not around and not knowing their children (why then, the law of primogeniture?), yet experience of modern society gives you just enough purchase to make such wild generalization.

636. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:25:45 PM

Pseudoerasmus, you're looking for some bad-mouth exercise? Or, do you seriously want to challenge the opinion?

637. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:27:04 PM

Yes, I did promise myself not to enter into any exchange with you but I can suspend my dislike of you for a short while.

638. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 1:27:52 PM

Whatever. I really don't want to argue this point with you, Scott.

Do you have anything else to offer regarding CalGal's predicament?

639. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:30:42 PM

Look to the last paragraph of Message # 599.

640. CalGal - 2/16/2001 1:31:59 PM

In most societies the legitimacy of children was an important issuee, not least because of the matter of inheritance.

Well, sure. That's the whole purpose of marriage, originally. Although Erin says she was talking about before it was known that sex=babies, which was much earlier.

But my point was simpler--throughout much of history, marriage was purely for inheritance and legitimacy, not to protect the psyches of the children. Fathers disappeared to fight crusades, to party, to work "at court", away from their estate. They weren't home helping Mom raise their adolescent sons.

641. CalGal - 2/16/2001 1:32:33 PM

Yes, I did promise myself not to enter into any exchange with you but I can suspend my dislike of you for a short while.



Forums would quickly die out if this sentiment weren't common.

642. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:33:58 PM

Yes, but I do detest him so sincerely I must plead the exception.

643. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:34:19 PM

Loar, (1) social welfare in Yankistan isn't massive; and (2) in many countries where social welfare is "massive" in comparison with Yankistan, the proportion of children born out of wedlock is actually lower; and more importantly (3) in almost all Western European countries, the percentage of families headed by single parents is lower than in Yankistan. The Swedish rate is something like 3%, versus the American 8%. (This is in the early 1990s.)

644. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:35:24 PM

Some dislikes I can overcome. You, CalGal, I once disliked most heartily, and yet now I can sometimes address you without vinegar.

645. CalGal - 2/16/2001 1:39:04 PM

You, CalGal, I once disliked most heartily, and yet now I can sometimes address you without vinegar.


I'm like that. I grow on people.

</Paul Newman in Nobody's Fool>

646. Fielding - 2/16/2001 1:45:12 PM

Like a fungus.

(Howard Stern, Private Parts).

647. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:46:02 PM

Excuse me, that's 18% for the USA.

648. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:48:23 PM

I accept that social welfare in the US is not massive among the general population, yet I suspect it is massive among some parts of the population: urban blacks, native Americans on reservations, those whites in small towns in rural areas, for example.

Where social welfare is larded more evenly throughout the general population the proportion of children born out of wedlock may be sometimes lower, but perhaps those same societies are more monolithic. Still, I understand the illegitimacy rate among French Canadians along the St. Lawrence to be above 40% and social welfare high.

Yes, the percentage of families headed by single parents is lower than in the US as compared to other Western European countries yet, again, those countries have maintained a familial system that accommodates welfare. I suggest the US has not.

Can you accept that what's true for one country may not have the same effect in another?

649. CalGal - 2/16/2001 1:49:01 PM

Fielding,

Dammit, I was gonna add that myself, but my manager showed up to ask a question.

PE,

What are the divorce rates in Europe vs. here, do you know?

650. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:50:33 PM

Odd. I recall that the illegitimacy rate in the UK exceeded that of the US. Can't be sure, but the thought is there. Or, you will not accept that as thought but only myth?

651. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:50:45 PM

.....and 13% for Sweden. I inadvertently dropped the first digit.

At any rate, the USA leads all industrialised countries in the percentage of fatherless families.

This doesn't rule out welfare as a cause, but on first approximation that doesn't seem to be the most important explanation.

652. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:53:43 PM

Does the dole encourage single-parent families? Does welfare toll recipients by discouraging them from finding work, wearing down their self-esteem, and creating hostile attitude toward their more prosperous and successful fellow citizens? I suggest that in the US, yes, it does.

653. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:54:58 PM

Single motherhood in the USA:

"The trend in welfare benefits between 1960 and 1990 does not match the trend in single motherhood. Welfare and single motherhood both increased dramatically during the 1960s and early 1970s. After 1974, however, welfare benefits declined, but single motherhood continued to rise. The real value of the welfare benefit package (cash assistance plus food stamps) for a family of four with no other income fell from $10,133 in 1972 to $8,374 in 1980 and to$7,657 in 1992, a loss of 26 percent between 1972 and 1992 (in 1992 dollars).

Increases in welfare cannot explain why single motherhood grew among more advantaged women. Since 1960, divorce and single parenthood have grown among women with a college education, who are not likely to be motivated by the promise of a welfare check.

Welfare payments cannot explain why single motherhood is more common in the United States than in other industrialized countries. Nearly all the Western European countries have much more generous payments for single mothers than the U.S., yet the prevalence of single motherhood is lower in these countries. One way to compare the "costs" of single motherhood in different countries is to compare the poverty rates of single mothers with those of married mothers. While single mothers have higher poverty rates than married mothers in all industrialized countires, they are worst off in the United States."

654. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 1:56:54 PM

Scott, I don't think that CalGal would disagree with you on that one, but what does this have to do with her situation?

655. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:56:55 PM

At any rate, I don't have elaborate opinions on the subject. I just wanted to say the issue is not susceptible of resolution by common sensical arguments.

656. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:59:14 PM

Perhaps financial independence, through welfare or through wages, abetted by a society's general acceptance of single motherhood, does account for the incidence of single motherhood. Or, welfare prompted the phenomenon.

657. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:01:05 PM

At any rate, Pseudoerasmus, you accused me of advancing right-wing myth as great wisdom, then accepting cliche as an excuse for thought.

You ready to cry Uncle?

658. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:02:05 PM

Erin, I'm sorry, but what are you talking about now?

659. PsychProf - 2/16/2001 2:02:55 PM

PE...like there is ANYTHING called common sense...

660. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 2:04:14 PM

what on earth for? you've only reiterated the cliché.

661. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 2:06:55 PM

Loar, you take a cliché and restate it as much like a fortune cookie as possible.

662. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:07:40 PM

Because the opinion is expressed to often for your taste? Impossible ass that you are.

663. labwabbit - 2/16/2001 2:10:50 PM

You ready to cry Uncle?
Not till you kick him square in his common sense. Otherwise it doth appears to me that you are being humped rather severely...

664. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:10:57 PM

Pseudoerasmus, I have surely not invited you to read my comments. I don't give a frig if you ever read my comments. In fact, you are the one who makes your statements of ordinary fact or casual observations seem like revelations of a higher intellect. I am not within the imperium some others have granted you.

665. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:13:39 PM

Many persons in Aghanistan and northern Pakistan look European. That's not a frigging trite statement, especially to one who's travelled there?

666. PsychProf - 2/16/2001 2:14:41 PM

But are they single parents on welfare? Hahaha...

667. CalGal - 2/16/2001 2:21:53 PM

PE, thanks for that article.

Scott--I don't think there is any one cause of single parenthood. I think it is obvious that all single parenthood is not created equal. Divorced single parents, poor single parents from birth, well-off single parents from birth, widowed parents, two parents who have a child, raise it together, but never lived with each other--all of these are counted as "single parents" but have entirely different issues.

I'm divorced. Children of divorce have certain problems that persist even if you factor out income. My ex and I work very hard to ensure that the disruption caused by divorced parents is mitigated. For myself, I make sure that I never have to be dependent on someone else (my ex) for income in order to provide for my son.

Do all divorced parents do this? Hell, no. And that is a good chunk of why the stats are so awful.

But the stats aren't awful because mothers have trouble controlling their teen boys as a matter of course. They may have trouble with their teen boys because they're lousy parents, or because they are resentful of the divorce or because they never planned on being divorced, dammit, and now the ex is off living with that blonde with a breast job that used to be his secretary and mom has to deal with this all herself as well as have less money, less options, and so on.

That, too, isn't a complete reason of why kids of divorce do poorly. But it's a start--and reasons like that seem a hell of a lot more compelling than a blanket assumption that a single parent can't raise a child.

668. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 2:26:47 PM

At any rate, I am not averse to the proposition that welfare payments have an effect on the incidence of single motherhood, but I see no reason or evidence to take it as a primary or major cause; in fact on first approximation the evidence seems to point to some other factor.

Message # 665: Well, I would have given you the benefit of the doubt, but then you attributed the local racial characteristics to .... descent from Alexander the Great's army! So perhaps at heart you are just another wide-eyed gullible Westerner with silly romantic ideas about the East.

669. CalGal - 2/16/2001 2:30:36 PM

One of the things in that article PE linked in and quoted: why is single motherhood still prevalent even after welfare payments have gone down?

In two populations of never married single moms (inner city and rural) I would speculate that, since many of them were raised in poverty and have no real options that interest them, welfare payments are still a step up.

The other population on welfare (women who had a family status change, usually a divorce) are on welfare because they didn't plan for a divorce--or even for children--not because they enjoy it or find it more attractive than being married. I've read that the major reason for this group leaving the welfare roles is another change in family status (they remarry, usually).

670. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:34:00 PM

You know nothing about me, ass, yet I know you remain a first-class intellect in a third-rate character.

671. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:37:58 PM

CalGal, I'll end my comments to you with the beginning:

Dare I say it? CalGal is a woman with a growing, young male in the house, and it ain't gonna' be easy to control him.

I heard a woman handler of monkeys once remark about the ostreperous male on the end of the leash words to the effect "He won't behave unless there's a man around".

672. CalGal - 2/16/2001 2:40:23 PM

Scott,

I know that's how it began, and as I said--I don't see how you can seriously assert that women, by definition, are too weak to parent adolescent sons.

673. Frankster - 2/16/2001 2:54:37 PM

Speaking of single parenthood, from this morning's sports gallery :

More than seven years after their divorce in Cuba, the ex-wife of Mets shortstop, Rey Ordonez is asking a Florida court for $8,000 a month in child support. That would be an increase from the $1.50-a-month payments a Cuban court granted her, AP reports.
Ordonez defected during the Pan American games in Buffalo, N.Y. in 1993, four days after his divorce was granted in Cuba. He signed a four year, $19 million deal with the Mets in January 2000.


Geez, I don't know. Do you think he can afford it ? ;-)


( Did this belong in the Sports thread ?)

674. MsIvoryTower - 2/16/2001 10:54:20 PM

No, Frank, it belongs here.

Very appropriate.

675. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:08:36 PM

Frank's blurb reminded me of a rather irritating op ed column I read in the Examiner: Least Valued Job, by Joan Ryan.

Ryan describes a problem I agree is a big one: women who become parents regularly place their income production a distant third or fourth behind parenting, family management, and peace of mind. But then she says:

Mothers should have a right to the benefits that other workers enjoy. They ought to be entitled to half their family's income and assets. A mother's work should be counted for what it is: real labor that benefits the economy by providing the next generation of educated worker-citizens.

But "their family's income and assets" are, in fact, the income and assets of the person she married.

What does this have to do with parenthood? Why gussy up the value of motherhood as something separate and different from fatherhood and something that all of society ought to go down on their knees in gratitude for, and then link it not to some absolute value but the income of the guy she married?

If motherhood is so valuable, give it tax credits. Don't reward women based on whose sperm she happened to use.

Now, in the ballplayer's case, why should this woman luck out because she married a talented guy? Why is her parenting worth anymore? If the purpose of the money is to ensure support of the child, then surely she should have to prove that she is using it for that amount.

Obviously, the Ordonez case is tangential to my beef with the column, but still related. My main beef is with Ryan, though: gushing about motherhood and then demanding that women get half their hubbies money as a payout for being a mother. (There are other arguments for community property that I disagree with, but at least they don't bring up motherhood and applepie.)

676. MsIvoryTower - 2/16/2001 11:19:21 PM

Calgal

You could argue that when a woman in a marriage has a child, her decision includes some notion of foregone income (the income she will have to give up to be a mother), whereas a man rarely evaluates the child decision in those terms.

G Becker would argue that the partner with the lower earning potential should be the one to take on the majority of childrearing functions, so that family welfare can be maximized given the constraints they operate within. By family welfare, Becker is talking not only about family income, but also about maximizing family values and choices as well; sort of a bundle of utilities.

Under these circumstances, I think one can make a good argument for the woman receiving a share of the husband's present and future earnings given that she has irreparably harmed her own income earning potential for some now defunct family maximization.

677. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:35:29 PM

Ms,

But I believe community property applies whether or not the couple have kids. Likewise, a cohabiting couple who has kids but don't marry are not required to split their property evenly if they split up.

However, my gripe is simpler: Ryan isn't talking about what a woman deserves from her husband, but how motherhood ought to be valued by society. She uses community property as the measuring stick, and that's what bothers me. If motherhood has an absolute value, then it ought not to depend on who the woman married.

As a separate issue, I agree that your last paragraph is used as rationale for community property. And it's sounds nice enough, but doesn't pass the smell test, once you move beyond the kneejerk requirement we all have these days to value stay at homing.

The lesser earning partner requires no consent to stay home, is not bound by any performance requirements, and doesn't even have to prove that they have in fact maximized the family's performance by giving up their income. In fact, the working parent could have spent more time with the kids, done more housework, and still have to give up half the assets that only (s)he provided the financial resources for.

678. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:41:35 PM

If the working partner wishes to pay the price for "family maximization", why not make a separate contract? Partner A will quit work, provide X hours of child care and housework a week, will be assessed on performance by Partner B every six months. In the event of a divorce, Partner A receives 50% of assets at time of divorce, monthly payments of Y, and a flat fee of Z for the earnings hit taken for quitting work. Contract can be declared null and void at any time with no cause required, with incremental amounts of X, Y, and Z paid in the event of a divorce for time that both partners agreed to it.

Such objective measurements may seem unpleasant. But community property is a very objective measurement for a very subjective value, and one that does not have to be assessed by the person paying for it at this time. In fact, the marriage contract operates as an equivalent of what I just spelled out. However, the marriage contract and the property rights given to women are based on antiquated notions, even if the rights themselves are recently acquired.

679. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:42:38 PM

I think that community property laws exist for convenience's sake. No one really thinks that a couple wants to get specific about financial matters; lord, no one would get married if they knew each other's financial expectations. And if the expectations and agreements on which they married change over time, well, them's the breaks. It's cheaper to screw the guy financially than let the women take a hit after a divorce, given that they are most likely also going to be responsible for the children (another stupidity, mind you).

So it's a cheap fix to a problem that acts to legally and psychologically enable women to make poor financial decisions and put their kids at risk. I do object on the grounds that it is unfair to men, as a general rule, as the higher income earners. More relevant, I think it sucks as social policy, since it marginalizes women and their poor choices. Hell, it's not even a particularly good protection, or women wouldn't still be so far behind on the asset and income metrics.

680. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:43:49 PM

I was lazy and said "man" and "woman" at points when I should have said "income earner" and "stay at home parent".

681. MsIvoryTower - 2/16/2001 11:51:42 PM

Calgal

Not every state has community property laws. Nor do I fully understand your interweaving comments regarding women being paid for being mothers with the community property issue.

Of course, I could read the article, I suppose, but I was just commenting on your previous post, not some nuanced difference between valuing women by community property held in a marriage versus the rationale for awarding women support payments based on their (soon to be ex-) husband's present and future earnings.

By the by, I don't think Becker's argument provides a strong rationale for community property, rather, I think that's based on the notion that stay-at-home partners "worked" as hard as the partners in the labor market to build marital wealth and holdings. This is a somewhat different argument than the one Becker makes regarding optimal family decision-making.

I've no problem with women receiving half of the holdings of the marriage, regardless of the presence of children, theoretically. It's when one confronts the "exploiter" anecdotes that theory becomes shaky.

Nor do I have a problem with men receiving half the community property of a marriage, regardless of the presence of children, again, in theory. In both cases, I'm inclined to want a fact specific analysis to determine how the property should be allocated, but my presumption is that it should be shared equally as a starting point.

Where I have problems is when one partner ends up with the children full time, but only half the assets of the marriage; as if the children don't count in the whole analysis, and are cost free.

682. MsIvoryTower - 2/16/2001 11:57:25 PM

Somehow, I think a contractual arrangement with performance evaluations would not promote family and marital unity.

For one thing, a wife and mother (or husband and father) is not an employee, one can't fire them without ending the marriage, or at least harming it. It could also exacerbate an already unfortunate tendancy for one partner in a marriage to be the primary caretaker and the other to opt out.

In short, I think your proposition both unreasonable and unsound when it comes to marital relations.

683. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:06:37 AM

Where I have problems is when one partner ends up with the children full time, but only half the assets of the marriage; as if the children don't count in the whole analysis, and are cost free.


Well, the assets are the property of the individual, not because they had children. The children are supposed to be paid for by child support. This is a joke, though, given that usually the person who ends up with the kids is generally far less financially prepared to care for them and in many cases the kids will suffer, even though the amount of payment is reasonable. At the same time, the custodial parent isn't bound to show what the money is spent on, which is a reasonable requirement. It is completely possible, whether it happens or not, for the custodial parent to spend the support money on their own needs.

The courts are horribly biased towards mothers, obviously, but what is odd is that their favor does most women no good at all. Custody automatically goes to the mother in most cases, and it is up to her if she wants to "share" this with the father.

I think mandatory joint physical custody is the answer, whether both parents want it or not (it certainly doesn't matter whether both parents want things now, so that's no big change). I also think that a parent's lack of financial ability to provide for their kids is a perfectly adequate reason to prohibit custody, rather than requiring a huge income transfer. In the event that the parents agree that the kids should live only with one parent (which I personally think is a dreadful idea), the noncustodial parent could pay expenses directly, rather than giving money to the parent to spend as they like. The ncp would, of course, have the ability to nix the expenditures, too.

There are plenty of fairer ways to provide for children after divorce. They're just not as convenient for the parents, unfortunately.

684. joezan - 2/17/2001 12:13:44 AM

Cal:

One of the things in that article PE linked in and quoted: why is single motherhood still prevalent even after welfare payments have gone down?

Because after 3 generations, it's pretty much part of the culture amongst many societal subsets. I mean, so what if welfare benefits have decreased 23%? Big frickin' deal. What's that mean to a person whose most valuable asset is her third-hand car?

Such is not the case with you - indeed, the mere prospect is (thankfully) entirely unthinkable, because you are the upper-middle class off-spring of, I assume, middle to upper-middle class folks for whom such was equally unthinkable.

I know you still don't agree with my take on the issue, and I know why. But it still seems to me, now, after the fifth time we've discussed the matter, that your point is that anyone can have a splendid divorce, if only they'd be reasonable, unselfish, forgiving and totally dedicated to their children. I really can't argue with that. But it just seems to me that, if they'd owned these qualities to begin with, they probably wouldn't have gotten divorced in the first place -maybe because they wouldn't have been in such a hurry to get married in the first place. Whatever the situation, divorce does not generally bring out these qualities in people

685. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:15:04 AM

Nor do I fully understand your interweaving comments regarding women being paid for being mothers with the community property issue.


Well, that was directly related to the article. Ryan, the author, was wailing that mothers aren't valued in society and that the answer is to institute community property laws in all 50 states. My response is that this solution doesn't reward women for being mothers, but for marrying well.

rather, I think that's based on the notion that stay-at-home partners "worked" as hard as the partners in the labor market to build marital wealth and holdings.

It is based on the presumption that the stay at home partner did. My point is that it is an awfully objective reward (half the assets) for an awfully fuzzy deliverable (the work was as hard, etc.)

Besides, community property is not given only to stay at homes. A partner could work in a low paying job, whereas the other partner might make five times more money, and work less. In that case, it is arguable that the high income earner is contributing more both in income and in time. The other is low performance all the way. The law still applies.

Community property is based on a "notion", but no evidence is required to ensure that the "notion" is actually reality.

686. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:17:31 AM

While I agree that courts tend to be biased toward mothers while also refusing to adequately award child support payments, I don't think a parent should be denied custody simply because of lower earning potential.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that were courts to start consistently awarding custody to the wealthier parent, we'd see a radical drop in the custodial parent's earnings over time. Making lots of money and taking care of children are not exactly complementary activities. To the extent that women have tended to be the custodial parent, the impact on earning potential after divorce and with children has been masked.

In any case, joint custody is very common now, in fact, sole custody is fairly uncommon precisely because courts have supposedly become more "attuned" to father's rights.

687. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:19:38 AM

Somehow, I think a contractual arrangement with performance evaluations would not promote family and marital unity.


Of course not. Instead, you could have a stay at home parent not doing diddly. That will promote family and marital unity? No. You could have a spouse who really resents being the sole income provider and feeling that stress, who has continually asked the stay at home to go back to work, only to have the stay at home tearfully say that she can't bear to leave her children in the hands of strangers. Does this promote family and marital unity? Hardly. And that's just a few of the ways that the lack of agreement on goals can screw things up.

If people actually had to discuss these things and agree to them, at least they'd know what to expect. But that's not going to happen, because even if a contract were needed, it might not be used. And therein lies the glitch.

It's not family and marital unity that would axe a proposal like mine. It is the most likely fact that women would still marry men, who would never agree to a stay at home on the terms that the woman asked for, so she would either lower her price or stay at home with no contract. It would become too expensive for society to continually pay for women's irresponsibility, so they would prefer to have the man pay. Which is what happens now, as well.

688. jonesatlaw - 2/17/2001 12:20:24 AM

Children are not cost free and there is a problem of "free riding" in child support. If you dress your kids at K-Mart and spend the rest on your layabout boyfriend, the law will do nothing. The ballplayer is paying $96K a year to support the kid, do you suppose he could get an au pair and a part-time cook for that, and have the kid live with him? If you put your child support up your nose or in your arm, we're going to have to catch you at it, and even then a good tearful plea and a feint at treament will probably keep the kids with you, unless your ex is Albert Schweitzer.

OTOH I have absolutely no sympathy for the clowns that complain that they can't afford their boat payments, penis-extender sports car, or trips to Vegas and still pay child support either.

689. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:24:10 AM

But it just seems to me that, if they'd owned these qualities to begin with, they probably wouldn't have gotten divorced in the first place - maybe because they wouldn't have been in such a hurry to get married in the first place.

This is a faulty assumption. There are plenty of people who are excellent parents and lousy at intimate relationships. The two abilities don't go hand in hand.

And the fact that they don't want to be civil and wellbehaved at divorce is irrelevant. That parents are encouraged in their ugly behavior is the single biggest failure of the current system. The courts are far more likely to take legal custody away from one parent to avoid hassles. They regularly deny the father access if the mother objects. They put the convenience of the custodial parent over everything, and god help the dad who wants joint physical custody if the mother doesn't.

It's disgusting. And it also promotes divorce. Create some laws where parents have to stay in the same region after a divorce, where the family house has to be kept for the kids, and the parents move in and out of it on their days, where the mother and father will still have to argue like crazy to make decisions about the kids, no matter their marital state, and you might actually have some parents decide that it's easier to gut it out until the kids are grown, in more marginal marriages.

690. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:24:27 AM

Wrt community property:

I'd agree that now the evidence supporting its premise is more shaky than in past eras, but that simply points to it being out of date, not that it didn't have a good premise when it was conceived.

Btw, I believe it became more popular in the late 1950's and early 60's as the divorce rate exploded, and women who'd spent their entire lives in the home were suddenly dumped on the street. The average age of the people in divorce at this time was also considerably older than what we now see, which also had implications for the reforms to elderly social services that were being evaluated at the time.

So, I think community property laws had a solid foundation in policy and were connected to a reality at the time they became popular, but they are somewhat out of whack for the current environment.

691. jonesatlaw - 2/17/2001 12:31:28 AM

I'm tired of the women lose in divorce because of lower income, please spare me. I practiced family law for 7 years and left in disgust. Of course family wealth goes down in a divorce. We hold income constant, and double the living expenses. You'll pardon me if I don't tear up too much over the result for many folk. Lots of folk split their marriages as the result of poor judgement. It comes at a cost to the parties, the kids and the wallet. Now, there are folk who find themselves in the middle of a divorce for reasons which are really not the consequences of their behavior or choices, save perhaps in choice of spouse. Those folk, I do have sympathy for. While income for mothers may go down as an average, I think that in many instances moms come out better than Dad does, especially in the lower middle classes. Where the potential income disparity is greater, the upper middle and upper classes, I don't doubt that the loss of the earning spouses income is a greater burden on the custodial parent. But I think that the overall picture is skewed by the power of the numbers of the upper and upper middle classes.

692. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:32:35 AM

In any case, joint custody is very common now, in fact, sole custody is fairly uncommon precisely because courts have supposedly become more "attuned" to father's rights.


No, joint legal custody is common. Joint physical custody, "with primary physical custody with the mother" translates to dad gets the kids on weekends. That's what is common. True joint physical custody is not common at all, and is never done without the mother's consent.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that were courts to start consistently awarding custody to the wealthier parent, we'd see a radical drop in the custodial parent's earnings over time. Making lots of money and taking care of children are not exactly complementary activities.

I'd bet against you. Granted, I am speaking from my own experience. But I think the reason that women's income drop after having kids is because it can. Because there is a guy there to take care of things. Because it's easier to focus purely on the "soft" side of family management than gut it up and be a provider in all senses of the word. Read any analysis on this subject that includes interviews with women, and that is the overwhelming consensus. It's hard work.

It is extremely difficult to raise a child and build a career. But it is not impossible.

In writing this, I realize that we should acknowledge an income split between parents in white collar jobs and professional careers and bluecollar/working poor parents. My comments address the first group. The second group has different issues, but then, I find it problematic that a couple who would experience a net income loss if they pay for daycare are encouraged to keep one person home. This is a huge risk, and is probably the main reason why so many women in this group go on welfare after a divorce. They would do better to work split shifts and maintain income viability.

693. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:37:51 AM

Ms,

I'm completely on board with Message # 690. My objection is that there is little realization in either feminist thinking (using NOW and gender feminists as a gauge) or social policy that community property might be outdated.

It is also a risky thing to bring up, because right now women in many ways have the best of both worlds. They have equality in the work place and extra rights in the marriage. They aren't going to be willing to give this up, and it would be politically dangerous for anyone to suggest it. Hence the only groups who regularly bitch about it are men's rights groups, and lord knows that these folk are more than a tad rabid. (Also, they generally want "equality" because they think enforcement of equality will push women back towards traditional submission, which is their preference.)

694. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:39:10 AM

Calgal

You only have one child, as well. Increasing the number of children one has to take care of increases stress on income earning.

And there are always exceptions to the norm. I'm speaking generally, statistically, and not about white-collar, high demand workers, who do not make up the majority of the labor force.

And I'll take that bet anyday. While the drop in income may not come immediately, over time, the realized earnings of two like workers initially, will be vastly different if one becomes primary caregiver to children and one is child-free.

695. vw - 2/17/2001 12:44:11 AM

I heard a woman handler of monkeys once remark about the obstreperous (sic) male on the end of the leash words to the effect "He won't behave unless there's a man around".

This just proves that that woman did not know how to handle monkeys. Here’s the drill: male handler introduces new female handler to the troop by standing behind her and facing down the dominant male by grimacing over her shoulder. She also grimaces and displays dominate posturing. Male handler walks away. Female handler continues to face down dominant male primate. Finally the female handler walks over to the dominant primate and mock mounts him. Tricky with gorillas, you might get nipped by chimps but it works every time.

And BTW, your monkey story sucks as a metaphor for raising a human male.

Children are not cost free and there is a problem of "free riding" in child support.

One of the views that always got me pinged as a “Men’s Rights Apologist” on TT was that I strongly advocate mandatory Child Support Spending documentation by the Custodial Parent. And that it should include all monies spent on the child, both the Child Support from the Non-Custodial Parent and money spent on the children by the Custodial Parent.

696. vw - 2/17/2001 12:53:47 AM

And I'll take that bet anyday. While the drop in income may not come immediately, over time, the realized earnings of two like workers initially, will be vastly different if one becomes primary caregiver to children and one is child-free.

Can anybody get in on this bet? I don’t know exactly how I would structure a study to wheedle the numbers out, but my gut sense is that the decline in income would have less to do with being Custodial Parent and a hell of a lot more with general financial instability both before and after the child custody exchange event.

IOWs, they suffer a lower income because they don’t know how to be financially responsible not because they are now CP.

697. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:58:58 AM

vw

The scenario is one set up by Calgal earlier. She suggested that custody in a divorce should go to the parent with the highest income.

Your premise is not sound given the context of my comment.

698. vw - 2/17/2001 1:06:34 AM

Could be Ms. Tower. I never completely discount the possibility that I might be incorrect. Nonetheless ... there are certain actions that many custodial parents make that are nothing more than sheer financial lunacy. Things like attempting to maintain the martial home, allowing divorce proceedings to bury them in debt, divorcing in haste instead of planning carefully and preparing for it, etc.

We divorce dumb. And the price we pay for that is often a financial one.

699. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 1:19:13 AM

Now that's just downright silly.


Divorce for most people is a painful, emotionally wrenching, experience. Many are initiated by one partner over the protests of the other. To expect financial planning and rational negotiation without the presence of expensive counsel is ludicrous.

In addition, divorce isn't cheap, at least if one wants to protect assets and to provide for adequate child support. Finally, maintaining the marital home is recommended by many family therapists when children are involved precisely because of the horrific consequences divorce brings to these children's lives.

In any case, these are somewhat irrelevant to the point I was discussing with Calgal. Financial stability will be shaken in any divorce situation, however, statistically, non-custodial divorced spouses tend to recover their pre-divorce income levels much faster than custodial spouses. In fact, I think the time line is that recovery for the non-custodial spouse is within 3 years (I can check this later, but this is the timeframe I recall), while the children and custodial parent live in much greater financial insecurity for a much greater period of time (holding all else constant).

Here's the point I was making, however. You take a high income divorcing spouse, who hasn't been the primary caregiver in the marriage, and award them custody of the children. In these circumstances, I'd argue that, on average, their earnings over time will be significantly less than they would be if they remained the non-custodial parent (or compared to a like situated worker).

700. CalGal - 2/17/2001 1:20:29 AM

I think that VW's premise was correct, if I understood her. She is saying that the reason that income drops is because of bad financial decisions, not the aggravation of child care. Therefore, it is unlikely that the parent with more income would lose money just because they got custody, since they were making good financial decisions to start with. I think that any woman who opts to stay home and depend on someone else for income, with no ability to provide for herself, is by definition demonstrating a poor grasp for finances. She may beat the odds, but there is no guarantee.

Also, I support mandatory JPC. I only think giving the kid to the parent who makes the most money is appropriate in the event that the other parent can't provide for a home at all. Income transfer just doesn't make sense.

701. CalGal - 2/17/2001 1:23:55 AM

We hold income constant, and double the living expenses.

Exactly, Jones.

Also, divorce is done with the convenience of the parents in mind, not the kids.

I too am skeptical of the notion that divorce is always bad for women. I think women take a cut in living standards, but if that is because they married someone who made more money, or stopped earning money because they lived with someone who made more money, why is this a bad thing?

702. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 1:28:16 AM

The reason incomes drop for most custodial women is because they weren't earning very much to begin with outside the home. Their incomes, from the start, were inadequate to maintain a household.

That their financial status drops is almost a big "Duh". They go from a joint income household to a single income household, and lose the contribution of the higher income earner. This is not rocket science.

Their inability to improve their earnings, however, is intimately tied to their custodial duties. Nor would most non-custodial parents be able to maintain their current earning potential if they did become the custodial parent. The sheer work committment required to generate typically higher earnings strongly works against custodial child care requirements.

The scant evidence we have on fathers earnings after becoming custodial parent suggests my premise is correct. Their earnings are considerably lower than they would have been (predicted earnings path) had they become the non-custodial parent.

703. CalGal - 2/17/2001 1:38:41 AM

The reason incomes drop for most custodial women is because they weren't earning very much to begin with outside the home. Their incomes, from the start, were inadequate to maintain a household.


Well, yes. So by definition, these women are irresponsible parents.

Their inability to improve their earnings, however, is intimately tied to their custodial duties.

This again, depends on income. Lower income women, I could buy. Women in white collar jobs and the professions? You'd have to prove it. The income hit, if any, certainly wouldn't be enough to risk their children's wellbeing.

But why is the solution to give men the responsibility for paying for their bad decisions? I could see giving men the children, given that the women are irresponsible (in having children they couldn't afford). I could see massive publicity campaigns, exhorting women not to stay home because it harms their children financially for no upside at all. I could see pushes for lower income couples to work different hours in the event that they couldn't afford daycare, to keep both parents solvent. I could see encouraging them to have far fewer children, and holding off on it.

All of those make sense as solutions to the fundamental problem. Expecting the women's poor financial decisions to be paid for by the father, requiring him to maintain the same income, not quit his job or change jobs, give over money to the woman with no requirement for her to justify it, does not. Especially since this "solution" has still not fixed the problem and the children of these couples post divorce are still suffering for their mother's financial decisions and a court system that favors mothers as custodial parents.

Women are every bit as financially responsible for their children as the fathers are. It's time they started acting that way, and it's time, I think, that society started expecting them to.

704. vw - 2/17/2001 1:42:13 AM

The reason incomes drop for most custodial women is because they weren't earning very much to begin with outside the home. Their incomes, from the start, were inadequate to maintain a household.

Correct, that is the first example of financial irresponsibility. Any parent that is not prepared to support their children alone is in my opinion financially irresponsible.

And yes I am aware of the therapist twaddle about maintaining the primary home … I certainly sat through enough master’s level class listening it to remember it well. But I pointed out then and I’ll point it out again. Which is more “scarring” … moving into a smaller home in the same school district or being a stressed out crazed Custodial Parent that can’t make the mortgage because the Ex didn’t come up with the Child Support check in time?

We do divorce dumb. If people really cared about their kids more than they do about their own desire to be divorced they would divorce smarter. It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they won’t.

705. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 1:50:52 AM

So by definition, these women are irresponsible parents.

Well, according to your definition. The way I see it is you'd like to make the laws force the culture to change, but that simply doesn't work well.

Culturally, I don't think many would agree with your take on women who stay primarily in the home to raise children. In fact, Republicans have delivered euologies on the glories of motherhood. I can't see them openly inviting legal penalties for such women when they're marriages end.

Women in white collar jobs and the professions? You'd have to prove
it.

There's already tons of data showing that women take a hit on their earnings over time, regardless of SES, however, more highly educated women, in the professions, fair better than any other groups (absent divorce settlements). This doesn't mean that their relative incomes aren't harmed.

I believe my point was regarding relative incomes.

But why is the solution to give men the responsibility for paying for their bad decisions?

Perhaps because they significantly benefited from those decisions? Perhaps because they influenced those decisions? Or even bargained for such arrangements?

I think in this day and age, men are fully capable of stating what they want from a marriage before entering the estate. Why do you insist that these are independent decisions that women make? That they are primarily responsible for such marital arrangements?

Aren't men equally responsible for jointly deciding to have a lower earning spouse, one who is willing to exit the labor market for the sake of family needs? I'm unwilling to see this as a unilateral decision process.

706. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 1:57:03 AM

vw

You may label such advice as twaddle (re: moving children), but several studies on the trauma of divorce suggest that children having to leave their homes is a contributing factor in their inability to cope and adjust to their new circumstances.

If you took masters level courses on the subject, you surely are aware of the research. Of course, you're free to disagree with it, but that doesn't discount the information available.


But I see you and Calgal are compatible in your beliefs, and so I bow out with my contributions in place.

707. CalGal - 2/17/2001 2:02:09 AM

I think in this day and age, men are fully capable of stating what they want from a marriage before entering the estate. Why do you insist that these are independent decisions that women make? That they are primarily responsible for such marital arrangements?


Yes, a man is capable of stating what he wants. And, after the marriage ceremony is over, is there anything from stopping the woman from changing her mind about whether or not she agrees with him? Can he complain and use her reneging as reason not to give her community property?

The woman are completely responsible for whether or not they work. The man may prefer that she not, or prefer that she does, or bitch about her hours. But it's her choice. It is also entirely up to her whether or not she has a child, or when. Also not within the guy's province completely.

Culturally, I don't think many would agree with your take on women who stay primarily in the home to raise children.

I'm sure they don't. I mentioned this earlier. It's not only Republicans who would object, it's women across the board. As I said, they have the best of both worlds.

Nonetheless, it is factually and legally true. The laws state that men and women are equally responsible for their child's financial care. Women are not held exempt because of their gender. Therefore a woman who has a child that she can't provide for is, by definition, irresponsible. It is rather amusing that in this age of equality we still count her decision to marry a meal ticket to be sufficient proof of responsibility. But the fact that it satisfies a lot of people on an emotional level doesn't change the fact that they are, by law, responsible.

708. vw - 2/17/2001 2:05:36 AM

I'm very aware of the research and it doesn't hold a candle to the accumulated studies on the long-term negative outcomes on children of financial stability in the childhood home.

The trauma of a move is most likely short-term and could be mitigated by reducing other stressors (like having parents that treat each other with undisguised hatred … something that is very much within parental control). One of my primary objections was that the bulk of that research did not differentiate between short-distance moves (staying within the child’s school district) and long-distance moves. Often it is losing contact with extended family, friends, teachers, and mentors, not mention the Non-Custodial Parent, that does the greatest harm.

709. CalGal - 2/17/2001 2:05:43 AM

There's already tons of data showing that women take a hit on their earnings over time, regardless of SES, however, more highly educated women, in the professions, fair better than any other groups (absent divorce settlements).

I think you misunderstand, or I wasn't clear. I am saying that there is no indication that children themselves cause this hit. It's just as likely, if not more so, that white collar and professional women who take a hit do so because of bad decisions and a desire to make life easier for themselves. I was then clarifying that in their cases, even when they make bad decisions their children aren't at risk.

Perhaps because they significantly benefited from those decisions? Perhaps because they influenced those decisions? Or even bargained for such arrangements?

Their bargaining is irrelevant: they are every bit as much allowed to change their mind as the woman is, to the woman's detriment. "Influence"? Please. I have this odd notion that women can make up their own minds.

Did they benefit? I don't see how. If you consider that women take a cut in income by divorcing and men do better by divorcing, the reverse is also true: women benefit by marriage and men suffer (financially speaking). Therefore men don't "benefit" from marriage, per se. I am quite sure there are men who would rather their wives stay home, and would rather be the "provider". But that's not relevant, either, and just because they might have gotten what they want doesn't mean they benefited.

710. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 2:06:20 AM

Couple of points on this Ryan business. I got a copy of the book, and it's clear that Ryan only read the introduction, since that's where all the material in her colmun came from. There is at least one instance of plagiarism where Ryan quotes without attribution the whole sentence about child support awards and judicial whimsy. It really stands out, because the one area where we know judges go by the book is WRT child support awards. It's been researched that they only deviate from guideline about 5% of the time.

The book is one of the most poorly-researched pieces of crap ever written, completely relying on interviews for authority. So the author talks to one family law attorney who says family law is biased against mothers, and that's the gospel, no need for further research.

There's a chapter called California Child Support Wars or something that's about the Coalition of Parent Support and our efforts to reduce the California Child Support Guideline. It's so inaccurate, it's probably libelous. She claims that the fathers' rights groups are all richly funded, while moms have no representation in Sacramento, but along the way she quotes from about a half-dozen child support booster who are all paid professionals to raise the guideline. All in all, the Rosenberg Foundation of Frisco Town has spent over $10Million to spin child support with the media and to lobby the legislature incessantly.

Ryan's column was so dishonest, and the book even moreso, that I'm seriously considering some legal action. It's a mess.

711. vw - 2/17/2001 2:06:47 AM

on the long-term negative outcomes on children of financial stability in the childhood home.

Sorry, that should read financial instability.

712. CalGal - 2/17/2001 2:09:53 AM

I have a problem with the chinese menu approach. I think keeping the family home makes excellent sense, but only if both parents are allowed to occupy it with their kids, paying for it and using it as a base to minimize disruption.

But if this isn't possible, or is considered unworkable, then the parent who wants the house could buy it from the other, and ideally will have to qualify for the mortgage on her own. Preferably without using the support money for more than X percent of documented income.

To say that the custodial parent is entitled to raise the children in a house she can't afford is silliness.

713. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 2:10:54 AM

I took a look at the Official Poverty Numbers the other day, and what I found was pretty eye-opening. The poverty rate for married couples over 75 is about 5.5%, roughly half of what it is for single men or women in the prime working years of 18-65. If you want to be poor in old age, the best way to pull it off is to be single. Regardless of sex, your risk in the over 75 age group is rougly 9%.

I would expect a lot of women who live on child support and alimony to be poor in old age, since they never really learn how to manage their money. That's really the key to accumlating wealth over time, not spending what you can't afford to spend without compromising your nut.

714. vw - 2/17/2001 2:13:39 AM

then the parent who wants the house could buy it from the other, and ideally will have to qualify for the mortgage on her own.

Exactly. My objection to the “necessity” of maintaining the family home is in light of how often that means being financially unstable or at risk.

715. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 2:13:40 AM

To say that the custodial parent is entitled to raise the children in a house she can't afford is silliness.

I have found that the same women who argue that mom has to keep the family home in the interests of children's stability also believe that mom should have an unfettered right to pick up and move across the country, with the kids, at whimsy.

716. vw - 2/17/2001 2:15:33 AM

Well, if I was elected Goddess of the Universe one of the first things I would do with my magic wand would be to make it near to impossible to move a minor child out of state and away from the NCP.

717. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 2:19:47 AM

That would be a good move, so to speak, but not as much fun as banning people from the irritating web site of your choice.

718. CalGal - 2/17/2001 2:20:38 AM

Yep, but I would also say the NCP couldn't move.

It's funny. Everyone focuses on making divorces harder to get, if you have kids. When it makes far more sense to just make raising kids post divorce very onerous for parents who were figuring it'd be easier.

Focus on requirements that forced the parents to coparent after a divorce, make sure that one parent didn't get all the money and all the power, require them to stay in the vicinity and oh, by the way, visitation is required on both sides, in the event there's not joint custody.

As I said earlier, a lot of marginal marriages would stay put, if it got that complicated.

719. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 2:23:23 AM

In the real world, whenever anybody proposes these things to the legislature, the Domestic Violence Lobby goes nuts, and they have a lot of weight. Tell me a way around them, and the world can be a better place.

720. joezan - 2/17/2001 11:10:59 AM

Cal:

Message # 718 is eminently sensible. Both marriage and divorce are too easy to enter into.

721. ScottLoar - 2/17/2001 11:11:52 AM

Message # 695

Obstreperous is an adjective, it was spelled correctly, the word was appropriate to the context.

Young males are generally obstreperous. Yes, teenage boys are obstreperous.

722. CalGal - 2/17/2001 11:43:13 AM

Joe,

But most efforts (generally Republican) to make divorce harder involve the technicalities--waiting periods, counselling, and so on. For one thing, that's not all that difficult. For another, once they've gone through that, it's the same old bullshit.

Besides, if a marriage doesn't have kids, no one cares if divorce is easy or difficult. So make parenting requirements difficult.

The same is true for marriage. If you make marriage too onerous, fewer people will get married--and they'll have kids anyway. Which is fine by me, provided that they have to follow the same requirements.

We've already decoupled marriage and parenting--kids are entitled to the same rights whether their parents are married or not. So the same requirements ought to be in place whether parents are married or not. The only difference, really, is whether the parents are cohabitating at the time of birth or not. If they aren't, they have to have one set of requirements (time spent with each parent), if they are living together, then their split up is the equivalent of a divorce whether they are married or not.

723. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:15:06 PM

Okay, I'm back after a good night's rest.

The problem with the premise both Calgal and VW begin with, that women who become parents are irresponsible if they cannot maintain their household independent of their partner, regardless of their situation at the time of their decision (to have a child), ignores most economic and game theory principles. Under any decision making model that accurately captures social, cultural and economic conditions, most women do not become poor after divorce because of some initial "irresponsible" behavior.

Game theory tells us that women have several possible outcomes to choose from, they assign probabilities to each, and then choose the outcome most likely to maximize their welfare. At the point most women make the decision to have a child, this is rigged toward Becker's family decision-making model. The outcome will more likely be to optimize family efforts in two different directions: males toward income generation, females toward in-home production.

You can call these females irresponsible, but they are making "rational" decisions given the constraints they face. And if you don't want to argue these decisions are rational, they are, at the very least, joint decisions.

If anything can be criticised as irresponsible then, it is a joint decision by a man and woman that leads to one being the primary income earner and one the primary care giver. But if this is the case, then both are equally irresponsible. Men who divorce don't suddenly become the responsible adult and women the irresponsible adult.

724. PsychProf - 2/17/2001 12:17:33 PM

Interesting discussion of the socio-political-economics of parenting...I won't add any twaddle...what I know from raising two sons is that my effectiveness as a father would have been greatly reduced if my wife was not there to support me and add herself to the interactive mix...her loss would be irreparable, and could not be compensated for by any act of myself.

725. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:28:34 PM

Ms,

I generally agree that women are making the most efficient decision, based on the rules, but then, that is why I think the system (game) should be changed. One key step is to remove community property, the next is to remove income transfer. Why? Because the system is out of whack with the underlying rules (or laws, whatever they are called in game theory). The system rewards women disproportionately merely for being women, and the system presumes that the mother is the better emotional parent but less productive financially. However, the rules say that both men and women are equal--equal in their ability to parent and equal in their responsibility to provide.

I support putting the system back in alignment with the rules.

If anything can be criticised as irresponsible then, it is a joint decision by a man and woman that leads to one being the primary income earner and one the primary care giver.

This is not true. Only the woman decides to give up or cut income--and there's not even a requirement that she become primary care giver. She can, if she chooses to, watch TV all day--in fact, there are plenty of cases where the woman stays home and the kid goes to daycare. No, this isn't the norm, but can it happen? Absolutely. Why? Because the man has absolutely no say, short of divorce, in the woman's choices to stay home or work, or what income she decides to make. (This is equally true of women's say in what men earn or do.)

So the women who can't support their children are responsible all by their own choice.

726. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:32:38 PM

The laws state that men and women are equally responsible for their child's financial care.

Don't know what you're referring to here. What laws? When? Before or after marriage? Before or after procreation? What state laws require individuals to be equally responsible for their children's financial care? What laws speak to this?

State laws are designed to step in only when parents fail althogether to provide some minimum level of care for their children; and that minimum level is damn low, as any child protection agency worker will tell you.

Second, poverty has never been legislated as a barrier to childbearing. The poor get to procreate just as much as the rich. Indeed, social welfare programs that target families are predicated on the notion that we don't want to punish the children for their parent's inadequacies. So we provide some minimal safety net.

Third, were the government to actually require financial responsibility as a prerequisite to marriage and parenting, there would be a significant constitutional conflict. We'd be regulating private affairs of the home, which are viewed by the courts as one of the areas of natural rights that are still recognized.

(con't)

727. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:33:21 PM

Telling someone who they can marry, when they can marry, when they can have children, under what circumstances, when they can divorce, and under what circumstances, would be viewed as such a massive invasion of our privacy, our basic 1st A rights to assembly and exercise of religion (possibly even an infringement of the establishment clause), that it would never stand the light of day. And any legislature that enacts such laws would be crucified by the voting public, as well as subject to review of constitutional violations.

Both of your recommendations regarding restrictions on parents' mobility also infringes these rights, as well as other freedoms recognized as part of our constitutional protections (the right to contract freely, the right to engage in economic activities, etc). They are not only undesirable, they intrude on a basic right every adult believes is fundamental to their citizenship, the freedom from government intrusion into private family decision making.

Besides which, men would be the real losers of any restrictions on their mobility, since their job mobility is typically tied to higher income generation, unlike women's job mobility. Since men mostly make the laws, and men have a real stake in squashing such restrictions, this would never fly. Never.

Finally, restrictions on worker mobility could seriously affect economic growth and activity in this country. One thing that sets us apart from other advanced economies is our utter lack of restrictions on worker mobility in any form. In fact, we have programs and laws that actually encourage a mobile work force, and I can't see any legislature actually passing restrictions that would interfere with such a fundamental element of US labor markets.

728. joezan - 2/17/2001 12:34:25 PM

Me too, PP.

I'm not a perfect parent, but I know that I have always spent a lot more time with my daughters - quality and otherwise - than any other dad we know. And most moms we know, for that matter. Still, I know that I would not be near the dad I am without my wife.

729. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:42:14 PM

Only the woman decides to give up or cut income--and there's not even a requirement that she become primary care giver.

I don't know where you get this from. What evidence supports this assertion? Certainly most studies on family dynamics, on women and their career choices, suggest these are NOT unilateral decisions.

What may be true is that years after these decisions are made, the partner who remains the primary income earner may regret his/her choice. This isn't the same as saying they were not an integral part of the decision to begin with.

And frankly, your repeated focus on outlier results, that the woman reneges, that she doesn't hold up her end of the deal, is disengenuous. That these decisions don't work sometimes is not news. However, because there may be a few sensational cases where women broke their end of the bargain doesn't make these decisions unilateral in most cases.

Even in your Brave New World there would be a breakdown of the system as intended, and children would be left without adequate care, and men would be screwed, and women would be screwed.

No system is 100% effective, and your vision would be such a funadmental invasion of individual rights, we'd lose more than we'd gain, IMHO.

730. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:52:17 PM

Focus on requirements that forced the parents to coparent after a divorce, make sure that one parent didn't get all the money and all the power, require them to stay in the vicinity and oh, by the way, visitation is required on both sides, in the event there's not joint custody.

Believe it or not, this is what courts already attempt to do in family law. With the exception of requiring parents to stay in the vicinity, courts try to fashion divorce settlements such that one parent isn't living in poverty while the other lives in the lap of luxury, maintains parental relationships for the children, and generally provides for joint custody.

Joint physical custody has both it proponents and its detractors, there's evidence on both sides of the coin to suggest mixed results for children. Again, the integrity of the adults will be the determining factor, and here no laws in the world can make people step up to ethical behavior.

Courts can even set minimum restrictions on custodial parent mobility, that is, the parent seeking to move must show the court it is based on economic need, which will be evaluated at the court's discretion.

731. vw - 2/17/2001 12:57:06 PM

Sorry Scott, your original post in message #671 had it spelled “ostreperous” which I then inadvertently corrected in my copy. BTW, I’m not attempting to be obnoxious or snotty by using (sic) … I don’t pretend to be familiar with every word in the English language and pointing out a questioned word or phrase helps with clarification (as you yourself were motivated to do). Occasionally I even learn something.

732. CalGal - 2/17/2001 1:13:39 PM

What state laws require individuals to be equally responsible for their children's financial care?

You switched from "men and women" to "individuals", which is different. I am referring to divorce laws. In years past, divorce meant that women and children were maintained by the men, along with the kids (this is in the brief period of time when divorce was acceptable but women weren't yet "equal"). The woman wouldn't remarry, because so long as she didn't remarry she could be kept by the ex.

The divorce laws changed to no-fault divorce, and the basic premises changed. Among the changes was the presumption that both parents are responsible for their children, that alimony was now a temporary payment. Child support is now based on what both parents make; the woman is expected to provide for her children as well. While it's true that occasional perversions in family court make it possible for a custodial parent to stay home and live off the ex, that is normally the exception, not the rule--and the justification for it is not that the woman deserves to stay home or be free of financial responsibility for raising her child.

Then consider welfare reform. Regardless of whether you approved of it or not, there was no question that the intent was to force women to accept financial responsibility for their children--not to find a man, but to get a job. Why? Because they had children, and the expectation is that they are to be financially responsible for those children, whether or not there is a man to do so.

I realize that it is rarely stated this way, but the fact is that women are every bit as financially responsible for their children as men are, and the laws assume that. Women these days don't get child support because they are female, but because they always make less money, and the divorce laws provide for income transfer based on the who makes more money.

733. CalGal - 2/17/2001 1:19:42 PM

Both of your recommendations regarding restrictions on parents' mobility also infringes these rights, as well as other freedoms recognized as part of our constitutional protections (the right to contract freely, the right to engage in economic activities, etc).

Divorce laws put all sorts of restrictions on parents that would seem to be unreasonable. Divorce laws mandate how much money one parent must spend on his child (at least through income transfer)--imagine if married parents were told how much they had to spend on their children. Divorce laws make it possible to force a parent to never have a person of the opposite sex over while the child is in their home. Divorce laws mandate that, if a parent moves out of state, one person shall be responsible for all costs of the child visiting. Divorce laws force parents to sell their house even if one of them doesn't want to. Divorce laws make it easy for a court to strip away a parent's legal rights in five minutes, when it takes a year or so to take a kid away from a crack whore living in a cockroach-infested slum. And all of that is just for starters.

So there may be plenty of reasons why my proposals won't work, but the objection that they create undue restrictions on parents won't fly, since this is the case already.

734. CalGal - 2/17/2001 1:26:04 PM

Certainly most studies on family dynamics, on women and their career choices, suggest these are NOT unilateral decisions.


It doesn't matter whether they are or not. What I said is inarguable--they can be, and there's not a thing that the other person can do about it. All decisions about income are unilateral, in the end.

I'm not focusing on "outlier" results--I said from the beginning that it might not be common. It doesn't matter whether it's common or not. The fact that both people agree to it doesn't make it any more a good decision, obviously. And the fact that both people don't have to agree to it makes the whole thing pretty much of a joke.

As I said, community property is an objective deliverable that rewards the woman (usually) primarily on her skill in attracting a man who makes a lot of money, or who will make a lot of money--not on her parenting skills or devotion to her kids. But the "notion" on which it is based is outdated and more than a bit marginalizing in its underestimation of women and their abilities.

735. Jamie R - 2/17/2001 1:33:55 PM

MS, can you clarify, please? My daughter's mom and I have about 65-35 custody split. Suppose she proposes to take my daughter and move across the country to start a job that will provide her with a fabulously increased income (double or better.) Say she has a clear economic incentive to do this by any reasonable measure.
Are you saying that if I sought a court order to block this move I would be seeking to violate her individual rights (and thus acting immorally myself)? Or that the courts should rightly consider the national need for workplace mobility as (at least potentially) trumping my parental rights?

736. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 2:46:01 PM

MsIvoryTower can't make a consistent defense of her desire to give the family home to mom - on the basis of stability for the child - and at the same time allowing unfettered moveaway rights for custodial parents. In the first instance, the argument is the child's need for stabilty, but for some reason that's trumped by mom's lust for cash in the second instance.

There' a real easy solution to both issues that doesn't torture logic or reduce the child to the condition of a suitcase: declare that the child's bests interests are served by his or her remaining in the community following a divorce. It's unreasonable to give mom the marital home when the post-divorce material standard of living has to fall for both mom and dad, but we can try to keep Junior in the same school and connected to the same group of friends and neighbors. Second, if mom wants to move, she can, but she can't take Junior unless she can convince a court that Junior's interests are in some way well-served by the move in their own right. Nobody questions mom's right to move; the question is whether Junior has any interests independent of mom's.

737. CaroBeth - 2/17/2001 3:59:51 PM

When my parents divorced (mid-70's), she got primary custody but part of the agreement was that she couldn't move more than 100 miles away. Dad's job wasn't going to move and he didn't want us too far away. Mom obviously agreed to this.

Not saying this is a solution, just relating personal experience. But you can't have it both ways.

738. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 5:43:35 PM

Calgal,

You said

Nonetheless, it is factually and legally true. The laws state that men and women are equally responsible for their child's financial care. Women are not held exempt because of their gender.

Your Message # 732 doesn't show that laws require equal financial responsibility on the part of both parents. It simply illustrates that women are not exempt from some sort of financial responsibility for their children, which is not what you argued initially.

Women are not expected to be equally responsible for earning outside income if they are the custodial parent. In fact, in most states, women with children under the age of five are not expected to work outside the home when courts are determining the appropriate family payments of the husband when he is not the custodial parent.

Nor are women with young school-age children required by the courts to be working full-time, although, you're correct they expect women to increase their earnings contributions by this point. IOW, the laws do not require equal financial responsibility between custodial and non-custodial parents.

So, it is not the case that state laws already require equal financial responsibility by custodial parents when they exit a marriage.

And, FWIW, in many states, women in long-term marriages, defined typically as over 12 years, will be able to receive alimony indefinitely, regardless of the presence of children until she remarries.

These laws are hardly compatible with the point you've been trying to make.

739. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 5:44:51 PM

Divorce laws put all sorts of restrictions on parents that would seem to be unreasonable.

These take effect after the choice is made to divorce. These laws do not infringe on basic decisions prior to the divorce, which is an important dividing line.

The point I made is illustrated by your own comments regarding what a court can do wrt a parent seeking to leave the state. Courts already have flexibility in this matter, but to move much farther in restricting parent's rights to freely move about would run smack into 1st A constraints.

For example, courts have the discretion to order parents to remain in the state, but they exercise it with caution precisely because it is fraught with potential legal problems for the state. Thus, if a custodial parent can show they have no other job prospects of equivalent character, they will most likely be able to move.

Your point about restricting non-custodial parent mobility to the same extent we already restrict custodial parent mobility, however, is a position that has some possibilities. My guess is that it won't happen because of the political consequences, and whose mobility it would infringe.

So there may be plenty of reasons why my proposals won't work, but the objection that they create undue restrictions on parents won't fly, since this is the case already.

No, this isn't the case for the majority of divorces, and the restrictions allowed will vary by state, since family law is a state responsibility. Courts now have flexibility in mandating solutions on a case by case basis, and include an array of options, but none are mandated, as they would be under your proposal. This is a significant difference, IMO.

740. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 6:00:54 PM

I'm not focusing on "outlier" results--I said from the beginning that it might not be common. It doesn't matter whether it's common or not. The fact that both people agree to it doesn't make it any more a good decision, obviously. And the fact that both people don't have to agree to it makes the whole thing pretty much of a joke.

No it doesn't. And yes, you are focusing on the possiblility that these decisions can be made unilateral. Furthermore, it certainly does matter whether it's common or not. We don't make radical policy changes that can dramatically restrict, in very rigid ways, parental freedoms on the basis of some remote possibility of an event happening, given the cultural and social constraints of our society.


As I said, community property is an objective deliverable that rewards the woman (usually) primarily on her skill in attracting a man who makes a lot of money, or who will make a lot of money--not on her parenting skills or devotion to her kids.

Jaysus, I must have missed this bizarre premise. Community property is based on the cultural, social and economic constraints that have operated to restrict women's earnings after marriage.

It may have become a tool for some women to escape financial burdens, but there is really very little evidence, outside of Hollywood, that most women are given a "free ride" as a result of community property laws. In fact, they were instituted for precisely the opposite reason, women received no "pay off" to the years they spent helping to build their partner's earning potential and expanding family wealth.

While we may not need community property laws for much longer, with the changes that are occurring in women's labor force patterns, that doesn't reduce them to irrelevancy, or even a tool that "rewards" exploitation.

741. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 6:11:13 PM

Jamie R asks

Are you saying that if I sought a court order to block this move I would be seeking to violate her individual rights (and thus acting immorally myself)? Or that the courts should rightly consider the national need for workplace mobility as (at least potentially)trumping my parental rights?

This is tricky. The court will grant your order if you can show that there are plenty of economic opportunities for a person with her skills in the same area, and that employers are hiring. However, the court can also order you to pay more support if she doesn't end up getting an equivalent job, or any job at all. (She could even sue you if she can show irreparable economic harm.) They may require you to make up the difference between what she is earning, and what she would have earned.

As to infringing on her individual rights, you don't have the right to force a custodial parent to stay where she cannot reasonably find work, unless you're prepared to fully support the household. However, courts will vary in their application of this principle, and laws themselves will vary by state.

Courts routinely consider national workforce needs in any action that restricts labor, or labor mobility. Strikes are disfavored, collusion by employers is disfavored, contracts that restrict labor are disfavored, etc.

Your parental rights may be important, but you're divorced now, you don't get to capriciously restrict your ex-spouses mobility without some damn good reason. Courts are in the business of balancing the rights involved.

742. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 6:16:43 PM

MsIvoryTower can't make a consistent defense of her desire to give the family home to mom - on the basis of stability for the child - and at the same time allowing unfettered moveaway rights for custodial parents.

Well I'd be hurt if this had anything to do with what I was debating. Never once mentioned stability for the child, except as a rebuttal to the silly notion that women are irresponsible for bearing children without full financial independence in a marriage, and worse, are dumb divorcers.

Nor did I argue that we must allow unfettered movaway rights for custodial parents. First, this isn't the case now. Second, my point was that we've gone about as far as we can go in restricting custodial parents mobility without running into 1st A concerns. This, of course, has nothing to do with your comments.

743. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 6:21:46 PM

Second, if mom wants to move, she can, but she can't take Junior unless she can convince a court that Junior's interests are in some way well-served by the move in their own right. Nobody questions mom's right to move; the question is whether Junior has any interests independent of mom's..

Or dad's, I'd add.

But on the whole, this is a very reasonable approach to the problem of custodial parent mobility. Of course, this would require the non-custodial parent to step up to the plate and become the custodial parent, if the child wants to remain in the same area. Then, of course, the child should also be free to leave if he/she finds the new custodial arrangement not in their best interests. That is, if the parent can't provide adequate child care and supervision.

744. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 6:24:46 PM

CaroBeth

Contractual arrangements such as you indicated in your message are honored by the courts, in fact, they welcome them as ways to remove the courts from having to make these decisions.

Many divorcing couples are now negotiating that the custodial parent remain in the same state as the non-custodial parent, in exchange for greater child support/family support payments. This is a reasonable trade-off, IMO, and can work very well.

745. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 7:01:01 PM

Both of your recommendations regarding restrictions on parent's mobility also infringes these rights,...

As a point of clarification, the above comment refers to both Calgal and vw's proposal that the custodial parent be restrained from moving away, as a matter of law. It was not a reference to several of Calgal's proposals, FWIW.

I take this to be a significant departure from the, now discretionary, restrictions on parental mobility courts will sometimes exercise. In addition, as I stated earlier, this can be overcome if there is a good enough reason for the parent wanting to leave the area.

746. labwabbit - 2/17/2001 7:10:09 PM

Gosh Ms.
You're tearing the place up.

Now THIS is a rant if I ever seen one. (heh-heh)

747. JudithAtHome - 2/17/2001 7:45:08 PM

I agree...and a very good one, at that.

748. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 10:37:10 PM

MsIvoryTower claims:

Nor did I argue that we must allow unfettered movaway rights for custodial parents. First, this isn't the case now. Second, my point was that we've gone about as far as we can go in restricting custodial parents mobility without running into 1st A concerns. This, of course, has nothing to do with your comments.

I don't know whether you're completely uninformed in this area or are deliberately lying. The tone of your posts suggest that you consider yourself in possession of some knowledge of family law, as you appear comfortable making pronouncements about what courts and and cannot do, but your claims are nonsense.

The facts about moveaways are emodied in court decisions issued by the California Supreme Court in Marriage of Burgess and similar decisions in New York and other states circa 1995. In Burgess, the case I'm most familiar with since it's the law where I live, the court held that a moveaway by a CP could not be halted unless the NCP could show that it was going to be harmful to the child. They effectively set the bar so high, that no more than 2 or 3 malicious moveways have been held up since the ruling was issued. Your claim about First Amendment concerns is simply ludicrous. Alimony and child support have a lot more to do with First and Fourth Amendment concerns than moveaways, and they're enforced in the Best Interests of the Child.

749. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 10:37:44 PM

Community property is based on the cultural, social and economic constraints that have operated to restrict women's earnings after marriage.

Community Property and Alimony were mechanisms to provide for the support of divorced women who couldn't support themselves without placing a burden on the public purse. Historically, states used one of these mechanisms or the other, but not both. The Catholic states where family law came down from France used Community Property, and the other states used Alimony. Of the two, Alimony is more insulting to women since it assumes they lack the judgment and intelligetce to manage their own assets, and therefore have to live off an allowance administered by their former husband acting in the role of father to them. When NOW was formed, they listed the abolition of alimony as a goal they wished to accomplish.

But as the feminist movement has veered away from its prior equality focus toward a maternal supremicist model, alimony has been rehabilitated as a kind of reparations scheme for Maternal-Americans disadvantaged by the Patriarchy, as you said. It's odd that we now have BOTH community property and alimony across the country.

But there's nothing like having it both ways.

750. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 9:19:13 AM

Dear Ricky

The 1995 Applellate Court decision in In Re Burgess was overturned by the California Supreme Court in 1996. That court rejected the AC's understanding of what "best interest of the child" meant under the California Code, and what test applied to "move aways".

I quote the court:

We conclude that, in an initial judicial custody determination based on the "best interest" of minor children, a parent seeking to relocate does not bear [*29] a burden of establishing that the move is "necessary" as a condition [***3] of custody. Similarly, after a judicial custody order is in place, a custodial parent seeking to relocate bears no burden of establishing that it is "necessary" to do so. Instead, he or she "has the right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child." (Fam. Code, § 7501.) Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I made no claim that the court doesn't consider the best interests of the child, indeed, I made no claim regarding the standard of review used in these cases. I simply said that courts will apply their discretion carefully in cases where the custodial parent seeks to move away, and they do so because to absolutely bar moves would run smack into our 1st A freedoms as interpreted by the Constitution, which include economic freedoms.

751. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 9:20:43 AM

The court here goes on to say that the custodial parent has a "presumptive right" to relocate with the children:

In addition, in a matter involving immediate or eventual relocation by one or both parents, the trial court must take into account the presumptive right of a custodial parent to change the residence of the minor children, so long as the removal would not be prejudicial to their rights or welfare. (Fam. Code, § 7501 ["A parent entitled to custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child."].)

This presumptive right is based on the 1st A.

Here is a cite to the case, go read it.
In Re Marriage of Burgess, 13 Cal.4th 25

752. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 9:24:47 AM

Dear Ricky

Second,

In California, a community property state, one is entitled to alimony as well as a division of the estate, if one was in a long term marriage.

I also made no claim that all state laws are the same. Your digression on community property versus alimony is interesting, but doesn't refute any point I've made.

753. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 9:56:19 AM

As a qualifier to my argument regarding constitutional considerations in reviewing parental moveaways, I should note that its not clear where the rights may reside, they could be in the 1st A, in the 14th, in the 5th A (privileges and immunities clause), or based in natural rights recognized by the Supreme Court: the right to privacy, the right to travel, the right to autonomy, the right to contract, etc.

Most family law cases don't really argue constitutional principles, they're worded in things like "best interests of the child", "the child's welfare", "changed circumstances", and the like. But I would argue that most states start from a base of "what is constitutional" when designing their family law codes, and that courts are always cognizant of basic constitutional rights when they interpret them.

754. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 10:02:08 AM

And as a final qualifier, to the extent I've only mentioned 1st A concerns in my previous posts, that really is sloppy, since, as I said above, it's not clear where the constitutional rights rest (as per Supreme Court confusion).

755. PsychProf - 2/18/2001 10:54:10 AM

Some fine thinking and presentation Missie...

756. Erin R. - 2/18/2001 1:02:53 PM

I wish I had something to add to the current discussion.

My son is settling down for a nap...thank God.

757. vw - 2/18/2001 1:30:10 PM

the silly notion that women are irresponsible for bearing children without full financial independence in a marriage, and worse, are dumb divorcers.

First, I find it annoying that my posts are being recast in terms of gender. I refer to Custodial Parents and Non-Custodial Parents, not men and women. I don’t see the current divorce law situation through the lens of Gender Feminism, but rather through a lens of legal inequity.

Having said that, I do believe whole heartedly believe that any parent who does not manage their finances in such a way that he or she could continue to support the children in the event of the lose of income of the other parent is indeed financially irresponsible.

Your parental rights may be important, but you're divorced now, you don't get to capriciously restrict your ex-spouses mobility without some damn good reason.

I don’t think wanting your child to stay within range of reasonable and frequent visitation is “capricious”. In fact I think it’s anything but. I think the parent that desires the out of area move should carry the burden of proving that not to move carries overwhelming negative consequences.

And it has nothing to do with “parental rights” it has to do with child rights. The parent chose to be married to their spouse. They choose to bring children into the world within that marriage. They then chose to divorce. None of this negates the right the child has to continue to be raised by both parents that carry the responsibility for bringing them into a world as a two-parent household.

The divorce ends the marital relationship not the parenting relationship. By making the choice to become a parent, we should expect that certain of our personal rights would be restricted for the benefit of the children that we have brought into the world.

(cont.)

758. vw - 2/18/2001 1:30:50 PM

(cont.)

Quite frankly, the damage done by moving a child away from another parent is of several magnitudes greater the retaining the marital home, which you felt was of importance.

It amazes me that we can be so cavalier about removing a parent from a child’s life. That an opportunity to increase ones wages or receive a promotion somehow trumps the emotional well being and future outcomes of a minor child.

759. RickyRicardo - 2/18/2001 1:36:08 PM

MsIvoryTower says:

I simply said that courts will apply their discretion carefully in cases where the custodial parent seeks to move away, and they do so because to absolutely bar moves would run smack into our 1st A freedoms as interpreted by the Constitution, which include economic freedoms.

and the California Supreme Court says:

the trial court must take into account the presumptive right of a custodial parent to change the residence of the minor children, so long as the removal would not be prejudicial to their rights or welfare.

These two statments are contradictory. Please resolve.

760. CalGal - 2/18/2001 1:38:13 PM

First, I find it annoying that my posts are being recast in terms of gender.

She was addressing my posts, because I did bring up gender. That's because almost all the custody and divorce laws, while technically gender neutral, are clearly designed on the premise that the woman is usually the custodial parent who is also the lesser earner. Ms' rebuttals, which restate the rationale behind the laws, reinforce this.

As you know, I don't see the divorce laws through gender feminism (ick) either. But it seems to me completely appropriate to point out how the laws not only protect women (or seek to) from their very bad financial decisions but are designed to do so, rather than create a gender neutral legal framework.

761. PelleNilsson - 2/18/2001 2:21:30 PM

Suppose the ex cannot or will not pay child support. What happens then?

762. PelleNilsson - 2/18/2001 2:23:22 PM

I mean cannot pay the amount determined by the court or by agreement.

763. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 2:54:28 PM

Dear Ricky

The two statements are not contradictory. I really think you need to read the whole exchange, because, frankly, you're missing important links.

First,

My comment regarding absolute bars refers to both Calgal and vw's argument that custodial parents should lose their right to move, as a matter of law. This is an absolute bar. I don't know of any court that cavalierly pronounces a custodial parent can't move, unless there's a damn good reason.

The damn good reason is if the non-custodial parent can show it's against the child's welfare, and is primarily intended to harass or deprive them of their visitation/joint custody rights.

If you note in that opinion, however, the court was careful to indicate that inconvenience to either of the parents is not going to be considered against the child's welfare.

Second,

Courts do have discretion to restrain the custodial parent from moving with the child(they can move, just not with the child), if the non-custodial parent can show the move is primarily "vindictive". Then the "childs best interests" trump the parent's maliciousness, and the non-custodial parent can gain custody.

764. Jules - 2/18/2001 2:55:50 PM

>>In California, a community property state, one is
entitled to alimony as well as a division of the estate,
if one was in a long term marriage.

In California one is entitled to spousal support regardless of the length of the marriage, if one is the lower earner. The difference between short and long term marriages (long is defined as 10 or more years) is that generally speaking spousal suppor in short term marriages lasts no longer that half the length of the marriage. In long term marriages the court retains jurisdiction indefiniately, and one may be forced to pay spousal support for much, much longer that half the length of the marriage. Till death do us part, indeed.

765. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 3:00:06 PM

Calgal

The problem with trying to create a legal framework that ignores gender issues is that it can have very nasty unintended effects. I'd argue that laws aren't typically made in some neutral framework, they're always within the context of the social, cultural and economic realities of the times. And even were they to be designed to be neutral, they'll be interpreted by the courts with these factors as the backdrop.

766. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 3:02:02 PM

Jules,

Aren't courts in California predispositioned to refuse alimony in short-term marriages if there aren't children? Doesn't this also depend on the age of the spouse seeking alimony?

767. Jules - 2/18/2001 3:07:00 PM

>> if the non-custodial parent can show the move is primarily "vindictive". Then the "childs best interests" trump the
parent's maliciousness, and the non-custodial parent can gain
custody.

Problem is that it is extremely difficult to prove that the move is indeed "vindictive". Most people who are doing moves for such reasons are smart enough not to come out and say outright "I'm moving the kids to keep them away from that bastard, that'll teach him for dating that slut!"

As for Burgess being overturned, not really. Ask any lawyer practising family law in California, and they will tell you that it is much, much harder to block a moveaway today than it was pre-Burgess. The old standard was that the moving party had to prove that the move was absolutely necessary, now the burden is on the non-custodial party to prove that it's unnecessary, and vindictive to boot.

I feel the childrens interests were much better served when the burden of proof fell on the person who wanted to make such a radical change in the kids relationship with their other parent.

768. Jules - 2/18/2001 3:10:39 PM

>Aren't courts in California predispositioned to refuse
alimony in short-term marriages if there aren't
children? Doesn't this also depend on the age of the
spouse seeking alimony?

There are 10 factors the courts are supposed to look at. Caring for children is indeed one of the factors, as is the age of the spouse seeking alimony. There are, however, 8 other factors which deal with such things as the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, and the ability of the supporting party to pay. So bizarre as it seems, it is indeed possible for a 30 year old childless woman to receive spousal support. I don't have figures that show how often this happens, but it does indeed happen.

769. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 3:13:50 PM

Quite frankly, the damage done by moving a child away from another parent is of several magnitudes greater the retaining the marital home, which you felt was of importance.


Not to split hairs, but it seems you have a propensity to put words in my mouth. Or to fail to follow the conversation.

Again, you're the one who used the example of retaining the family home as an example of dumb divorcing, ala financial irresponsibility. I merely pointed out that there's lots of research suggesting that retaining the family home isn't either dumb or irresponsible, in fact, it can be an important factor in smoothing over the family dissolution for children.

I neither advocate retaining the family home, nor do I advocate dumping it at filing the divorce papers. Each case is going to be different, and what makes sense in one case won't be the same for another. But to willy nilly condemn all parents who seek to retain the family home as irresponsible and "dumb" is sweeping and, I think, wrongheaded.

Second,

You speak of the much greater harm done by moves. Such as? Under what circumstances?

It seems to me that the impact of moving a child away from one parent will depend on the circumstances as well. Courts have nixed malicious and vindictive moves, and rightly so, but they don't automatically assume a move will have negative effects.

It depends on how far the move is, how much the children saw the non-custodial parent prior to the move, whether other equally satisfactory arrangements can be made to maintain contact, etc.

As I said earlier, courts can't make parents behave ethically, and how a move will affect a child is as much tied up in the parents continuing civility and efforts to respect one another as anything else.

770. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 3:15:53 PM

Jules

Actually, you reinforce the point I was making wrt the Burgess case. The courts have made it harder for a non-custodial parent to block a move.

771. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 3:17:25 PM

Jules

Are you following the conversation? I didn't say that Burgess was overturned, only that the SP of CA overturned the Appellate Court decision in that case. The Supreme Court ruling is still good law, as far as I know.

772. RickyRicardo - 2/18/2001 4:05:36 PM

MsIvoryTower, you're dancing.

First you claim that research shows having mom retain the family home post-divorce is good for children on the basis of stability, and then you say being dragged across the country with Mama in her quest for self-fulfillment is no big deal.

Which is it, do children benefit from residential stability, or don't they? Please answer on the basis of children's best interests, rather than on the basis of what you think courts do.

Second, on the effects of Burgess, I suggest you read an article on the Los Angeles Times by Catherine Saillaint where I gave my views on the subject (using my real name, Richard Bennett). The article is available from their archives at http://www.latimes.com/archives/
It was published June 20, 2000 and it's titled "Noncustodial Parents Moved to Action by Court Decision". It'll cost you two bucks.

Prior to Burgess, the standard was that the relocating parent had to show an imperitive reason for moving, such as an employment, educational, or marital opportunity that did not exist in the child's community. Post Burgess, the burden of proof falls on the non-custodial parent to show a vindictive motive. This is about as hard as proving perjury in family court, and as a matter of practical application, it simply doesn't happen.

Parents seeking to block relocation of the child, who doesn't have a first amendment right not to be treated as a piece if luggage, have to rely on footnote 12, which applies in the case where there is a de facto joint custody arrangement:

(see next post)

773. RickyRicardo - 2/18/2001 4:06:01 PM

A different analysis may be required when parents share joint physical custody of the minor children under an existing order and in fact, and one parent seeks to relocate with the minor children. In such cases, the custody order "may be modified or terminated upon the petition of one or both parents or on the court's own motion if it is shown that the best interest of the child requires modification or termination of the order." (Fam. Code, § 3087.) The trial court must determine de novo what arrangement for primary custody is in the best interest of the minor children.

As a general matter, when the courts are supposed to carefully review all the circumstances of a custody decision, that process is called a de novo review. When the law directs the courts to pay scant attention to the circumstances, it makes a presumption that one thing or the other is generally correct. In the case of moveaways, there is a presumption in place, not a requirement for a de novo review in the general case.

If you'd like to see some family law mandating a careful review of the circumstances, check the Cal. Family Codes regarding custody, which explicity state there is "neither a presumption for or against" one form of custody or another.

I note that you previously made the claim that joint custody is more common that sole custody. This is not the case. The highest number any credible researcher has developed for cases of genuine joint physical custody is 20%, so the facts are directly opposite your claim.

774. RickyRicardo - 2/18/2001 4:17:50 PM

MsIvoryTower asks a question about alimony in California:

Aren't courts in California predispositioned to refuse alimony in short-term marriages if there aren't children? Doesn't this also depend on the age of the spouse seeking alimony?

The right to alimony in California, as a matter of law, does depend on whether the marriage has produced children. It's pretty hard to justify giving a free ride to a woman or a man simply because they had a free ride in the past. There's no nexus between the production of children and the caretaker role for alimony puposes, however. Women who earn more than deadbeat ex-husbands are paying alimony today even while they have custody of the children, since the primary factor the courts consider is differential incomes when awarding alimony to qualifying ex-spouses. Since women now earn more than their husbands in 30% of marriages, this policy (created in response to Feminist Interest Group pressure) has produced a lot of angry women.

The only impact of long-term vs short term marriges in alimony is on the length of time the alimony has to be paid. For a short term marraige, the time limit is half the length of the marriage; for marriages of ten years or more, it goes forever.

One of the issues in the Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman divorce is the ten-year rule. Cruise tried to file before the ten-year mark, but Kidman argues the marriage was long-term. We'll see what happens, but I'm sure we all hope Nicole isn't cast out in the street like some Beverly Hills bag lady five years from now, with only two or three mansions and a handful of servants to care for her.

775. vw - 2/18/2001 4:30:19 PM

My comment regarding absolute bars refers to both Calgal and vw's argument that custodial parents should lose their right to move, as a matter of law.

No, I did not say that. I said it should be near to impossible for either parent to move.

776. vw - 2/18/2001 5:02:01 PM

But to willy nilly condemn all parents who seek to retain the family home as irresponsible and "dumb" is sweeping and, I think, wrongheaded.

Well, then we seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. For I again did not say this. Maintaining the family residence when it is a financial risk was one “dumb” thing divorcing people could do.

You speak of the much greater harm done by moves. Such as? Under what circumstances?

Any move that reduces or denies a child contact with one parent or restricts that parent from having a meaningful relationship with that child can cause any number of emotional and developmental outcomes including depression, alienation from both/either parent, aggression, “acting-out” behavior, difficulty in relating to the opposite gender, self-esteem issues, etc. (see either for citations: Amato, 1986 Family relations, Barber and Eccles, 1992 Psychological Bulletin 111.108-126) This of course assumes that the parent was not abusive to the child.

In fact, except for abuse, there is very little evidence that the “quality” of the parenting relationship before the move has any effect on the severity of loss-related symptoms the child experiences. Even when the parent only saw the child once a month, the child experiences a sense of loss and suffers the related short and long-term effects. Seemingly, even a poor parent is better than no parent at all in the view of minor children.

777. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 5:28:46 PM

Dear Ricky

I'm at a loss to understand your problem with my posts, as you consistently seem to support their points.

First,

Your comments regarding Burgess support my claim that courts aren't in the business of routinely preventing custodial parents from moving with their children unless there's a damn good reason.

Second,

First you claim that research shows having mom retain the family home post-divorce is good for children on the basis of stability, and then you say being dragged across the country with Mama in her quest for self-fulfillment is no big deal.

You're confusing the issues. I did state that there is a fair amount of research trying to identify what causes trauma in divorced children. One of the factors often discussed is what happens to the children when they lose their home. This was in rebuttal to vw's argument, as I've now stated at least twice before, that retaining the family home is evidence of dumb divorcing.

She/he now backpedals from her/his position. I refer you to her/his earlier posts.

That is the end of my point on the issue of retaining the family home. It was a minor point, one made to rebutt a presumption presented by vw.

778. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 5:31:03 PM

Next, I've not once said moving a child isn't a big deal. This is not related to my point, I didn't make such an assertion, and I challenge you to find any place where I did. My discussion wrt parental moveaways is confined soley to refuting Calgal's (and vw's) proposal that they should not be allowed as a matter of law.

In other words, they propose an absolute restriction on parental mobility to be codified in the law. Now, vw may not have proposed an absolute restriction, Calgal did. vw extends her/his sweep, however to include both restrictions on both parents, not just the custodial parent.

My point wrt parental moveaways was simply that to codify this as an absolute ban is very likely to run smack dab into constitutional concerns. Both legislatures and courts are cognizant of the rights people maintain to freely move about and to pursue economic freedoms, to name a few.

So, to make it short and sweet, I'm not arguing about what's in the childs best interests. I'm talking about why courts and legislatures wouldn't go for a proposal like the one Calgal suggested, or vw's for that matter. Rather, the legislature has defined the goals and the standard courts are to use. Courts then have the discretion to apply an array of solutions to meet these goals, which includes, restricting custodial parental moveaways. However, as I argued much earlier, (again and again), they aren't going to restrict parental mobility without a damn good reason.

You know, I feel like I keep repeating myself.

779. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 5:42:17 PM

And Ricky

I note that you previously made the claim that joint custody is more common that sole custody. This is not the case. The highest number any credible researcher has developed for cases of genuine joint physical custody is 20%, so the facts are directly opposite your claim.

This would be a good rebuttal if it spoke to the comment I made. I simply said that joint custody is more prevalent now than sole custody. I didn't distinguish between legal and physical joint custody. And, quite frankly, I can't even remember now what the damn point was in reference to.

Something Calgal said, I believe.

Finally, Ricky

I'm not interested in the effects of Burgess. It's not related to what I was discussing, which was how courts will balance the constitutional protections of individuals with the statutes and principles guiding divorce settlements.

No more, no less.

780. Jamie R - 2/18/2001 5:59:56 PM

Your parental rights may be important, but you're divorced now, you don't get to capriciously restrict your ex-spouses mobility without some damn good reason.

Well, in my case there is/was no marriage to consider, commonlaw or otherwise. My daughter's mom is not an ex-spouse. Is that relevant? (That question is directed to anyone who knows the applicable law.)

781. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 6:26:10 PM

vw

Your own words were

Nonetheless ... there are certain actions that many custodial parents make that are nothing more than sheer financial lunacy. Things like attempting to maintain the martial home, allowing divorce proceedings to bury them in debt, divorcing in haste instead of planning carefully and preparing for it, etc.

We divorce dumb. And the price we pay for that is often a financial one.

You now claim the above comment was in actuallity

Maintaining the family residence when it is a financial risk was one “dumb” thing divorcing people could do.

I must have missed the qualifiers....

782. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 6:27:25 PM

oops,

hit the wrong button, so eliminate one "l" in actuality.

783. vw - 2/18/2001 7:10:42 PM

I'm a she BTW. And if I can ask one silly question ... what is "wrt"?

You are quite correct that was what I originally posted Ms. I believe I qualified the statement in a later post. You'll forgive me for not linking, as I am still trying to get used to the GUI here and am finding it difficult to scan past posts. I should jot down post # so I can go back to them quickly.

I will be more careful in qualifying up front. I am used to posting with folks on TT who are familiar to the point of nausea with my views and opinions.

784. DanDillon - 2/18/2001 7:38:49 PM

[W]hat is "wrt"?

With regard to...

785. vw - 2/18/2001 7:39:40 PM

Thanks

786. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 10:30:35 PM

Hey Dan, thanks.

vw,

No problem, I probably missed your qualifying post. The rebutts were coming fast and furious at one point.

FWIW (for what it's worth), I agree we were frequently talking at cross-purposes.

787. RickyRicardo - 2/18/2001 11:11:49 PM

I'm at a loss to understand your problem with my posts, as you consistently seem to support their points.

It seems to me that the essence of what VW is saying goes in the direction of speculating on some things that might make the world a better place for the children of divorce. It appears that you saying it's not a good idea to speculate on these things because courts do what they do today for their own good reasons.

So in some sense there are at least two different conversations going on here, on advocating for change, and one excusing contemporary practice. As one on the side of change, I've encountered any number of clever rationalizations for the destuctive practices of family courts, and any number of clever excuses for shoddy policy. In my experience, there is very little consistency applied from issue to issue among those the apologists.

If you are not among them, mea culpa. But it appears you are fairly content with the status quo.

788. Autodaffy - 2/18/2001 11:33:06 PM

I think the discussion here by all parties actually contributing to it has been very informative and I thank those involved for it. To the three or so who have showed up here not to contribute but to declare a winner I say nothing that their own actions do not establish.

789. ChristiPeters - 2/19/2001 12:44:53 AM

I have found this discussion to be very interesting. As someone whose divorce experiences (before, during, and after) are very different from what seems to be the assumptions of what is the norm or the common experience, I am very leary of any proposed changes in the law mandating requirements based on those assumptions. I would err on the side of maintaining general guidlines and allowing room within those guidlines to take into account the circumstances of individual families in the divorce process.

For instance, a law mandating that either myself or my ex-spouse not move any great distance from where we happened to be when we divorced, would have left us both either completely unemployed or competing with a large College and Military population for a limited number of minimum-wage jobs.

While I fully realize that we are the exception rather than the rule, that is precisely my point. Room needs to be built in for the exceptions.

790. ChristiPeters - 2/19/2001 12:46:25 AM

Now that I've stuck my belated $0.02 in, I must retire. I'll rejoin the discussion tomorrow if my workload permits.

G'night

791. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 2:17:55 AM

I agree that you have to make room for exceptions to any rule in family law or any other kind of law. The old rule used to be "you can't move without a good reason." The feminists argued, successfully, that it was too hard for good exceptions to be heard when that rule was in place, so in 1996, the rule was changed to "you can always move unless there's a good reason not to." Under this rule, I would argue that the hardships are greater and the exceptions too hard to prove.

So it's horserace, ultimatley, like everthing else touched by politics, and the proof of the pudding is in the research that hasn't been done yet. But intuitively, there's something wrong with the status quo, and that can be established by its inconsistency with the rules in all other areas of family law.

At least, I think they can.

792. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 12:39:56 PM

While I fully realize that we are the exception rather than the rule, that is precisely my point.

No Christi, you are not the exception. We live in an increasingly mobile economy. One that requires greater mobility among labor than at any other time in the post-WWII period. Your situation is precisely the one I was addressing when I expressed my concern over proposals that would reduce the flexibility of courts to fashion reasonable custody arrangements on a case by case basis. And one, I might add, that also takes a flexible approach to changing family circumstances after divorce.

Dear Ricky

Re Message # 787:

This is really very pedestrian.

Challenging changes to law that ignore fundamental conflicts with constitutional protections, or that ignore unintended consequences, does not qualify as either defending the status quo, or being an "apologist".

If you're really proposing the kinds of restrictions that I've been rebutting, then you really must not have thought deeply about the possible problems.

Let's just take one of the proposed solutions in this recent discussion: that parents will not be allowed to move from where they reside (the county or city) once divorce settlements are final. And let's even ignore the constitutional problems with such a law.

What would be the result at the economic level? What could we say about this? What do we know about the labor pool?

We know the following:

-between 60-70% of all full-time adult workers are

793. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 12:50:50 PM

shit - I hit the damn return key- ggrrrr.

I'll continue

First, we know that between 60-70% of the full-time adult labor force is married.

Second, we also know that the divorce rate is somewhere around 50% (give or take a few percentage points at a moment in time)

This would suggest that at any one time, a significant porportion of the adult labor force is potentially at risk of becoming immobile if they become divorced.

What are the consequences of this immobility to the economy? Well, that's a bit hard to predict, but we can speculate about some possible problems.

The first would be increasing geographical rigidity in the labor market.

It would also suggest that local labor market conditions become more important to wage and income growth than they are currently. Some areas would have a harder time recruiting labor, some areas would have a surplus of workers.

Second, price (wages) would not be able to act very effectively as a mechanism to increase supply in areas where there were shortages. Also interestingly, in areas where there were surpluses, artificially supported by laws restricting worker mobility, price (wages) would be quite effective as a mechanism for lowering labor costs, but wouldn't be effective as a mechanism for reducing supply.

You see, a classic economic problem emerges without much effort at all.

794. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 1:01:58 PM

So,

Even if we ignore the fundamental constitutional problems with the proposal to presumptively restrict parental mobility after divorce, other quite significant problems, that affect more than just individual rights, are at stake.

But lets also look closer at the constitutional issues. If you want to argue that the rights of parents should be subsumed to those of the children, which is what such a policy implies to me, then at what point do we draw the line?

This is a classic slippery slope problem. We start out by saying we'll restrict parental rights to move for the sake of their children, but then what about the decision as to when to have a child itself? Does the state, since it now has a clear policy of putting the child's rights before the parents, also then extend those rights to the moment of conception? To the conditions that precede their conception?

Okay, that's a killer question. What about retreating from that quagmire and simply examine what the state could then do to protect children in the marriage. I mean, if children's rights supercede their parents, does that just begin at the moment of divorce, or does that extend to when they're born? When could the state step in, then? How does one draw the line?

I haven't even begun to think of all the possible consequences such a fundamental shift in law could bring and already, my head's spinning.

795. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 1:18:24 PM

et al

I don't mean to imply that trying to develop creative solutions that improve the lives of children post-divorce isn't a good thing. Rather, I simply think that such solutions aren't very helpful if they aren't workable within our economy or within the constitutional principles that protect individual and family liberties.

796. PsychProf - 2/19/2001 1:20:51 PM

FOSTERING RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN

797. christipeters - 2/19/2001 1:21:16 PM

You know, requiring the parents after divorce to both stay in the city in which they resided at the time of the divorce, totally ignores the issue of whether or not they would have stayed there if they had remained married.

I know that my husband and I would not have stayed in that city if we had stayed married.

The "you have to stay there" crowd seems to be assuming that all divorcing parents are living in a place semi-permanently and have a house, etc. As in, they moved there to establish a life and be in a good place to raise their kids. Well, that's true to a great extent for a large number of people of certain socio-economic status and up. It's not true for a minority in those classes or a great number of people in other socio-economic classes.

When I got divorced, the "marital home" was a single wide trailor (btw, he still has it). The town where our daughter was born was where we were living because the Air Force took us there and NOT where we planned to settle permanently. The city where we lived when we divorced was where we moved to to go to college, also not where we intended to settle permanently.

I mean, geez-louise, quit making all your examples middle-class and up! That's not the whole world, you know.

798. christipeters - 2/19/2001 1:22:52 PM

How's about we make Guidlines based on the majority and/or the average, but leave room for everybody in the Law?

799. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 1:28:04 PM

Peep's

Thanks for that link.

I'm familiar with much of that research, and in fact, participated in some of it myself. Schools can be very powerful mediators for children, and the presence of a good teacher in a child's life can be transforming.

800. PsychProf - 2/19/2001 1:37:42 PM

Thought this, which I had previously linked elsewhere, might be of interest...


DIVORCE AND CHILDREN

click on photo

801. PelleNilsson - 2/19/2001 1:43:24 PM

Dave Barry on some aspects of parenting.

802. LimeGirl - 2/19/2001 2:03:03 PM

What I would really like to see is a study of kids from divorced homes who have done well, and the factors that their situations have in common. When I read the article, it was sort of frustrating to me, because the things that it listed that divorced kids lack, my children don't lack -- they have hot meals, they are involved in activities, they see both parents almost daily. But yet the article seems to also say that no matter what you do as a divorced parent, it's never enough. I'd much rather have do-this-now than you-should-have-done-that, although I can certainly understand the importance of articles like this for couples who are standing in the doorway.

803. CalGal - 2/19/2001 2:08:47 PM

I think divorce harms children, but I loathe Wallerstein's whinging.

What I would really like to see is a study of kids from divorced homes who have done well, and the factors that their situations have in common.

Exactly. I find it very frustrating that no one attempts to study this, when clearly some children do very well with divorced parents. I suppose there is "political" resistance to it--if you demonstrated how to mitigate the impact of divorce, you would then be criticized for "encouraging" divorce.

804. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 2:23:24 PM

MsIvoryTower tells me:

This is really very pedestrian

Had you read my posts more carefully, you would have found that my point of view is actually anti-pedestrian, as I'm against walking away with the booty. The question of limiting moveaways for children doesn't raise any constitutional issues, as it's a question of how we define the child's best interests. If I were advocating restirctions on parental mobility, (which I'm not,) an argument can certainly be made that there is a constitutional basis for said practice, just as it's proper for the law to limit the mobility of persons in specific relationships to the legal system, as we do for parolees.

The rules in place before Burgess allowed child moveaways when the custodial parent had an economic imperative, so your argument about worker rights is off-topic and irrelevant. The question raised by the Burgess rule is whether moveaways for non-economic reasons are good for children. I say no.

Incidentally, the research I've read on worker mobility says we were more mobile a generation ago.

805. Jamie R - 2/19/2001 2:30:35 PM

MS, it seems like the existence of intact marriages should create the exact same economic problem that movement restricted divorces would. It's pretty rare for one partner to remain married and at the same time permanently relocate to get an income boost. Marriage = reduced mobility overall.

So at most a move restriction would eliminate any post-divorce mobility gains the end of the marriage might have created, and return the economy's mobility to its pre-divorce state. (I am assuming that if the divorced parents want to relocate in tandem, there is no obstacle.)

806. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 3:00:03 PM

Had you read my posts more carefully, you would have found that my point of view is actually anti-pedestrian

Actually, I did read your posts, I'm betting you didn't read all my though, from your comments in them. I hold by my comment.

The question of limiting moveaways for children doesn't raise any constitutional issues, as it's a question of how we define the child's best interests.

Of course it raises constitutional issues, and it's precisely linked to how we define the child's best interests. In fact, the issues raised by a woman's right to an abortion are closely tied to the issues here. At what point do the child's rights and interests supercede the parents? And what violence does that do to individual rights per se?

That you reduce the problem to one of simply redefining what's in a child's best interests is disengenuous, at best.


The question raised by the Burgess rule is whether moveaways for non-economic reasons are good for children.

And who's even debating this? Again, you're raising strawmen in this discussion. Having a per se rule of law that presumptively prohibits parental moveaways is well beyond what you're arguing. In fact, many states already restrict parental moveaways for non-economic reasons.

The question is how to balance parental rights to move with children's rights to access to both parents. I vehemently reject the option of changing the law so that it restricts parental mobility per se. That would cause unintended consequences and, I would argue, would be immediately challengable under the constitution.

807. Rachel - 2/19/2001 3:01:50 PM

I think that married couples are much more likely to be willing/able to coordinate a joint move to another city than divorced couples are. (Certainly, while my parents were married, they did this many times.)

On the subject of that Wallerstein article -- she seems to assume that staying married means that the pragmatic stuff like having family meals and rides to soccer practice. I don't know how it goes in other families, but the circumstances leading up to my parents' divorce (which weren't abusive, so weren't on her list of acceptable reasons) were messing up their ability to do the pragmatic stuff. It took about 2-3 years after the divorce before things were actually better than before the divorce (and the time in between sucked pretty hard), and I don't know if some other approach to the problems would have worked in the same time frame, but sticking to the status quo would not have led to me and my sisters feeling secure in the stability of our lives.

808. KuligintheHooligan - 2/19/2001 3:06:11 PM

"I suppose there is "political" resistance to it--if you demonstrated how to mitigate the impact of divorce, you would then be criticized for "encouraging" divorce."

I don't know that I would agree CalGal. With the rate of divorce in the US, I think there would be GREAT desire to legitimize it in some way. In other words, divorcees could then say, "See, my divorce had no negative impact on my children whatsoever, because . . . " I think such rationalizations would be in great demand.

Simply put, divorce stinks.

809. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 3:19:11 PM

In fact, the issues raised by a woman's right to an abortion are closely tied to the issues here.

Indeed, child moveways are very much like post-natal abortions. The child's life is clearly diminished by loss of contact with peers, supportive adults in the child's community, and the non-relocating parent. And you are also correct that most of the discussion of divorce policy has been driven by an exclusive focus on the rights of the parents, with scant attention to what's actually in the interests of the child.

But it's wrong to say that it's a question that directly pits parental interests against children's rights. We turn to the child only when the rights of the two parents are in conflict; one parent wants to exercise a right to move for a non-economic reason, and the other parent seeks to exercise his constitutional right to care for his child. With two equal rights in opposition, the child's interets are taken into account as a tie-breaker. This strikes me as appropriate.

The error the court made in Burgess was to declare the right to mobility superior to the parental right of the non-custodial (or less-custodial, to be more accurate) parent. This analysis took the child's tie-breaker role off the table, and the results are very clear: children and non-custodial parents are suffering. When children of divorce suffer, they tend to make their suffering known to the rest of us.

Mitchell Johnson, the young boy who shot and killed classmates and teachers in Jonesboro, Arkansas is a child of divorce whose mother was granted a non-economic moveaway by the courts. Do you want to tell the parents of the children he killed that his mothers's right to mbility is more important than their children's right to life? Apparently.

810. arkymalarky - 2/19/2001 3:19:15 PM

But what's being proposed is not a rationalization, but a study looking at what currently exists. There comes a point when half of marriages end in divorce that it makes good sense to look at what can help children do best under those circumstances. Divorcees with young children could use the data to help them work with their exes to make their children a priority and do what's in their best interest. There's nothing rationalizing about that at all.

811. arkymalarky - 2/19/2001 3:20:09 PM

Sorry, 810 was to Kuligin.

812. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 3:20:11 PM

Incidentally, the research I've read on worker mobility says we were more mobile a generation ago.

Then your research doesn't reconcile with CPS data. From the 1999 Statistical Abstract;

Mobility Status of the Population by Selected Characteristics, 1980-1998.

Year %Movers
1980-81 ................ 17
1985-86 ................ 18
1990-91................ 16
1995-96 ................ 16

_____________________________

1997-98
Total persons.......... 16

By age

5-9 yrs................ 23
10-14yrs............... 18

20-24yrs .............. 33
25-29yrs.............. 30
30-44yrs .............. 16

The data suggest no meaningful drop in mobility at the aggregate level. In addition, the 1997-98 data by age cohort shows that young adult workers are the most mobile.
Combine this with the mobility data for children under 15, and it suggests that families with younger children are comprised of younger adults, and they would be significantly impacted by restrictions on their mobility.

A recent study by Farber from the BLS suggests that worker mobility is higher among early job holders, those whose time on the job is shorter, and that mobility declines as years of experience with the same employer increase. This suggests that the mobility we see among young adults is, indeed, tied to job seeking activities.

813. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 3:25:02 PM

The data suggest no meaningful drop in mobility at the aggregate level.

The date show an 11% drop in mobility - hardly evidence that we live in an "increasingly mobile society." Feel free to retract at any time.

814. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 3:26:23 PM

That should have been "data."

815. KuligintheHooligan - 2/19/2001 3:26:37 PM

arky,

Any parent worth anything will worry, "What will this divorce do to my kids?" And if that parent can find some rationalization that says, "Hey, it won't affect them at all," then that parent will be perfectly content to divorce. That is all I meant.

Are there ways to help kids in divorce situations? Of course. But that wasn't the point I was making wrt CalGal's comment.

816. KuligintheHooligan - 2/19/2001 3:28:07 PM

arky, you have an uncanny ability to misread virtually everything I post, btw. CalGal's "political resistance" is what caught my eye.

817. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 3:29:25 PM

Rachel

I tend to agree. Many divorced parents would be willing to relocate together, however this presupposes both can find work, one would surely need to find equivalent work while the other would likely be moving to a better job.

Personally, I prefer contractual agreements fill this gap, or serve this need rather than for the law to develop per se rules that restrict individual's from finding solutions that best meet their personal situations.

Jamie R

Yes, mobility is reduced in marriage, but the decision making structure within a family has different constraints, and goals than one where the family is no longer intact. I refer you to my earlier discussion of Becker's model.

The intact family makes decisions based on optimizing total family well being, which may include one spouse engaging in less labor market activity and the other engaging in it primarily. Mobility for this kind of family then, would frequently include moving for the sake of better overall economic opportunities, but not necessarily equal economic opportunities for each partner. While this is perfectly rational for intact families, it is not for those who are divorced.

818. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 3:33:20 PM

Re Message # 213

No it doesn't. The data is the percentage of the population who are mobile at a point in time. Moving from 17% of the population to 16% in the population is a 1 percentage point decrease. Not going to be statistically significant.

By the way, the total number of movers is greater in each year. More people are moving, but as a percentage of the population, the numbers show relative constancy from the period noted.

819. arkymalarky - 2/19/2001 3:34:51 PM

Any parents who are that flip about divorce don't read, and either way ought to just hand their kids over to somebody else, because they're too stupid to have kids. I certainly wouldn't feel better about their kids if idiots like that stayed married. I'd imagine the kids are sunk no matter just for the bad luck of having that kind of parent.

Fortunately, not all parents who are divorced are looking for justification to make them feel warm and fuzzy about their choices, but they would like and need real information about how best to deal with things regarding their children after the fact.

If your child is already sexually active you have to decide whether you prepare him/her for what comes with that territory or continue to preach abstinence. Once the cow is out of the barn, so to speak, good, rational information is about the best bet if your child's safety and interests predominate. Same holds for divorce and kids, but the good information isn't out there, because no one's studied what works best under what we all agree, I think, are very bad circumstances for everyone in almost every case.

820. Jamie R - 2/19/2001 3:39:23 PM

Okay, but I thought we were discussing national productivity as it impacts all of us, not optimal happiness within a family unit. If two married people are being inefficient and lessening national productivity, surely I have the same gripe with them that I do with two divorced people who have put themselves (by hypothetical law)in the same boat. It doesn't matter to me that the married people are happy about it and the divorced people are bitter about it. I'm still out X guns and Y butter.

821. arkymalarky - 2/19/2001 3:40:25 PM

I don't think I misread it. You thought there would be a great demand for justification/rationalizaton of divorce as a choice, though you say at the end divorce sucks, so you obviously disagree with the majority, and your belief is that a study that shows how kids best live with divorce would encourage more parents to go through with it with less guilt, which implies that that would be the motivation behind conducting and publishing such a study in the first place.

Right?

822. PsychProf - 2/19/2001 3:52:56 PM

Any discussion of divorce should have the couple simultaneously attached to a pissedoff/hate meter that accurately assesses the anger between the husband/wife...then we could better understand the "irrational disputes" that occur over money, visitation, living arrangements etc...power/control interactions that inundate attempts to resolve conflict with legal or seemingly intelligent solutions.

823. KuligintheHooligan - 2/19/2001 3:53:40 PM

I believe that there would be ample people that would encourage such a study or studies, namely, to show how divorce does not negatively impact children when certain factors are applied. That is what I meant.

And I didn't mean to imply, if you so took it, that all divorcees seek "rationalizations" for their divorces. But some parents (if you can even call them that) are selfish bastards that couldn't give a hoot for the welfare of their children, and will look for any rationalization necessary to please themselves, no matter how much it may hurt their children. And I venture to say that thousands of these types of "parents" exist.

Are you and I clear now?

824. arkymalarky - 2/19/2001 3:57:22 PM

Yep. But I still think conscientious parents who've divorced need good information on how best to raise their kids under those circumstances and to know what has worked best with children of divorce. How idiot parents will make themselves feel better with the info doesn't mean the studies aren't needed. If that doesn't address anything you said, mea culpa. It's still a point I wanted to make.

825. KuligintheHooligan - 2/19/2001 4:05:39 PM

I agree that the studies are necessary. In fact, I find it unbelievable that such studies have not been conducted (they must have somewhere). The need for said information wasn't my point though. And I see two catalysts for driving that need: schmuck parents looking for rationalizations, and good parents who have divorced and still want the best they possibly can give their kids. My initial comments targeted the first group, and you targeted the second, thinking perhaps that I didn't recognize the second group at all.

Have a good evening arky!

826. arkymalarky - 2/19/2001 4:07:36 PM

I gotcha.

You too, Kuli.

827. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 4:35:21 PM

Okay, but I thought we were discussing national productivity as it impacts all of us, not optimal happiness within a family unit.

Well, no we're not really talking directly about productivity. At least, I wasn't. Perhaps you were.

I was talking about the impact of laws that would interfere with labor mobility, and the consequent effects on efficiencies in the labor market.

Personal choices will always be a factor in labor supply, but these can be affected by changes in price. Once you put legal barriers in place that restrict labor mobility, these operate to affect supply regardless of price: an altogether different beast.

Nor was I talking about family "happiness", rather I was discussing family optimizing or maximizing behavior, which isn't the same thing.

828. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 5:06:54 PM

Ricky

You're all over the place.

I've been very clear about my objections to per se rules regarding parental moveaways. I've also stated that there's already flexibility in place to determine when moveaway's should be restricted.

If you want to argue for a per se rule saying that a parent can only move away for economic reasons, and never for non-economic reasons, go ahead. However, that in no way settles the issue because courts will still have to determine what counts as an economic reason and what doesn't. Or they'll have to differentiate between what is a valid economic reason and what isn't. Or whether it's economic necessity or not.

And there'd still be anecdotal horror stories of bad decisions, there'd be conflicting rules from different jurisdictions, and conflicting application of those rules by different courts. In other words, I don't see how the situation would be much different than it is now.

I think the solution will lie elsewhere, perhaps a greater focus on better procedural rules for granting divorces. Perhaps considering tougher divorce laws for marriages involving children, where the children's interests are considered up front, as part of the rationale for the divorce itself. This would certainly be in line with what Wallerstein advocates. What about requiring up front contractual arrangements as part of divorce settlements?

All of these have greater potential of solving some of the problems you want to address than simply proposing per se rules restricting parental moveaways. In addition, some have the added benefit of taking courts out of the position of having to determine who wins or loses, whose freedoms are restrained and whose aren't, and whether, in fact, the court can even arrive at a solution in the child's best interests.

829. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 5:10:52 PM

et al

I'm just about ready to bow out of this conversation. Unfortunately, my time is very limited, and, much as I'd like to continue, I think I've made most of the points I wanted.

I've enjoyed the discussion, and I thank all my fellow contributors. I now retreat to mostly lurking status again.

830. jonesatlaw - 2/19/2001 5:58:26 PM

PP's post regarding resliency in children is worth a second look. The whole theory is exciting to me because of the focus on what we have at ground zero. We can do things to help people avoid divorce, but it will happen. What then do we do for children of divorce? Long ago, there were extended family members around who may have filled in some of the gaps. African-American families especially still have an attitude of group parenting in my experience whenever physical proximity allows it. Teachers I think used to be more capable of filling in when they were more closely tied to the community than they are in your typical suburban/urban school. Even godparents used to fill the role. We need to encourage these folks wherever they exist, and provide mentors and the like in the situtations where they are not.

831. vw - 2/19/2001 6:08:38 PM

In fact, I find it unbelievable that such studies have not been conducted (they must have somewhere),/I>

I’m not aware of any having been done and I read extensively in the area (if anybody knows of any work on this please share).

But give it time … we are just now seeing the results of numerous longitudinal studies (Wallerstein’s being one of the worst of them from a methodology view IMO) on the effects of divorce on children. There is still a bitter fight going on over whether or not there is any harm. Solid research takes small logical steps from one point to the next building and amassing a bulk of supporting work behind it. It will get there.

832. vw - 2/19/2001 6:09:32 PM

Damn, sorry ... I clipped the italics tag.

834. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 8:41:50 PM

I've also stated that there's already flexibility in place to determine when moveaway's should be restricted.

But of course, this isn't really the case, as the Burgess case clearly shows. There are no meaningful restrictions on moveaways at all, and that't the problem. The "feminist" groups who successfully removed the moveaway restrictions (lawyer of record for mom in Burgess was Gloria Allred) are not willing to accept any restictions on moveaways, and we have a more violent society as a result.

But we keep apologizing for bad parenting instead of fixing the problem. Tut tut.

835. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 8:48:53 PM

Damn italics.

836. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 8:50:04 PM

Apologizing for bad parenting, and for bad law, I mean.

837. Autodaffy - 2/19/2001 9:59:35 PM

I flew sitting next to two children of approximately six and eight years of age, a girl and boy respectively. They were despondent. He tried hard not to cry and sometimes succeeded, and she failed miserably at the same effort, for what I remember as a two or three hour flight. One adult had put them on the plane by themselves.

838. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 10:02:48 PM

and we have a more violent society as a result.

Oh Jaysus, I can't let this stand.

Do you have any evidence, that there is a causal connection between parental moveaways and societal violence?

Really, ideological pap such as this doesn't aid in finding workable solutions to serious problems. Perhaps you should take a step back and try for some objectivity. And barring that, perhaps some decent research would do.

Spare me the Wallerstein stuff though.

839. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 10:52:22 PM

The case of Mitchell Johnson is real, not ideological pap. The boy was deeply troubled by his parents divorce, according to all objective accounts. His mother was a former prison psychologist who dumped his father after she fell in love with an inmate. When the inmate was transferred to Tennessee, she put in for a transfer and was granted one. She also put in for a moveaway, and was granted one over the objection of his father. When the inmate was transferred a second time, to Arkansas, the prison system declined to transfer her, so she quit the job, and retaining custody of Mitchell, dragged him along.
I bring up this case partly because feminists in the domestic violence advocacy business tried to protray the boy's crimes as "gender-motivated hate." A former family law judge in San Jose, California wrote an editorial taking just that angle. But friends in Minneosta, the boy's home, reported that he had talked about doing a similar shoot-out there, and was talked out of it by friends.

So what's the story here, a boy disturbed by divorce and arbitrary relocation pushed over the edge, or a young patriarch asserting dominance over women?

And just who is going to fund a research study on the effects of random moveaways on troubled young people?

840. vw - 2/19/2001 11:55:19 PM

So what's the story here, a boy disturbed by divorce and arbitrary relocation pushed over the edge, or a young patriarch asserting dominance over women?

Please … why is it so impossible for people to walk the middle line between Nature and Nurture? He maybe had a higher tendency to be aggressive because he was a young human male. He may have also had an increase in that violent tendency due to the turmoil of his family life. He also might have been an antisocial little fuck for some reason we can’t explain yet except they pop up so often in the human population.

You don’t know, I don’t know and neither do the good folks who fill the Ranks of Experts.

841. KuligintheHooligan - 2/20/2001 3:15:12 AM

jonesatlaw

"African-American families especially still have an attitude of group parenting in my experience whenever physical proximity allows it."

Before I came to Africa, I was told time and time again how family oriented and relational Africans were as compared to Westerners (particularly Americans). My experience at least in Namibia, though, has shown me how wrong that is in a certain sense.

9 out of every 10 babies born in Namibia are born out of wedlock, a 90% illegitimacy rate. Now of course, marriage isn't deemed as necessary here as in other parts of the world, but what happens time and time again is a teenaged girl gets pregnant and drops the baby off with her mom, somewhere on the farm, to raise while she remains in school. The daddy rarely if ever sees the kid, and the mommy gets very used to not having to do the day-to-day chores associated with having a baby. In short, she becomes a horribly lazy mother.

And this continues on even after she has completed her schooling. The child (or most likely at that point children) are constantly left with the grandparents, and are constantly unattended.

There is a major compaign in Namibia to get fathers involved in the lives of their children. It won't work. The society has for far too long allowed men (and in many instances mothers as well) to entirely ignore their parental obligations. They produce children and go on as if their lives have not been affected whatsoever.

jones, I know you said "African-American"but still I thought this comment about one African society important to note.

842. KuligintheHooligan - 2/20/2001 3:21:53 AM

It isn't so much "group parenting" or "communal parenting" here as it is "dump the kid off with the relative willing to take him." I do not exaggerate. There are tons of kids that spend next to no time with their mothers, don't even know who their fathers are, run around with no supervision, no discipline, no one telling them right from wrong (other than older kids, many of whom force the younger ones into theft, etc.).

Then Namibia wonders why their is so much alcoholism and promiscuity and poor grades in school in their society. Children with no supervision tend to get into trouble (a generalization that is fairly accurate).

843. RickyRicardo - 2/20/2001 3:49:54 AM

You don?t know, I don?t know and neither do the good folks who fill the Ranks of Experts.

I've got a pretty good idea that young Mitchell's actions had something to do with his circumstances, and so does everybody else who's familiar with his story. You're thowing up a smokescreen, Vikki, and I ain't buying it.

844. RickyRicardo - 2/20/2001 3:52:23 AM

Children with no supervision tend to get into trouble (a generalization that is fairly accurate).


Intersting post, Kuligin. I thought that stuff about "group parenting" was a little romantic, too. In my epxerience, if everybody is respsonsible for some person or some thing, then nobody is responsible since everybody figures somebody else is taking care of bidness.

845. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 9:07:44 AM

Ricky

Please

Hyperbole, anecdotal horror stories.

Shall we conclude that because I can name some homeless kids who were validictorians at their high school graduation and when on to Harvard and Stanford that homelessness has no negative effects on children and learning?

Yes, let's do that.

And while we're at it, let's also formulate state and national policies on such "evidence".

I don't know where you hail from, TT? If so, perhaps such sloppy thinking passes there as "enlightened", but personally, I think it just makes you look....intellectually sloppy.

846. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 9:10:11 AM

...and here I said I was quitting the conversation.

Mea Culpa. I'm trying, I'm trying.

847. christipeters - 2/20/2001 10:58:44 AM

"MS, it seems like the existence of intact marriages should create the exact same economic problem that movement restricted divorces would. It's pretty rare for one partner to remain married and at the same time permanently relocate to get an income boost. Marriage = reduced mobility overall."

There's a big difference between mobility being limited by a married couples personal decisions and mobility being limited by the Law.

"The child's life is clearly diminished by loss of contact with peers, supportive adults in the child's community, and the non-relocating parent."

This, of course, assumes that all of these things are present in the child's life pre-divorce. Something that isn't necessarily so.

"The error the court made in Burgess was to declare the right to mobility superior to the parental right of the non-custodial (or less-custodial, to be more accurate) parent."

This was a California State decision, right?

"Mitchell Johnson, the young boy who shot and killed classmates and teachers in Jonesboro, Arkansas is a child of divorce whose mother was granted a non-economic moveaway by the courts. Do you want to tell the parents of the children he killed that his mothers's right to mbility is more important than their children's right to life? Apparently."

Are you honestly saying that the sole or even primary reason for this child's actions is the fact that his mother moved??!?!? Do you know any other circumstances and/or reasons that just may have had something to do with it?

You seem to focus a lot on non-economic reasons as being insufficient. Can you not think of any non-economic reasons why a custodial parent may choose to move that would be justified?

(ooops, gotta go -meeeeetiiinng! help)

848. Shannon - 2/20/2001 11:25:41 AM

Good luck with that meeting thing. I've got one this afternoon.

Hey, I just got some good news about the kid's school. He's in a public Montessori magnet, which we've been quite happy with. It goes through third grade. Hubby just went to a meeting at school, and they announced that they're expanding it to 5th. Whoopee! This means he can stay there all the way through elementary. It also means that he and his sister will have more years at the same school--I hate getting kids to 2 different places in the AM.

I was also a bit leery of switching schools in 4th grade. Not so much for him, but I think that's a hard time socially for girls. And daughter is a bit on the shy side. Son is very socially adept, so I doubt I'll worry about his social adjustment much. He'll cause me other worries :-)

849. CalGal - 2/20/2001 12:16:09 PM

There's a big difference between mobility being limited by a married couples personal decisions and mobility being limited by the Law.


There is a big difference between income spent on a child being determined by a married couple's personal decisions and the income being determined by law. Haven't seen you complain about that, however. Where are your outcries about legally determined child support?

If one of a married couple gets a job offer, he is unlikely to just up and leave without taking the needs of the family into account--usually by deciding whether or not it is appropriate to move the kids, and what impact it will have on the career of the other parent.

If the parents are divorced, the first is every bit as much an issue. And I see no reason why divorce--which was from the other parent, not the kids, should make this decision process easier.

850. CalGal - 2/20/2001 12:18:09 PM

I think the story about the kid going wacko because he was separated from his dad is anecdotal crap.

However, I think the fairly cavalier attitude shown here for the impact of kids losing access to one parent demonstrates no recognition of the kid's wellbeing, and every interest in the custodial parent's convenience.

851. Wombat - 2/20/2001 12:21:45 PM

More likely he went whacko from his mother dumping his father for a convict.

852. CalGal - 2/20/2001 12:22:44 PM

Yes, there always does seem to be a laundry list with some of these kids. Lord, who wouldn't go wacko with a mother like that?

853. christipeters - 2/20/2001 1:26:11 PM

"There is a big difference between income spent on a child being determined by a married couple's personal decisions and the income being determined by law. Haven't seen you complain about that, however. Where are your outcries about legally determined child support?"

Sorry, CalGal, you've got the wrong divorcee here. I haven't made any such outcries. I am the divorced Mom whose ex paid nothing for seven years and now pays a whole $60/month and didn't drag his butt to court over it and never will drag his butt to court over it. (although I did consider it) I used to track my spending on LD. Not counting food, shelter, or Rx (don't separate those out) I spend an average of $7,000/year on LD in 1996 and 1997. I'm sure I spend more now. I think it's safe to say that my ex-husband's contribution of $600/year isn't being blown on parties or luxuries for myself.

"If one of a married couple gets a job offer, he is unlikely to just up and leave without taking the needs of the family into account--usually by deciding whether or not it is appropriate to move the kids, and what impact it will have on the career of the other parent."

Riiiight. By definition, a married person who wants to uproot his/her family to pursue a better job/career only does so after taking into account the impact on the kids and the other parent.

BUT, by definition, a divorced person who wants to uproot his/her family to pursue a better job/career never looks at those things and is a totally selfish person out to screw the non-custodial parent.

You betcha.

854. christipeters - 2/20/2001 1:27:32 PM

BTW, the reason I asked earlier if this Burgess decision being talked about is a CA state thing is because when I got divorced in NM, the law did say that any move by either parent had to be approved by the other parent or show the courts that it was of economic or other necessity and put into place a plan to continue maximum possible contact with the other parent. I can live with that sort of thing just fine.

I object, however, to any proposals that say that neither parent can ever move post-divorce while they have minor children. I think that is unreasonable and ridiculous as it supposes that wherever you happen to be when you get divorced, the kids are best off staying there, regardless of individual circumstances.

For instance, neither my husband nor myself had any desire or intention to have our daughter educated in the abysmal NM educational system. Even if we had stayed married, she would have been 'uprooted away from her peer group, etc, etc... (or however that's been stated above).

There are a hell of a lot of kids moved away from their peer group by intact families all over America. It's hard on them and the responsible parents do what they can to minimize the "trauma", but they survive and don't all turn into criminals, psychos, or otherwise non-contributing members of society.

855. christipeters - 2/20/2001 1:29:58 PM

ooops make that

... my ex-husband's contribution of $720/year...

856. CalGal - 2/20/2001 1:35:41 PM

I am the divorced Mom whose ex paid nothing for seven years and now pays a whole $60/month and didn't drag his butt to court over it and never will drag his butt to court over it.

But that's besides the point. I wasn't accusing you of accepting child support. I was asking you if you opposed it. If you don't oppose the right of the court to mandate how much income a parent must spend on his (or her) child, then why would you oppose other restrictions imposed on divorced folks that aren't imposed on their married counterparts?

BUT, by definition, a divorced person who wants to uproot his/her family to pursue a better job/career never looks at those things and is a totally selfish person out to screw the non-custodial parent.

Another misreading. I have made no characterization of either situation. There are, in fact, plenty of married parents (usually husbands) who would accept relocations as a matter of course, without consulting their spouse. But in general, relocations are done with the interests of the other partner and the kids in mind--and it is not at all unusual for parents to turn down better jobs and relocations based on the needs of their children.

I am saying that I see no reason why divorced people aren't held to the same standard. It is almost never in the best interests in the child to be removed from one parent. I see no reason why divorced parents should be given carte blanche to take actions that could seriously hurt their children, merely because they can leave one parent behind.

857. RickyRicardo - 2/20/2001 1:37:29 PM

I don't know where you hail from, TT? If so, perhaps such sloppy thinking passes there as "enlightened", but personally, I think it just makes you look....intellectually sloppy.

846. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/01 2:10:11 PM

...and here I said I was quitting the conversation.

Mea Culpa. I'm trying, I'm trying.


Better to be sloppy than Chicken Shit, Ms. Tower. Have a nice day.

858. jonesatlaw - 2/20/2001 1:46:14 PM

ChrstiP- you have had the advantage of your NM divorce. NM has been ahead of the curve for some time in family law with mandatory mediation and parenting plans etc. Great stuff for the folks who can remain rational about the kids.

Re-group parenting: yes it is a bit of a romantic notion, but seems to be true here in the midwest. It is more than dump the kid on the willing relative, often it is a group huddle with Grandma presiding and deciding who will care for the kid. Most often its grandma. Since Grandma raised Mom it's sometimes a risky proposition. OTOH Grandma could be the Mother of the Year with a kid with bad genes/evil ways/addictions/ what have you.

859. CalGal - 2/20/2001 1:52:44 PM

Shannon,

I was also a bit leery of switching schools in 4th grade.

I have recently come to the tentative conclusion that many of Spawn's education problems came because his previous school (at which he was very happy) ended at 5th grade. Now, I grant you, his new school was extremely unimpressive. But I also think that 5th grade is just an unnatural place to switch kids. I think the more usual K-6, 7-8, 9-12 is still preferable.

So I'm glad your kiddos won't have to switch at 3rd grade--but be on the lookout for conversion issues at fifth.

860. Shannon - 2/20/2001 2:11:50 PM

K-5 is the norm here, not K-6. There are some private schools that are K-12 or K-8, but I think even they tend to have a new "level" starting at 6. You switch from elem. to middle or junior high. I went to a small-town public school, which was combined K-8, but in 6th grade you moved to the other building, were in junior high, and switched classrooms. I think most of the private schools do that here.

861. christipeters - 2/20/2001 2:12:40 PM

"I am saying that I see no reason why divorced people aren't held to the same standard... I see no reason why divorced parents should be given carte blanche to take actions that could seriously hurt their children, merely because they can leave one parent behind."

Well, in that case, I agree with you, although I am not sure what you mean by "same standard". I thought that you were saying that the law should mandate that divorced parents cannot move, period.

Like I said, I am perfectly happy with the proposition that the child's interests and the interests of both custodial and non-custodial parents be taken into account and mediated if the parent's cannot come up with an agreement on their own.

I do NOT favor any "one-size-fits-all" solutions.

(Is anyone going to answer me on this "Burgess decision" thing - was this just applicable to CA, or what?)

862. RickyRicardo - 2/20/2001 2:20:27 PM

Burgess was a California case, but as California goes, so goes the nation. Similar rulings have been handed down in New York and some of the Midwestern states, but family law is very much a state-by-state deal. That's why you should always be suspicious of anybody making sweeping generalizations about what courts do and do not allow divorced parents to do. Such people are nearly always lying.

The one exception to the state-by-state rule is child support enforcement, which is governed by federal mandates imposed on states as a condition for receiving welfare money. But even here, child support levels are a matter of state law, and they vary 300% across the country.

863. RickyRicardo - 2/20/2001 2:21:48 PM

Burgess was a California case, but as California goes, so goes the nation. Similar rulings have been handed down in New York and some of the Midwestern states, but family law is very much a state-by-state deal. That's why you should always be suspicious of anybody making sweeping generalizations about what courts do and do not allow divorced parents to do. Such people are nearly always lying.

The one exception to the state-by-state rule is child support enforcement, which is governed by federal mandates imposed on states as a condition for receiving welfare money. But even here, child support levels are a matter of state law, and they vary 300% across the country.

Incidentally, the reason most people counsel more resttictions on moveaways by divorced parents than on married parents is the assumption that children of divorce have additional stresses in their lives that make stability more of a priority for them.

864. CalGal - 2/20/2001 2:24:04 PM

I thought that you were saying that the law should mandate that divorced parents cannot move, period.


I believe that the burden should be on the moving parent to a) justify the move, b) provide a travel plan and visitation commitments (legally enforceable by both parents) and c) have the approval of the other parent, whether custodial or not.

I believe that moving ought to be considered entirely reasonable grounds in and of itself for a custody switch, as well.

If both parents agree to the move and have a detailed visitation and communication plan in place, it is feasible. However, there ought to be no doubt that it is potentially harmful to the child, and the burden of justification ought to be quite high.

Keep in mind that I moved to North Carolina for a year. I had all the things in place that I specify--however, I moved for entirely different reasons and would have been happier not to move. I felt things much improved when I came back, even though Spawn talked to his father daily and visited him several weeks throughout the year.

865. christipeters - 2/20/2001 2:26:09 PM

I've said it before, but I can't remember if it was here or TT, so forgive me if I am repeating myself.

On the issue of child support...

In NM, they have a chart that presumes that if a couple's combined income is X, then Y proportion of that income will be spent on the kid/kids. It assumes this would have been the case if you had remained married - if your income went up, the amount you spent on your kids would go up proportionately.

So to calculate child support, first you add up both parent's income and look at the chart to see how much "should" be going to the kid/s. Then you look up what proportion of the combined income is made by each parent. The parents are then each responsible for that proportion of the 'Y' figure. So, if the non-custodial parent makes 60% of the combined income, then child support is set at 60% of 'Y'. If the non-custodial parent makes 20% of the combined income, then child support is set at 20% of 'Y'.

This is used to determine child support when the two parents cannot come up with an agreement on their own. The parents are perfectly free to set up child support any way they both agree on and the court only steps in if no agreement is reached.

My lawyer was very clear that pretty much anything my ex and I both agreed on was fine with the courts, which is why I was able to give him 2/3 of the marital estate. The court only steps in when the two don't/won't/can't agree.

Anyway, back to child support. I think the above is an equitable system. It can't stop one parent from deciding to take a low paying job in order to pay less child support, but I don't think there's any system that can stop someone from being spiteful. Since that also reduces the amount of money the person has to spend on themselves -shrug.

866. CalGal - 2/20/2001 2:30:46 PM

Christi,

All that just proves the point: courts mandate income spent on a child. Also, it is not quite true that the parents can agree among themselves. For example, if the custodial parent were on welfare, the other parent would be hit up for money no matter what their agreement was--and he would be hit up for the legal amount, not whatever they agreed to.

If you oppose the court setting restrictions--even tough ones--on parental ability to relocate, why don't you oppose courts mandating how much money a parent has to spend on a child?

867. RickyRicardo - 2/20/2001 2:39:58 PM

Most of the people I know who pay child support would like to get a little report every so often showing that the money was actually spent on the child, but the law doesn't require it.

Isn't it odd that one parent has to fork over major bucks on penalty of jail, while the other gets a free ride?

868. christipeters - 2/20/2001 2:40:25 PM

"I believe that the burden should be on the moving parent to a) justify the move, b) provide a travel plan and visitation commitments (legally enforceable by both parents) and c) have the approval of the other parent, whether custodial or not.

I believe that moving ought to be considered entirely reasonable grounds in and of itself for a custody switch, as well."

Well, that's how it was setup in NM when I got divorced. My lawyer warned me that if I didn't have all that, that physical custody would automatically go to him if I chose to move anyway. (assuming he went to court and filed a complaint, of course. a lot of stuff that's in the law doesn't happen because no one takes the necessary steps to make it happen.)

In my particular case, my first choice would have been to stay in NM if I could have found a good job in an area of NM that had a good private school since we think NM public school system sucks). As it was, of the several job offers I was given, I took the one that was geographically the closest to where he was living. The fact that he didn't visit/write/call LD had nothing to do with the move and everything to do with his mental state at that time.

I still miss NM and would move back there in heartbeat IF LD was done with school or I could find a good private school near a good job (we still think NM schools suck. while TX schools aren't much better in general, the specific one she's in is good - at least for G/T kids). In fact, I fully intend to look for a job in NM as soon as LD is out of school. (I may stay here a bit longer if she chooses a TX University)

869. christipeters - 2/20/2001 2:53:31 PM

"If you oppose the court setting restrictions--even tough ones--on parental ability to relocate, why don't you oppose courts mandating how much money a parent has to spend on a child?"

Well, since I don't oppose the restrictions you listed in post #864, I guess that answers that question.

"Isn't it odd that one parent has to fork over major bucks on penalty of jail, while the other gets a free ride?"

I know that this does happen, but I don't think it is at all common. Unless you have a very large income, I don't see child support being set much higher than the actual cost of providing for a child. I don't think there are really a lot of custodial parents using the child support to go aout partying while the kids go barefoot.

For instance, if I were to take my ex to court and ask for child support based on the NM chart, I would get (at last year's calculation, I don't know about what real figure it would be today) $323/month or $3,876/year. I estimate that now that she's a teen, I'll spend over $10K on LD this year. Since I make more than her Dad, I think that's a reasonable child support amount.

I won't take him to court, though, because, if I did, he would exact an emotional toll from her for every penny. Since I have simple needs and make enough money to take care of her without his contribution, I think the money is not worth that emotional cost. I don't think LD should have to pay because I picked an immature irresponsible man to have a child with. I made the mistake, I'll pay the consequences.

(the $60/month he sends now goes into her college account)

870. christipeters - 2/20/2001 2:56:21 PM

Thanks to those who answered my question about the Burgess case. I'm not sure that as California goes so goes the nation (y'all sound so egocentric there &:oD). However, you may be right. I haven't done the research.

871. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 3:13:27 PM

Better to be sloppy than Chicken Shit, Ms. Tower. Have a nice day.

Oh brave man.

Side-step the issues all you want, it doesn't matter to me, but I think you've made my case rather stronger.

You consistently mouth platitudes without support, you attack "feminists" for being behind the current laws without an analysis of why. In short, you appear to have a political agenda, I don't know what it is, don't much care, but it clouds your argumentation.

Calgal

Cavalier attitude toward the well being of children? You're beginning to sound like Ricky.

I also take exception to this little dance everyone wants to do around the considerable gender issues tied to both the laws, and whose interests will be served by changing them in the proposed directions.


One caveat to my earlier discussion regarding parental moveaways:

When the custodial parent re-marries, and then seeks to relocate based on the new spouse's economic (or non-economic) interests, I believe this is a whole different kettle of fish.

Under these circumstances, I believe the non-custodial parent's interests must take precedence, as do the children's interests, over the interests of the newly formed marital couple. However, the solution would seem to be an automatic re-opening of custody under these circumstances, so that the non-custodial parent can seek to become the custodial parent should they so desire. In addition, re-negotiated visitation and transportation arrangements (and who bears those costs) should also be automatic. Both would require only minor changes to laws already in place.

My earlier arguments and comments generally had in mind the situation of custodial parents who were not remarried.

872. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 3:19:36 PM

If you oppose the court setting retrictions--even tough ones--on parental ability to relocate, why don't you oppose courts mandating how much money a parent has to spend on a child?

Because the two aren't analogous? Because the two don't raise the same constitutional protections? Because the two have totally different effects on the rights of both the custodial and non-custodial parents?

Because this is a strawman.

873. CalGal - 2/20/2001 3:25:01 PM

I also take exception to this little dance everyone wants to do around the considerable gender issues tied to both the laws, and whose interests will be served by changing them in the proposed directions.


There's no gender dance. I think they are clearly geared to favor women on the assumption that they have selflessly given up their job to care for the family, and I think that thinking is wrongheaded and should be removed. If it "benefits" men by making the laws more equal, so be it.

Cavalier attitude toward the well being of children?

I have yet to see any argument in favor of keeping gender based preferences in the divorce laws that doesn't fundamentally put the interests of the woman ahead of the interests of the children.

This is not to imply that men aren't quite readily relinquishing control of their kids. They are--even when they would rather not--and the reasons have a lot to do with their convenience, too.

The divorce laws should be evenhanded, not allow for gender biases--and also put the well-being of the children over the convenience of either parent or the courts themselves. Right now, it's pretty clear that it's easiest for both parents and the courts to give all the control and most of the money to one parent--so that's what the laws support.

874. CalGal - 2/20/2001 3:26:06 PM

Because the two aren't analogous? Because the two don't raise the same constitutional protections? Because the two have totally different effects on the rights of both the custodial and non-custodial parents?


They are entirely analogous, they have similar constitutional protections, and you're talking out of your ass if you don't think shelling out a huge amount of money each month doesn't have significant and quite similar effects on the rights of both parents.

875. CalGal - 2/20/2001 3:38:40 PM

And rather than continue to argue about whether they are analogous or not, consider this: parents lose rights when they get divorced. That is a given--and frankly, many of them seem to me to have constitutional implications. As I mentioned earlier, divorced parents (usually dads) can lose their legal rights far more easily than a crack addict raising her kids on cockroaches.

Therefore I don't see how one can protest another divorce requirement solely on the grounds that it unfairly deprives a parent of a "right". That is routine in divorce.

876. christipeters - 2/20/2001 4:42:13 PM

"As I mentioned earlier, divorced parents (usually dads) can lose their legal rights far more easily than a crack addict raising her kids on cockroaches."

That's an interesting statement. What rights, specifically, are you referring to?

I ask because the last time I looked into this, my lawyer said it was all but impossible (in TX and NM) to strip a father of his rights. The lawyer cited the case the lawyer had just finished of a divorced Mom, dying of cancer, whose ex-husband was a crack addict and a drug dealer, in prison at the time, who also had been convicted of assault and sexual assault. The Mom wanted to set it up so that he would not be given custody of the children when she died. It took three years, several appeals, a lot of money, and encountered a great deal of resistance from the courts. (she died two months later)

There has been quite a bit of publicity, also, about several cases where men have murdered their wives, in front of the children, and still retained custody of their children and/or forced visitation while they were in prison against the wishes of both the children and the other relatives of the children.

877. christipeters - 2/20/2001 4:44:20 PM

I know it is very rude to post and run, but I'm leaving now. I hope to get back online later, but I am a Buffy/Angel addict and may not.

TTFN

878. CalGal - 2/20/2001 4:52:49 PM

Christi,

Ask any lawyer: joint legal custody is the default. The default. Implying that a divorce alone can strip a parent of legal rights. It is also by no means unusual for a parent to apply for sole legal custody, and it isn't unknown for judges to get annoyed at a non-custodial parent for making life difficult for the custodial parent and wham! give sole legal custody to the other parent.

879. Jules - 2/20/2001 7:42:59 PM

Joint legal custody is indeed the default, but so what? Reality is that the person who has physical custody most of the time holds the majority of the decisionmaking power. If the custodial parent refuses to consult with the non-custodial about such things as school choice, classes, etc, there's not a whole lot of recourse. Oh, sure you can go back to court (spending thousands of dollars in the process) but, chances are the decision made by the custodial parent is gonna stand.

880. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 8:26:12 PM

The divorce laws should be evenhanded, not allow for gender biases--and also put the well-being of the children over the convenience of either parent or the courts themselves.

Many states do put the children's interests above the convenience of the parents. Certainly in California, the Supreme Court, in Burgess, clearly stated that inconvenience to the parent is not a reason for either granting or denying moveaways. What supposedly guides them is their impact on the child's access to both parents, economic considerations, and whether some equivalent solution to the access issue can be worked out.

But the larger gender bias I see in your "solutions" is that it places equal burdens for income generation and child care provisions on divorcing spouses under any circumstances, regardless of whether they were co-equal financially in the marriage. It penalizes women for family decisions that were rational within the context of the "marriage" and rewards men for their more intense connection to the labor market through out it.

Nor do they recognize that not all parents are equal, in their skill, their ability to parent, or their interest in their children. You want to force people to live your solution, because you've decided it's the best way.

So what's different about your position than any other that seeks to impose a one size fits all solution onto everyone else?

881. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 8:27:10 PM

Right now, it's pretty clear that it's easiest for both parents and the courts to give all the control and most of the money to one parent--so that's what the laws support.


Most of the money to one parent? And that would be how? Community property laws prohibit one spouse walking away with more than 50% of the assets in the marriage unless negotiated differently. By law, this is about as presumptively equivalent as one can get. And are you arguing that the majority of custodial parents (who are women, lets be clear about that) are given windfall payments through excessively high child support payments?

If so, lets get some numbers on the table to see if that's the case.

882. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 8:42:29 PM

They are entirely analogous, they have similar constitutional protections, and you're talking out of your ass if you don't think shelling out a huge amount of money each month doesn't have significant and quite similar effects on the rights of both parents.

Getting mad?

They aren't analogous. They don't have similar constitutional protections. The state can tax you anytime they want because you're a member of the community, and benefit from its protections and services. The state can also require a family unit to be financially responsible for the basic economic needs of your children.

On the other hand, the state can't take away your constitutionally protected freedoms without due process. The mobility restrictions affect individual rights as defined under the constitution.

However, the constitution doesn't protect parents who, as a unit, ignore their financial responsibilities to provide basic food and shelter to their offspring. The constitution doesn't protect parents who physically harm their children to the point of being life-threatening. Parents who do these things are subject to the state's intervention and can lose their parental rights for being negligent, regardless of marital status. And the state does have a right to protect its interest in children who are at risk of death from parental neglect and abuse.

A non-custodial parent doesn't get to remove access to his/her financial resources from his/her children when a divorce occurs. This is based on the basic state right to force parents to be responsible for their children's basic needs.

These are, IMO, different rationales for the two state actions.

883. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 8:44:34 PM

Ask any lawyer: joint legal custody is the default. The default. Implying that a divorce alone can strip a parent of legal rights.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. The fact that joint legal custody is the default implies that divorce will protect the rights of parents equally unless other agreements are made.

884. ChristiPeters - 2/20/2001 10:26:08 PM

"Ask any lawyer: joint legal custody is the default. The default. Implying that a divorce alone can strip a parent of legal rights."

Um...

I thought you were good at logic CalGal. Joint legal custody isn't stripping either parent of their legal rights. It is ensuring that both parents have joint rights over their children.

(Yes, I know MsIT just said this, but I thought it needed repeating)

885. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 10:30:52 PM

Allright Calgal

I found some information that should make you happy.

Although the parental duty to support their offspring stems from old common law, most state statutes now phrase this duty as a joint duty and each are charged with their care, nurture, welfare and education.

Mississippi state courts have interpreted parents joint duty as an equal one, and thus in divorce situations, males and females cannot be treated differently for child-support purposes consistently with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution (of the US).

So at least one state court has defined the equal treatment requirement wrt child support payments as constitutionally sourced.

886. CalGal - 2/20/2001 11:22:33 PM

Ms, Christi:

The point has apparently gone right over your head. I'll try and make it clearer: it is possible for a couple to divorce and for one parent to lose his or her legal rights to their child. Merely because they divorced. Not because they beat the child to a pulp every day of their life (although this often isn't enough if the kid's mother is on welfare). Not because they abandoned their child for weeks at a time.

Nope. All they have to do is get divorced.

In other words, the fact that joint legal custody is the default means that there is another option in divorce--an option that strips a parent of rights for no reason at all other than convenience. A middle class divorced father probably has a higher risk of losing legal rights to his child than the aforementioned welfare mom.

This isn't an anti-male bias, however. It's a convenience bias. No one wants to strip poor women of their children because it's cheaper to pay welfare than have yet another kid in "the system"--so the barrier is high. But it's easy enough to strip one parent of their legal rights if they have means to foot the bill for the child either way.

887. CalGal - 2/20/2001 11:45:46 PM

Ms,

No, I'm not mad. I just think your denial is so absurd that it could only have come from the source I named.

The state can tax you anytime they want because you're a member of the community, and benefit from its protections and services.

It is not a "tax". It is direct income transfer from one parent to another, and it removes the ability of one parent to determine how much money will be spent on their child.

The state can also require a family unit to be financially responsible for the basic economic needs of your children.


Amusing, given how strongly you object to the notion that a mother who opts to stay home and clean house is financially irresponsible.

We're talking about the state determining how much will be paid, not a failure to pay. You shall pay X dollars a month to the custodial parent because the state says you will. They strip parents of their right to determine how much money will be spent on their child. The lower income parent is limited to the amount the state says, unless they can earn more on their own. The higher income parent is forced to spend what the state says, even if they don't approve of the spending decisions, wish to allocate less, and so on. (never mind the fact that the person who receives the money doesn't have to spend it on the child at all.) This amount isn't the bare minimum required to support the child, either--and if you're going to argue that the state has the right to enforce this, the right stops there, not based on how much money the parents make. Hell, a divorced parent can be forced to provide a child insurance--and you surely aren't going to argue that the state considers this a basic need, are you?

The state requires all sorts of behavior of divorced parents that it doesn't require of married parents. There's no reason why they can't make an extremely high barrier for relocations as well.

888. RickyRicardo - 2/21/2001 1:50:31 AM

Community property laws prohibit one spouse walking away with more than 50% of the assets in the marriage unless negotiated differently. By law, this is about as presumptively equivalent as one can get.

Do the income transfers stop with division of the community property? Hardly, it's only the beginning. Add on to the tangible property an assessment of the "goodwill" value of the higher-earner's business or profession, and an assessment for alimony, and an assessment for child support averaging 37.5% of net in California, and an assessment for half the costs of the daycare, half the costs of the medical, and half of any educational expenses.

We're way past "equity" by the time all the math is done, and stratospherically beyond the "basic needs of children." Married parents are required to put clothes on their children; divorced fathers are reqyuired to pay enough for designer clothes, which mom can buy, or not, at her whim.

"Equity" in family law? Somebody's smoking some major-league ganja.

889. RickyRicardo - 2/21/2001 1:51:18 AM

Certainly in California, the Supreme Court, in Burgess, clearly stated that inconvenience to the parent is not a reason for either granting or denying moveaways.

That's a total misreading of Burgess.

890. PsychProf - 2/21/2001 6:55:01 AM

And of course, then, there are the children...

891. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 8:54:30 AM

Wow, this is what I get for being gone a few days.

MsIt

You've implied (mostly as an occasional aside) that CS isn't high enough.

Anecdotes aside, let's look at the real figures.

CS as currently determined by formula in family court - in every state in the union, to the best of my knowledge - IS enough to raise a child, even without the custodial parent's contribution which, btw, is not legally mandated. A custodial parent has absolutely NO legal obligation to support their child financially -their income and support 'burden' is only taken into account to determine the $ that the NC must contribute under threat of jail, among other things. If the CP chooses to lower their standard of living to a level that precludes them from any real financial contribution to their child's welfare, they are completely free to do so without threat of legal repercussion. Not so, of course, the NCP, who must maintain the determined level of CS at the time of calculation despite setbacks or job changes - there are rules, enforceable by CPS, the IRS, and FC, against "voluntary underearning."

To get a clear view, you need to examine like/like. A good way to do this is to use, instead of anecdotes (which are tempting!) only govt. figures:

An example - The USDA releases estimates on the cost of raising a child from birth to age 17, adjusted for parental income. The latest figures are from 1999, and can be found here. For the purposes of this post, let's just take their middle income numbers - it's important to compare like/like, as I said.

892. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 8:56:17 AM

In brief, they claim that it costs $160,140 for a middle income family (from the low $30K to about $62K). That's 9,420 per year and includes the cost of daycare and shelter, two of the largest determinating factors.

If a divorced couple each makes 30K per year, putting them in the middle income bracket, and a standard custody determination is made (the ncp getting less than 35% custodial time, so no financial credit) then with a $100 per week (low balling it, do you notice?) childcare inclusion (childcare is included in the USDA report, but insidiously not in the state CS calculations for basic support, it is added on as an ADDITIONAL expense) the ncp pays: $535 per month, or $6,420 per year. Which is, of course, over 2/3 of the "cost of raising a child" despite exactly equitable incomes.

But wait, that's not all!

After the income transfer which is tax-free to the cp and fully taxable to the ncp, the income isn't equitable after all. The taxes on that $6,420 comes to about $1700 - or more - which is paid for by the ncp. So that increases the real dollar payment FROM the ncp to - well, almost the entire estimated cost of raising the child, isn't it? And adds a nice little chunk to the cp's income, conveniently tax free, or to them, anyway.

Now let's add in the tax advantages of claiming the dependent deduction, the childcare deduction and a likely head-of-household deduction - all of which are available only to the cp unless he/she chooses to be benevolent to the ex - and we easily surpass the entire cost estimate....for two parents who are, theoretically, equally capable of financially supporting their child.

Here is a general calculator for CS - it's not state specific, but it's a good general tool. Don't take my word for it, really - check it out. And the USDA site, too.

893. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 8:57:19 AM

Now, the USDA also assumes that fully 1/3 of the cost of raising a child for those 17 years is housing. 1/3 of that $6,420 yearly payment is $2,140, per year, totalling $36,380 over the years. Assuming home ownership, not unreasonable in this income bracket, that's $36,380 that the CP receives toward home equity - and obviously this is an asset that benefits the CP strictly, not the child who has no claim on the monies paid on a mortgage in their name.


As mentioned above, the USDA also includes childcare expenses in that estimate - the state CS calculators (or those with which I am familiar) don't include that in their general support calculation, but add it onto the end. In fact, as you can see by the calculator offered in the link above, other normal expenses such as medical care and travel expenses are also not included in the general determination, but are added on to the top of the initial figure.

Of course, many CP don't get these sorts of payments, because they make private arrangements between themselves (as it should be, really) or because, as Christi has outlined, she has private reasons for not availing herself of her legal options to enforce CS. But, basically, if a cp is getting screwed on child support - it's because they're not demanding it, or because they procreated with someone with really, really low earning potential.

894. theDiva - 2/21/2001 8:59:37 AM

Try this

895. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:06:36 AM

In other words, the fact that joint legal custody is the default means that there is another option in divorce--an option that strips a parent of rights for no reason at all other than convenience.

This is an absurd argument.

First, default means that it is given as a matter of law unless there is a petition for other arrangements. These days, many states won't agree to sole custody unless the non-custodial parent fully agrees.

Second, convenience? Says who? Sole custody is only at the parents request, for a father to lose his rights, he has to not care enough to simply say no. And to say that middle class divorced fathers are the most at risk flys in the face of logic.

I could buy your argument if you confined it to the lower socio-economic classes, where access to legal services is problematic and can be a determining factor in fathers being denied their rights for lack of timely action. But this isn't the case for the higher socio-economic classes, and any failure to exercise rights can't be related to lack of resources for adequate legal counsel.

So, perhaps by convenience you mean lack of interest by fathers? Lack of diligence? Or just a victimization mentality....

896. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 9:23:44 AM

Christi

You are also confused, I believe, about what exactly Joint Legal Custody (as opposed to JPC or sole custody) actually is.

Joint Legal Custody means....well, it means whatever the CP wants it to mean. Like most language in FC law, it's interpretable in all but the most egregious cases, and in many of those as well, by the parent with primary physical custody.

For instance, having jlc doesn't mean that the ncp has any say in what sort of, or if any, child care must be used. Or medical treatment. In most school districts, a NCP with JLC must still receive permission from the parent with physical custody to visit the child's school and don't have free access to their children's school files (only basic records, such as grades - not disciplinary files or even health care notes, etc.)

JLC makes it incumbent upon a CP to include the NCP in major decisions that effect a child's life - but exactly what those decisions are, and the weight of the opinion of the NCP, are left completely to the discretion of the CP. Further, although JLC changes the language of the custody agreement in most cases from "visitation" to "parenting time", it is entirely up to the CP what percentage of time is "reasonable" for the NCP to "parent". Only in disputed cases where bad faith is demonstrated, suspected or anticipated is a specific amount of time granted the NCP, and that amount of time is virtually NEVER more than the 30% that means alternate weekends and holidays - anything more than 35% and the court would have to consider the NCPs financial contribution at their OWN home in the CS calculation, something they are loathe to do.

Which brings up another point.

897. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 9:24:39 AM

A NCP who takes advantage of their 30% "parenting time" is still paying an amount of CS which anticipates that the NCP spends NO time, and NO money on the child while the child is in their care - despite a general requirement that the NCP provide a suitable home (ie, in most cases, a room of their own) for the "parenting time." So that 30% figure that the USDA includes in its cost-of-raising-a-child is born yet again by the NCP - a double dip.

Last, in case anyone doubts that all of this is calculated "in the best interest of the child" - no decrease in CS is forthcoming if the NCP has another child - UNLESS HE IS ALSO PAYING CHILD SUPPORT FOR THAT CHILD. Iow, ANYTHING to keep those kids off the state rolls. If the NCP is living with/married to the mother of his subsequent children, then their cost is not calculated. Yet, if the CP has more children, those subsequent children CAN and often DO increase the percentage amount that the NCP is obligated to pay.

Got that?

It's not about the children, even when it's about money. It's not about deadbeat Dads and "Daddies Matter.

It's about bucks, and the state's interest in paying as little as they can.

898. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 9:28:11 AM

MsIt

So, perhaps by convenience you mean lack of interest by fathers? Lack of diligence? Or just a victimization mentality....

Biting my tongue.

OK.

No, what she means by "convenience" is "convenience" to the FC system, which is overwhelmed, over-sued, and badly in need of an overhaul.

899. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:36:29 AM

Adrianne

You've implied (mostly as an occasional aside) that CS isn't high enough.

No, I didn't. I questioned this statement of Calgal's.

Right now, it's pretty clear that it's easiest for both parents and the courts to give all the control and most of the money to one parent--so that's what the laws support.

It was the "most of the money" clause that I think needs clarification. And even your example doesn't support this, although I understand why you'd want to pick this particular scenario to illustrate.

I understand how CS is calculated. There are significant differences by state, however. And most states allow this figure to be reduced if the the non-custodial parent takes the children 35% or more of the time, which also varies by state.

I also understand it's tax free to the custodial parent. I'm cognizant of the rationale for the tax-free status of these payments, but I agree this could to be changed. In addition, I agree that the effect of rent payments portion that goes to women who can also support home ownership is unequal. However, a woman who owns her home can't do so without also earning wages as well. These women aren't failing to contribute their share to the child's lifestyle, as you imply by your example. And, by the way, their wages are also taxed, even if they go to support the child.

900. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:37:20 AM

Would you suggest that both parents then get a tax deduction for the amount they spend equally on the child?

I don't even begin to question there aren't inequities in many cases, but 42% of custodial parents don't receive any child support payments, and of those that do, almost two-thirds have collection problems.

901. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:40:17 AM

Ricky Message # 889

I don't think so.

902. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:49:42 AM

Adrianne

Convenience to the Family court system? Yes, by relying on default rules unless the parents can come up with better arrangements. This hardly says that non-custodial parents are powerless to protect their interests or rights.

903. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:51:02 AM

And by the way, Calgal and others should be happy with the way current CS payments are set up, since the economic incentive is for non-custodial parents to assume more custodial responsibility, not less.

904. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:55:44 AM

Finally, Adrianne,

Many of the comments you raise will be dependent on specific state laws and procedures, for instance this statement

Yet, if the CP has more children, those subsequent children CAN and often DO increase the percentage amount that the NCP is obligated to pay

is highly dependent on specific state approaches.

I agree, however, that the majority of states tend to disfavor CS modifications from the non-custodial parent that are downward adjustments. Interestingly, some states also disfavor upward adjustments based soley increases in the payor's earnings as well.

905. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 9:58:24 AM

MsIt

No, that wasn't the statement I was referring to. I'll go back and find them.

For now, though -

And most states allow this figure to be reduced if the the non-custodial parent takes the children 35% or more of the time, which also varies by state.

Yes, so? Anything other than 35% of the time is joint physical custody, which is only granted at the request of BOTH parties (iow, Mom can nix that unilaterally) and is, not coincidentally, the rarest of all the custody equations. Sole custody is much more common, even.

However, a woman who owns her home can't do so without also earning wages as well.

Not in the example I gave, that's probably true. But a woman whose ex earns significantly higher amount -therefore increasing his CS payment considerably - most certainly could, if she chose to allocate the CS to that purpose.

These women aren't failing to contribute their share to the child's lifestyle, as you imply by your example.

I don't know what you're talking about here. I am only making the point that CP CAN, LEGALLY, fail to contribute to the child's lifestyle. It's their choice. I'd agree that most CP DO, indeed, contribute to the support of their children - frequently more so than the NCP, but that's neither here nor there. That there is a legal mechanism in place to ensure the NCP's contribution and that nothing LEGALLY requires the CP to contribute isn't really debateable, as far as I can see.

906. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 9:59:24 AM

MsIt, the only way to talk about this stuff is to compare like/like, which you are not doing when you use figures like this:

42% of custodial parents don't receive any child support payments

Well, actually that's not true, but even if it was, you are lumping in the many instances where both parents are disfunctional, unperforming members of society. Frankly, I'm not shocked that the drug dealer on the corner isn't ponying up with his $50 per week to the mother of his 5th child, are you? And do you really think it's fair to use his nonpayment as an excuse to legally disenfranchise NCP?

That figure also does not take into account private arrangements for support, but does include men who are in jail and incapable of support, and women who are receiving welfare payments - the state has garnished the NCP's wages and is collecting CS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE - and then cutting (a usually larger) welfare check to the mother.

And of those that do, almost two-thirds have collection problems.

As self-reported by the CP, btw. Yes, terribly reliable, that. That figure isn't borne out statistically - but that, too, is neither here nor there.

Factually, the NCP has the full force of the federal, state, and local govts and law enforcement agencies, including the DMV, the IRS, the US military services, etc. to assist him/her in collection of CS. It is in the interest of the state to do so, and they do - increasingly, since the welfare reform act of 1996 (? is that right?)

907. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 9:59:39 AM

Not that it matters, because I'm trying to speak to legal inequities, not "fairness" - but you might try looking at those statistics a little more critically. For instance, it's estimated that compliance statistics rise to the upper 90th percentile when visitation access isn't an issue. There's all sorts of interesting mitigating facts around those statistics that give one pause -well, if one thinks of a father as being anything other than a wallet, that is.

908. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 10:01:10 AM

Convenience to the Family court system? Yes, by relying on default rules unless the parents can come up with better arrangements. This hardly says that non-custodial parents are powerless to protect their interests or rights.

What specifically can a NCP do to protect their interests or rights?

Seriously, I'm asking.

909. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 10:03:09 AM

Calgal says

They strip parents of their right to determine how much money will be spent on their child. The lower income parent is limited to the amount the state says, unless they can earn more on their own. The higher income parent is forced to spend what the state says, even if they don't approve of the spending decisions, wish to allocate less, and so on.

This is correct. The higher income parent, whom I'm assuming you're saying is the non-custodial parent, doesn't get to choose to spend less than the state determines is a minimum amount to be paid given their earning capacity. While the state won't force married parents to spend a certain amount on their children as long as the family remains intact, they will do so when the family is split.

As I said earlier, and as Adrianne stated, this is to avoid the state having to pay for the children individuals choose to bring into the world. On this level, it's purely for the benefit of the larger community.

910. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 10:12:44 AM

Adrianne

What specifically can a NCP do to protect their interests or rights?

Just to name a few:

He can negotiate different settlements at the time of divorce, which include contractual agreements for greater involvement in decision making. Courts uphold these quite readily.

He can assume more than the minimum amount of custodial time required to credit against his CS payments.

He can go back to court when there's a failure to meet those agreements.

911. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 10:12:48 AM

While the state won't force married parents to spend a certain amount on their children as long as the family remains intact, they will do so when the family is split.

No, they will force the NCP to spend a certain amount on their children. The other member of the "family" has no such requirement.

912. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 10:17:30 AM

That there is a legal mechanism in place to ensure the NCP's contribution and that nothing LEGALLY requires the CP to contribute isn't really debateable, as far as I can see.

Again, this depends by state. Mississippi actually legally requires equal contributions according to one source I read last night.

But that's neither here nor there. I actually made this point myself earlier to one of Calgal's arguments, so I don't really disagree with it.

913. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 10:25:21 AM

Adrianne


For instance, it's estimated that compliance statistics rise to the upper 90th percentile when visitation access isn't an issue.

Weitzman questions the validity of the visitation non-compliance relationship. Her research shows no correlation between compliance and complaints about visitation. She argues that men with no visitation proplesm are just as likely not to pay child support as they are likely to pay.

914. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 10:56:35 AM

Msit,

Love you, but it is to laugh.

He can negotiate different settlements at the time of divorce, which include contractual agreements for greater involvement in decision making.

Umm, negotiate with what? - taking into account that a S2BX with a lawyer that isn't mentally unbalanced will know that 1) she will receive at LEAST primary physical custody of the children 2) she will receive the full CS amount 3) she will receive the marital home if she wants it (for the chirrun, of course)....

What, exactly, should a man (presumably) use as a "negotiating" chip, I wonder? Negotiations only come into play when both parents wish to work out an equitable agreement - if the presumed custodial chooses not to, there is NOTHING that a NCP can do about it.

Courts uphold these quite readily.

No, they don't. Well, maybe technically they might - they'll "find" against the CP in a contempt action, but since there is no consequence attached to a civil contempt finding, and since very few FC judges are willing to put a custodial parent in jail, it's a paper tiger. Any anyone who's willing to violate an agreement knows it.

Additionally, a "significant change in circumstance" brought to the court - and what defines such is left to the plaintiff and court's discretion, I've seen it be "the child is growing older" -is nullify any prior agreement.

915. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 10:57:05 AM

He can assume more than the minimum amount of custodial time required to credit against his CS payments.

No, he can't - unless the CP allows it. Really, you aren't getting this and it's kind of....weird. The court, IF it specifies parenting time, only specifies a minimum of time that the CP must make the child available to the NCP (and there are no real avenues for recourse if these are not fulfilled, btw) and only "encourages" the CP to make the child available for "reasonable" excess time. "Reasonable" being left solely to the discretion of the CP. Instances where a court will order a more than 35% time share (and therefore reduce CS) against the wishes of the CP are statistically miniscule.

He can go back to court when there's a failure to meet those agreements.

(Patiently)

Yes, and then what? There is NO mechanism in place to enforce the agreements, unlike CS. The only recourse is contempt findings, and as surely you know, civil contempt findings are toothless. Much like civil perjury findings.

There is NOTHING that a NCP can do to protect their interests or rights against a determined CP.

The law as it pertains to child custody is inequitable, and does nothing to protect children or their "best interests."

Believe me, I'd love it if you could come up with some sort of law or precedent that would even force compliance with court-ordered custody decisions. But you can't - they don't exist.

916. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 10:58:35 AM

Weitzman questions the validity of the visitation non-compliance relationship. Her research shows no correlation between compliance and complaints about visitation. She argues that men with no visitation proplesm are just as likely not to pay child support as they are likely to pay.

No doubt. The census bureau disagrees with her, though, as do many other researchers.

917. CalGal - 2/21/2001 11:07:12 AM

Ms,

Ad has made almost all of the points I would have said. The last set of numbers (about 42% of women not getting child support) is particularly egregious. Your inquiry about "why doesn't the father just sue?" is either disingenuous or unbelievably ignorant.

The higher income parent, whom I'm assuming you're saying is the non-custodial parent, doesn't get to choose to spend less than the state determines is a minimum amount to be paid given their earning capacity.

Which proves my point--that parents lose all sorts of rights when they get divorced. This is what you were trying to rebut, if you remember. Thanks for confirming it. And if forcing you to spend a percentage of your income on your children (or, more accurately, on the person who got custody of your children), isn't a violation of rights, just try forcing it on married parents.

As I said earlier, and as Adrianne stated, this is to avoid the state having to pay for the children individuals choose to bring into the world. On this level, it's purely for the benefit of the larger community.

Well, actually, I said it long before both of you. As I said, it's more convenient for society to treat a father like a wallet than treat a mother like a full-fledged and responsible member of that society.

918. CalGal - 2/21/2001 11:08:53 AM

All:

I am pretty sure that Erin planned on this being a more general parenting thread, and we've been talking about a Social Issues thread for a while. I'm going to ask Pelle, Wabbit, and Christin if we can create the thread--I'll host it in the short term, but I hope someone will take it over. (Ms? Don't take much. Ad, I'd ask you but I hear you have a sinus infection.g)

We can then move these posts over.

919. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 11:22:26 AM

Adrianne

No, he can't - unless the CP allows it.

This is the second time you've made that statement. I want some data to back that up, since it's not supported by what I can find in the statutes on this.

If this is specific to DC, then that too, is without legal basis, since the statutory regulation I found for DC specifically said that a joint custody decree (which includes joint physical custody) cannot be denied on the basis of one parent objecting, unless it can be shown to be against "the child's best interests"

So, where does this come from?

920. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 11:28:21 AM

Calgal, Adrianne

If you question the 42% figure, please feel free to present your own. This is the number I found quoted in several articles. You got a problem with it? Then tell me something else.

921. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 11:33:22 AM

Adrianne


Where's the Census data that refutes the Weitzman argument (and I might say, Canadian research on the exact same issue). And what other researchers?

922. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 11:37:59 AM

Calgal

I didn't say "why doesn't the father just sue?" I said that the courts are one legal redress for him. This isn't quite as flippant as you'd suggest.

Not only this, the legal analyses I've read on this indicate that the courts are becoming increasingly predisposed to support father's rights to access, to joint physical custody, and to upholding the contractual agreements both have signed.

Adrianne,

You say these are not enforceable, but contractual agreements have been enforced, courts have ordered women to adhere to them, or risk losing custody altogether. There may not be criminal laws for violations of these agreements but the court isn't powerless to enforce them.

923. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 11:45:34 AM

Which proves my point--that parents lose all sorts of rights when they get divorced. This is what you were trying to rebut, if you remember. Thanks for confirming it. And if forcing you to spend a percentage of your income on your children (or, more accurately, on the person who got custody of your children), isn't a violation of rights, just try forcing it on married parents.

Actually, the state could force married parents to spend a minimum amount on their children, they don't, however, because of the equally powerful custom of non-interference with family by the state.

However, when a couple divorces, the state can legally step in to force the parents to care for their children in ways they are disinclined to do when the family is intact.

For the state to restrict parental mobility, however, it begins to trample on constitutionally protected rights. The federal courts have always recognized that the the state has a right to force parents to care for their children, they haven't always had the right to restrict individual mobility and economic freedoms.

924. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 12:02:38 PM

MsIt

I'm at a loss. Where do I begin? As you know, each state has different wording re custody/support, so if you're looking for something specific, it's best to, again, compare like/like. I guess we could do that, if you wish. I, personally, am only familiar with the child custody guidelines in MD, TX, FL, VA, NY, CA and OR, there may be, I suppose, states that will impose joint physical custoday against the wishes of one of the parents. But none of those states will - in fact, in those states it is the responsibility of the parents to PROVE TO THE COURT that jpc is in the child's best interest, as opposed to a jlc/ppc arrangement. It's absurd to think that a contested child custody case would end up with a court decision demanding that the parents co-parent equally against their wishes. Surely you don't believe that that happens on any sort of regular basis?

You make a statement like "the NCP can assume more than the minimum amount of custodial time" - HOW, exactly, can he "assume" any such thing? If the court awards the NCP 30% "parenting time" -which is standard across the board nationwide for a contested custody arrangement, HOW can the NCP "assume" more time without being charged with parental kidnapping - barring agreement from the CP?

925. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 12:12:57 PM

Step by step:

Let us assume that parenting time/custody is in contention. We wouldn't be discussing this otherwise - in situations where it isn't an issue, the courts don't get involved at all, correct? (Except to rubberstamp the parenting agreement, of course.)

After a hearing, primary physical custody is awarded to one parent (unlike King S., modern courts don't physically split the child in half).

JLC is adapted as part of the final custody decree. You ARE aware that JLC does not speak to custodial time, right? Only legal status?

Primary physical custody is awarded to one parent.

The NCP wishes to "assume" more parenting time, either to reduce their CS obligation or - could it be?!? - to increase involvement with a beloved child.

For the billionth time - what can the NCP do to "assume" more parenting time w/out the agreement of the CP?

926. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 12:13:18 PM

You say these are not enforceable, but contractual agreements have been enforced, courts have ordered women to adhere to them, or risk losing custody altogether. There may not be criminal laws for violations of these agreements but the court isn't powerless to enforce them.

Of course they're not powerless, I addressed that. They can find the CP in contempt, and jail and/or fine them. They do, actually, find them in contempt fairly often. They almost never exact a penalty - I know that you know the rate at which civil contempt is actually punished.

They COULD reassign custody, but they won't - almost never. Why? Because supposedly the best interest of the child was served by staying with the parent initially granted physical custody. Using the child's custody situation as "punishment" for a badly acting parent (ie, one who isn't complying with the visitation order) is considered punitive to the child. Bear in mind that in the initial determination for custody, the child's family home (continuity in neighborhood, home, and school is a primary factor in awarding custody or both the kid and the marital home) was granted to the CP. That hasn't changed simply because the CP decided not to play by the contractual rules. It doesn't make sense to the court to discount what was a prior determining factor for stability of the child in order to punish the errant parent. So they aren't likely to yank the child from their home, school, primary physical guardian in order to punish the Mom.

927. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 12:14:07 PM

Crapzilla, I have a headache. I have to go in any case - I'll argue with you more tomorrow, MsIt, if you're around.

(Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you from here on out)

928. christipeters - 2/22/2001 5:58:43 PM

Adrianne -

One small point. I am not confused about what JLC is/means. I know exactly what JLC means in the state of NM and only in the state of NM. I have not made a general study of divorce law. In the state of NM, when I got divorced, JLC means that both parents have full access to school records and medical records of the child. It means that the CP cannot move with the child without the NCP's permission. NCP parental permission is also required to change schools, churches, doctors, dentists, or optometrist. I'm sorry if this isn't the case everywhere and it causes you heartburn. I have no problem with both parents being fully involved in all aspects of a child's life.

I found those tables to be interesting. Apparently, I am spending on my child what is the average amount for someone in my income bracket.

Too bad for me, I guess, that my ex thinks the $67/month in CS I was awarded is too much and chooses to only send $60/month.

929. vw - 2/22/2001 6:20:16 PM

Weitzman? Good lord, we aren't citing from The Divorce Revolution are we?

I thought the stats in that had been soundly trashed more than once?

930. mgleason - 2/22/2001 6:37:56 PM

Richard Peterson, for one, reanalyzed Weitzman's own data. He found a 27% decline in women's post-divorce standard of living, compared to a 10% increase in that of men.

931. mgleason - 2/22/2001 6:41:15 PM

Sorry, I hit 'post' too quickly.

Weitzman had reported a 73% drop for women and a 42% increase for men. I bring this up to show how off her statistics were.

932. mgleason - 2/22/2001 7:17:51 PM

Where the figure for the claim that 42% of custodial parents don't receive any child support payments probably arose:

US Census Bureau: Child Support and Alimony 1989

Check Table B: Award and Recipiency Status of Women--Child Support Payments for All Women. According to this table, 42.3% of women were not awarded CS.

The Text Highlights section states that

[o]f the 4.2 (+0.3) million women who were never awarded child support payments, 64 (+2.2) percent wanted an award but did not obtain it for various reasons, 14 (+3.1) percent had final agreement pending or had made other arrangements, and the remaining 22 (+2.6) percent did not want a child support award.

933. CalGal - 2/22/2001 7:27:23 PM

MGleason,

As I recall, that was self-reported by the women?

Also, I believe that includes women on welfare who have been on welfare from the moment they had children. The laws were changed so that they had to identify fathers in order to qualify for support?

934. mgleason - 2/22/2001 7:34:31 PM

CalGal,

The Text Highlights page states that

[t]he Bureau of the Census, under joint sponsorship with the Department of Health and Human Services, first conducted a survey specifically designed to obtain data on child support in the spring of 1979. The survey, with minor modifications, was subsequently conducted in 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, and 1990 by the Bureau of the Census and sponsored, in part, by the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Department of Health and Human Services.

935. mgleason - 2/22/2001 8:13:50 PM

From the Press Release for Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1997:

- As of spring 1998, an estimated 14.0 million parents had custody of 22.9 million children under 21 years of age whose other parent lived elsewhere; 85 percent of these parents were mothers.

- Payment of full or partial child support was most likely when the noncustodial parent had arrangements for joint child custody and visitation. About 83 percent of custodial parents with these arrangements received full or partial support payments, as opposed to 36 percent for those without either shared custody or visitation.

- The 7.0 million custodial parents with agreements or current child support awards received an aggregate of $17.1 billion, or 59 percent, of the $29.1 billion in child support due. Custodial mothers received a greater proportion of the total they were due than did custodial fathers (60 percent versus 48 percent).

- About 7.9 million custodial parents (56 percent) had some type of support agreement or award for their children in 1998. This group comprised 59 percent of custodial mothers and 38 percent of custodial fathers.

- The reason most often cited for not having a legal child support agreement by the 6.6 million custodial parents without them was that they did not feel the need to go to court and make it legal (32 percent).

- More than half (56 percent) of all custodial parents received some type of noncash support (gifts, clothes, food, etc.) from noncustodial parents for their children.

936. RichardB - 2/22/2001 10:41:16 PM

I had a little e-mail exchange with Peterson once upon a time on the subject of Weitzman, where I maintained she was lying and he maintained she just wasn't any good at math. We got to the subject of taxes, and it came out that Weitzman's numbers weren't only "off-the-top-of-the-head" numbers from the women only, but they were pre-tax. After he reanalyzed the data taking taxes into consideration, he realized that the result was a wash.

And those data were collected 20 years ago, before the big jackup in child support levels. Do a fair study today, and I guarantee you California's divorced mothers are doing better than the fathers.

937. MsIvoryTower - 2/22/2001 11:17:09 PM

Maria

Your source for the 42% sounds about right as far as the date goes. The reviews I examined were in the mid-90's so that's what they'd use, I'm sure.

Adrianne

I have to take care of other commitments before I can get to deeply into this again. However, I'll note that you're arguing about things that weren't necessarily on the table between Calgal and myself. So perhaps you'd like to go back and read the entire exchange. (I know, this is a burden!)

And wrt the laws which is what I referred to, in DC at least, there is no statutory rule that allows women to unilaterally nix joint physical custody at will. In fact, it is as I quoted above, the objections of a parent are not to be the deciding factor in determining the custody split unless it can be shown to be against the child's best interests.

In the states that had joint custody as the default rule none that I saw required both parties to agree to joint physical custody. Although a few did have this in place initially, they were amended to eliminate it.

There are several states, though, that don't have joint custody as the default rule, so its quite possible that one spouse can unilaterally nix increased physical contact with the non-custodial parent.

So, the original proposition was that the NCP doesn't have legal protections that work to help him (her) increase their commitment to their children if they so desire, even over the wishes of the custodial parent, and while I'm sure there are stories of abuse, the laws don't show any particular bias against NCP's in states where joint custody is the default (and several of these jurisdictions define this to be joint physical custody as well as joint legal custody).

938. Adrianne - 2/23/2001 12:21:22 PM

In the state of NM, when I got divorced, JLC means that both parents have full access to school records and medical records of the child.

But the school may very well - and probably does -have policies against allowing the NCP contact or access without CP agreement.

the CP cannot move with the child without the NCP's permission.

Possible - I haven't looked at New Mexico. In most states that must be worded into the custodial agreement, though.

NCP parental permission is also required to change schools, churches, doctors, dentists, or optometrist.

Yes, yes (impatiently) this is supposed to be the case in most states. However, look at divorce and custody resources in NM - even divorcelawinfo.com - you're SUPPOSED to be in agreeement, but no one - not even mother's rights sites - pretends that ANYTHING will happen to you if you choose not to abide by that agreement.

I'm sorry if this isn't the case everywhere and it causes you heartburn.

I'll take that sympathy with all the charming genuineness with which it was offered.

I have no problem with both parents being fully involved in all aspects of a child's life.

Bully.


burn. I have no problem with both parents being fully involved in all aspects of a child's life.

939. Adrianne - 2/23/2001 12:23:16 PM

MsIt

Your understanding of the reality of custody and family court is either incredibly naive or you are deliberately being obtuse.

Don't bother going further with the discussion - I'm sick to death of it. All that "heartburn", you know.

940. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 12:52:54 PM

Adrianne

I'm not being deliberately obtuse. My involvement in this discussion started because new laws redefining custody and its consequent requirements on both parents were proposed.

So are you proposing new and more detailed laws that require both parents to take joint physical custody, and also require consent before relocation by both parties?

Do you propose that custodial parents be accountable for the child support they receive by submitting quarterly accounting reports wrt where the monies are spent to the NCP? Do you think that the NCP, by law, must have the authority to approve all expenditures his/her support pays for, and have unilateral rights of refusal?

Do you think this will solve the problems you note?

How about we remove all flexibility for courts (really judges) to decide these matters and simply leave it up to the legislature to create per se rules that must apply to everyone?

Do you think this will solve the problems you note?

Are you arguing that the majority of divorces end up with one parent having all the control and most of the money (I can only assume this means of the family assets during marriage and then the majority of the NCP's income after divorce, since this expression remains undefined)?

Are you arguing that the current laws result in the custodial parent getting a free ride in the majority of cases and the NCP being impoverished?

Are you arguing that the NCP has no legal recourse in any state to any potential abuses? Regardless of the state's default custody and child support rules and guidelines?

If so, then it seems you're the one who is naive wrt the legal basis for your arguments.

941. Adrianne - 2/23/2001 1:39:56 PM

So are you proposing new and more detailed laws that require both parents to take joint physical custody, and also require consent before relocation by both parties?

Yes.

Do you propose that custodial parents be accountable for the child support they receive by submitting quarterly accounting reports wrt where the monies are spent to the NCP?

Sure. Why not.

whisper -- (actually could give a shit about CS - I just don't like to hear people complaining that the state-mandated current amounts aren't enough. They are. I don't even care that they're unfair, actually. I would like to see as much attention paid to ACCESS as BUCKS. Fat chance.)

Do you think that the NCP, by law, must have the authority to approve all expenditures his/her support pays for, and have unilateral rights of refusal?

No.

Do you think this will solve the problems you note?

No, because as I said just above, my REAL problem is with ACCESS and enforcement of same, not with CS. My secondary problem is with twisted statistics and garbled whinging about poor single moms being raped monetarily by the CS system. It isn't accurate, and it's pathetic.

How about we remove all flexibility for courts (really judges) to decide these matters and simply leave it up to the legislature to create per se rules that must apply to everyone?

That would be better than what we have now, yes.

942. Adrianne - 2/23/2001 1:40:28 PM

Do you think this will solve the problems you note?

Nothing will solve the real problem - that children are used and abused by the system and their parents. But it would sure be alot more 'Mercan to stabilize and equalize the rules and laws so that they pertain to everybody, yes.

Are you arguing that the current laws result in the custodial parent getting a free ride in the majority of cases and the NCP being impoverished?

Nope, I'm arguing that the CP has carte blanche in re granting access and all real parenting imput. Period. Again, I think 35% of after tax income is a lot of money to take from the NCP, but no biggie - just don't whine about it or present me with the plucky single mom going it alone scenario.

Are you arguing that the NCP has no legal recourse in any state to any potential abuses? Regardless of the state's default custody and child support rules and guidelines?

I won't argue "any state" because I don't know about ALL fifty of them. But in most? You bet. They have virtually no legal recourse that can or will result in any real results. Yes, regardless of the state's custody rules and guidelines, which you, as yet, haven't shown that you understand on anything other than a theoretical basis. I suppose it's possible that you really believe that joint physical custody is by far the rarest custody arrangement because those horrible men just don't WANT to see their kids, but I'm hoping, as I said, that it's naivte.

943. PsychProf - 2/23/2001 1:54:15 PM

Missie and Ad...sorry, but I am unsure of...

1) your precise disagreement
2) what underlying theme is causing the tension in your disagreement

Any chance you could characterize or summarize for me.

944. CalGal - 2/23/2001 7:51:16 PM

They disagree about the reality of divorce statistics often used and whether or not the existing laws should be changed. The underlying tension is because the Ms supports what I would call the gender feminist perception of the necessity of divorce laws (but I guarantee you that she would not refer to them as such) and Ad does not.

I agree with Ad's posts, except I would do away with income transfer entirely.

945. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 9:40:19 PM

Actually, I'm not sure where the disagreement is myself PP.

Adrianne, have you read the frickin' exchange in its entirety? Because if you did, frankly, I'm at a loss to figure out what you're attributing to me.

My secondary problem is with twisted statistics and garbled whinging about poor single moms being raped monetarily by the CS system. It isn't accurate, and it's pathetic.

Twisted statistics? Such as? The 42% figure? Which was reduced to a meager 40% by census figures graciously provided by Maria? And what whining about poor single moms? Is that what this wrathful interjection was about? You perceived I was whining about such drivel? Again, I think you'd better go back and read before you jump in with both feet into a fight that never was.

It was Calgal and others who argued that the inequities in CS were all on the non-custodial side, and that women (the custodial parent) get a free ride, virtually able to take the non-cp for what their worth. In addition, they mostly spend their money on wine, men and frivolities, leaving their children, for the most part, hungry, lacking medical care, and lacking for the basic necessities of life.

I take it you agree.

The questions I put forth are the ones that were asserted by Calgal and others as being at the root cause of the current problems facing children of divorce, and the inequities that emerge. They argued that current laws simply are against the childs best interests, and that joint physical custody should be mandatory in all cases except where abuse can be shown.

In addition, they argue that both parents should be restricted from relocating anywhere without the consent of the opposite parent. I argued this was most likely a serious infringement of constitutionally protected rights.

946. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 9:41:51 PM

Then, of course, there was the rant about how the NCP can't control the way his/her payments are spent on their children, can't unilaterally nix any expenditures they don't agree with, or play monitor over their ex's spending behavior.


Finally, all here seem to want to remove the discretion from courts and judges so that we have very bright rules that apply in all circumstances, that don't take account of individual differences and that don't allow deviation from this "solution" which is, of course, assumed to be in the child's best interests in all cases (with the exception of abuse, apparently abusive parents aren't to be given any rights at all).


Oh, and I forgot. Women who chose to be the primary caregiver in the marriage, and weren't in the labor market as co-equal earners, are, by definition, irresponsible, and really don't deserve any support whatever from their now-ex-spouse (who should probably also get custody of the children anyway, since they can financially care for them better).

I think that about covers it.

947. CalGal - 2/23/2001 9:56:33 PM

It was Calgal and others who argued that the inequities in CS were all on the non-custodial side, and that women (the custodial parent) get a free ride, virtually able to take the non-cp for what their worth. In addition, they mostly spend their money on wine, men and frivolities, leaving their children, for the most part, hungry, lacking medical care, and lacking for the basic necessities of life.


This isn't what I said at all and is almost willful incomprehension. I pointed out that there was nothing in existing law that prevented this from occurring, and that your presumption that it did not ever occur (or rarely occurred) was inaccurate. I specifically agreed with you that I was pointing out cases that might not be the norm--although they certainly weren't always outliers.

You are also combining two discussions--one on custodial laws and one on divorce laws. They are entirely different.

948. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 10:01:41 PM

The underlying tension is because the Ms supports what I would call the gender feminist perception of the necessity of divorce laws (but I guarantee you that she would not refer to them as such) and Ad does not.

Actually, what I support is discretion in the laws for individual solutions to be tailored to individual divorce circumstances. What needs to be provided courts and judges is a set of guidelines that suggest results given various fact patterns that are not rules, but more like model results that have as their goal neutrality. I also agree that effective access to redress of abuses for non-custodial parents needs to be strengthened. These can be done by putting teeth to enforcement of agreements, and willingness of courts to be more balanced in their review of complaints.

What I support is revision of tax laws that don't penalize the non-custodial parent for contributing 50% or more of the child's yearly estimated upkeep even though they don't have equal physical custody.

Currently, the IRS code gives the child's dependent deduction automatically to the custodial parent regardless of how much the NCP contributes to their financial upkeep. This is something that can and should be changed to provide incentives for NCP's to pay their CS and to compensate them for the fact that they pay taxes on the transferred income while the custodial parent does not.

949. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 10:02:27 PM

I support allowing reductions in CS payments by non-custodial parents who have their children 30% or more of the calendar year, which is the quite frequent arrangement of alternate weekends and at least one month during vacation times.

I support allowing reductions in CS payments when there are genuine changed circumstances in the non-custodial parents earning capacity, other than temporary changes (of less than a chosen period, could be 6 months, 1 year, or whatever arbitrary figure can be rationalized).

I support re-opening custody decisions with changed circumstances in the custodial parent's living arrangements; upon remarriage that leads to relocation; upon the addition of a live-in lover, etc; where the non-custodial parent can show a commitment to remaining in the area, or a less unstable lifestyle.

There are many things I support to ease some of the current inequities, however, to simply create per se rules that tilt the bias in the other direction will only create a similar set of problems with just a different set of victims.

950. CalGal - 2/23/2001 10:09:27 PM

The questions I put forth are the ones that were asserted by Calgal and others as being at the root cause of the current problems facing children of divorce, and the inequities that emerge.

You are, again, confused. There are two types of problems experienced by children of divorce: financial and psychological. However, this discussion has not focused primarily on the problems experienced by children after divorce, but rather on the fairness of the support and custody laws--regardless of the problems experienced by children of divorce. (note: Richard may decide they are exactly correlated, but I quite often disagree with him).

951. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 10:10:05 PM

Well, Calgal

I'm combining them because the conversation is now quite merged.

Second, you did, in fact, argue that it doesn't matter that only some women do this, the mere fact that they can means that there is no basis for providing any income transfer to them when the marriage ends. You argued that the current community property laws, and divorce custody/support laws positively "reward" women for engaging in such behavior.

952. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 10:13:58 PM

Yes, it has focused on the fairness of the divorce laws, which you argue are highly unfair.

That there may be some inequities I agree, but that your proposals would do anything to redress inequities (unfairness) is what I dispute. They would simply redistribute the inequities.

953. CalGal - 2/23/2001 10:15:46 PM

Women who chose to be the primary caregiver in the marriage, and weren't in the labor market as co-equal earners, are, by definition, irresponsible, and really don't deserve any support whatever from their now-ex-spouse (who should probably also get custody of the children anyway, since they can financially care for them better).


Now that, definitely, is almost what I've said. Phew. I was worried you had missed everything.

It doesn't matter whether they are "co-equal" or not. If they can support their children without an income transfer, then they haven't been irresponsible. They can pay for the life they can afford for their children--and the other parent can do the same.

There is no "deserve" about it. Marriage doesn't entitle anyone to payments after the marriage is over. I see no reason why someone should increase their standard of living just because they married someone. If they had children they can't support, then they'll have to lose custody (but not visitation) until they can.

As long as the current situation exists, I agree with you about the IRS deductions.

954. CalGal - 2/23/2001 10:18:35 PM

Second, you did, in fact, argue that it doesn't matter that only some women do this, the mere fact that they can means that there is no basis for providing any income transfer to them when the marriage ends.

Not quite. There is no basis for income transfer, period, in my book. I was rebutting your justifications by pointing out that there was no legal requirement for the situation that you base the justification on.

And this is a great conversation but I got stuck at work late and have got to get home now, so I'm leaving things unfinished and probably unclear. Back in a bit.

955. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 10:29:38 PM

I didn't miss anything Calgal, my earlier comment was simply on the edge of sarcasm, a view from its extreme implications.

You simply don't want to look at the real consequences of your proposals because you're busy rooting out the horrors of the present system. You're convinced that there can be something fair about divorce for children and the adults involved. (And it appears Adrianne is on a similar quest.)

More importantly, you're convinced that joint physical custody is the only way to solve the current unfairness. Oh yes, and eliminating all income transfer as well as any settlement of property onto the spouse who never worked (or who didn't work equally), and thus was irresponsible.

In other words, you've got a solution that you think is for everyone, and by god, you want it imposed on everyone.

956. CalGal - 2/23/2001 11:52:07 PM

You're convinced that there can be something fair about divorce for children and the adults involved.

Not for the children. I think the focus on children is irrelevant in divorce. Divorce is about marriage, not about children. Custody and divorce are now almost entirely separate. A parent doesn't have to be married to the other parent to have whatever rights they have. A couple doesn't have to have kids in order for the woman (or the lesser earner) to qualify for whatever benefits come to them from divorce.

The financial trauma that children suffer after divorce is not really caused by divorce--it is caused by the fact that women don't generally accept their financial responsibilities for their children and yet are still given primary responsibility for their well-being after a divorce. Children with parents who are capable of providing for them separately are simply not going to have much in the way of financial problems.

So the unfairness financially only occurs when one parent (usually the woman) didn't live up to the appropriate financial responsibilities. This unfairness may end up hurting the kids (in the case where the income transfer from the other parent is insufficient or poorly used) or the ex (who has to provide the irresponsible parent with a ton of money in order to protect the kids).

Divorce doesn't cause the unfairness--it just reveals the irresponsibility and the injured party.

The psychological trauma that kids suffer really isn't due to divorce, per se, it is due to the fact that the two most important people in their lives have split apart and it usually means that they lose regular emotional and physical contact with one of them. That would be true whether or not the parents were married, and it will always be painful and "unfair". There are plenty of ways to alleviate this unfairness, and many of them involve legally mandating certain behaviors from divorced parents.

957. CalGal - 2/23/2001 11:53:31 PM

More importantly, you're convinced that joint physical custody is the only way to solve the current unfairness.

Joint physical custody does nothing to resolve the financial unfairness. Mixing and matching again, unfortunately.

JPC is about alleviating the emotional damage caused by divorce, as well as ensuring that parents are equally allocated the responsibility of raising their children.

958. MsIvoryTower - 2/24/2001 8:55:07 AM

Calgal

You're reinventing the conversation again.

The unfairness according to you is at several levels, for children, at both the psychological and financial level; for the non-custodial parent, both wrt access to their children (responsibility for their care) and wrt the financial settlements associated with divorce. Your proposals were presented as necessary for the "unfairness" and "inequities" of the current system.

The prior discussion hasn't distinguished with much deliberation between the issues. If you want to begin doing so now, fine with me, but lets be clear about how the discussion has proceeded up to this point.

959. MsIvoryTower - 2/24/2001 8:56:56 AM

There are plenty of ways to alleviate this unfairness, and many of them involve legally mandating certain behaviors from divorced parents.

This is funny.

960. MsIvoryTower - 2/24/2001 9:17:34 AM

The psychological trauma that kids suffer really isn't due to divorce, per se, it is due to the fact that the two most important people in their lives have split apart and it usually means that they lose regular emotional and physical contact with one of them.

Oh please, you want to quibble about the choice of words used? This is disengenuous. What the hell is divorce if it isn't that two people suddenly split apart and stop sharing their lives, including their lives together with their children?

You think joint physical custody is going to repair the "psychological" trauma inflicted by divorce of the inherent breakdown of their parental unit? Regardless of the arrangements after the family split, their lives are forever changed. There's not any set of custody laws that can compensate for this.

By trying to separate the issues it's a neat way for you to compartmentalize your commitments. You can argue we should "fo