Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Angel Heart, Oct 10, 2007.
Comparing it to Orwell's animal farm is naked opportunism which has no basis in reality. Women are discriminated against far more than men are. Look at this countries board rooms, executive directors, managers, politicians, none of them are anywhere near equal. Fascinating that they manage to bring in the other "boogeyman" of American politics, communism, into this argument as well.
As for this gem of a paragraph:
Its telling that of all the "systematic discrimination" this is the best example they can come up with. There are a lot of reasons for this, none which have anything to do with discrimination. This differents from state to state and court to court, but generally courts try to act within the best interests of the child. Some reasons this causes the mom to have custody instead of dad:
1) Women tend to stay at home more then men...and hence have more of an attachment to the child. Courts take this into consideration.
2) Courts do not care which party is "breaking up the family". Not only is that an asinine thing to take into account, its quite offensive.
3) Usually courts, unless there is some reason not too, prefer to assign joint custody to both parents.
4) In abusive households it generally is the dad doing the abuse, not the mom.
In conclusion, what a stupid article.
"The courts" as you refer to them, are made up of men and women with every prejudice and stupidity known to man. They are not exempt from error, from discriminatory behavior, or really bad rulings.
Joint custody is not the norm. Primary physical custody is almost always awarded to one parent, with in most cases a standard and generous visitation schedule allowed the other parent. Often it's absolutely the wrong parent, based upon nothing but the judge's prejudice against or for one or the other.
Courts, which are men and women who live in the communities where the families who come before them live as well, certainly DO care who is "breaking up the family" according to their own prejudices. Many states, however, have no-fault divorces, which means the courts do not officially recognize why the couple is divorcing, they simply try to make the best of the mess.
That would be the courts, not "the courts". But true that judges are imperfect creatures. Some are better than others. Most try to do the best they can to make the best decision possible. This, of course, does not always make them correct.
And you know this from all of your years of matrimonial practice?
Actually who "broke up the family" is relevant only as to which party is granted the divorce. It is irrelevant to distribution of property, child custody, visitation or support. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
No fault divorce is a different issue and exists by statute. It does not mean the courts don't "recognize" who caused the divorce. It means that there is no reason for the parties to plead fault and it is not considered. The plaintiff would automatically receive the divorce. Property, custody, etc., would all then be disposed of same as above.
No, it would be "the courts".
Yes, I do know this from all my years in family practice.
This is funny:
"No fault divorce is a different issue and exists by statute. It does not mean the courts don't "recognize" who caused the divorce. It means that there is no reason for the parties to plead fault and it is not considered."
No kidding? Well, then, that would mean "the courts" don't recognize there's fault, wouldn't it? Why yes, it would.
Tell me you're not an attorney. I could tear you apart in court and I'm just an ex-legal secretary.
Which is relevant how exactly?
Depends on the state and the reason for the divorce. But generally, unless there is a reason not to do so, a court will give joint custody. There are LOTS of reasons not to...but that is the preferred outcome.
And you base this on what exactly?
And you base this on what exactly? Generally courts are very good at making good law since when they don't they get overturned by individuals who aren't "in the communities".
The reason of the divorce has nothing to do with who gets the kids.
She is a Lawyer and sometimes I wonder where she got the degree from and how she passed the Bar. Just recently she asserted that Congress had no limits on laws except what the Constitution specifically forbade them to do. She has made other amazing comments about our legal system as well.
Uh...sweetie, no offense, but I knew you were a legal secretary when you talked about preparing judgments for court
And no, you couldn't. You can't even tear me apart on a messageboard. Your logic is flawed. You misrepresent sources. You don't understand how a decision is arrived at or the role of the courts.
I certainly know legal secretaries who are as smart as their bosses and who run the show for them. I am also hesitant to disparage staff because I know too many really top-notch legal secretaries and paralegals. But your clear lack of respect for the courts and your lack of understanding make it clear you were not one of those.
Wow, you're such a brilliant star!
And I could tear you apart in court if you're as short on logic in there as you are here. I haven't seen many who can compare to you in saying one thing, then turning around in the same sentence and saying the exact opposite.
That doesn't convince a jury, it just annoys them. As does the condescending attitude. Though I suppose that's to be expected from a liberal elitist who thinks her values aren't relative, and who has never regretted anything she's done.
You aren't all that. Believe me. And once you get your chops you'll know it. If you are, in fact, an attorney.
She was talking about you, not her.
You don't even know basic logic, I wouldn't be criticizing others logic.
Curious...have you ever been before a jury?
Separate names with a comma.