“Father knows bitterness” by Lily Robertson

By Lena Trondson • March 30, 2009

I lived most of my life thinking that people in the Western modernized world had civil liberties and could rely on a just court system. Well, I was loudly and suddenly awoken by the injustices carried out to non-custodial parents (mostly fathers) in the United States. Regular readers of my blog already know my deep commitment to the rights of fathers. I read a fairly new article written by a woman named Lily Robertson on the SeacoastOnline.com – The source for the Seacoast. Hopefully most of you will find it as interesting and important as I do. Too many children are told that one of their parents is a deadbeat and doesn’t care about them when it is actually the farthest thing from the truth. Unfortunately, a family court system is giving many custodial mothers the power to keep doing this without repercussions and they are ultimately destroying millions of families. Here is the article:

Father knows bitterness

There are almost no limits to what a father will do to protect his children. Unfortunately for men, they can’t seem to understand that if they don’t stick with the psycho wives, limits will be set for them. After all, women are always best suited to be the ideal parent, are they not? They can be alcoholics, mentally abusive, vindictive, crack heads, or just plain off their rockers. Regardless, the courts will award custody of the children to the mother unless the father can prove she killed three out of four of their children and has it out for the survivor.

There are, granted, men who shouldn’t be allowed within fifty feet of a child. Most of them have never been fathers. The few of those who fall into the father category generally have police records. There are red flags. Further, the children are visibly uncomfortable with the father when the father is the problem. It’s usually pretty easy to spot.

So why are the courts awarding custody to the mothers as a matter of gender default when the fathers have no red flags? Why are the courts awarding custody to the mothers when the mothers are the problem in the family? And when it comes to visitation, why do the moms get to dictate?

Judges will give the fathers a certain amount of visitation rights, but mothers can cancel repeatedly on a whim and the courts will do nothing to enforce those rights. However, just let a father miss a single child support payment and the cops are at the door, the state is yanking money out of paychecks, visitation rights are being canceled, and the kids get to hear how they can’t have a new X-Box game because the dad is making them suffer. It doesn’t matter that the dad is now struggling to afford two homes and two family incomes on one paycheck while the mom is stalking the mailman so she can run to the bank.

It’s gender inequality at its ugliest. What happens to the mother when she violates visitation rights? Nothing.

How many times have we heard that the children’s place is with the mother. Somehow, this has become a carved in stone litany. CASA is one of the guiltiest parties in this conspiracy to negate a father’s rights. They may mean well, but they’ll listen to both parents and then without investigating, toss the father’s word into the round file like chaff in the wind. Even scientists will attest to the fact that some mothers have absolutely no shred of maternal instinct, yet those same mothers are being allowed to keep the children away from the fathers.

Does it not occur to the courts that when both parties are calling each other liars, sometimes it might just be that the real liar is the woman?

Criminy, we girls are traditionally more manipulative. Since the dawn of time we’ve relied on manipulation because we had less physical strength and couldn’t get our point across with aggression.

The courts are supposed to be full of smart people. Yet time and time again, I watch these smart people either turn a blind eye or just plain allow themselves be duped.

The cases where the father is the equal or better parent may be the exception rather than the rule, but a system that insists its goal is to put the children in the best environment has the obligation to make sure it’s doing exactly that. To be sure, I don’t believe all women who cry wolf haven’t actually seen the wolf. However, it’s the duty of the court to find out if it was a wolf or a Chihuahua. Then again, any naturalist will tell you that wolves make exceptional parents. A decision regarding a child’s life should not be arbitrary or left to “mom said-dad said”. A decision that will affect years of a child’s life should at least merit a couple months of study.

In the end, all we’re doing is teaching our children blind tradition matters more than treating someone fairly. We’re teaching our daughters that she who weeps loudest, even if it’s crocodile tears, will be the one to get their way. Way to go.

Lily Robertson, who thinks justice should be blind but not blinded, can be reached at canopicjargon@gmail.com. (Source)