The Hearing II, part 3

My lawyer finally showed up at the court, two hours late. He immediately met with the child's mother and her attorney outside the court room. Then he met with me outside. He asked me to sign the same agreement I already signed on Friday to avoid going before the judge. I refused. Since we had both made the effort to go court, I figured we might as well go through with it.

We went back inside the court room. The bailiff called the judge out and the four of us went before him. The judge asked about the mediation, then answered himself that it was obvious nothing was agreed to, otherwise why did we show up there today.

Then he asked her side what they wanted. The child's mother answered that she was fine with joint legal and physical custody. Then the judge asked her what she wanted for visitation. She said, "Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm." She didn't mention overnights.

The judge asked me if I was okay with that. I said no, since it ran into his nap time. So then the judge asked me what I wanted. I said, "From 10:00 am to 8:00 pm." He said that's a little long. Then he asked the child's mother, "how about 4:00 pm?" She reluctantly agreed.

The judged then ordered visitation to be as follows: Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday from 10:00 pm to 4:00 pm. Six hours a day, three days a week, for a total of 18 hours.

This is exactly what I asked for at the first mediation four months ago. The child's mother refused, and it took two hearings, another mediation, and a judge, for me to get just four more hours with my son. This is not a good start. It show just how combative our co-parenting will be.

Thankfully, the judge agreed to grant me visitation hours in the daylight. The main reason I was upset at the child's mother was due to her refusal to let me see my son in the daytime.

Then her lawyer argued over transportation, saying that the reason why they were opposed to 4:00 pm was that it was rush hour. They said that it was my choice to move far away, so I should pick up and drop off the child each day. The judge decided that I would do the pick up and drop off on Tuesday and Thursday, and the mother would do it on Saturday.

Her lawyer then argued that I needed to attend court-certified anger management classes. My lawyer said that the counselor I was already going to was fine. The judge agreed, but then said that I should go for three months. He asked me if I was fine with this.

I hesitated a moment then said no. A million things went through my mind. I wanted to say how unfair it all was. The mother who destroys a child's life and family is considered normal, not angry, and definitely not in need of any treatment or classes.

But the father who wants to keep his family together, and is upset over its destruction, that he is in need of anger management. It was a final slap in the face, kick in the back, and stomp on the head. It says to a father - get over it, move on, accept the inevitable. You and your child's life together is over. I wanted to scream, to shout.

My lawyer mumbled, "that's 16 classes." Thankfully, I remained silent. The judged said, "alright, since you've done two sessions, do eight more." Ten weeks of classes was what they asked for. The judge assigned ten sessions with a therapist that I actually need at this stressful time.

Then, the discussion moved on to support. The lawyers argued over imputed income and the fact that we were both unemployed, and finally the judge gave a figure close to $500 a month. Her claim for legal fees was put off until trial, in two months.

I should have asked for another day of visitation. I'll have to do this at trial.

The Hearing II, part 2

In another case, the mother brought one of her other children to court, a cute girl, around 5 years old. The judge asked the mother, "you couldn't find someone to babysit for one day?" The law does not allow children in the courtroom, but the judge could not send the child out into the hallway unsupervised. So she sat, kicking the bench, as she heard the case.

The parents were fighting over a young boy. There were police investigations against each other, and social workers visiting the homes regularly. The mother claimed the father gave his child a cold shower to discipline him, and so there were investigations over abuse at his home. The father counter-claimed that the mother's new boyfriend physically abused his son, and made several police reports. The mother alleged they were lies, and that the father made his child say false things to the police.

Conflict breeds more conflict. My poor child is ruined.

Imagine the position of the son in this case. He lives with mom and has to please her. He can never accepting a stranger as a replacement for his father, but he tries as best as he can in order to make his mother happy. Of course, deep down inside, the child resents the mother for bringing this stranger into their lives.

He loves his father, and wants to see more of him. So the child is prepared to lie even though this may actually get him abused, by mom and boyfriend both. But he does it to make his father happy, hoping as a result, his father will chose to spend more time with him. The poor child.

Why do parents do this to children? Why do women bring children into this world only to make such beautiful, young lives hell?

Women are selfish.

More than anything else, women want to play god. They trick men into thinking they can play along, but then pull the rug under them. Mothers want power. But in order to rule as lord over their creations, they have to get rid of a child's father.

This explains a glaring contradiction. On the one hand, mothers claim men are terrible, irresponsible and incapable to taking care of children. But on the other hand, mothers are never alone. There is usually a man around the house, but never the children's father. If men were so crazy, why have one around children at all?

Funny enough, after a few years of playing god with the new man, out the door he goes. Next victim please.

Men and women who find things to do with their lives, have other options besides children to give their lives meaning. These couples are the ones more likely to adopt and share power over children. People need to find self-fulfillment without this god complex. Mothers are destroying so many children as a result of these unthoughtful genetic experiments.

The Hearing II, part 1

All last week, the two lawyers went back and forth, trying to work out a deal to avoid going to court for today's hearing. A hearing costs each side $3,000, so I was interested in making a deal.

Up until late Friday, our side thought we had a one and that the child's mother would take the Order to Show Cause hearing set for today, off of the court's calendar.

As part of the deal, the child's mother had me visiting on Tuesday and Thursday from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm, and Friday overnight, from 7:00 pm to 7:00 pm Saturday.

I was relieved, until 6:00 pm on Friday, when the child's mother called and asked, "When are you picking him up tonight?"

What? Father and son have never spent the night alone. The child was still breastfeeding.

I signed her paper, even though I didn't like the visitation timing, and I figured that eventually, I will start doing overnights.

I asked to speak to my child, to get his opinion on overnights, but the mother refused to put him on the phone. So I refused to pick him up and start overnight visit right there and then. She asked me if I would consider doing it the following Friday, and I said I would, but only if the child agreed.

This was not acceptable to her. She was trying to use me to break the child's habit and attachment to her, and to get out of her maternal responsibility.

I am unwilling to do overnights for many reasons. First of all, it is a unilateral decision made by the mother, and neither child or father are given a voice in the matter. But more importantly, I realize that in this most stressful time for the child, a time of losing both father and family, that forcing my child to go through a further loss of a mother, even for one night, would be too traumatic.

This is just common sense, something lacking in most mothers during this time of heightened responsibilities, or as one mother put it, "baby jail".

Many divorced fathers have other women around them to help smooth the transition for young children to living with dad. Toddlers are able to cope better at being away from mom when they are comforted by grandmothers, aunts, and relatives from the other side of the fence. Even a father's new girlfriend might help in this transition.

I have absolutely no one in Los Angeles.

Common sense dictates that I do overnights only until the child is ready and comfortable being away from his mother. It will be the child's choice. Not mine, or that of the mother.

She figured as much. So she decided to go to court with her visitation plan to get the judge to force me to do overnights.

she called on Sunday to tell me she was going to court for the OSC hearing today and that I had better get my lawyer there.

What? What about our deal? She explained that because it was a domestic violence issue, the court could not postpone it.

Domestic violence?

One brief outburst of expletives during five months of the most stressful time in my life equals to domestic violence? And let's not forget what I'm so upset about - the timing of visitations being restricted to the child's nap time in the afternoon, which she refused to changed. Fucking bullshit.

We sat in court waiting a couple of hours for my lawyer to show up.

UG2

I continue to be intrigued by UG's ideas. I guess it shows that I'm still interested in permanent happiness. There is in fact no state of sadness or happiness. Pain and pleasure are both momentary. They come and go in reaction to stimulus. It is pointless to try to achieve or avoid either state.

In fact sorrow is caused by the very effort of wanting to be happy. This pursuit can only lead to fraustration and disappointment. The body does not even know it is alive. Pain and pleasure are felt and then gone. There is no memory or trace. It is thought that suffer and cries. The body is only interested in survival and has no knowledge of thought.

Why this quest for permanence? Why can't I just relax and enjoy myself? Why do I feel compelled to work myself into the ground in search for meaning and continuity? I am trying to escape from thought while using thought as my vehicle.

This will not work. Only by becoming completely selfish, completely engaged by thought, which I already am, will I ever be free from it. The very act of trying to be less selfish results in more thoughts. I can try to emphasize the body and be more aware of my senses, but if this becomes part of seeking permanence it will only increase thought.

There is no escape and the brain is not an instrument than can be used to gain an exit.

This reminds me of Schopenhauer's negative dialectics. Life is years of sorrow with moments of joy. All attempts at happiness is futile. Can thought accept this? Will thought ever agree to end itself?

wielding power over failed men

in this world
men are in control
of most areas of power
and many men
abuse that power
in public and private spheres
they should all be punished
for any form of violence against women

this is not the case
and each day
millions of women
are physically abused
across the world
sadly this large-scale violence
goes largely unreported
and since male perpetrators go unpunished
the pattern of violence continues

the vast majority of women
caught in the vice grip
of patriarchal control
face many other forms of abuse
but this is not to say
that women are powerless

women wield great power
over children and fathers
especially in western societies
after the establishment of laws
such as the tender years doctrine
of the 19th century
which presumes that custody
of children under 13
should always be the mother's

how did this law come about
family law used to be based
on the male patriarch
how did mothers come to have wield such power

it has to do with a new body of law
outside of regular family law
for families with failed fathers
men who failed to provide
for their families' entire support
men who were most likely part
of an ethnically or racially marginalized group
these new laws
such as the tender years doctrine
regulated the terms of parenthood
for these failed men

later, the tender years doctrine was replaced
by the best interest of the child doctrine
however tender years is still the rule
a father must prove the mother to be an unfit parent
before he is awarded primary custody
while the mother need not prove the father unfit
in order to win custody herself

this tender years doctrine
with its elevation of mother's rights
at the expense of father's rights
through the courts
have resulted in single mothers
having almost total ownership
and control of fatherless children

a few decades later
changes in regular family law
largely replaced patriarchal dominance
by granting women freedom
to end the family unit
for any reason at all
these changes have benefited women
however
like men
women also abuse their power
which has resulted in a great tragedy
for families, children and fathers

if we don't change this disaster
and continue to allow women
to create this kind of dysfunctional society
where divorce and single-parenthood
are the norm
a motherhood-centered society
in which fathers are expendable
then we might as well mandate
a new doctrine
one in which all female fertilization
have to be done anonymously

this allows women
to play their favorite game
of genetic selection
but rather than dating
and ruining father's lives
women have to use pictures
of anonymous donors

when children miss their fathers
they can visit the donor bank
and browse pictures
of countless fathers
no child will feel fatherless

this new doctrine will also help to end
the heartaches and
endless conflict
endless failure
endless guilt
endless thoughts
of disposable fathers