should a christian get a prenup?

[ImperialPhantom]

It shouldn't be up to the courts to decide what's in the 'best interest' of the child regarding custody, with the exception of such things as abuse, neglect or substance abuse. That's how the whole sexist custody mess got started in the first place - moms almost automatically get custody even when they SHOULD NOT be the ones to get custody.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

It shouldn't be up to the courts to decide what's in the 'best interest' of the child regarding custody, with the exception of such things as addiction or substance abuse. That's how the whole sexist custody mess got started in the first place - moms almost automatically get custody when they SHOULD NOT be the ones to get custody.

Coulda shoulda woulda. That's how it is. Deal.

Are you talking about legal or physical custody?

 

[Conservativation]

there are only 6 states within the U.S. - Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin - that currently have legislation which promotes equal access to both parents.

I found this in some information from a couple of years ago. The problem is, having lived and been in the family law system in Texas, I know for a fact that there is NOT a shared parenting presumed starting point, note the wording here says "encouraging"...thats just not a codified starting point. The codified starting point in TX is the so called "standard order"...the well known every other weekend one evening a week some summer weeks and swap holidays for men and amounts to about 30-35% man the balance woman. I fail to see the whole shuttling thing as an argument that carries any water whatsoever compared to the "standard order"....so the kids get shuttled 40 times instead of 50 in year? OR more, its actually LESS shuttling in 50 50 than it is in the standard order.

 

[Luther073082]

In my experience the courts are the worst people to decide whats in someone's best interest.

Especially considering the amount of federal money they get for child support payments, they are more likely to decide whats in their best interest then whats in the child's best interest.

 

[dallasapple]

I dont know what this means

so, 50/50 is a bad idea? Bad for kids?

If thats the case, lets state this accurately

Let me say what this means in a practical sense.

Men should not get more than "visitation' of kids, women should be primary conservators, physical custody, thats in the best interest of the child.


Wow, at least say it correctly because not using gender specificity is window dressing

Cons Im referring to Luther suggesting that each parent should have to suffer evenly as far as loss of non material assets.Mainly as in time lost with the children..

That can not be a "factor" in the decision IF there is an award to one parent of primary custody..It has to be what is BEST in a bad situation for the child ..you cant say ..but thats not fair I'll be lonely.

For the RECORD LOL..Im a proponent of 50/50 custody...You said it and I agree how you phrased it..start with the "assumption" of 50/50 joint custody ..and work from there as to what is the CHILDS best interest.

I do not agree that for no reason other than the woman is the MOTHER she should get primary custody..And I do not believe today that is how the courts are looking at it.Or at least they are moving away from gender bias.As it SHOULD be. It should be about the CHILDREN.

IT doesnt MATTER as far as the children are concerned if that means one parent is lonely...

The law should not be written that allthough all things considered a child would be provided more stability with one parent having primary custody that it must be even 50/50 separation from their child to equalize each parents lonliness and suffering .

Thats ridiculous.

Love

Dallas

 

[MacNeil, D.]

In my experience the courts are the worst people to decide whats in someone's best interest.

Especially considering the amount of federal money they get for child support payments, they are more likely to decide whats in their best interest then whats in the child's best interest.

You got burned, eh? The DA has been collecting child support out of your paycheck??

 

[Conservativation]

No he didnt. He is married 1st time, no kids. Im surprised really how knee jerk that reaction is though, typical, mens concerns rejected as bitter divorced men whining.
I am neither in that boat, nor are increasing numbers of men driven by a keen sense of the obvious unfairness.
David Usher, Stephen Baskerville, both make very well researched scholarly rejections of the status quo. If you go to Baskervilles site, and as an attorney, perhaps unpack his writing follow his footnotes, and refute it with facts. Could be interesting IF there were any factual errors.

 

[Conservativation]

The apparatus that collects child support and gets matching fed funds in many states are at the forefront of fighting shared parenting initiatives.....wonder why

 

[MacNeil, D.]

No he didnt. He is married 1st time, no kids. Im surprised really how knee jerk that reaction is though, typical, mens concerns rejected as bitter divorced men whining.
I am neither in that boat, nor are increasing numbers of men driven by a keen sense of the obvious unfairness.
David Usher, Stephen Baskerville, both make very well researched scholarly rejections of the status quo. If you go to Baskervilles site, and as an attorney, perhaps unpack his writing follow his footnotes, and refute it with facts. Could be interesting IF there were any factual errors.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, and I know how the system can be abused by saying the magic words and know that the system should be reformed along the lines of, for example, what one of the above posters had to offer.

Baskerville undermines himself by claims like this:

"special courts created specifically to process parents for political offenses"

or

"forced labor facilities created specifically for parents"

There may be something behind this ... probably is .. but this is too cranky to be credible.

 

[Conservativation]

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, and I know how the system can be abused by saying the magic words and know that the system should be reformed along the lines of, for example, what one of the above posters had to offer.

Baskerville undermines himself by claims like this:

"special courts created specifically to process parents for political offenses"

or

"forced labor facilities created specifically for parents"

There may be something behind this ... probably is .. but this is too cranky to be credible.

You pulled those out of context. he doesn't suggest there are LITERALLY those things, they are exaggerated for effect descriptions that are almost apt. or perhaps are way down a slippery slope extrapolation. Yea, I can see how hyperbole is a turn off, which is why I was emphasizing his research and suggested following his documentation to check the FACTUAL claims he made.
The above are not presented as factual per se. Taken Into Custody is an informative book. Usher is not prone to such hyperbole, maybe he is more palatable for you

 

[FaithPrevails]

I love how a thread about pre-nups has twisted into a debate on child custody and child support.

 

[Conservativation]

Actually folks are coming together on the issue. The last page has more and more common ground and less debate. Custody was an aspect of a posited pre-nup possibility. People see the words pre-nup and they immediately think of Rich and famous and lifestyles etc. But they can ATTEMPT (legal challenges notwithstanding) to address things up front, in a similar way the covenant marriages in OK and other states speak into not custody but the divorce process.

 

[dobieman0488]

but isnt divorce supposed to be not on a christian;s mind, especially before marriage? it shows a lot of doubt and mistrust if there's a prenup involved

 

[Conservativation]

but isnt divorce supposed to be not on a christian;s mind, especially before marriage? it shows a lot of doubt and mistrust if there's a prenup involved

No, not really. It shows that a person has wisdom enough to know that even as THEY reject divorce, another person in the mix is involved, and what with the rates of divorce of Christians as often as not if one doesn't file the other will.
Its the seat belt of marriage I guess. We are usually OK that WE wont wreck, but its those other drivers.

 

[ImperialPhantom]

but isnt divorce supposed to be not on a christian;s mind, especially before marriage? it shows a lot of doubt and mistrust if there's a prenup involved

It's a real life event that happens to lots of people. It's not something that should never be discussed or thought about beforehand.

 

[FaithPrevails]

but isnt divorce supposed to be not on a christian;s mind, especially before marriage? it shows a lot of doubt and mistrust if there's a prenup involved

It's a real life event that happens to lots of people. It's not something that should never be discussed or thought about beforehand.

I agree with IP and will add that I think divorce should be viewed as a last resort after all other options have been exhausted and only if abuse or infidelity is present and not ceasing.

 

[Conservativation]

Wisdom affords our need to protect ourselves from other people. A well crafetd pre-nup puts accountability for ME, and well as her.....IOW IF I do X.....Y follows or provisions are null etc. Yes I know these are broken or bent often. But lacking one is a free for all. With courts universally stacked against men, I will say do as I say not as I do, because I have no pre-nup.