Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

Why wouldn’t they have 2 real homes?
My parents were divorced when I was a kid and we spent every other weekend with dad. Maybe it would have been the case anyway, but we were never close, he always felt like more like an uncle figure, and I didn’t know my father’s relatives very well. I think keeping the bond with both parents is so important, and 50-50 is probably the easiest way to achieve that. But if you don’t like it, why don’t you give up much of your parenting time so that your kids’ primary residence, their “real home” is with your ex?

Op here. I am not divorced. I see this with selfish parents around me. My kids are grown and grew up with two parents.

So, why don't you tell us what's wrong with you that you spend your time and energy worrying about other people's kids? Are you medicated? Going to therapy? How did it affect your children? Do they still talk to you? Can your husband stand you?

Seriously this.

Nice try. Kids are happy and healthy and we are all together now on a weekend winter getaway.

I read these boards regularly though, and if anyone who is honest can see the devastating effects of divorce and how the new fad of 50/50 tries to paper over the effects.

Like parents having to force their teens to spend time with dad instead of being at sports practice or with their friends. Can you not see how those parents are selfish?

And, do you realize how some kids are really hurt by losing a parent? How can you not see that not having a relationship with Dad is a problem for some kids? Friends should not be a priority over Dad. What kind of parent are you to say that? You think it would be ok if your kids told you, sorry Mom, I cannot see you as my friends are more important? Is that ok if you never get to see your kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

DISAGREE TOTALLY ON THIS>

Disagree all you want but this kind of situation destroyed any chance at a relationship between me and my father, He kept trying to force visitations when he knew the long distance and time spent away from my friends was a problem for me, I ended up refusing any contact at all with him because of it.

Right! So like the above poster said, ideally your dad should have worked out a system that you still were able to see him but get in your social time. It didn't sound like that happened and I am sorry but allowing a kid to just pick friends over parents is a recipe for disaster.

Usually, visits are twice a month for 2 days so that is four days in total. There are plenty of other days in the month for kids to get their social time in.

That poster sounds selfish and a spoiled brat. I hope Dad stopped the financial support at 18 if she or he refused contact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

No, parent/family should come first. If the mother moves away, and takes the kid, it's not the father's fault the child has to travel to him. These kids have two homes and two families. Social lives should not be the priority over family. You are 100% parental alienation. And, if you don't kids should be forced to see their parents, baring no abuse or neglect documented by CPS, then why should that parent financially support them. You are basically terminating that parent's rights. If you are the parent not wanting visits and think the other parent is a bother, then you should fully also financially support your kid as they really only have one parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

DISAGREE TOTALLY ON THIS>

Disagree all you want but this kind of situation destroyed any chance at a relationship between me and my father, He kept trying to force visitations when he knew the long distance and time spent away from my friends was a problem for me, I ended up refusing any contact at all with him because of it.

Right! So like the above poster said, ideally your dad should have worked out a system that you still were able to see him but get in your social time. It didn't sound like that happened and I am sorry but allowing a kid to just pick friends over parents is a recipe for disaster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

DISAGREE TOTALLY ON THIS>

Disagree all you want but this kind of situation destroyed any chance at a relationship between me and my father, He kept trying to force visitations when he knew the long distance and time spent away from my friends was a problem for me, I ended up refusing any contact at all with him because of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

Why wouldn’t they have 2 real homes?
My parents were divorced when I was a kid and we spent every other weekend with dad. Maybe it would have been the case anyway, but we were never close, he always felt like more like an uncle figure, and I didn’t know my father’s relatives very well. I think keeping the bond with both parents is so important, and 50-50 is probably the easiest way to achieve that. But if you don’t like it, why don’t you give up much of your parenting time so that your kids’ primary residence, their “real home” is with your ex?

Op here. I am not divorced. I see this with selfish parents around me. My kids are grown and grew up with two parents.

So, why don't you tell us what's wrong with you that you spend your time and energy worrying about other people's kids? Are you medicated? Going to therapy? How did it affect your children? Do they still talk to you? Can your husband stand you?

Seriously this.

Nice try. Kids are happy and healthy and we are all together now on a weekend winter getaway.

I read these boards regularly though, and if anyone who is honest can see the devastating effects of divorce and how the new fad of 50/50 tries to paper over the effects.

Like parents having to force their teens to spend time with dad instead of being at sports practice or with their friends. Can you not see how those parents are selfish?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

DISAGREE TOTALLY ON THIS>

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

Visitation is critical. A 12 yr old might think going to the mall with friends (while at her Mom's house) is infinitely more important than paying a visit to Dad. Is that what's best for her in the long term? A 12 year old may also think staying up till midnight and eating only junk is good for her. Does that mean the 12 year old decides?

So no, I don't think kids should decide this stuff. Parents need to do what's best for their kids. So in the above scenario, Dad should work towards facilitating the mall visit and what not so DC is happy socially but DC should know it's Dad's time. He's her go to for that time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

Why wouldn’t they have 2 real homes?
My parents were divorced when I was a kid and we spent every other weekend with dad. Maybe it would have been the case anyway, but we were never close, he always felt like more like an uncle figure, and I didn’t know my father’s relatives very well. I think keeping the bond with both parents is so important, and 50-50 is probably the easiest way to achieve that. But if you don’t like it, why don’t you give up much of your parenting time so that your kids’ primary residence, their “real home” is with your ex?

Op here. I am not divorced. I see this with selfish parents around me. My kids are grown and grew up with two parents.

So, why don't you tell us what's wrong with you that you spend your time and energy worrying about other people's kids? Are you medicated? Going to therapy? How did it affect your children? Do they still talk to you? Can your husband stand you?

Seriously this.

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because it takes time to build a relationship and a four year old has no concept of time.

What about a 10 year old? Why was i forced to break the law just to be able to stay home for summer breaks?

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because it takes time to build a relationship and a four year old has no concept of time.

Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

50/50 is definitely not the best case for all situations, and I agree it should not be a presumption. I believe there should be no presumption and that each case should be looked at individually. Another big issue is that judges do everything in their power to NOT make custody orders. They will send you to a million rounds of mediation and waste everyone’s time because they don’t want to be the one to make the call on what happens to the kids.