it is time for men to get custody of the kids

woman drowned her kids just this past week. some speculated she wanted to get back at the father. you had andrea yates killed her kids because they say she was having mental problems due to motherhood issues and susan smith killed her kids because she wanted a man.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-13-mom-drowns-children-ny_N.htm?csp=34

Its time that men started getting custody of the kids because it seems women arent holding it together. single father headed households make up 4% of the nation (from what I understand. joy behar show)

 

Its not just women who kill their kids. Last week a guy here was sentenced to life for throwing his four year old daughter off a bridge to get back at his ex.

 

damn. fools are losing their minds. the justice system really need to get a handle on these domestic issues because it is harming the kids all way around. if they let these kinds of disputes (divorce stuff between parents over kids and/or whatever) then it can get violent and deadly.

one thing could be done is some type of class or intervention upon the inception of divorce

 

Dad guilty of Westgate Bridge murder
By Sarah Farnsworth
Updated Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:40am AEDT
Slideshow: Photo 1 of 2Video: (ABC News)Map: Melbourne 3000Related Story: After a marathon five days of deliberating, a jury has found Melbourne man Arthur Freeman guilty of murdering his four-year-old daughter by throwing her off the city's Westgate Bridge.
The 37-year-old threw Darcey Freeman off the bridge in peak-hour traffic on January 29, 2009.
He had been driving the little girl to her first day of school when he pulled his four-wheel drive into the emergency lane and asked her to climb into the front seat.
He then carried her to the railing and dropped her 58 metres to her death as his two sons, aged two and six, watched on.
In a police interview played to the jury, Darcey's six-year-old brother Ben said his sister "didn't even scream in her fall".
"I said 'go back and get her. Darcey can't swim'. But he kept on driving. He didn't go back and get her," he said.
Just moments before, Freeman had spoken to his ex-wife, who was waiting at the school to mark the milestone.
"Say goodbye to your children," he said. "You will never see your children again."
Within half an hour of throwing the girl from the bridge, Freeman had driven his two sons to the Federal Court complex.
CCTV vision captured him frozen to the spot and shaking, unresponsive to the hugs and attention-seeking of his boys who, finally, sat at his feet on the floor.
Court staff were forced to change the nappy of his youngest son as they waited for police to arrive.
Freeman had pleaded not guilty to murder on the grounds of mental impairment.
He made no reaction as the verdict was read out last night, maintaining the same appearance he had throughout the trial.
Some family members started to cry, while his former wife and Darcey's mother, Peta Barnes, remained calm and composed.
Women in the jury wiped away tears when they were thanked by Justice Paul Coughlan for their service.
He thanked everyone involved in the trial for handling a very emotional ordeal with great dignity.
Transformation
During a two-week trial, Freeman's state of mind at the time of the January 29 killing was scrutinised.
He underwent a transformation after his daughter's death. His clean-shaven, tidy and professional appearance was replaced with unkempt hair, a permanent furrowed brow and a thick beard.
Chief Crown prosecutor Gavin Silbert SC urged the jury to dismiss the expert diagnosis of the defence's sole witness, Professor Graeme Burrows, who testified Freeman was suffering a major depressive disorder, and possibly psychosis, when he killed his daughter.
Thirteen months after the event, Professor Burrows diagnosed Freeman as having been in a state of "fluctuating" dissociation, as if sleepwalking or hypnotised, at the time.
He was the only one of six psychiatrists who believed Freeman was psychotic, and the prosecution labelled the professor a "psychiatrist of last resort".
Two psychiatrists who testified on behalf of the Crown disagreed with Professor Burrows's diagnosis.
They told the court that if Freeman had been in a state of dissociation he would not have been able to get the children ready for school, drive through peak-hour traffic, hold phone conversations, or pull safely to the side of the bridge and put on his hazard lights.
Under the watchful eye of the jury and court reporters, Freeman gave little away. He showed emotion rarely, often holding back tears until after the jury had left the court.
But he broke down when forensic pathologist Dr Matthew Lynch described the injuries that Darcey suffered in the fall.
Freeman mopped his eyes and face with a handkerchief, often raising his gaze to the ceiling as Dr Lynch described brain, lung and chest injuries suffered by the four-year-old - the result of "a fall from great height".
On the same day, Ms Barnes took the stand. Freeman's expression hardened again.
With her family in court for support, a stoic Ms Barnes told the court Freeman had had trouble controlling his anger. She answered in structured yes and no answers as counsel led her through her evidence. Details of her divorce were not elaborated on, but she corrected Freeman's lawyers' continual reference to her "husband".
"He is not my husband," she pointed out with a swift hand gesture to the dock.
In his closing address, Mr Silbert asked the jury to consider Freeman's unkempt long hair and permanent blank expression.
He told the court that in January 2009 Freeman had been clean-shaven with short hair.
"Ask yourselves now why he adopts the Rasputin-like appearance of a mad monk?" Mr Silbert said.
Defence lawyer David Brustman called on the jury to consider why a man would commit a "truly horrible" crime.
"Very few cases could induce more prejudice ... There in the dock sits a man who flung a four-year-old girl, his own daughter, to her death," he said.
"Now, how bad does that get? Is this simply the face of pure evil?"
Mr Brustman argued the killing of the girl was done by a mentally impaired man rather than a father intent on punishing his ex-wife in the worst possible way.
Freeman will have a plea hearing on Friday and is facing the prospect of life in prison.
Justice Coughlan has indicated Freeman will be sentenced before Easter.

 

people better learn...dont get into heated battles with an ex because they will do something crazy. you best be cool

 

Muthafukas take it out on the innocent children. So sad, i dont know how anyone can cause harm to their own child. :smt011

 

yeah people do it everyday but not to this extent. when a person withhold a child from the other parent that should be considered psychological abuse on the kid(s) and the other person in the court system. hopefully if they do that then it would slow people roll in doing that kind of stuff.

from what I understand contempt of court for withholding kids are available for punishment but rarely used

 

i don't know or begin to understand what causes a parent to kill their child...i know as a single mother that there were days where i felt like i was at my limit...there is no shame in asking for help...just calling a friend to say, i just need a break...i need help today...my parents were amazing as my son was growing up...they would schedule regular visits to help and give me a couple days of respite...they were much more helpful then his father ever was to us...i never denied my son's father visitation in any way shape or form...but his dad many times canceled visits because of things he thought were more important:smt086

 

damn.

 

Fitness as a parent isn't based on gender. I think it would be hard to say a man wouldn't ever snap.

Many men don't go for custody. Why? When they do it is usually divded pretty fairly. I think the courts aren't antiquated in their thinking, as they once were, that the woman is automatically better.

 

I think men dont is because the atty's usually dont advise them they can and they just given in. usually women will smell this and get cocky and start doing slick shit after the divorce

 

If your attorney has to tell you to not be a wimp and stand up for your rights then you have more problems than custody. JMO.

 

you will be surprised what atty's will tell you. trust me....I know I saw how atty's can be. My mom told me watch out because they will screw you. my step dad said the same thing

trust me tho...I understand what you are saying. I talked to a bunch of black and white guys and their thang WAS let the woman have custody just so you can get things behind you but they find out it doesnt work like that

 

From what I understand they still very much are.

If a man and a woman divorce and they are both fit parents, the statistics clearly lean towards the mother, even today. Actually, it's not even close. According to this site dedicated to child custody cases in regards to divorce, nearly 75% of child custody cases are awarded to the mother. Only 10% go to the father only, and the rest involve some sort of joint custody. It also states that finding actual statistics on this nationwide (or worldwide) is rare.

http://www.childcustodycoach.com/child-custody-statistics.php

I also found this one site that breaks down the ratio in a few specific states. Scroll about 1/4 of the way down:

http://www.proactivechange.com/divorce/statistics/research-rates.htm

It's really not fuckin right at all :smt076

 

i was so hoping that i'd be called for jury duty on that case.

 

nice ass post. that says alot about woman leaning divorces...then again we have to dig inside the numbers..such as what kind of divorces and how it affected the judges decision to give which parent custody and also was it where the father allowed the mother have custody and he get visitations...then why did he do that versus getting custody and the mother get visitations ?

 

Fathers kill their own kids as well but I definitely see what you're saying. A lot of men get royally screwed when it comes to custody

 

Agree, men don't hold it together more than women in regards to these type of cases. Cases where the man holds the family hostage in a suicide type mission and end up killing the family and themselves, usually men (there has been 3 of those here in a short time). Most cases that involve kids being killed by parents, does not really seem to be done by mothers.

However, that is really neither here nor there, as it is a small fraction of parents that break and do these crimes. Its minuscule and these sort of cases should not affect who, in a regular divorce should have custody.


- I do agree that the custody issues should be fairer. The culture of "kids being better off with their mom rather than the dad" is still prevalent, but I think we are moving forward. Considering how things would have been handled only 20-30 years ago.

I think its hard to suddenly change peoples thinking, its slow to change culture.

 

yeah...there was a report on this mom who went to china to work and left the hubby and kids behind for sic months. she got there and decided she didnt want to be married anymore and didnt want to be tied down with the kids....she wrote a book about. basically she stated she loved the kids but she wanted to pursue her career. Im not putting it totally correctly but Im in the ball park.

what it is coming down to is that women are going to start getting the career bug heavily (independence) and I saw a report about a book called the panda dad...he was basically talking about his parenting style. men are looking at the home more so and women are look at the coprate world more. soon there will be a land mark case in butting of the heads in divorce court over the kids. watch.

 

This, my BF is in the process of getting joint custody of his 2 kids. He is a wonderful father, which is on of the reasons I love him.