This worked for a while. But, Tina soon began to keep the kids from seeing Mark during his scheduled visitations. She seemed to tease Mark. It was like a game. Sometimes letting him see them and other times not.
Mark filed charges of contempt of court against Tina. But before he could get to court, she would let him see the kids. For a three year period Tina played this game. The court system never did anything to help Mark with his visitation rights.
Finally Tina became romantically involved with another man. She made arrangements to leave the state. And now, Tina had little or no time for the children. But even though she didn't want the children, she didn't want Mark to have them. So she made arrangements to have her parents retain custody of them for some undetermined time while she put her life in order.
During this time, Mark saw that the money he was sending to his ex-wife was not going for care of his children, so he stopped sending money to Tina and started sending it to Tina's parents instead.
Tina was addicted to Mark's money. She took the offensive, filing papers claiming that Mark had not paid her child support. The state retaliated by garnishing Mark's pay at 150 percent of the rate he was to pay in child support. In addition Mark continued sending his ex-in-laws money for care of the children.
This situation went on for some time. Finally at the grandparents urging, Mark decided to try to get custody of the children. Mark filed the proper paper work and waited. Lo and behold, things seemed to be finally going in Mark's direction. He was successful in getting legal custody of the children.
But there was a hitch. Because of the preceding years of child support payments, court ordered payments to his ex-wife, and the legal battles, Mark was broke. He had been living in substandard housing for years. He had neither the financial resources nor the living situation to take custody of the children. In addition, to add insult, the court only required his ex-wife to pay him $50 per month (which she did not pay) child support payments. Mark was in a bind.
Because the grandparents had been so civil to him and had never interfered with any of his hundreds of visits, Mark decided to continue the arrangement. The grandparents agreed that this was the best short term solution. Mark immediately started to make arrangements for better housing.
Mark found a new home in a better school district conducive to his two children. He informed the grandparents that as soon as the school year was out he would take the kids. They agreed. Or so it seemed.
Then Tina again appeared in the matrix. It seems that her parents told her that Mark was going to take the kids. She would have no part of it. She immediately challenged Mark's custody rights. And as before, the court gave the custody rights back to Tina. This time the courts put some new twists on Marks visitation rights. He was now only allowed to see his children 16 hours a month. And he was required to pay $800 a month child support.
As it now sits, Mark has given up fighting his wife and the system. Tina and the grandparents have custody. Mark has a new family and looks forward to the day he can spend time with his children without interference of the courts or their mother.
For years, women's groups have painted all men as "deadbeat dads," child molesters and wife abusers. They have so tainted the discussion that all men are on the defensive. And of course, all mom's are beyond question. When men go to court to get access to their children, they are at a disadvantage right from the start because of feminist lies. If this were not the case, how could women get custody in 90 percent of all contested cases.
To make matters worse, radical feminists now make up a significant portion of the "divorce industry." In Mark's case, a group of "experts" made the final decision as to who got the children. The judge, the counselor, the layer, the social worker, the psychiatrist, and the child advocate were all women. Is there any wonder that Mark did not get custody of his children?
For twenty five years feminists have pushed for affirmative action. They want special privileges to compensate for perceived past injustices. It does not matter that men of today have had no part of the supposed injustices of the past.
Well, it's high time for a little affirmative action in child custody cases. Let's see how the shoe fits on the other foot. For a period of time until there is equality in contested cases, let's proceed with affirmative action. I propose that 65 percent of all cases be awarded to men. This affirmative action plan should remain in place until there is an equitable relationship between men and women in contested child custody cases. I wonder how well feminists will like this form of affirmative action?
Email to the Editor If you don't want your email to be considered for publication in the "Email to the Editor" column, say so.