Geldof urges custody laws change
Geldof won his custody battle with the late Paula Yates
Bob Geldof says British child custody laws must be ''scrapped" for not acting in the best interests of the child and for ''discriminating'' against fathers.
The father-of-four criticises laws which he says led to bitter experiences during his custody battle with his former wife, the late Paula Yates.
Speaking on ITV1's Tonight With Trevor McDonald, he says: "I wanted to have my children 50% of the time. In the end it came down to either myself or Paula."
The 50-year-old won custody of his three children from Yates in 1998 after they divorced.
The law is not so much biased towards the mother but very discriminatory against the father
"I waited a long time and I got tired of hearing how much Paula loved the children - which she did endlessly, as did I.
"I was handed a piece of paper saying 'you may see your children on this day and every second weekend'.
"Why? What had I done?
"I saw them every day, I took them to school, I bathed them, fed them, cooked for them ... Why now was the State and all its instruments of justice ... aimed at me?"
'Law inflexible'
Geldof says that from the outset of any case the mother is favoured regardless of the specific circumstances of a family.
He stresses that his comments are not anti-women, but that the law itself is ''fundamentally wrong''.
"It's not just a male agenda. I get women who take care of the children who can't understand ... how it (the law) can be so unjust towards other fathers," he says.
"The law in effect is not so much biased towards the mother but very discriminatory against the father - extremely so.
Paula Yates loved the children 'endlessly'
"I went through it and was exposed to it and I thought that it was just nonsensical.
"Up until now, women haven't gone out to work, men have gone out to work and they've provided and the women have nurtured.
"That social consensus has changed hugely since the time this law was drafted.
"The law is inflexible and worse in this case... it's fundamentally wrong.
"It should be scrapped and be rewritten."
The former Boomtown Rats singer won custody in 1998 of Fifi, 18, Peaches, 12, and Pixie, 11.
He also cares for five-year-old Tiger Lily, the daughter Yates had with INXS star Michael Hutchence, who is also now dead.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Fired from Wal-Mart
Mr. Misery's ex was fired from her shelf-stocking night shift job at Wal-Mart. She told Mr. Misery it was because she was sick so often........inside sources have informed me that it was because she was sleeping with her boss.
Great. Now what is in store for us next???
As I have said in the past, she is not the ambitious sort........dragging her out of her crypt into sunlight is difficult enough, so I don't imagine that finding another job is going to be any less difficult.
Ms. Ambition has applied to a video store, a grocery store and a convenience store.
I smell a modification of child support coming.
Misery is PISSED. I am busting my ass while this vampire lay in her coffin day after day coming out only at night to seduce some unsuspecting Wal-Mart manager!! Poor guy got fired too!
In the meantime, I foresee, she will be sucking the life out of us in order to support her incatiable party girl lifestyle.
Great. Now what is in store for us next???
As I have said in the past, she is not the ambitious sort........dragging her out of her crypt into sunlight is difficult enough, so I don't imagine that finding another job is going to be any less difficult.
Ms. Ambition has applied to a video store, a grocery store and a convenience store.
I smell a modification of child support coming.
Misery is PISSED. I am busting my ass while this vampire lay in her coffin day after day coming out only at night to seduce some unsuspecting Wal-Mart manager!! Poor guy got fired too!
In the meantime, I foresee, she will be sucking the life out of us in order to support her incatiable party girl lifestyle.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Are the courts responsible?
The demise of the American Family.
Shattered in a zillion ways for a zillion different reasons. Selfishness? Greed? Boredom? It doesn't matter.
The effect of the dismantling of the American Family trickles down and lands squarely on our children.
Its easy to divorce. Much easier than getting married.
A divorce is a series of forms, a distribution of equity, and division of the children who are, in my opinion, treated like another piece of property to be divided into whatever fractions the courts deem "fair" and for "the best interest of the child".
Sadly, what I am seeing, is a very unfair division.
Children are left fatherless. Yes, fathers are basically "freed up" from the responsiblitiy of raising their children since in MOST cases, the courts deem the mother the primary care giver or "Custodial Parent", but the father's wallets are hit hard. I guess if you are a man with lots of money and no interest in your children, this is the optimal course of action. My ex-husband is a prime example of this. He pays his support, his visits follow the "court schedule", and even though I have given him unlimited access to his children, he rarely deviates from the scheduled visitation on the custody agreement.
But, unfortunatley, day after day, I see too many fathers who miss their kids, want to be involved, want more time with them but are kicked to the curb like an old paper cup. Their wallets are the only thing of any value. The women in these cases have the ability, at a whim, to demand MORE money, and get it. They can cut out visitation with merely a slap on the wrist by the courts for violation the terms of whatever agreement is in place. Therefore, they deny their children access to a caring, loving father for their own selfish gain, control seems to be their main issue.
What the courts fail to realize is that MOST women, in this day and age, are out there working as much as the fathers and have no more time to care for their children.
So, in these times, like in all times, it takes TWO parents to properly raise children. Its a horrible injustice to our children to give full custody to women who work as many hours as men. And what does it say for us women??? Think about it. The courts don't even feel our jobs are as "important" or as well paying, we are being treated as less by adding more responsibilty and thinking a few bucks will compensate. We know we are stressed, over-worked, concerned about our children, and cannot provide what a "normal" father can (I know there are cases where women keep their kids from the fathers because of abuse, neglect, etc.....), but I am talking about fathers who do not have those issues. I admit it. If I didn't have a caring loving husband, I would be at a loss on a lot of issues with my children. I am thankful everyday that he has stepped up to the plate and picked up the slack that my own children's father couldn't be bothered to do. Maybe the court system feels a few bucks is a fair trade to compensate us women and free up our men to re-produce more offspring that may wind up in the court system and offer more revenue to the state through child support, but ultimately, what happens to these fatherless children? And who REALLY benefits?
Shattered in a zillion ways for a zillion different reasons. Selfishness? Greed? Boredom? It doesn't matter.
The effect of the dismantling of the American Family trickles down and lands squarely on our children.
Its easy to divorce. Much easier than getting married.
A divorce is a series of forms, a distribution of equity, and division of the children who are, in my opinion, treated like another piece of property to be divided into whatever fractions the courts deem "fair" and for "the best interest of the child".
Sadly, what I am seeing, is a very unfair division.
Children are left fatherless. Yes, fathers are basically "freed up" from the responsiblitiy of raising their children since in MOST cases, the courts deem the mother the primary care giver or "Custodial Parent", but the father's wallets are hit hard. I guess if you are a man with lots of money and no interest in your children, this is the optimal course of action. My ex-husband is a prime example of this. He pays his support, his visits follow the "court schedule", and even though I have given him unlimited access to his children, he rarely deviates from the scheduled visitation on the custody agreement.
But, unfortunatley, day after day, I see too many fathers who miss their kids, want to be involved, want more time with them but are kicked to the curb like an old paper cup. Their wallets are the only thing of any value. The women in these cases have the ability, at a whim, to demand MORE money, and get it. They can cut out visitation with merely a slap on the wrist by the courts for violation the terms of whatever agreement is in place. Therefore, they deny their children access to a caring, loving father for their own selfish gain, control seems to be their main issue.
What the courts fail to realize is that MOST women, in this day and age, are out there working as much as the fathers and have no more time to care for their children.
So, in these times, like in all times, it takes TWO parents to properly raise children. Its a horrible injustice to our children to give full custody to women who work as many hours as men. And what does it say for us women??? Think about it. The courts don't even feel our jobs are as "important" or as well paying, we are being treated as less by adding more responsibilty and thinking a few bucks will compensate. We know we are stressed, over-worked, concerned about our children, and cannot provide what a "normal" father can (I know there are cases where women keep their kids from the fathers because of abuse, neglect, etc.....), but I am talking about fathers who do not have those issues. I admit it. If I didn't have a caring loving husband, I would be at a loss on a lot of issues with my children. I am thankful everyday that he has stepped up to the plate and picked up the slack that my own children's father couldn't be bothered to do. Maybe the court system feels a few bucks is a fair trade to compensate us women and free up our men to re-produce more offspring that may wind up in the court system and offer more revenue to the state through child support, but ultimately, what happens to these fatherless children? And who REALLY benefits?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)