|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If his premise is that it is in the best interest of kids that both parents be involved in the a child's life, then what difference does it make which parent moves away?
Either both parents are important to their kids or they are not.
It seems to me that the same precedent could be used to legally prevent either parent (custodial or non) from moving. I'm not argueing against it legal restrictions on moving, but that it cuts both ways (provided the premise is the best interest of the child). Of course if we had RPJPC that question would be moot.
Where is Glenn Sacks on the issue of RPJPC?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well,it's readily apparent that you didn't read the whole article, now, isn't it? It's not a hiiden comment, in there, it's a whole paragraph. To wit:
The study's results also indict noncustodial fathers who move away from their children, finding that such move-aways are also correlated with long-term negative consequences for children. Noncustodial fathers often justify their moves by arguing that the custodial mother is already denying them access to the children anyway, or that these moves are necessitated by their child support obligations. The second claim, however, is no more legitimate than custodial mothers' claims that moving helps them financially.
So much for your "What about men? What about men?" typical response.
Watch out. Your knee-jerk anti-male bias is showing.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
