Biased article on move-aways

Anonymous User writes "The New York Times is such a s****y and biased paper. Here is a clearly biased article on move-aways. It belongs in the editorial section, not the news section. Nary a word is offered to point out that non-custodial dads are almost always just as good or better parents as their female counterparts. Thus, switching primary custody to the dad in case the mom moves away should most often be a clear and healthy alternative to allowing mom to uproot the child and move away."



More in the Read More section. Anonymous User continues - "The Times sheds crocodile tears over moms who move away to leave a child behind with the dad, but don't mention fathers at all, except in the third-person sense. I've seen dozens of articles on dads who are left behind by move-aways. The "paper of record" could not find just one with whom to speak? The fact that fathers are likewise torn from their children when moms move away with the children. "But Ms. Sheid's ex-husband, who shares joint legal custody of their daughter, refused to allow the girl to move away. So Ms. Sheid has spent much of the last year using JetBlue to shuttle between her son and husband on the West Coast and her daughter (and ex) on the East." Obviously, this is sad. But equally sad would be where the mother moved away with the child and the father had to spend much of the last year using JetBlue to shuttle between his job and seeing his daughter. It mentions that Mr. Shied (mom's new husband) has a job on Wall Street. Does Ms. Shied have a job? If not, wouldn't it be easier for her to shuttle using JetBlue than for the child's father (whose name isn't even mentioned) to do the same, given that the dad probably works to support his child? "Worst, she added, 'they are making me choose between my children.' " Point out, that she is making her child choose between her parents. Can't Mr. Shied find a job doing *something* else? Can't she find a job? "But now mothers with physical custody say they feel trapped in untenable situations, especially since alimony has become uncommon and the economy remains rocky in many regions." Yes, see, but they don't *have* to maintain primary custody of their children. They *can* transfer primary custody to their husbands voluntarily. "Practically, though, judges know they can often stop a move by threatening to give the other parent custody. (Noncustodial parents can move without dealing with the court at all.)" I love how they throw that one in there - as if this is somehow unfair (*gasp* a woman being required to do something that a man is not.) Actually no, custodial parents can move without dealing with the courts. It's just that they may have to voluntarily transfer custody of the child over to the other parent in order to do so."

NOTICE: This story was migrated from the old software that used to run Mensactivism.org. Unfortunately, user comments did not get included in the migration. However, you may view a copy of the original story, with comments, at the following link:

http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/04/08/17/2033225.shtml