I happened across this list of "alternative parent plans" or Child Custody Schedules from one Robert E. Emery, Ph.D. I find it interesting how so many of these experts feel the need to tout their qualifications in big letters along with their names at the top of their writings just in case we miss it. Reading his bio, we find that Emery (Ph.D.) has expertise positively dripping from his ears - professor of psychology, director of a center for children, families and the law (U. Virginia) and has or has been on the editorial boards of eleven professional journals.
You will gather from they way that I harp on all this expertise that I am about to point out something truly moronic in this guy's writing.
After the usual pat advice for keeping it cool for the kids during your divorce, he lists a range of "parenting plans" for various age groups of children. In each of them, he offers plans for "Traditional Options for an Angry Divorce", "More Integrated Options for a Distant Divorce" and "Closely Integrated Options for a Cooperative Divorce". In every single case, the amount of time the non-custodial parent gets to spend with his* children increases as one progresses along this list.
Upshot: the equation is mind-numbingly simple - a custodial parent who wishes to punish her* ex by limiting his* time with his* children need only make the divorce as acrimonious as possible to achieve her* ends, and the onus for keeping it friendly is entirely on the father* who is in no position to do so should she* not wish to cooperate. In other words, the uglier she* gets, the more power she* gets, limited only by her* cruelty and the amount of punishment he* is prepared to take, an ultimately poisonous test of his love for his children.
Dr. Robert E. Emery, Ph.D. is a psychologist of considerable standing but he, like so many of his kind, seems to be unable to figure out basic human behavior.
(* - Emery explicitly states that the non-custodial parent is of the male gender)
Technorati Tags: fathers' rights, divorce, psychology
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(67)
-
▼
January
(12)
- "Lone parents"? Riiiight.
- Soft focus
- Kick 'em when they're down...
- The fallacy of child custody
- Parthenogenesis, girls will make boys
- Everybody Panic!
- What can you do?
- Read what I've written, I've got something to say.
- I happened across this list of "alternative parent...
- Dorris Lessing, Cleft not Squirt
- "What decent person would want to put a child thro...
- DV as fashion statement?
-
▼
January
(12)
RSS
9 comments:
As the non-custodial mother, You might want to look for some balance.
Or not.
But accuracy and media bias is found at www.familylawcourts.com
I'm sorry, Anonymous, I don't understand your comment. Balance? I am pointing out that the unbalanced custodial parents are encouraged by the system...
"Upshot: the equation is mind-numbingly simple - a custodial parent who wishes to punish her* ex by limiting his* time with his* children need only make the divorce as acrimonious as possible to achieve her* ends, and the onus for keeping it friendly is entirely on the father* who is in no position to do so should she* not wish to cooperate. In other words, the uglier she* gets, the more power she* gets, limited only by her* cruelty and the amount of punishment he* is prepared to take, an ultimately poisonous test of his love for his children."
I've been through the Family Court mangle because of a nasty vindictive ex. and i can say this:
You are bang on the nail.
Hoodlum, I'm guessing you're not an academic because, by and large, they only flaunt their qualifications when they want to impress an ignorant public, to other academics immodesty is a strong indicator of the blowhard, it's well known that cushy positions attract dead wood and, man, don't go into academia if you want to attract women... ("Hey honey, wanna come upstairs and read my thesis?")
In many cases, "the ignorant public" are the funders of our grants and such, thus the need to flaunt for the public.
Plus, with the American public's lover for the appeal to authority fallacy, sometimes you have to drop the hammer of superior creditentials on an idiot with a clown college PhD.
Hoodlum, grants are not awarded by the public, they just pay the taxes; and the fallacy of appeal to authority applies to those with "superior" credentials just as it does to those with a "clown college PhD". That's the point, it's a fallacy that one's credentials might, on their own, imply the truth of what one is saying. Emery's got bona fide's coming out of his ears, but his reasoning is still unsound. Plenty of very qualified people have said some very stupid things over the years and "but I've got a PhD!" is no defense.
Dr. Robert E. Emery, Ph.D. is profoundly stupid (like most intellectuals and academics). :-)
As a now custodial step mother I would like to offer all you fathers out there some hope. My husbands ex was a complete b!tch and tried everything she could to ruin my husbands relationship with his kids.
My step kids bought it at the time but they eventually left their mother, part of the reason was she was as vile to her kids as she was to her ex and they hate her for not letting them have a relationship with their dad.
We are proof that you can survive this crap, don't give up!
Post a Comment