yes, its a privilege and a right to be able to parent
no, teens know whats best for them
split, only one parent or a teen should not make that decision
This is advice for parents contemplating divorce or who just lived together now and in years to come. If you are able to have an amicable relationship after divorce or separation with your former counterpart then maybe this will not apply to you. But as a lot of people know hindsight is 50/50.
A lot of time during the divorce or separation process parents are on their best behavior and appear to each other that they are willing to do whatever it takes to make their child or children feel that both parents are there for them even though they are no longer together. Then as time goes on things come up. Differences in parenting, job relocation and possibly distance, and lets not forget the one thing that can a lot of times cause more problems than any, the entrance of a new significant other in one or both parents life.
If you have children and divorce or separation is inevitable consider this. If you want to remain in your child’s life and have the privilege of parenting your own child or children then joint legal and joint physical custody is the only thing you should settle for.
In this day and age the old adage possession is nine tenths of the law is getting more and more pronounced. It used to be that couples divorced and if one parent was granted custody the other parent received parenting time with the child or children also. This still remains true to some extent when the child is young.
Now courts are allowing teenagers the decision of whether or not the child or children want to spend time in the company of the parent who does not have custody. This not only affects that parent but also the extended family of that parent. Grandparents go months and years without seeing their child’s offspring, as well as Aunt’s and Uncle’s.
I am sure everyone will have their own opinions of this but in my opinion this is a choice that should not be allowed if the other parent is there to support and nurture their relationship with their child or children.
Yes, teen’s can have very busy lives. But is that a valid excuse to cut one of your parents from your life.
The court allowing this is one thing because they do not live people’s lives. I wonder how many judges would actually consider this new way of thinking if they were the ones on the receiving end of their child’s decision to cut them out.
This is not to say though that we do not have judges who still believe that children up to the day they graduate need both of their parents if their parents are there for them.
How can anybody with a clear conscience think that a parent should support a child financially until the day they turn 21, but they are stripped of their rights to be a positive influence in their child’s life, be it by the child’s decision or the interference of a parent who thinks of the child as their possession.
I really get tired of some people referring to their child’s other parent as the donor. Just because a parent has more time with their child or children does not make the children their possessions. It does not give them the right to remove the other parent from the child’s life.
The sadness of this all is the fact when the child is older and they realize the time they lost with one of their parents by no fault other than the system or the other parent.
As I said before, “Love your children more than you hate the person you created them with!”
Last edited by distressedparent; 03-25-2009 at 02:28 PM.