Man Ordered To Apologize To Wife On Facebook 400
New submitter Marillion writes "Photographer Mark Byron was so bothered by his pending divorce and child visitation issues that he blasted his soon-to-be ex-wife on his personal Facebook page. That touched off a battle that resulted in a Hamilton County judge ordering Byron jailed for his Facebook rant — and to post on his page an apology to his wife and all of his Facebook friends, something free speech experts found troubling."
The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about how men are shit on in pretty much any divorce case.
Wife alleges you hit her? Off to jail, guilty until proven innocent buddy.
Wife alleges you molested the kids? Say goodbye to your kids forever, pal. Maybe if you're lucky we'll let you see them for a few hours once a month with a supervisor present.
Wife wants child support? We don't care that she's spending all the money on her new ex-con boyfriend's meth lab, you'll pay it or it's jail for you, sparky!
Wife is a drug addict who neglects the kids? Tough luck pal, she's still getting full custody over you. That's what you get for showing up to court with a penis.
Wife won't let YOU have the kids during your court-appointed custody days? File this paperwork. We'll look into it in about a year, if you're lucky.
You won't let HER have the kids during her court-appointed custody days? Freeze, motherfucker! Get you're hands on your head NOW! ON THE GROUND, ASSHOLE! DON'T MAKE ME SHOOT YOU!
Welcome to the world of divorce court, Mark.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Shoulda just killed her and the kids and been done with it.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's also about free speech.
Someone being required by law to post an apology is rather frightening.
You can't even force a kid to say a prayer, but you can force a guy to pretend he is apologetic?
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
A forced apology is not an apology.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Courts all over the US routinely sentence people convicted of alcohol related offenses to Alcoholics Anonymous, which at its core is a religious organization.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
First, you ignored that it's a diminishing term, and therefore if they're exactly equal you're still wrong.
Second, it's not equal. They're both bad, but not all bad things are equal. Consider the following statements you could be forced to make, even if it is not considered a legally binding testimony of your true thoughts and feelings:
1. I'm sorry.
2. I murdered that man.
3. [Politician] should be elected to be [your country's chief elected official]. All hail the [political party you feel least repres
Re: (Score:3)
Re:required by law to post an apology (Score:3)
Why is everything always different on the internet? If you rant somewhere else in public, do you then get dragged into *having* to apologize?
This is making me want to change my name to one of those Glyphs so that it screws with the data tracking software going everywhere.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
No mod points but I'll applaud you. I suspect this whole story will be riddled with various anecdotes of how the man shafted a man over the same issues.
My most immediate frustration with the system is the insane imbalance of child support and how it's geared so the father pays 100% of what they say is required to support a kid. Even if prior to the divorce the wife worked and paid half into such expenses. It's completely unrealistic.
However, this is from my experience as a third party witness. Once of the premarital discussions I had w/ my wife was to agree that we'd settle shit like adults if things went sour. Life's too short to be worrying about making the other miserable. There's no need to drag kids through that crap either. The more disagreements you can resolve outside of the court amicably the better, IMO. Now we'll see if things actually pan out that way if I ever have the cross that bridge...
As my dad said in regards to getting married "Boy, choose wisely."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now we'll see if things actually pan out that way if I ever have the cross that bridge.
Good luck with that. See how long that rational, amicable divorce crap holds up when she turns into a vindictive psycho (even if *she* was the one who cheated or wanted the divorce in the first place).
My cousin had a nice, rational wife. She had his dog put to sleep during their divorce. True story.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Good luck with that. See how long that rational, amicable divorce crap holds up when she turns into a vindictive psycho (even if *she* was the one who cheated or wanted the divorce in the first place).
My cousin had a nice, rational wife. She had his dog put to sleep during their divorce. True story.
Do I know you? My ex is the only one that I'd heard of that literally had my dog put to sleep during the divorce. I was out of town on business. And, when I came back, she decided she wanted full custody and said that if I tried to pick up the kids from school on one of my days "on", she'd call the cops and have them go to the school. Completely groundless and she knew that, but it means that the kids and teachers see the person she's been talking shit about confronted by the cops and asked to leave...
I've got them 50/50 now, but it took months and better than $10k in lawyer's fees even though there were no mitigating issues and the law is dead clear (at least in this state).
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not "justice" it's "survival". Justice would be actual equality of sexes on the issue, and woman being unreasonable provoking same result as man being unreasonable provokes now.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Having to be 10k poorer just to get what should be the obvious decision actually made is hardly justice.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, my parents handled it without requiring courts or lawyers and have remained friends.
Anecdotes are just that.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
In a divorce, a person has to grieve for the loss of the relationship (NOT the same as the loss of the spouse) and the loss of an entire way of life, while, at the same time, dealing with all the underlying bullshit of a divorce. Stuff like paperwork, custody, divvying of stuff and debts, finding a new place to live, a new bed to sleep on, maybe a car, who keeps the turtle and who gets the dog, plus stuff like figuring out alimony, child support, who claims who on taxes, and about a billion other minutiae. While dealing with this, they *should* be attempting to suppress all emotional outbursts and backstabbing behavior (especially with regards to the kids). Failing at this last bit is where all the negative anecdotal stories comes from. Accomplishing a smooth divorce with all this shit going at the same time requires a near super-human amount of effort from BOTH parties, and if there are kids, it's an ongoing, never-ending self-discipline that must be learned and practiced at all times. Believe it or not, it doesn't help the kids (like, not even a little) to know that Mommy's a cheating whore, or that Daddy puts crushed smarties in his nose before work. Also, sometimes, one party should just decide to give up on a lot of things they want - things like the LCD, or being "right", or sole legal custody - in order to get what they need - which are things like joint physical and legal custody. (pop quiz: Guess which one I was, as a male father in Utah? I digress).
Of course, it gets much, much easier with time, and as various milestones are reached. Many people can end up being friends later on (my ex and I are, actually, though we still piss each other off sometimes; there are reasons we split). This friendship actually concerns my girlfriend (I think that concern is absolutely hilarious, but I do try to be sensitive). But we, as I'm sure most divorced parents learn to do at some point, still put a lot of work in to put that happy smile on things. I think the best possible way to teach people how to negotiate is to force people to go through a divorce involving kids amicably.
Anyway, my point is: If you do it right, over time, your kids won't see how difficult the divorce was; it'll just seem like a "meh" type thing to them. I know that's how my folks' divorce seemed, until I got to chatting with my mom during my own (my dad died many years prior). I feel pretty safe declaring no divorce is peachy-keen with peppermint hugs and rainbow butterflies in the beginning.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyway, my point is: If you do it right, over time, your kids won't see how difficult the divorce was; it'll just seem like a "meh" type thing to them.
and that, in and of itself, can be a problem, when your kids get married themselves.. and then get tired of the marriage, and think, "oh hey no problem I can just get divorced. my parents' one went fine..."
Even a "good divorce" is a bad divorce, when there are children.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a third party witness to several divorces. You underestimated the influence of your wife's potential attorney. He will strongly encourage your wife to ask for what's more than "rightfully" hers in order to have an advantage during negotiations. Remember the attorney is looking out for himself while he represents your wife. Being fair is not his objective. Getting the most for his client so that he himself will make more is his primary concern. Also the more contentious the divorce the more legal fees he is allowed to charge.
I have seen amicable divorces but it's a rare thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DAMNED truth there.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
I have seen amicable divorces but it's a rare thing.
I'll agree it's rare, and will venture out on the embarrassment limb by saying I've been through two divorces. My first wife and I, after the emotional turbulence had somewhat subsided, sat down and agreed on how to part. I hired the only attorney, who submitted our drafted agreement to the court. What few things came up before or after the divorce was final that required further discussion, we handled ourselves, and managed to do it without being psychotic toward each other.
My second wife, on the other hand, decided that what was hers was hers, what was mine was hers, and that she was going to make it as ugly and vindictive as possible to either browbeat me into staying or to take everything possible from me. Our divorce lasted longer than the pre-filing marriage - and this without kids or any significant property at stake.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
If it helps any, I've been through that first hand too. You're not alone. In my case, the judge twisted the knife even more. My last grandparent died, one I was close to, right before my court date. Never mind the court had already reset the date 3 times (ex had nothing to do with it). I asked for a reset so I could attend the out of state funeral (Ohio, I'm in TX, so it's not a short trip). Judge refused. Then, very late in the day before the funeral, the judge changes the date anyway. Too late for me to make it to the funeral (which was early in the morning). I hate the judge for that more than all the other ways she screwed me over.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I have seen amicable divorces but it's a rare thing.
My best friend (we went to college together) is an attorney. Back when he was first starting up his own practice he took a few (less than 5 I think) divorce cases just to make some money. The last one he did really shook him up. It's a long story, but to simplify it, his client (a woman) was devastated by the divorce and refused to listen to his advice to protect herself from the actions of her estranged husband and his attorney. He was really close to dropping her as a client when her estranged husband killed himself (he had his own issues) and thus ended the case. He told me "NOBODY wins in a divorce. NOBODY." and he has never taken another one. He simply refuses and refers them to other attorneys. He told me that he doesn't care how much money he is offered, he no longer has the desire to participate in divorces.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
No mod points but I'll applaud you. I suspect this whole story will be riddled with various anecdotes of how the man shafted a man over the same issues.
My most immediate frustration with the system is the insane imbalance of child support and how it's geared so the father pays 100% of what they say is required to support a kid. Even if prior to the divorce the wife worked and paid half into such expenses. It's completely unrealistic.
To be fair, ever state handles things extremely differently. From recent experience of a friend, I have learned that Tennessee has fixed tables for child support and they are entirely based off W2 and income. If the father has no income job, he is not forced to pay. Actually, without a job but with shared custody every other weekend, the woman may be forced to pay him based off how much time a year he has the kids and how much she earns. It's insanely unlikely a man will get main custody there, though.
I hear in Florida... or California... can’t remember and may not be either... but at least one state will take infidelity insanely seriously. If a mother is found guilty of infidelity, she will lose complete custody and may get weekends IF the father is generous.
However, this is from my experience as a third party witness. Once of the premarital discussions I had w/ my wife was to agree that we'd settle shit like adults if things went sour. Life's too short to be worrying about making the other miserable. There's no need to drag kids through that crap either. The more disagreements you can resolve outside of the court amicably the better, IMO. Now we'll see if things actually pan out that way if I ever have the cross that bridge...
As my dad said in regards to getting married "Boy, choose wisely."
If it's not written in paper, good luck with that. The person I noted above had similar oral agreement. She took the guy to court every other month (she also happened to steal "from him" during the marriage over the years until she collected enough in a secret bank account to put the down payment on her new house immediately after the divorce started (she did not even wait until it was finalized, she knew the guy didn’t had the money to fight possession of that house in court.)
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
That's pretty fucked up. What bearing does the sex life of the parent have on the fitness of the parent?
Sex life has every bearing when it comes to marriage. That’s... sort of what marriage is about. It's... you know.... a legally backed monogamous institution.
In the state in question (my understanding) it's not just the kid’s custody that is lost, but any properties and wealth is not even split in half. The party that was infidel (if only one was) loses every right to everything the law can grant.
It’s a bit like an insured warehouse. If it catches fire because someone set fire on it, you can claim insurance and that other party may suffer legal consequences. If you set it on fire yourself not only do you get to claim no insurance but you may be subject to legal consequences yourself (i.e.: you lost everything.)
Note everywhere it may be possible to prove that drug usage, alcoholism or domestic violence from the other party are evidence enough that he can’t have custody, but should the divorce be specifically because of infidelity, well... why on earth is the other stuff not part of the divorce process? And why not just divorce before sleeping with others? In the end, it's not fucked up. You are not happy with the marriage, do the right thing and do a proper divorce before you go sleeping around with others.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
A good parent is, above all, a role model.
A bad husband is a bad father.
A bad wife is a bad mother.
In more general terms, anyone who breaks a close trust has no place in a position of responsibility.
A failing marriage can be ended amicably. The partners are free to hump others after this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some one else replied to your post with a perfect answer to that, I requote it replying to you so you can see it (since ACs stay a bit hidden here)
A good parent is, above all, a role model.
A bad husband is a bad father.
A bad wife is a bad mother.
In more general terms, anyone who breaks a close trust has no place in a position of responsibility.
A failing marriage can be ended amicably. The partners are free to hump others after this.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect it has something to do with the fact that a marriage license is a legal document. Adultery is therefore breaking a legally binding document.
It also a pretty strong indicator that that person is to be blamed for the failing of the marriage. (few marriages last long after one member is caught cheating).
That said- I doubt there is many cases where one partner resorts to adultery where there isn't some mitigating factor (other partner a douche, etc)- very rarely is a divorce completely one persons f
Re: (Score:3)
Marriage isnt a promise to never change.
Marriage is a promise that, as both people WILL change over the years, you will put in effort to keep your lives merged.
There's a saying that needs to be brought back into common usage: "Marriage is Hard Work". You've missed on the part where you have to put in effort, to stay hapily together.
Who you become over the next 10 years, is primarily determi
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Informative)
At least someone is trying [wikipedia.org] to change things.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
True, I have seem much of this.
What you omit is the man's behavior that landed them in divorce court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What about the huge number of cases where nobody cheated, the couple just no longer loved each other or the huge number of cases where the woman cheated?
From the cases I've personally known, it's just as often the woman's behavior or neither party's explicit behavior that leads to it.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about how men are shit on in pretty much any divorce case.
Wife alleges you hit her? Off to jail, guilty until proven innocent buddy.
Wife alleges you molested the kids? Say goodbye to your kids forever, pal. Maybe if you're lucky we'll let you see them for a few hours once a month with a supervisor present.
Wife wants child support? We don't care that she's spending all the money on her new ex-con boyfriend's meth lab, you'll pay it or it's jail for you, sparky!
Wife is a drug addict who neglects the kids? Tough luck pal, she's still getting full custody over you. That's what you get for showing up to court with a penis.
Wife won't let YOU have the kids during your court-appointed custody days? File this paperwork. We'll look into it in about a year, if you're lucky.
You won't let HER have the kids during her court-appointed custody days? Freeze, motherfucker! Get you're hands on your head NOW! ON THE GROUND, ASSHOLE! DON'T MAKE ME SHOOT YOU!
Welcome to the world of divorce court, Mark.
I bet those that have never been divorced think you're exaggerating. When I got divorced, the first time I saw my lawyer he pretty much laid it out exactly as you did. He did mention there were some fairly reasonable reasons for most of that stuff.. but I have forgotten what they were.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Informative)
I should point out that this is definitely changing. For instance, my mother worked family law for about a decade in New Hampshire. The judges there seemed to have a basic rule of 50-50 division of the assets, joint custody of the kids, no child support or alimony. If one parent wanted to avoid custody (more common than you might think), then they'd have to pay child support.
For instance, if she claimed abuse, they'd want to talk to a coworker or somebody else who saw her regularly to see if there was a pattern of unexplained injuries. If she claimed that he was molesting the kids, they'd have the kids talk to a shrink to see if she was right. If there was a question of drug addiction or alcoholism, they'd check on that. The kids had representation in court with the power to reject custody arrangements that put the kids in a bad situation, and older kids were asked what they wanted with an expectation that this request would be followed if it was reasonable.
In other words, it was far more sane and equitable than you're making it out to be. Now, that was New Hampshire, I wouldn't be surprised if things were different in Mississippi, but don't hate on the people that are actually trying to do things the right way.
One man's view of divorce (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a more detailed view of divorce courts from a man who committed suicide outside of one:-
Last Statement by Tom Ball
A man walks up to the main door of the Keene N.H. County Courthouse, douses himself with gasoline and lights a match. And everyone wants to know why.
Apparently the old general was right. Death is not the worst of evil.
I am due in court the end of the month. The ex-wife lawyer wants me jailed for back child support. The amount ranges from $2,200. to $3,000. depending on who you ask. Not big money after being separated over ten years and unemployed for the last two. But I do owe it. If I show up for court without the money and the lawyer say jail, then the judge will have the bailiff take me into custody. There really are no surprises on how the system works once you know how it actually works. And it does not work anything like they taught you in high school history or civics class.
I could have made a phone call or two and borrowed the money. But I am done being bullied for being a man. I cannot believe these people in Washington are so stupid to think they can govern Americans with an iron fist. Twenty-five years ago, the federal government declared war on men. It is time now to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.
There are two kinds of bureaucrats you need to know; the ones that say and the ones that do. The bridge between them is something I call The Second Set of Books. I have some figures of the success of their labors. You and I are in these numbers, as well as our spouses and children. But first let me tell you how I ended up in this rabbit hole.
My story starts with the infamous slapping incident of April 2001. While putting my four year old daughter to bed, she began licking my hand. After giving her three verbal warnings I slapped her. She got a cut lip. My wife asked me to leave to calm things down.
When I returned hours later, my wife said the police were by and said I could not stay there that night. The next day the police came by my work and arrested me, booked me, and then returned me to work. Later on Peter, the parts manager, asked me if I and the old lady would be able to work this out. I told him no. I could not figure out why she had called the police. And bail condition prevented me from asking her. So I no longer trusted her judgment.
After six months of me not lifting a finger to save this marriage, she filed for divorce. Almost two years after the incident, I was talking with her on the phone. She told me that night she had called a mental health provider we had for one of the kids. Wendy, the counselor told my then wife that if she did not call the police on me, then she too would be arrested.
Suddenly, everything made sense. She is the type that believes that people in authority actually know what they are talking about. If both she and I were arrested, what would happen to our three children, ages 7,4 and 1? They would end up in State custody. So my wife called the police on her husband to protect the children. And who was she protecting the kids from? Not her husband, the father of these children. She was protecting them from the State of New Hampshire.
This country is run by idiots.
The police sergeant Freyer screwed this up from the get go. When I got the Court Complaint form the box was checked that said Domestic Violence Related. I could not believe that slapping your child was domestic violence. So I looked up the law. Minor custodial children are exempted. Apparently, 93% of American parents still spank, slap or pinch their children. To this day I still wonder if Freyer would have made this arrest if it had been the mother that had slapped the child.
Labeling someone's action as domestic violence in American in the 21st century is akin to labeling someone a Jew in Germany in the 1930's. The entire legal weight of the state is coming down on him. But I consider myself lucky. My family was destroyed. But that poor bastard in Germany
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
So true. I wrote this [kuro5hin.org] on Mon Dec 15, 2003:
Monday reared its dreary head this morning in anticipation of the pending divorce. I went to the courtroom, put my stuff in the tray, shoved my coat into the X-Ray box, and walked through the metal detector as half a dozen or more armed people stood around directing more normal, unarmed people.
I found my way to the same floor I had been on during the previous hearing, and found when asking that I was on the wrong floor.
I got to the seventh floor and found the courtroom, and sat in front of a very unattractive woman who smiled at me broadly, as to say "fuck me now!"
I shuddered, and smiled weakly back and sat down.
The hearing was at nine, and by ten after I didn't see my lawyer or the judge.
Finally a bailiff said "all rise" and the judge said "sit down". The judge then spoke to lawyers and the court reporter and somebody said something about some guy in jail.
I asked the bailiff if I was in the right courtroom. He checked with the court reporter, and I was indeed in the right place. No lawyer.
They brought a long haired, bearded prisoner wearing blue jeans and a flannel shirt from a side door. The guy had spent the last three weeks in jail over a typo!
This fellow was adamant that his child support payments were taken out of his paycheck just like the court order said.
After the court reporter and a District Attorney and some other guys in suits who I couldn't figure out talked about and mulled over a piece of paper on the judge's bench, the judge finally said "but look here, this Court Order is obviously in error."
It seems from what I could gather, not being a lawyer and all, that they were only taking half the amount from his paycheck, but the payroll slip reflected what the judge had said.
"Calm down," the judge said, "you're getting out. But if you're not here on January 15th we'll put out another bench warrant on you."
They took him out a door on the other side.
"Is there anybody here for... McGrew?"
I stood up and walked forward. Its lawyer wasn't here, either!
"Yes sir, uh, your oner. I, uh, my lawyer's not here, I think she's..."
"Ok, ok," says the judge. Who's next?
I sat back down, and some black fellow got divorced. His ex wasn't there, nor did he have a lawyer. It took five minutes.
I should have done that! Although you have to be separated for over two years before you can get divorced without your wife's permission.
My lawyer finally came in, along with Satan's lawyer. The black guy was free from slavery, and I was next!
The judge made me raise my hand and swear, although no bible was evident to swear on.
The service, marriage, divorce... I hate raising my right hand!
My lawyer asked my name, age, where I was married (the Old Cahokia Courthouse, oldest court house in or west of the Mississippi Valley) and was I sure that counseling would not make me want to change my mind.
"We tried counseling. That's when I found out about her adultery, which is in fact what our 'irreconsilable differences' are."
"Oh," the judge says.
"I have no further questions, your honor."
"No Questions," Lucifer's shyster said at the judge's nod.
And it was over. There is to be one more hearing before the first of the year, and I'll be completely single, after over a year after she left. And then speaking with my lawyer afterward- Evil X gets part of my pension! Yep, that's law. And my daughter Patty gets no child support, since Leila's living with her mother and still going to high school, even though she's 18.
The bank will be taking my house at a completely unrelated hearing tomorrow morning. They already repossessed my van (which had a broken transmission anyway).
But... freedom! Liberty! At the cost of most of everything I own, at the cost of personal bankruptcy, at the cost of about fourteen hundred bucks in legal fees IF I don't fight for custody...
I took an extra happy pill when I got back to work. It didn't work too well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
More true than you'd know, buddy.
Consider:
- Women are almost never arrested, arraigned, prosecuted, or convicted of filing false police reports - BUT
- A false police report = an arrest record, which can be used against the man in the divorce proceedings.
True story: my best friend was going out with a waitress, knocked her up... his own fault for failing to use a condom. But he manned up, did the right thing when they split up a year and a half later, filed for custody.
Judge basically told him he had NO legal rights to his kid other than visitation. He got weekends at first; then the bitch ran two states away to prevent him from even having that after he filed another motion for more rights, followed 2 months later by her filing paperwork about how, from 800 miles away, he had supposedly "not arrived for his visitation once in the past two months." Meanwhile he's got 5 motions in asking the judge to order her to return and stop interfering with his visitation rights.
Judge THEN ordered... that she move back to the city and not leave without informing the court (a) where she was going and (b) that her travel must not impact his visitation rights. She got back into town, filed a false police report, claimed he had come over and "beaten" her. Police actually did their job, examined her for bruises, took her to the ER to get checked up... not a fucking scratch or bump on her or the kid. She admitted to their faces she was lying to get him in trouble when confronted... but they couldn't haul her in ("because it would leave the kid with nobody to look after her") and the local DA refused to prosecute ("not enough evidence and we'll never get all 12 members of a jury to convict her"). So, there's a record of her CALLING IN a false police report, but no arrest and no arraignment and no conviction on her record... meanwhile my buddy spent an overnight in jail because "standard procedure" said he had to be held in a cell till they could release him after morning paperwork.
She ran off again a few months later.. and the judge REFUSED to hold her in contempt of court for violating his orders, just filed another "return or else" order.
Eventually the judge ruled to give her sole custody and my friend only "visitation rights" on a permanent basis, because the now 3-year-old kid had "a mother-child bond." Despite the fact that my friend had been fighting tooth and nail for the right to be a parent to his daughter. The only reason my buddy has custody now is that she turned over custody when she moved in with her "boyfriend" a year later, because the boyfriend didn't want to have kids in his house.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Wish I had modpoints to give - I've two friends who've gone through similar shit. Custody battles turn into more sorts of ugly, and the whole system is predisposed to believe the father is "the bad guy" even in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason my buddy has custody now is that she turned over custody when she moved in with her "boyfriend" a year later, because the boyfriend didn't want to have kids in his house.
Wow. Anyone who would give up custody of her child because her boyfriend didn't like children doesn't deserve to be a mother. I'm glad the kid is in better hands now.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Informative)
This is standard procedure internationally and is based on one flawed experiment conducted without the concent of the participants:-
See http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2686327&cid=39126951 [slashdot.org] for full details.
Re: (Score:3)
Even from your own account, I can understand why the judge wouldn't hold the mother in contempt, as well as why the DA wouldn't p
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
The Evil Bitch of a Mother-In-Law called 911 and lied immediately after she shot him three times in a planned ambush. Fortunately for him, she's as stupid as she is evil and used a crap ass
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely agree. Having recently gone through a divorce and custody battle myself it amazed me how blatantly biased the family court system is against men that have done no wrong and only want to continue to be a part of their children's lives.
Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> Oh, did I mention that since he had adopted the two kids she had from a previous marriage,
> he was paying child support for them, too?
So? An adopted child is equivalent to a biological son. Legally and ethically. The problem, in this case, is with your brother. If he resents his adopted children, then that reflects on his character and not the legal system.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am sick of the "anecdotes" bullshit. Look, if you don't believe the system is slanted to favor women then you a) don't have a penis and/or b) haven't been through a divorce. You're getting some first hand accounts...you may think the commenters are pulling your leg (hence using the word "anecdote") but I've been in similar situations with similar results and have been railroaded by the system for simply being a man. Its unfair, its bullshit. How would you examine records to see if a man or woman was t
Re: (Score:3)
the bias of man who married with their dick in mind
Lol. Oh, you think you think only the *pretty* girls turn nuts when they get divorced?
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually an interesting thought. Especially in a gay divorce dealing with children.
As a side thought...is there any precedent for a gay divorce? Now that I am thinking about it, I cannot recall ever hearing about a gay divorce, and how some of our current laws that assume a marriage is between two parties of opposing genders are interpreted...
Re: (Score:3)
Or Ohio.
Re: (Score:3)
For any given entry on that list, I've seen at least one person go through it. For many of them, multiple people (including my father).
Some places are better than others, but there are still places where women get some major favoritism.
Re: (Score:3)
Free speech experts must be single (Score:5, Funny)
Don't they know men give up the first amendment right to free speech the second they get married, if not months or years ahead of time. Particularly when the mother-in-law is in town.
Re: (Score:2)
8th Amendment (Score:2)
IANAL
Crazy (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me again how Facebook is beneficial (Score:5, Insightful)
All I seem to read about is how governments/stalkers/employers/ex spouses/what-have-you use your profile against you.
Re:Remind me again how Facebook is beneficial (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you are plugged into it, Facebook begins harvesting demographics and interaction data the way the Machines harvested BTUs and processing power.
And, much like Agent Smith assimilated the virus-like behavior that he had once disdained in humanity, Facebook has assimilated human behavior into its process for expansion, ensuring an ever growing net of data capture.
Re: (Score:3)
You could say the same thing about email.
Facebook stopped being new and exciting years ago. Its usefulness is now taken for granted. You no longer see stories about how Facebook lets you invite your friends from pottery class to your party, just like how you no longer see stories about how you can use email to easily send small files to people.
You don't even have to log in to use it, just read messages and accept invites by email.
Got it beat... (Score:5, Funny)
The machine said that I was in a fugue since my ex had slept around with a number of people and was in fact a whore. Personally, I thought this was just stating fact.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, she may have been a nymphomaniac, not a whore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Got it beat... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have evidence that she slept with someone for money, present it in court, dude. Otherwise you can't call her a whore without risking defamation etc.
You have to call her a slut instead. Sluts just don't charge for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Page gone (Score:2)
The page is gone. /.'d?
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdotted from high orbit, I guess....
Re: (Score:3)
Internet pub rant (Score:2)
For Wedded Bliss, Repeat After Me Guys... (Score:2)
You're right. I'm wrong. What can I do to make it better?
Apply to all situations, regardless of validity. Present present every 28 days, you'll learn the timing soon enough. Enjoy.
Re: (Score:3)
No, that is the formula for your wife constantly seeing you as being wrong; thus eventually developing a low or condescending feeling towards you.
If you want a happy marriage both partners need to admit when they're wrong- but also stick up for themselves when they're right. If you let your partner walk-over you- she won't respect you, and you won't be as happy as you could be.
All it takes is to be fair and honest with each other. Yes honey, your butt does look fat in those jeans- but I love you anyway.
Here is something.. (Score:2)
Re:Here is something.. (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Insincere (Score:3, Insightful)
No one can force you to BE sorry, even if they force you to apologize.
Hamilton County (Score:4, Funny)
US Gov. needs to treat women like adults (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a system that intrinsically thinks of women as sub-adults who can't possibly be responsible for their own actions. If a women gets knocked up out of wedlock, then she must've been seduced by some filthy man. So, any random guy getting any random woman pregnant is responsible for paying X% of his salary to her for 18 years. I have a friend-of-a-friend who hooked up with some random guy in a one-nighter and got pregnant. She was ~30, so should have been smarter about the situation. All she knew was his name and that he was from NY, so she got her lawyer's advice to start cold-calling and sending out letters to every same-named man they found (about 10) trying to get child support. If she was ever able to find the guy, I have no doubt he'd have had to pay her.
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
You want men to treated as kids instead? Why exactly in your example is the man NOT responsible?
Double standards I guess in favor of your own gender.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed.
Wear a bag on your mule when you are hammering strange vag.
I voluntarily apologize for the obviously chauvinist choice of words while making my point. I could have made the same point to more or less effect by writing. "Apply a prophylactic to your gentails prior to consenusal intercourse with partners unkown sexual history and/or psychological profile. "
A court mandated Apology! (Score:3)
Ah yes, few things are more sincere than a forced apology, doubly so when it is a court that has mandated the apology. That's crazy, these people aren't children.
The story is missing (slashdotted?), so I can't read exactly what he said, but I can't imagine he could say anything jailworthy. What probably got him jailed was something he said to the judge, they've got a lot of leeway about when to apply Contempt of Court.
The future of marriage (Score:4, Interesting)
It is called a restraining order. (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds very familliar to another case a few months back. The thing to remember is that the guy has a restraining order in effect that he is restrained from doing anything to cause his wife “to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance, or bodily injury.” His wife does not have to directly read the posts on the site to be harrassed or annoyed. They probably have mutual friend who could forward the posts; indirect harassment and or annoyance.
As for requiring to post an apology, there are many cases where people and companies have been ordered to publically apologize for their conduct. Such apologies need to be done in the same venue as the damage. In this case the issue was caused on Facebook and needs to be addresses on Facebook.
"Freedom of speech" has never been completely free. There have always been limits including, as in this case, court orders. The main thing to remember is that when under a restraing order follow it and shut up.
Re: (Score:3)
As with all cases intent is the key. By mearly existing the defendant is not intending to commit an action that breaks the restraining order. By posting inappropriate things on his Facebook page the intent is clear and the action plus intent is what breaks the restraining order.
This. (Score:4, Interesting)
I often lament the fact that I'm single.
This, along with the stories of all the bullshit my friends have to deal with in their relationships, makes me wonder why I lament it at all.
I should be happy I'm single and can direct my own life.
*brofist to all the other single Slashdotters*
Re: (Score:3)
No brofist here.
Marrying the right girl makes it all worth it. I've seen one or two ugly marriages; it isn't pretty, and neither is the train wreck at the end.
But looking at my grandparents (both sides) and my own mother and father, finding the right girl really does make it worth it.
Many people just don't invest the time into finding the right person, or into making it work. Is it possible that the nice girl you met in the library and have known for four years, been together for another three, and starte
My Ex wife's trick.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Divorce sucks and the courts are SO biased against men/for women that it's pathetic
Re: (Score:2)
The threats to "end" his wife's life would certainly seem to bear that out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I remarried and things are pretty darn wonderful.
Re:The apology should have read (Score:4, Funny)
... or perhaps "I'm sorry she's a bitch"?