What?

The point I was trying to make was that Subrosa was getting on his high horse about DR posting potentially skewed research and statistics. With easier access to relavant (sp?) case pleadings, he should back up his statements with some facts instead of "Pssh... that guy is a biased asshole."

Yes, I understood your point the first time you posted it. My response is the same.

Why is it suddenly Subrosa's job to back up DevilsReject's claims? Shouldn't he be doing that himself? Pointing out the bias in the posted sources is perfectly fair.

no it wasn't directed at you. you're not critiquing my writing style, you're actually pointing things out to help me write a better story next time. It was directed at "others", who don't do the same.

to tell you the truth, i was actually expecting it when i submitted the story. I don't expect people to agree with everything i write. I also don't want the discussion following the article to turn in to a game of "no you're a bigger dickhead". I really don't mind constructive criticism like Subrosa is submitting, it generates conversation, and i do read the constructive ones

Like i've said, my bias runs deep against the family court system, mostly because of what i have lived. You can present all the facts in the world to me that you want, it still won't do much to make me less bitter, because in time, i am going to have another interaction with the court system, and become all that much more bitter.

There is definitely sexism presented in Family Courts, you won't change my mind about that, but there are numerous causes for it. I just think that the courts need to be objective, on a case by case point, and not just automatically assume the worst out of me as a male guardian.

i know how hard it can be for a father to get custody. my brothers ex wife, sexually molested and abused their two children, but when my brother went for custody, it was like a fight till the death. they tried to make it seem like he was a bad guy, although the kids ages 3 and 4 at the time told of what their mother did. no one wanted to believe the kids, but kids that age dont make shit like that up.

so we fought for one year for my brother to get full custody, meanwhile my mother had guardianship over the two kids. what got me angry was that they would call the mother up and give her time to clean up before a social services visit, she would get a chance to make herself seem presentable, but they never did that for my brother, they would show up at any given time

Yeah, well, I gained a lot of respect for him for seeing the flaws in the argument and going after them despite the shitstorm which can ensue when giving a non-carebear opinion about a sentiment-laced, hot-button issue.

In addition, I agree with the points previously given about whose responsibility it is to back up arguments. The onus for providing as objective and as compelling a list of sources as possible lies directly and solely with the author.

1) I'm very sure that, as a lawyer, it is not my job to make other people's arguments for them. Nor is it my job to do other people's research for them. Unless they pay me. My guess is, there is no check from Devil'sReject in the mail. (I can still hold out hope, though!)

2) Before you get all high and/or mighty about me getting high and/or mighty about suggesting better resources you might want to go back to my very first post in this thread and, you know, actually read the whole thing. Because if you did, you'd see that I did, in fact, suggest two alternate sources (even though, as I said in point the first, it is not my job to do so). I found those alternate sources by google searching "child support statistics" (or something equally secretively-lawyerly). Both hits came up on the very fist page. If one were to go to page two or (gasp!) three, I'm sure one might find more. Some of them would probably be better.

3) As Necia suggested, I don't have a password to some crazy secret lawyer database for child support statistics. To "lose respect" for me for not displaying characteristics of my profession that don't actually exist seems... strange to me. But, to each his own.

3) I never called anyone an asshole nor was snarky to DevilsReject. Methinks you've got an axe to grind from something else.

4) Please, oh please, oh PLEASE do explain what on Earth you mean by this:

Please.

Thanks for taking my comments the way they were meant to be taken.

And thanks for being self-aware enough to realize that you have an inherent bias here. It's actually quite refreshing and rare. Note, I did not try to argue against your point of view or argue that you did not have a right to feel the way you do, just presented some information and perspective to counter some parts of it.

Um, what? Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. I posted a link explaining the difference between legal vs. physical custody. You can choose to read it or not.

No, I don't think you do understand that, or you wouldn't have made such a big deal corroborating the statistic. My point has never been that the statistic is incorrect. My point was that as the author (Glenn Sacks) was using it, it distorted the issue. I then explained why it distorted the issue. If you are asking for clarification on that point, I need you to be specific as to what is unclear.

Fine, I'll repeat myself from my first post in the thread: My point, in responding to DevilsReject's source was to point out that the statistic posted was misleading. It's misleading because to say fathers only had "custody" 10% of the time may mean sole custody, it may mean sole physical but joint legal custody, it may mean joint physical and legal or it may mean something else entirely. Is a father counted in the 10% statistic if he has joint custody? We don't know. Thus, just saying "custody" in itself is meaningless. Moreover, if the statistic is being used to assert a point of view (i.e. fathers get a raw deal because they only get custody 10% of the time), it 1) fails to provide the percentage of times when women get custody, 2) fails to define "custody", as noted above, and 3) fails to take into account statistical realities of mother-father dynamics (such as the fact that absentee fathers are much, much, MUCH more common than absentee mothers).

Is that what you're getting at? If so, why would you reply to my post by corroborating the statistic? Because I never once said the statistic was incorrect. If there's something else you're getting at, you're either woefully misunderstanding my argument or you've read something into something I've said that you shouldn't have.

I'll do the best I can.

My initial posts of the data I found were to try and clear up what you found misleading and why, showing the differences in stats including "joint" and whathaveyou. I worked w/what info I had found. I'm aware of what you posted, and read it. The differences between the various forms of custody isn't the issue I'm seeing.

1 and 2 I tried to cover in my last post via the PDF I linked to and what info I found whilst slogging through it. I did so to try and give a better idea as to where the stats came from and how they were broken down, as you noted. As I said, I tried to find more current or more detailed info, and had come up short in the time I spent researching. If anyone finds more detailed stats that break it down even further (sole physical but joint legal and so on), by all means, post it. I wouldn't mind one bit finding out more, as I've already learned a lot from what reading I've done on the subject so far.

I concede #3, as not many studies are going to cover every detail. Also, it's a sad reality, indeed.

If that doesn't clear it up, we may just have to agree we're both @an impasse on what the other is trying to say and just go on our merry ways w/no ill will towards the other. I can safely assume due to law school you've more experience w/looking over pages of cases, statistics and such than I. My issue was not w/what you were saying, but how.

That's the Internet for you. Makes it harder sometimes to interpret people's opinions properly.

-TM

the real question is, when is subrosa going to do the right thing and pay my rent?

What I mean is, instead of shitting on him for using biased sources, perhaps you could have either:
(a) stayed out of the discussion
(b) contributed in a positive manor.

Tell me... are any of these comments positive?

Yes, these are all taken out of context, but in light of this whole exchange between us, who really gives a fuck?


Here is a little reading in relation to your first post. Probably mine as well.

Seriously, for the very. last. time. You're completely missing my point. Like, spectacularly. I've posted it a bunch of times, you say you're reading it, but you are clearly not understanding it. I don't care that the statistic can be fleshed out. I don't care if its accurate or inaccurate. I don't care that you found some other PDF that helps see where they got that 10%. (Note, the study that you posted did not include Ohio statistics. The initial post by Glenn Sacks said it was a study of Ohio. So while the statistics may be similar, they aren't the same. Not that this matters in the slightest, because it doesn't.)

My point, ONCE AGAIN, was 1) that the original author (Sacks), while presenting that information, did so in a way that was misleading, and 2) that was evidence of the original author's bias. That's it. If you have something that addresses that point, please, by all means, let me know. But nothing (NOTHING!) you've posted so far comes even close. Pointing out that the statistic might be correct does not, in any way, address that point. Pointing out that the statistic might be accurate if you add all this other information actually proves MY point, because it shows that (wait for it... wait for it...) additional information is needed in order to clarify his point. Thus, it's a misleading statistic as presented by the original author.

I really don't know how much clearer I can be.