We don’t. Nor do we know whether the mother was a crack whore, who was given custody by default, or not. I never claimed what the father did was right, I simply claimed that if he thought he was getting fucked over by the family courts, running off with the kids, from his viewpoint, is probably the better option than the other two bullshit options even sven proposed.
I’m not on his side. I pointed out that if the choice is to be made between the choices presented by even sven, then running off with the kids is probably his best option, from his viewpoint.
Is the primary child caregiver the one who works to keep a roof over the child’s head and keep the child free from starvation?
No, it is the person who directly takes care of the kids needs. When I was growing up, my father worked and my mother was a stay-at-home mom. My Dad was gone either at the office or traveling almost constantly and I only saw him a few hours a week and my mom took care of the us kids. He may have been the primary breadwinner and is a good and loving father, but my Mom was definitely the primary caregiver to us kids.
I work and my wife is a SAHM. I do a lot with my daughter, love her to pieces and bring home the money, but my Wife is the primary caregiver to our daughter.
Bringing home the money is not the end-all and be-all of caring for the child.
Right, but taking care of the kids day-to-day isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of raising a child, either. There still has to be a source of income coming in to keep the child off the streets, educated and well-fed, yet only one of these is reflected in law (in most western countries). The “primary caregiver” definition is just a legal fig leaf for an essentially sexist policy. The definition was made in full knowledge that the overwhelming number of marriages where one spouse works are set up so that the man works, whilst the woman stays at home. So of course the 84% figure is going to accord with the number of women who are SAHM, but that completely ignores the question of whether the definition of “primary caregiver” you’ve just given is a suitable and fair definition in the first place.
Since I did not say that, do me the favor of not saying that I said that.
Having said that – I will guaran GD tee you that if my kids were really and truly “stolen” from me (to use the chattel motif many here seem to like), and I had my game together, was not off on lifestyle frolics and detours of my own, etc., and the kids were in an Orlando suburb under their own name – no, this would not have gone on for fifteen years. Fifteen minutes, sure. Fifteen days, maybe. Not much longer, on these facts.
If best option = most selfish option without regard to the clusterfuck he is setting up for his kids to inevitably have to deal with for the rest of their lives, then yep.
I’m sure the parents of all those children that have been kidnapped over the years would have a bone to pick with you, as you seem to think that most of them weren’t sincere in their grief and desperation.
When a childless woman kidnaps a strange baby to raise as her own, it’s probably the best choice from her viewpoint.. When a man in desperate financial trouble sets fire to his own warehouse, it’s probably the best choice from his viewpoint. When a person embezzles money to send their kids to college, it’s probably the best choice from their viewpoint, but who the fuck cares? It doesn’t mitigate their wrongdoing.
No, he “kidnapped” them. Do a survey of your friends and co-workers (no, really, do). 90% of them, when you ask them what a “kidnapping” is, will make no mention of a custodial dispute gone wrong, or a custodial visit overstayed by two hours (technically and legally, a “kidnapping!!!”). 90% (much more, but I’ll settle for 90%) will have in mind, and will mention, an Adam Walsh scenario – stranger abduction. I remember first being disillusioned with those milk cartons when I learned that the great majority were custodial disputes and saying – “WTF should I care about someone else’s f’d up custodial arrangements?”
English is the language as used by English-speakers.
And kidnapping is a legal term that doesn’t contain parentheses. I can guarantee you that when this goes to court, neither the prosecutor or the kidnapper’s lawyer will be doing that “quote” thing with their fingers when the word is spoken, and you certainly won’t find it in quote marks in any of the paperwork.
Shows how much you’ve been in court. If defense counsel’s opening statement contains the word “kidnap,” or begins with anything other than the following, I would be astonished: