Well, this column was only started at the tail end of year 2011. However, it only takes one or two celebrity news events that took place during that tail end to highlight key aspects of what this column intends to illuminate. Two of those "whats" are contained in statements made by Mindy McCready in her 20/20 interview, by Andrea Canning, on McCready's supposed parental abduction of her 5-year-old son, Zander, from his legal guardian who is also his maternal grandmother. We can come back to this, though, after digressing to a point a little earlier in the year involving Charlie Sheen, his ex-wife, and custody over their fraternal twin sons.
It is wonderful that the two of them demonstrated civility for the purpose of being able to partner in continued co-parenting. They are a role model for ex-spouse pairs for which at least one member is absolutely wacky. The ex-Mrs. could have held to a position that because of his antics with multiple "goddesses" with whom he had a lifestyle of co-habitating, plus many other things, that he was forever unfit --all for the purpose of going for a permanent shut-out of Sheen from their sons' lives. He probably could have held a number of things against her as well although her indiscretions were either not nearly as flagrant as his or just not as flagrantly publicized, or both. However, it seems that, in the media, Sheen often complimented his ex on her mothering. Please keep that going, Charlie. All the other stuff aside for a nano-second, that kind of maturity is attractive in a positive way.
Anyhow, there are many people who would rather be fighting the other parent over their children in court than to be fighting a non-parent. That is because many people who can put "subjectives" aside such as differences in lifestyles or parenting styles, would be trying to give that other parent a good portion of the child's time that they're fighting to get, anyway. Those who won't because they are still hung up either on those kinds of differences or on "who cheated", etc., are missing the whole other comparative ball of wax. --If only they could be tossed into the ring or the gladiator colloseum --a.k.a. so-called family court-- with a non-parent. --Including, as in the case with Mindy McCready, a non-immediate parent such as a grandparent.
McCready said two important things which incidentally surround other central themes which will be discussed throughout the life of this column. One thing she said, essentially, was that she would not accept being deemed a kidnapper of her own child who she gave birth to alone and whose safety, security, and well-being she was acting on behalf of. The second thing McCready mentioned was that despite her doing everything that the state had asked her to do --she received absolutely no credit toward consideration for having custody of her son returned to her. These statements are only two of many which form a reactive sentiment toward how today's child control laws exist. All the sentiments collectively and the negative child custody court experiences they stem from are the basis of why there are citizens who want to protest against family law.
The media may have blown the dog custody situation with Playboy Hugh Hefner and his ex-fiance out of proportion or at least they were a little hasty. It seems that Hefner has reported that the ex-fiance did go ahead and return their dog to him. If that didn't happen soon, though, then child custody laws would have been consulted. If such laws had been consulted, then, all depending upon the outcome of such a case, it may have underscored a key observation that might be manifest by either the middle or end of this column's life: There are more laws that are direct, explicit, and sympathetic to protecting American parents from having their money or pet stolen than from having their children stolen.
Comments