How could one quote In The Best Interest of The Child but expects the child to make all the adapting and changes and treating a child like a possession be In the Best Interest of The Child? It was two responsible adults who created the child and it was also the adults decision to walk out of a marriage so why should the child be the one that need to change and adapt? Has the law not decided that the adults should be the one that need to be punished for their decisions?
As a mother, In the Best Interest of the Child means the adults/parents need to make all the changes. I suggested to my ex-husband many times that we should try to live as housemate (as we do not have major conflict) but of course, it seems like the most ridiculous idea to him and his lawyer or maybe to the whole Kiwi nation. But it is not that unrealistic if that means the child need not live out of a suitcase. The child gets to see both parents at all times. I know it is also not uncommon in the Asian culture to 'stay together' for the sake of the child. That is being mature and un-selfish. Why should a child suffer for an adult's selfishness?
Alternatively, I suggested we live as neighbour so again the child get to see both parents all the time and could sleep in one place call home but go over to daddy's for a play. Again, this is considered a ridiculous suggestion.
I also said to my ex-husband we should have a relax arrangement which is come and see the child as and when you could especially if you are in the area. Drop in, play with the child and if it is bath time, bath the child, feed the child. But no, in the eyes of the LAW, this is wrong. We must treat the child like an ENTITY, a POSSESSION where a fixed time, a child must be with his dad and a fixed time with the mum - called a Parental Order. This is DEFINITELY NOT in the best interest of the child. If child spends Christmas with mum this year, he must spend Christmas with Dad next year. Come on, how could someone within the consciousness says that this is in the best interest of the child. It is in the best interest of the parent so that there is fairness in CHILD TIME DISTRIBUTION.
Honestly, the law is SO flawed now that I am not surprised why there is such an increase rate of suicide and mental health amongst the younger generation. The law is so afraid of offending one parent/party that it has lost track of its 'duty'.
Could there only be ONE King Solomon in this lifetime? Could no one else think and discern like King Solomon? The true classic parable of King Solomon:
The story is recounted in 1 Kings 3:16-28. Two young women who lived in the same house and who both had an infant son came to Solomon for a judgement. One of the women claimed that the other, after accidentally smothering her own son while sleeping, had exchanged the two children to make it appear that the living child was hers. The other woman denied this and so both women claimed to be the mother of the living son and said that the dead boy belonged to the other.
After some deliberation, King Solomon called for a sword to be brought before him. He declared that there is only one fair solution: the live son must be split in two, each woman receiving half of the child. Upon hearing this terrible verdict, the boy's true mother cried out, "Please, My Lord, give her the live child—do not kill him!" However, the liar, in her bitter jealousy, exclaimed, "It shall be neither mine nor yours—divide it!" Solomon instantly gave the live baby to the real mother, realizing that the true mother's instincts were to protect her child, while the liar revealed that she did not truly love the child.
Only 3 words: FML
ReplyDelete