[julianmarq]

> the courts are very unsympathetic to any arguments outside the general consensus, almost to the point of being obtuse or jaded.

What you said after this is not any more sympathetic.

> Childhood is important but it is not a lifetime, in some ways it is better to check ones ego and just step back and wait.

This is an astonishing display of lack of empathy for the unfairly estranged parent. Not having your child in your life is one of the worst forms of torture a person should not be forced to endure.

> Support the child as ordered by the courts

The courts are, as you said, obtuse and jaded. Not to mention very often biased.

> Accept that and live your best life

You can't, when you're a good parent, you can't "live your best life" if your child was torn away from you.

> after all You don't own the child

I'm trying to be charitable here, because the HN guidelines encourage steelmanning, but comparing "wanting to have your child in your life" with "thinking you own your child" is appalling, to put it mildly. I hope this is just very, very, unfortunate phrasing, because I could find no other way to read it.

> This can be much easier on the child than witnessing constant bickering, accusations and pettiness between the parents.

Being separated from a parent can have even more dire consequences on the child. And there actually are studies on that.

> might be wrong

You argued in favor of the extremely unfair status quo of the courts and tried to suggest it could be better for the child.

[sigmaprimus]

I suppose you're right.

I have gone through this have You? If so how did it work out for You? I hope much better than me and my son.

But if You haven't gone through the courts, maybe be a bit less ritcheous.

Edit

>>> "This is an astonishing display of lack of empathy for the unfairly estranged parent. Not having your child in your life is one of the worst forms of torture a person should not be forced to endure."

What is astonishing is I am that parent, maybe all the torture made me less empathetic to myself.

Also I was not arguing in favor of the courts unfairness. Infact, I am well aware of how hard the courts can cone down on anyone who doesn't toe the line. So don't be spinning my comnent, and keep your charity, thanks.

[mbeex]

I actually voted for the comments of both of you. I think, you are not far from each other. Written language is sometimes limited :)

[sigmaprimus]

Thank you,

I could go into my particular situation, My ex was an opiod addict who ended up consuming my mother who was dying of lung cancer's medication. She constantly verbally and occasionally physically abused be, infront of our son. Then in court she had the nerve to accuse me of hitting her, which I never did. But because I was honest and admitted to using canabis (which is now legal) the courts believed her.

So yeah, I lost contact, as well as being hammered with a 100K+ maintenance bill until he turned 25, including losing my passport and drivers license when I lost my job and fell behind. Of course his mother OD'd a couple years later when I paid off what was due and he ended up being raised by the state....I guess the studies didn't include the kids like that, huh?

I read that other guts comment history and it's all aguments and belittling so what ever.

Good news I'm more upset, triggered about this than the election now!

[mixmastamyk]

Very uncharitable interpretation.