Rating: 
Summary: Buy 3, give one to your attorney and one to a judge!
Review: Our society craves for equal treatment regardless of gender, race, religion, etc... But any father that has been divorced in recent years has found out that equal treatment is only a myth. Sure, there are cases where women have been beaten, abused and abandend, and there should be guidelines that protect those women IF that is the case. But for a loving, caring responsible father with no history of abusive behavior to be disadvantaged because of those bad apples is just plain discrimination. Unfortunately, our children, who should be least impacted by the divorce become the most. They become alienated at the behest of our current judicial system. This book suggests that the court system put the childrens well being well above EITHER parents and offers equitable solutions to consider. As a divorced father of 3 wonderful children, I would consider this book mandatory reading to any father going through a divorce, as well as any attorney dedicated to doing the right thing for our divorced families. If I were able to go back in time, I would have asked my attorney to read this book and comment on it BEFORE I would consider to have him represent me. I found the book easy to read and practicle. I especially like the authors suggestions on difusing an argumentive and vindictive spouse. As the author wrote, "An eye for an eye, and we ALL go blind". Try professional counceling and stay married if you can, but if that isn't possible, buy his book
Rating: 
Summary: Advice Legit - Author (Hmmm)...
Review: The advice this book offers has some points, but a word of caution: Lawyers are in business to MAKE MONEY. I personally find it over-promising, and somewhat confusing, for anyone to call themselves a "father's rights" attorney, (which sounds very wholesome and innocent), when divorce and custody proceedings, and most lawyers in general are NOT. As such, it is difficult to recommend the book or the author in navigating such highly personal and intrusive matters. As many parents find out after the courts have destroyed their relationships with their children, the right of a parent is fundamental [liberty] interest which should not require a person to go through a lengthy, costly, or intrusive legal battle to protect a God-given right, if there is no finding of 'parental unfitness' on one or both sides, which is irrelevant anyway if a child is NOT in any immediate danger, or if neglect is not real. The contrast is that many parents end up being hard pressed to find ANY lawyer that would make such arguments, in Leving's jurisdiction or anywhere else. The concept of a "father's rights" attorney to me is what is truly a "suspect classification", just as a "Biker's rights" attorney, or a "Gay Baby Seal's Rights" attorney, etc. Color it anyway you want--at the end of the day they're still Lawyers, most of whom will clean you out without a thought as to the outcome for you, your children, or your case, and do not deserve any special affection or attention beyond that of a used car salesman, or a pan-handler. You have to scrutinize them and show up at EVERY court hearing. Parents are "lawyer bait" if they do not know the ropes, or how lawyers often separate divorcing parents from their children [and their money] under the guise of "helping" to protect their rights--as if they have the power from God almighty to protect you, [which they do not, regardless of what you see on TV]. Getting this type of advice purely from a lawyer would be like going to a auto mechanic to ask if they should replace your engine. It's not hard to figure out how quickly the fool and his money will be parted. Do your homework and get solid referrals from multiple sources of people who've worked with lawyers and find someone with a good track record if you absolutely must hire one. Don't be fooled by Snakeoil Salesmen. Most lawyers do NOT want clients to bring up fundamental rights or use of "strict scrutiny" in unlawful removal of parental rights, which is what typically happens in our trial and appellate courts, because it would in part hurt the divorce industry, regardless of the "best interests of the child" statute. At the same time, if you show-up without a lawyer, you might as well hang a sign on your back that says "kick me". It's a "members' only" club, it's about lawyers helping lawyers, [not children or parents]. Regardless of the outcome, THERE ARE NO WINNERS unless or until you can make peace. If you can't do that--then get connected with your elected officials and national advocacy groups that are working to protect children and parents.
Rating:
Summary: By far the BEST book I ever read on Fathers' Rights.
Review: The author of the book, Jeffery Leving, is a well-known divorce lawyer in the Chicago-area, solely because of his commercials shown between Jenny Jones-esque talk shows. Because of the shady credibility that I associate with these lawyers, I wasn't sure what to expect from Leving's book. I can only really say one thing about this book - WOW! Not only is Leving a great writer, but I believe his advice will be truly valuable. (My husband will be fighting his ex-wife for custody in the coming months.) His advice includes what to look for when choosing a lawyer, ways to deal with the "ex", how to respond to interviews by court officials and "experts", and helping your child(ren) through the whole ordeal. I must have highlighted half of the book while reading it! Finally, although Leving makes note of the gender bias in the domestic court system, he does not focus on the issue. That is, where other books whine excessively about the bias problem, Father's Rights addresses gender bias in the courts but then moves on to bigger and more important issues. This is definitely a must-read for any father who sees a custody battle in his future.
Rating:
Summary: WOW! - this book is great!
Review: The author of the book, Jeffery Leving, is a well-known divorce lawyer in the Chicago-area, solely because of his commercials shown between Jenny Jones-esque talk shows. Because of the shady credibility that I associate with these lawyers, I wasn't sure what to expect from Leving's book. I can only really say one thing about this book - WOW! Not only is Leving a great writer, but I believe his advice will be truly valuable. (My husband will be fighting his ex-wife for custody in the coming months.) His advice includes what to look for when choosing a lawyer, ways to deal with the "ex", how to respond to interviews by court officials and "experts", and helping your child(ren) through the whole ordeal. I must have highlighted half of the book while reading it! Finally, although Leving makes note of the gender bias in the domestic court system, he does not focus on the issue. That is, where other books whine excessively about the bias problem, Father's Rights addresses gender bias in the courts but then moves on to bigger and more important issues. This is definitely a must-read for any father who sees a custody battle in his future.
Rating:
Summary: A Survival Guide for All Father's
Review: The fight to preserve a place in your children's lives can be one of the most psychologically, emotionally, and financially challenging experiences any male may face in a lifetime; however, there is a survival guide - Father's Rights by Jeffery Leving, et al. I recently faced a tremendous challenge to my parental rights in Texas and found this to be my sole guide. It walked me through some of the rougher realities of my fight and eventual court hearing. The advice is very practical and the insight of how the system works is invaluable. The case studies illuminated what can go wrong and let the reader prepare accordingly if necessary. I would absolutely agree in repeating to other fathers that if you're going through a divorce with children, having trouble with a vindictive ex-wife even after the divorce is over, or in a fight to preserve your fatherhood, then don't miss this resource - your children may depend on it. The bottom line - If you find yourself in this position, then this book must be at your side and at your attorney's side. Thanks to J. Leving
Rating: 
Summary: Correct Title: Attorney's Rights
Review: The focus of this book is how to be a good client and identify a good attorney and be responsive to their needs. Unfortunately, most divorced dads after a period of time, do not have the funds for an attorney so we buy books to educate ourselves. Nothing is mentioned about the male who represents themselve in court. How self-serving for an attorney to market himself as the only option. Fortunately, fathers are becoming more aggressive in the protection of their rights. Robert Seidenberg in his book The Father's Emergency Guide gives a divorced dad a better understanding as to what he is up against. Forget about the traditional male role and focus on staying in your children's lives rather than trying to save a marriage. Your ex-wife has plans, you need to have yours as well!
Rating: 
Summary: Don't Buy This Book...Self Promoting
Review: There are many useful books on this site to read and study concerning a Father's Rights. Check them out and read each review carefully. It is too easy to get burned. Choose advice carefully and perform your due diligence. Don't be fooled. Do your research carefully and look for recommendations from people who have received proven results. Author has done good work in the state of Illinois bringing attention to Fathers' Rights but his radio ad's for a brochure are pure marketing gimmic.
Rating: 
Summary: a great gret help better than the other ones
Review: this book helped me tremendously it is concise and well sritten and factual. I founf thingd out inthis book i may never have known at all. It helped me prepare my case really well.
Rating:
Summary: The main problem is that the book wants you in court
Review: This book would have been better if it had been called "If You're a Dad, Stay Out of Court If You Can." With the increase in divorce and changes in way men want to be spend time with their kids as fathers, it's predictable that the number of custody cases will also rise. But little has changed in terms of gender bias. The mother still typically gets the kids, especially if they are young. After my ex took our daughter out of state when our daughter was two and remarried (her third husband), she thought I should disappear and made visitations increasingly difficult. After five years of this, I went to court thinking I could get better visitations, and, at the least, peace of mind by having he the agreement redone. Although I don't regret going to court because my ex was forced to abide by a clearer agreement, I ended up paying more in child support even though my ex made twice what I did at the time, about 15k to my attorney, and had LESS time with my daughter. (I have a Ph.D., a full time job as a prof, no criminal record, no substance abuse, etc., and I had joint custody when my ex left the state. Even though my ex taught one class a semester as a prof, she had our daughter in full time daycare, and even though she described her new husband as "abusive" both to her and to our daughter, the shrink didn't care.) In my state, the court appoints a "guardian ad litem," a shrink who reports to the court. His or her decision is basically final. You can't take hoim to court and examine him. What happens in cases of conflict, I learned later, is that the shrink always shortens the visitations. So if you are not the custodial parent and a man, the deck is really stacked against you. Thus, I would say that if you can manage to negotiate with your ex out of court, by all means do so. Go to court ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. I had a very good attorney. But there was no way I could win. Moreover, the shrink made a new recommendation each year for the whole coming year, so that cost another 500 each year. The good thing is that it was all worth it in terms of the visitations being made more exact. (In our initial agreement, only th enumber of vistations was agreed to, not their length or their dates.) As my daughter has gotten older, she has begun to see for herself just how how unreasonable my ex is (I decided it was best to let her figure things out for herself rather than comment on them to her). I remarried happily when my daughter was eight, and my wife and I have a two year old son, who my daughter loves. So things have worked out, especially for my daughter and me, but also for her and my new wife, and for my wife and me, because we don't have to communicate with my ex (except about pick ups and drop-offs). In some ways, the court system is a terrible racket. The courts pass the buck to the shrinks, and the shrinks pass the buck right back to the court. Everyone claims to be acting in the "best interest of the child," but that is just empty rhetoric. So stay out of court, if you can. Present yourself as calm and reasonable if you do go to court, and do not correspond by email with your ex. Also, make sure you research the shrinks. Some of them are very conservative about visitations, others are much more reasonable. And use that "best interest of the child" rhetoric too. Never talk about your own needs. They don't count. Somehow, the idea that a child would benefit from having her father be financially stable and emotionally happy is not an idea that shrinks or the courts care apparently about. Don't talk much about yourself unless asked. Don't talk about your ex, and don't express any anger aout her. Do talk about how much you love your daughter. Cry. Get very emotional about ho wmuch you miss her, how you ar concerned about her. And if you do to court, get an agreement that spells everything out in advance--exact dates, etc, for as long in advance as you can. That cuts down on any need to interact with ex. And of course, never talk to your kids about any conflict over the visitations, even if your ex is, and don't talk to them about your ex either, even if she is the ex from hell. Shield them from the conflict as much as you can.
Rating:
Summary: The main problem is that the book wants you in court
Review: This book would have been better if it had been called "If You're a Dad, Stay Out of Court If You Can." With the increase in divorce and changes in way men want to be spend time with their kids as fathers, it's predictable that the number of custody cases will also rise. But little has changed in terms of gender bias. The mother still typically gets the kids, especially if they are young. After my ex took our daughter out of state when our daughter was two and remarried (her third husband), she thought I should disappear and made visitations increasingly difficult. After five years of this, I went to court thinking I could get better visitations, and, at the least, peace of mind by having he the agreement redone. Although I don't regret going to court because my ex was forced to abide by a clearer agreement, I ended up paying more in child support even though my ex made twice what I did at the time, about 15k to my attorney, and had LESS time with my daughter. (I have a Ph.D., a full time job as a prof, no criminal record, no substance abuse, etc., and I had joint custody when my ex left the state. Even though my ex taught one class a semester as a prof, she had our daughter in full time daycare, and even though she described her new husband as "abusive" both to her and to our daughter, the shrink didn't care.) In my state, the court appoints a "guardian ad litem," a shrink who reports to the court. His or her decision is basically final. You can't take hoim to court and examine him. What happens in cases of conflict, I learned later, is that the shrink always shortens the visitations. So if you are not the custodial parent and a man, the deck is really stacked against you. Thus, I would say that if you can manage to negotiate with your ex out of court, by all means do so. Go to court ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. I had a very good attorney. But there was no way I could win. Moreover, the shrink made a new recommendation each year for the whole coming year, so that cost another 500 each year. The good thing is that it was all worth it in terms of the visitations being made more exact. (In our initial agreement, only th enumber of vistations was agreed to, not their length or their dates.) As my daughter has gotten older, she has begun to see for herself just how how unreasonable my ex is (I decided it was best to let her figure things out for herself rather than comment on them to her). I remarried happily when my daughter was eight, and my wife and I have a two year old son, who my daughter loves. So things have worked out, especially for my daughter and me, but also for her and my new wife, and for my wife and me, because we don't have to communicate with my ex (except about pick ups and drop-offs). In some ways, the court system is a terrible racket. The courts pass the buck to the shrinks, and the shrinks pass the buck right back to the court. Everyone claims to be acting in the "best interest of the child," but that is just empty rhetoric. So stay out of court, if you can. Present yourself as calm and reasonable if you do go to court, and do not correspond by email with your ex. Also, make sure you research the shrinks. Some of them are very conservative about visitations, others are much more reasonable. And use that "best interest of the child" rhetoric too. Never talk about your own needs. They don't count. Somehow, the idea that a child would benefit from having her father be financially stable and emotionally happy is not an idea that shrinks or the courts care apparently about. Don't talk much about yourself unless asked. Don't talk about your ex, and don't express any anger aout her. Do talk about how much you love your daughter. Cry. Get very emotional about ho wmuch you miss her, how you ar concerned about her. And if you do to court, get an agreement that spells everything out in advance--exact dates, etc, for as long in advance as you can. That cuts down on any need to interact with ex. And of course, never talk to your kids about any conflict over the visitations, even if your ex is, and don't talk to them about your ex either, even if she is the ex from hell. Shield them from the conflict as much as you can.
|
