"When producing without a car becomes impossible, equally becomes a productive life."
The subject of many of my thoughts recently have turned around this topic. I have come to realize how true it is that society is cruelly calculated to deny mobility alternatives.
Why does the court system even consider allowing one of the child's parents to move more than an hour's reach away while still trying to attempt a shared physical custody of said child? Even worse is when one parent doesn't have a vehicle and there is no such public transportation to said place to be able to access the child in his or her other environment. I can't even begin to understand how this is positive for a child?
Imagine if you will, a 5 hour drive to drop off a child to your co-parenting partner and getting back home to your own life. How do they even expect said parent to spend any time with these children without being in a car?
In my opinion, the children in the backseat are just as deprived as the driver. Being transported everywhere these kids will eventually loose independence. While being dominated by road boredom, the television and video games call. Do the courts really consider this to be ok? I can't believe people of the court system are promoting socialism and learning in one breath, then are promoting a DVD player in the vehicle in the next. These parents could spend more time playing with their children, or hell, get them involved in a science group if they didn't have to spend 5 hours in one day driving to pick up their kids because one parent wants to go live in the rolling hills somewhere. In fact - in a situation like that - the children are the biggest losers.
Welcome to the life strangled by the umbilical cord of the car while hearing the love song of freedom, although, that is hardly being free.