Double Standard?

[blackice]

So let's see the woman and the man have sex mutually agreed upon. She is pregnant and has two choices. He has none... I'm with Imran Siddiqui all the way on this one.

Some points the courts do not decide what is in the best interest of the child on the greater average. If they did they would not deprive the child of the biological father or reduce his role to that of a visiting uncle. I may add an uncle that pays to visit with the child if he visits at all.

To continue this if he is paying child support he should have equal access and equal time with his child. He should also have equal rights on the raising of the child. He should also have equal say in how the money is spend on the child. This equality is missing in the court environment and the decision making process.

The end result is the courts and or the mother harms the child by the absence of rights for the biological father. How can this be even close to looking out for the rights of the child? It would seem the rights of the child are being ignored from the onset, decision-making and court environment…

Conversely if each parent had equal rights they would both be single parents and the need for child support would be negated. Of course the child support industry would die. I am sure the people involved would find another line of work...politics maybe, as they seem to have a lot in common…

I read an article recently where a sperm donor was ordered to pay child support...Involved was a two-woman marriage...

[Caligastia]

You have to have a double standard because men and women are fundimentally different. Despite the marxist thinking that declares "we are all equal", the fact is we are not. Everyone is different, and you cant get much more different than a man and a woman. In the case of an accidental pregnancy BOTH the man and the woman are responsible for it and BOTH have to deal with it in their own way. The man has to be prepared to support the child, and the woman has to decide whether she wants the child at all.

There is no way for the situation to be completely fair for both because if the woman gets an abortion then the man gets off () scot-free, while the woman has to deal with the emotional and physical trauma of having an abortion.

I agree with the laws as they are, because in the end I want whats best for the child. It may not be completely fair for the man, but its better than having both the woman and the child suffer.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I agree with the laws as they are, because in the end I want whats best for the child. It may not be completely fair for the man, but its better than having both the woman and the child suffer.

This is a very good point. Probably the most important, and will make me re-think my position on this.

[blackice]

There is no way for the situation to be completely fair for both because if the woman gets an abortion then the man gets off () scot-free, while the woman has to deal with the emotional and physical trauma of having an abortion.

I don't mean to be rude but you assume "men" don't feel the loss that is odd to say the least. It seems you assume a lot about gender issues and that too is wrong. Words like "scot-free" sum that up...

I agree with the laws as they are, because in the end I want what’s best for the child.

Depriving a child of life or of their biologic father is wrong. It is clearly not in the best interest of the child I disagree with your thoughts entirely. Too many children wake up to find "dad" is no longer in their lives. This is good? Why? Try to explain to a 5 year-old that loves their dad why they can not see him anymore…

It may not be completely fair for the man, but its better than having both the woman and the child suffer.

You obviously have a scenario in mind share it. Besides the fact you "claim" only the "woman" and "child" suffer it is clear that your thoughts only encompass abuse to these people at the hands of a man...why?

You have two adults that with time and counseling the "child" should become the first and foremost fact. A child without one or the other biological parent is half a child. Taking out the “money” driven “adversarial” court system and using other means which are truly in the best interest of the children is the only way.

Each parent has a lot to offer in the up bringing of the child for emotional etc. balance as a "whole" person. Studies in the field are proving this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The end result is your "ideal" answer is but half of the equation and the "end result" is the child suffers.

You make statements to the "child's best interest" yet you talk of the "woman and the child" Not of the child's best interest, or the father why?
It would appear; to you a father is simply a “donor” with nothing but sperm and money to offer….

[blackice]

Part #2

Joint v. Alternating Custody Analysis

One of Childs Best Interest's most substantial effects has been educating the legal community and public on constitutional law as it applies to parents, which have resulted in real improvements.

In the case Cranston v. Combs a parent v. parent custody case, a Tennessee trial judge said; "And it's that failure to recognize his equal rights as father to have a relationship with these children. That's the problem." There it was acknowledged by the trial judge fathers have equal rights, which by definition means moms do too.

In the case Poore v. Poore a parent v. third party custody case, theappellate justices wrote; "A biological parent's interest in the care, custody, and control of his or her child is among the oldest of the judicially recognized fundamental liberty interests. It is protected not only by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also by Tenn. Const. art. I, § 8. Accordingly, biological parents have a constitutionally protected interest in raising their children free from unwarranted state intervention." This statement directly applies to parent v. parent custody cases also, and could be written word for word into one.

A little analysis of Poore will help us understand what's happening. There a trial judge had given custody to a man who while married to the mother at the child's inception, was not the father. The appellate court reversed this,
WHEN THE MOTHER INVOKED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PARENT HER CHILD.

That was a proper outcome, and what might happen next is the man who lost custody may have to financially support a child that he has no rights to and isn't his. While that is unfair to him, he has no fundamental right to keep his money, and his only recourse is legislative change in the state legislature.

But this is not true with our children, because those do contain fundamental rights. But these only kick in when they are invoked. Previously it was explained how if a parent didn't assert their rights at trial, they were waived. This isn't exactly correct because parental rights are inherent, and not waivable by simply failing to assert them. In post-trial actions they can be invoked.

What happens in all parent v. parent custody cases is the parents aren't waiving their rights, THEY VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT THEM TO THE JUDGE TO BE REAPPORTIONED. The attorneys are unaware or simply failing to inform their clients that they don't have to do this, but can invoke constitutional protections and state that they are not submitting their rights to the judge
to dole out as he or she wishes. If parents do that a special process kicks which places very tight restrictions on the judge from ordering any limits on parenting at all. But the key is, parents must first invoke their rights and tell the judge they are not submitting the issue of custody to the
state.

Today this would generate a backlash from most attorneys and trial judges, but that is only because this is an evolving area of law most are not yet familiar with. Also other legal professionals will fiercely oppose ceasing the practice of pitting parents against each other, because this generates income for attorneys and social workers, and is a source of power for judges.

When parents assert their rights in a parent v. parent custody case, and the state follows the proper procedure, the outcome will probably be an equal and alternating primary residential schedule. This would meet the due
process requirement of minimal intrusion into their relationships, and the equal protection one that parents be treated equally.

Joint custody laws do not pass constitutional muster, as they are neither the least intrusive remedy, nor do they result in an equal outcome for parents. These laws allow for parents to battle over who will be the permanent primary residential parent, and receive the corresponding financial and social benefits. Once shared parenting activists understand the constitutional and practical differences between an alternating primary residential law and a joint custody one, if they continue to support joint custody this places a spotlight on their motives.

If they consider joint custody to be a stepping stone to alternating custody, that may be a good strategy depending upon the circumstances in a particular state. If they consider it an end result, then they haven't grasped the critical differences between it and alternating custody, or they are intentionally derailing reform.

Daniel Lee
CBI President
ACFC Associate Director
CRC Member

http://childsbestinterest.org

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by blackice

Depriving a child of life or of their biologic father is wrong. It is clearly not in the best interest of the child I disagree with your thoughts entirely. Too many children wake up to find "dad" is no longer in their lives. This is good? Why? Try to explain to a 5 year-old that loves their dad why they can not see him anymore…

If the father isn't around the child, it is probably his fault. Rarely will a court forbid visitation rights, indeed, the right of visitation of the noncustodial parent is generally considered to be constitutionally grounded.

Originally posted by blackice
Taking out the “money” driven “adversarial” court system and using other means which are truly in the best interest of the children is the only way.

I'm curious as to how you are supposed to decide who gets primary custody of the child without an adversarial system. Don't you have to weigh the benefits of each against the other? Isn't this an inherently adversarial system?

[blackice]

Visitation rights

A far cry from “PARENTING RIGHTS” heh I can visit my child but have no rights nor does the child…This is in the best interest of the child…Tell that to the five-year-old…

If the father isn't around the child, it is probably his fault

? Aha the father is to blame… I see…

I'm curious as to how you are supposed to decide who gets primary custody of the child without an adversarial system. Don't you have to weigh the benefits of each against the other? Isn't this an inherently adversarial system?

Why do you need “primary custody”? Seems to me that a child needs both “PRIMARY” parents. Again where is the “CHILD” in the equation? Why do you have to weigh the benefits of each against the other? The child is biologically both…Seems to me the child would benefit from both “for better or worst”. I see a lot of the “parents” none of the child why?

Now “adversarial” all people go through the feelings of loss, regret, pain, anger, revenge…etc. when a break up occurs it is human nature.

The “adversarial court system enhances and aggravates this to the maximum of profits. The alternative would be to hire a go between for the parents. It is being done to great success. This person hired for less than the “court system” smoothes the way for proper parenting. They smooth the rough times and it allows the parents time to get over it. The end result with a good go between is the “child comes first” mentality. The children win the money is saved and the “adversarial” is put to rest. Child wins all round two parents…

[asleepathewheel]

I don't know the person who composed this "treatise" but he needs to do a bit more research.

Originally posted by blackice
In the case Cranston v. Combs a parent v. parent custody case, a Tennessee trial judge said; "And it's that failure to recognize his equal rights as father to have a relationship with these children. That's the problem." There it was acknowledged by the trial judge fathers have equal rights, which by definition means moms do too.

this is great stuff, but what he doesn't say is that the trial court was reversed by the appellate court. The appellate court evidently didn't find the argument of the father to be very convincing.

I don't think that anyone is saying that a father does not have the right to have a relationship with his child. A relationship does not necessarily equal joint visitation (or whatever you want).

Originally posted by blackice
In the case Poore v. Poore...

What's ironic about this case is that the father is given primary custody of the two biological children. But I thought this was about joint custody? Seems the author only cares about the father's rights. Shouldn't he be arguing joint custody, or alternating custody for the mother? Talk about a double standard!

Originally posted by blackice
A little analysis of Poore will help us understand what's happening. There a trial judge had given custody to a man who while married to the mother at the child's inception, was not the father. The appellate court reversed this,
WHEN THE MOTHER INVOKED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PARENT HER CHILD.

First of all, it was vacated and remanded for further proceedings on the issue, because the trial court applied the wrong standard to the case, (quite different than just being reversed) so the father may end up with the child (this is a Feb. 2002 case, so quite recent) depending on the harm to the child. Second of all, is it suprising that the biological parent would get custody of a child over a legal stranger? I hope not, though this issue is somewhat murky at this point.

Originally posted by blackice
it was explained how if a parent didn't assert their rights at trial, they were waived. This isn't exactly correct because parental rights are inherent, and not waivable by simply failing to assert them.

You CAN waive parental rights by not asserting them. This mostly occurs in adoption cases. Check out the putative father registries. They are in most states. They require suspected out-of-wedlock fathers to register within a certain time period. some states, its like 24 hrs, my state, Missouri doesn't have a definitive date, though its most likely within a few weeks of birth. If the father doesn't register, the child can be adopted without his consent. What can the father do to overcome this presumption?

"If he grasps that opportunity [to develop a relationship with his child] and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development. If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie."
Lehr v. Robertson, 103 S.Ct. 2985, 2993 1983), (sorry to use case law.)

Originally posted by blackice
What happens in all parent v. parent custody cases is the parents aren't waiving their rights, THEY VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT THEM TO THE JUDGE TO BE REAPPORTIONED.

The parents can come to a custody agreement, which, while the judge is not bound to follow, generally will. If there is disagreement, who should decide what should be done? A mediator? FWIW, I'm a trained mediator in the state of Missouri, and I have seen such mediations, and they can be very difficult, even for an exellent mediator to handle appropriately.

Originally posted by blackice
are not submitting their rights to the judge to dole out as he or she wishes. .

the use of hyperbole here really weakens the argument. The cases you cited above refer to the appellate process, which would indicate that this is an exaggeration. If the trial judge's ruling is unfounded, it will probably be overturned.

Originally posted by blackice
If parents do that a special process kicks which places very tight restrictions on the judge from ordering any limits on parenting at all. But the key is, parents must first invoke their rights and tell the judge they are not submitting the issue of custody to the
state.

A "special process"? Nice and vague. Not sure what is meant by that, what do you mean? Mediation? Again, the parents don't have to submit this issue to the state, since the judge will almost always agree to their custody agreement.

Originally posted by blackice ]
When parents assert their rights in a parent v. parent custody case, and the state follows the proper procedure, the outcome will probably be an equal and alternating primary residential schedule.

So I get johnny for 6 months, then he lives with his mother for 6 months? So what about school, if in different districts? what about his friends? what about little league? What if I or my ex want to move out of town or state? How is being shuffled around like that what's best for the child? Why can't i (or she) see him on vacations for a few weeks a year and on every other weekend?

Originally posted by blackice
Joint custody laws do not pass constitutional muster, as they are neither the least intrusive remedy, nor do they result in an equal outcome for parents.

Joint custody laws do not pass constitutional muster? Under what constitution? Under the US constitution they are quite acceptable. Can you show me a case to prove otherwise?


This post has gone on long enough. I enjoyed the sparring.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by blackice

Visitation rights

A far cry from “PARENTING RIGHTS” heh I can visit my child but have no rights nor does the child…This is in the best interest of the child…Tell that to the five-year-old…

Why do you equate visitation with no rights? When I was a six year old kid, (when my parents got divorced) did I want to see my father? Hell yes I did. And did I? yes, every other weekend, as much as he could possibly see me. Would I like to have been shuttled between his house and mine (about 2 hrs away) every other month, so that I wold miss my friends? Of course not. visitation was ok for me, I can't imagine this alternating custody thing of yours. Six months at a time in one place then six in the other, is not much of a life, in my opinion. I wanted to play little leage, how could I do that in that scenario?

Originally posted by blackice
? Aha the father is to blame… I see]……

If the father has the legal right to visit the child, which I assume you agree he does, then whose fault is it if the father never sees the child?

Originally posted by blackice
Why do you need “primary custody”? Seems to me that a child needs both “PRIMARY” parents. Again where is the “CHILD” in the equation? Why do you have to weigh the benefits of each against the other? The child is biologically both…Seems to me the child would benefit from both “for better or worst”. I see a lot of the “parents” none of the child why?

You really need someone with primary custody to have some continuity in the child's life. Primary custody with visitation for the other parent provides that. Stability is so important in a child's development. Alternating custody would just continually turn the child's life upside down.

Originally posted by blackice

The alternative would be to hire a go between for the parents. It is being done to great success. This person hired for less than the “court system” smoothes the way for proper parenting. They smooth the rough times and it allows the parents time to get over it. The end result with a good go between is the “child comes first” mentality.

Are you referring to the use of a mediator? Have you actually seen a mediator in action? Its true that they can be helpful. I thinik the percentage is 50% success rate, with the rest going to court. So thats decent, I would say, helps work the easy problems out. Ironically the percentage of settled court ordered mediations is about equal to that of volunatary mediations, go figure. But to say that a go-between can solve the problems inherent in a divorce are somewhat farfetched. What about the couples where one wants nothing to do with the other? how is that supposed to end well, regardless of the forum?

[blackice]

Why do you equate visitation with no rights?

Why do you equate it with rights? The average “primary custody” order states that one parent has all rights with regards to the decisions about the child. The other parent has no say.

Six months at a time in one place then six in the other, is not much of a life, in my opinion. I wanted to play little leage, how could I do that in that scenario?

That simply can not work and does not work and is not part of today’s joint custody orders. Exception being where for the stability of the child parents have been ordered to remain within a close proxsimity to the school, each other etc...

If the father has the legal right to visit the child, which I assume you agree he does, then whose fault is it if the father never sees the child?

It depends? The mother the court or the father pick one they all are reality…Again you blame the father exclusively.

You really need someone with primary custody to have some continuity in the child's life.

Why? You assume both can not do it…apart or together if the focus is the child “continuity” is a given…

Primary custody with visitation for the other parent provides that.

Visitation is that, parenting is quite different than visitation. The first thing you need to understand is exactly that. Reminds me of people who say they baby sit their own children lolol.

Stability is so important in a child's development.

It certainly is now tell me how is ripping a child from their biological father/mother is stability?

Alternating custody would just continually turn the child's life upside down.

I would agree it is not the way to go unless they lived near each other by order and the child enjoyed the same friends and lifestyle with both parents. After all that would be in the children's best intreset would it not?

Are you referring to the use of a mediator?

Not at all a complete waste of time….

But to say that a go-between can solve the problems inherent in a divorce are somewhat farfetched. What about the couples where one wants nothing to do with the other? How is that supposed to end well, regardless of the forum?

View this instead of paying a lawyer, both lawyers. You have a person who does the picking up of the kids for visitation. They are impartial and act in the best interest of the kids. They relay concerns and KEEP the peace until the human factor fades.

The kids are safe the parents are safe and the parents have a go between they can learn to trust. They are exclusively there for their kid’s best interest and maintain that reality.

After time and people move on with their lives a peaceful solution can be reached. It is extremely successful here in Ontario, and other cities, states… for those that do not want to waste money fighting because the system says to...

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by blackice

Why do you equate visitation with no rights?

Why do you equate it with rights?

I thought vistation was a right. Its not something the govt can take away without due process. Isn't that what a right is?

Originally posted by blackice
The average “primary custody” order states that one parent has all rights with regards to the decisions about the child. The other parent has no say.

Thats just not true. Even when one parent has primary legal custody, the non-custodial parent has some rights with regard to decisions about the child. Ie: if the custodial parent has to move, he/she has to give notice to the other within a certain amount of time. The parent can fight this if s/he chooses. If there is no notice, will possibly be overturned. or the custodial parent may have to share the new expenses with the other parent.
Also, if the mother joins a cult or something similar, the court can step in and modify the custody. If the mother (or father) was gay then the non-custodial parent would likely win custody. The father can oppose the changing of the child's surname.

etc, I could go on about the rights the father does have even though he does not have legal custody.

Originally posted by blackice

That simply can not work and does not work and is not part of today’s joint custody orders. Exception being where for the stability of the child parents have been ordered to remain within a close proxsimity to the school, each other etc...

I'm glad we are in agreement.

If the father has the legal right to visit the child, which I assume you agree he does, then whose fault is it if the father never sees the child?

Originally posted by blackice
It depends? The mother the court or the father pick one they all are reality…Again you blame the father exclusively.

As it is the father's right to see his child, I do blame him. If the mother refuses visitation, shouldn't the father care enough to go to court and fight back? I would. I agree that mothers sometimes are to blame for visitation problems, but why sit around feeling sorry for yourself when you have a remedy. And if the mother is such a *****, don't you think that would exponentially increase your odds of getting joint custody at least?

You really need someone with primary custody to have some continuity in the child's life.

Why? You assume both can not do it…apart or together if the focus is the child “continuity” is a given…

Primary custody with visitation for the other parent provides that.

Originally posted by blackice
Visitation is that, parenting is quite different than visitation.
The first thing you need to understand is exactly that. Reminds me of people who say they baby sit their own children lolol.

I don't see the need to be condescending.

Originally posted by blackice

Stability is so important in a child's development.

It certainly is now tell me how is ripping a child from their biological father/mother is stability?

What are you supposed to do with a divorce, keep the couple under the same roof? Because that's what you're saying. Obviously the child can be with only one parent at a time. Is that your true purpose here, to argue against divorce?

Originally posted by blackice

Alternating custody would just continually turn the child's life upside down.

I would agree it is not the way to go unless they lived near each other by order and the child enjoyed the same friends and lifestyle with both parents. After all that would be in the children's best intreset would it not?

So are you saying that alternating custody is only useful to a limited extent, limited circumstances?

[QUOTE] Originally posted by blackice

But to say that a go-between can solve the problems inherent in a divorce are somewhat farfetched. What about the couples where one wants nothing to do with the other? How is that supposed to end well, regardless of the forum?

Originally posted by blackice
View this instead of paying a lawyer, both lawyers. You have a person who does the picking up of the kids for visitation. They are impartial and act in the best interest of the kids. They relay concerns and KEEP the peace until the human factor fades.

You're right, where people agree to such a situation, it would possibly cost less money. But the caveat is that it requires the couple to agree to it, which I never see a majority of people doing. After all, as we both know, children are so often used as pawns in messy divorces. And now you will say "That's what I'm trying to say!" to which I will respond, "for a lot of peopl, its far easier for them to handle the situation by going through lawyers to settle than to deal with their ex-spouse. If my wife cheated on me, would I want to talk with her and a mediator? Hell no, I would want to make her pay, and I just don't see anyone being able to lessen that pain.

Originally posted by blackice
The kids are safe the parents are safe and the parents have a go between they can learn to trust, is there for their kid’s best interest.

I don't see how they would be any safer this way. After all, if one parent violates the court order, s/he can be held in contempt, your method the children could be used as pawns more easily.

Originally posted by blackice
After time and people move on with their lives a peaceful solution can be reached. It is extremely successful here in Ontario, and other cities, states… for those that do not want to waste money fighting because the system says to...

Anything is successful if people want it to be, for those people this is not a problem.

Is it really the system saying they have to fight, or is it the people. You would say the system, I would say the people. I would say the people are fighting because people have always fought about such things, break ups, children, the legal system just allows it to be done in a more civil setting.

Ps. thanks for the fun, need to get some sleep now.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by November Adam


This is a very good point. Probably the most important, and will make me re-think my position on this.

Amazing! I never thought I would see the day when I would actually change someones mind on this forum!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by blackice
I don't mean to be rude but you assume "men" don't feel the loss that is odd to say the least. It seems you assume a lot about gender issues and that too is wrong. Words like "scot-free" sum that up...

If a woman has to get an abortion due to an unwanted pregnancy, I think its safe to assume that in most cases she will suffer more than the father. She is the one who has to go through invasive surgery. Both will feel bad about the situation, but the female is the one who has to go through an abortion.

Depriving a child of life or of their biologic father is wrong. It is clearly not in the best interest of the child I disagree with your thoughts entirely. Too many children wake up to find "dad" is no longer in their lives. This is good? Why? Try to explain to a 5 year-old that loves their dad why they can not see him anymore…

In what way am I depriving the child of a father? I never said the father shouldnt be allowed to help raise the child. It is you that seems to think the father shouldnt have to contribute financially. I think the father is obliged to help raise the child in every way.

You obviously have a scenario in mind share it. Besides the fact you "claim" only the "woman" and "child" suffer it is clear that your thoughts only encompass abuse to these people at the hands of a man...why?

Wasnt there a scenario in the first post on this thread? Are we talking about the same thing? Surely you can see that if a man doesnt have to contribute financially to the welfare of the child then both the child and the mother will suffer (unless they are rich). Which is better, that the mother and child suffer financially, or that the man suffers financially? Better to have one person suffer than two.

You have two adults that with time and counseling the "child" should become the first and foremost fact. A child without one or the other biological parent is half a child. Taking out the “money” driven “adversarial” court system and using other means which are truly in the best interest of the children is the only way.

Each parent has a lot to offer in the up bringing of the child for emotional etc. balance as a "whole" person. Studies in the field are proving this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The end result is your "ideal" answer is but half of the equation and the "end result" is the child suffers.

You make statements to the "child's best interest" yet you talk of the "woman and the child" Not of the child's best interest, or the father why?
It would appear; to you a father is simply a “donor” with nothing but sperm and money to offer….

I still dont know why you think the child will be without a father...

[blackice]

Caligastia my mistake I was sure you meant “the feeling of loss”…

I agree with you on the fathering bit. Unfortunately the courts do not…That is depriving the child of the natural father and harming the child.

Your other point surely you see if they had true joint custody the need for financial assistance is none. Both parents are then “single” parents and on their own…

The child’s father in most cases is reduced in his role to that of a paying visitor in most if not all custody situations. That makes the child suffer and excludes the father from many aspects of fathering. That is fatherless in any book…


Haeres est alter ispe, et filius est pars patris. An heir is another
self, and a son is a part of the father.

Maxims of Law from Bouviers Law Dictionary

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by blackice
I agree with you on the fathering bit. Unfortunately the courts do not…

They dont?

Your other point surely you see if they had true joint custody the need for financial assistance is none. Both parents are then “single” parents and on their own…

As long as they both contribute equally to the child's well-being. Thats all I want.

The child’s father in most cases is reduced in his role to that of a paying visitor in most if not all custody situations. That makes the child suffer and excludes the father from many aspects of fathering. That is fatherless in any book…

I agree with you. I think we were arguing about different things.

So you agree that in the case of an accidental pregnancy that the father is equally responsible for taking care of the child if the mother decides to have it?