Madonna has twelve inane conditions for the father of her kids in order that he might see them, now that they’ve split. A friend sends me this link with the thought that for some women abortion must always be an option–‘her body, her choice,’ following this, once they have children, the kids also remain part of her body and her choices–she owns and controls them. “At bedtime, Guy should read [the older son] the books Madonna wrote”? Would certainly help if she wasn’t also an egomaniac.
________________________
Véronique adds: You’d think that with everything we now know about the effects of divorce on children, parents would at least make an effort to mitigate them, if not avoid them altogether.
This has all the makings of a long, drawn-out, custody dispute. Lots of money. Brains? Not so much. I cannot understand the kind of deep-set self-centeredness that would lead a parent (or two of them) to drag children through this. I just can’t.
by 
I wish people would realize that having children is the real life-long marriage. Once people have kids together, that’s it, they are always going to be connected. Divorce can’t really separate that, as much as it authorizes a sort of polygamy, where adults can go ahead and have separate partners too.
Sometimes people argue that once a couple gets divorced and don’t have to deal with on another everyday, they somehow find it easier to put aside their differences and make good decisions for raising the kids. I’m kind of skeptical of that. Elizabeth Marquardt’s book on divorce talks about how instead of the adults having to sort out their two separate ways of doing so, that job gets dumped on the children. I suppose then one could argue that Madonna is trying to do her kids a favor by forcing their father to do exactly what she wants, but somehow I don’t think it is going to work that way.
Isn’t it for the courts to decide if he gets to see the kids, not her?