I wrote:
"You know, everytime I read something about a divorced dad going off his rocker and kidnapping his kids and killing himself and them, all I can think is: why is anyone surprised, except that it doesn't happen more often?"
T of T replied:
There are no valid excuses for anyone to commit such a horrendous crime.
I didn't say there were. What I AM saying is that it's no wonder these guys go nuts and flip their lids. Understanding it is not the same as excusing it.
As for the situations you've experienced ... they're not representative of the bias, IMO and experience. It's not fifty-fifty badness. Moms are OVERWHELMINGLY favored in family law courts; women OVERWHELMINGLY are the ones that file for divorce (one book I have says it's something like 80 percent), and frivolous reasons like "irreconileable differences" (i.e., no cheating, physical or verbal abuse, or drug abuse involved) are most often cited.
In other words, if a married women with children gets bored with her husband or is unhappy with their circumstances, she can divorce him just like that, get custody of the kids, probably remain any home that they've purchased while pop has to move out, be entitled to a good portion of the father's income for child support, and never have to prove to the court or father that the money is used for the actual support of the children.
Although in print the parents have "joint custody," it is the parent who has been granted physical custody -- OVERWHELMINGLY the mother -- who calls the shots in schools, medical care, schedules, and discipline. Visitation for Dad is typcially four to eight days A MONTH, plus some vacations.
If for some reason the kid isn't available for visitation -- in other words, if the mother "frustrates" the kids' visitation with dad (which I and one of my brothers experieced OFTEN often often often often), the dad has no recourse except to hire a lawyer and take it to court -- most of the time, dad can't afford to do that. ON THE OTHER HAND, if there are any problems with Dad delivering child support, Mom pays no lawyer -- the DHS takes care of it for her.
It is VERY lopsided in favor of the mom, in other words. As for the father who doesn't spend time with the kids even when he has them ... if I hadn't opted to work at home, my husband would NEVER have been able to have any valuable visitation with his kids at all, because .... guess what .. he worked! In part to be able to pay enough child support to enable the ex-wife who left him, taking their two very young children with her, to be able to afford to work part-time so she could raise "her" (that's certainly what she called them) kids.
That's not to say there aren't lousy fathers/husbands out there who do dirt on the mothers of their kids. There are, and I know personally of a few. Yet I would BET MONEY that if you were able to get the real figures, women would outnumber men on that score about three to one, and it's been higher than that in my personal experience/observation. Our society enables it -- it not only refrains from any kind of chastizing of women who choose arbitrarily to divorce the fathers of their children or to get child support for kids they willingly had out of wedlock (why is it it's only MEN who are held morally responsible for that?), but our society today actually deifies single motherhood as some kind of marvelous accomplishment.
So, yeah, I think things pretty much are cut and dried most of the time: the men get screwed because the system is lopsided in favor of women.
Ask the judges why custody decisions are (and have always been) that way. I'd be curious to know what they say.
In part because I have no experience or knowledge in these matters, I could only begin to guess what might be their answers.
Because, the reality is, we have to carry the child to term. We can't have men having fun knocking-up women and then walking away scot-free, moving on to the next woman and taking the child with them.
Again, I will clarify, a mother should lose her custody rights if she is the one to break up the marriage or if she is the one who presents a danger to the child(ren). So, you'd get no argument from me there. But, when all things are equal, yes, she should be given primary custody. I don't think either of us will change the other's mind on that one, so we can just agree to disagree there.
What I AM saying is that it's no wonder these guys go nuts and flip their lids. Understanding it is not the same as excusing it.
I can understand a parent "kidnapping" (if that's what we're going to call it) their kids. But not taking their lives. That's all about control there. Whenever a parent does such a thing, that's an indication that the parent SHOULD NOT HAVE been given custody. To me, that just proves the reason he/she was denied custody in the first place. There's nothing understandable about it.
Maybe you just misworded that line in your post.
women OVERWHELMINGLY are the ones that file for divorce (one book I have says it's something like 80 percent), and frivolous reasons like "irreconileable differences" (i.e., no cheating, physical or verbal abuse, or drug abuse involved) are most often cited.
If you're asserting that too many couples today divorce for frivolous reasons, you'll get no argument from me. But, people usually file under "irreconcilable differences" just to make the divorce proceed more quickly. It does not necessarily mean that one or both wasn't/weren't cheating or doing something very wrong.
Although in print the parents have "joint custody," it is the parent who has been granted physical custody -- OVERWHELMINGLY the mother -- who calls the shots in schools, medical care, schedules, and discipline.
If only that were so... continuing below...
As for the father who doesn't spend time with the kids even when he has them ... if I hadn't opted to work at home, my husband would NEVER have been able to have any valuable visitation with his kids at all,
Read my last post again. I don't think you'd want to compare your husband with the father I was talking about. Again, that man left his wife for another woman when she was both seriously ill and pregnant with their second child! HE was the one cheating. Unfortunately, the woman was advised by her lawyer to "make it easier" by accepting "joint custody," so since then the father has brought her to court for everything, through the courts he has taken practically all the decisionmaking away from her, and she doesn't have the money to fight him. (I should also mention that he is wealthier and has connections in the community). He's not working when he has the kids on the weekends.
but our society today actually deifies single motherhood as some kind of marvelous accomplishment.
Btw, I agree with you there. I'm a bit sick of it myself.
I would BET MONEY that if you were able to get the real figures, women would outnumber men on that score about three to one, and it's been higher than that in my personal experience/observation.
In my experience, witnessing the break up of families I know and am related to, the majority were the opposite. There were a few exceptions, but the vast majority were men cheating on or beating up their wives. So, yes, there are rotten mothers out there and, yes, in those cases they should lose custody. But they're nowhere near to "a score of three to one," not from where I sit. I could buy that it's more like 50/50, though, despite my own experience.
Back to Evelyn: There are so many what ifs. What if the mother and father had married, albeit young, and stayed married to each other? Things might've worked out a bit differently.