[jurisdog]

And yet again, you still refuse to answer the question.

I would NEVER say that a father is unimportant. Only a moron would say that.

My point is that the issue is extremely complicated, it also varies state by state since its a state law matter. The fact that there is indeed a bias towards women is rooted in a biological fact ~ mothers are more important to raising young children than fathers.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"...a biological fact ~ mothers are more important to raising young children than fathers."

Your "biological fact" is simply lawyerly opinion. You argue for "case by case" studies when it suits you but insist that we all agree with your opinionated sweeping generalizations. Screw that. It allows you to be the arbitor of what "important" means and to change that meaning whenever it suits your litigation needs. To say that you still think fathers are "important" in one hand while dismissing them out of the other hand is either sloppy argument technique or more of your blind anti-man prejudice.

As I told another poster: If the courts - and I'm talking about you, personally, here - really believed that fathers were important in any way, shape, or form, they would adjudicate and enforce custody agreements with as vigorously as they enforce support payment agreements. That men who actively voice this same opinion get called "whiners" and "deadbeats" as often by lawyers as by their feminist cheerlaeading section tells me all I need to know.

[disclaimer]

And by the way, I love how you guys refuse to deal with what I've actually said ~ that when it comes to caring for a young child, the mother has a more important and more time-demanding role.

I notice how you refuse to understand that children don't stay young, so a mother is not all they need. It's the children that grow up without dads that keep you lawyer types busy. You don't see like much of a lawyer based on the argument you made here.