Replies

The fact that you have some baggage about this issue is clear to everyone else. Youre letting it totally cloud your post and your responses.

Oh, stop it. You do not know that I have any baggage on this subject. You're projecting your own mental processes onto someone that you don't even know and pronouncing it true. It always seems to baffle the self-centered among us that people can get upset about some principle of justice or governmental abuse without having a personal dog in the fight. Well, it happens every day on FR. It's what we do here.

No, I do not have a divorce decree that I am unhappy about. No, I do not pay any money to anyone because of any divorce decree. My whole concern with this issue is that I do not believe that a society that estranges a significant fraction of its adult male citizens from their children is stable. I would like to think that this is obvious to people, but there are those who cannot get their nose out of the case-by-case details. They appear to be incapable of abstract thinking. Too bad for them.

I do not know what the failure mechanism will turn out to be with this, or how it will unfold, but I am quite certain that divorce by divorce, we are creating a society that men will have no stake in, and which pits them against their own government over an issue as basic as the natural human right to live with one's children. Stuff like this is how tea ends up in the harbor, and we're treating it like it's no big deal. Oh sure, some day all children will live only with their mothers and men will be forced by the state to support them all. It'll work just fine.

Here's a hint: no it won't. We can either start now to adjust this system so that it's something that everyone can live with, or the government that makes this happen is going to get a root canal from its male citizenry.

My whole concern with this issue is that I do not believe that a society that estranges a significant fraction of its adult male citizens from their children is stable.

I guess I'm still confused about which conclusion you are really pushing. I mean, can we agree on a list of factors involved in this topic?

1. When people divorce, and cant agree on custody arrangements, they have a right to go before a family law judge.

2. When they do, the judge ends up making a divorce/custody decree.

3. No matter what happens, since the parents arent gonna be living together anymore, there is no perfect solution for custody. Even a "joint custody" arrangement of 50/50 time sharing still sucks.

4. Every state has different laws. While there are common themese, family law is clearly a states law issue.

5. In cases where things like adulters can be proven, or unfitness to be a parent, or etc etc etc, the judge may give custody to one parent over the other, regardless of that parents gender.

6. Historically, there has been a bias towards awarding primary custody to mothers. This is because of the fact that for young children, the mosther plays a more physical role, and a more primary role in the raising of that child.

It seems to me, that what you mean to say is something like this...

In cases of divorce, where both parents want full custody (minimal visitation rights for the other parent, i.e., weekends and holidays etc), and both parents are equally able to parent the child in terms of time/money/employment/character, etc etc ~ meaning, in a perfect example situation, when ALL other factors involved in the judges custody order are taken into account, there is a tendancy for courts to favor the mother.

Isn't that what your point really boils down to? Because if not, there really isnt much point arguing all the rest. There are just too many holes in the arguemnts to make them worth the time. BUT, that point, as Ive phrased it, crystallizes the issue in such a way that its at least arguable.

All factors being equal, should a mother get primary custody over a father, in a situation where the parents wont agree to 50/50 custody, just because she's female?

Well sorry to say, but there's a lot of people out there who would say yes, because of the simple fact that in terms of parenting young children, mothers play a more primary role, at least physically, and according to some experts, in other ways as well.

The bias that exists in life is more pro-mother than anti-father. There's reasons for that, both emotional and factual.

But there's another wrinkle to what youre really complaining about ~ and that's this. IF all factors really were equal, then a judge would be a LOT more likely to order joint (50/50) custody.