Replies

Ok I wasn't saying you said that parenthood is optional, I'm saying that appears to be the Father's Rights groups position.

We already know what NOW's (et al) position is. They keep reiterrating that over and over ... the evil feminists blah blah blah. But WHAT is their position on JPC? They don't seem to want to say. If you visit Father's Rights websites, they don't take a clear position on this (or any position on many). What is it? Are father's important to kids or not? They say so but then I don't see much if any support for presumptive JPC.

I don't see why they should take a stand. Assuming you understande the examples I've laid out then you must agree that there are circumstances where JPC is bad. I'm not even convinced it's good most of the time, I had friends who did the JPC thing and it looked pretty annoying having your life spread across two houses, kind of like being in the middle of a phased move for a decade. Once you get to a position where you agree that there is no pat answer which will be the desirable arrangement for all children of divorce the question has to be why should anybody have a "position". The only logical position is the desire to see fatherhood and motherhood treated with the courts as having the same level of sanctity and not play favorites. If both parents look to be good parents and are intending on staying in the same city, go for JPC; if you have a less than ideal situation you can't use the ideal solution.