Replies

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.

I'm sorry I just don't see that. The main complaint is that there is bias in custody awarding. The only way to be fair then is joint custody, otherwise the claims of bias are ENDLESS.

The next biggest complaint is child support. But if you're not the Custodial Parent, you have to contribute something. Being a full time parent is in no way comparable to caring for the kid(s) every other weekend. There is just no comparison. The Custodial Parent has vastly less time to devote to job/career to earn money. The CP is putting in virtually all the time and effort. The non CP has some kind of obligation to the kid(s) and if its not time and direct hands-on care it has to be something comparable. What is that something? Money.

Yet another major complain of FR groups is child support. That complaint will be endless as well.

What FR groups fail to do is address the trade offs between being a hands-on full time parent and ... well .... not being around. It's the not being around part that they seem to NOT want to talk about. How can you be a father if your're not around AND you don't want to contribute in any other way.

You're either there or you aren't. If you decide to live in a different city as your kids, you've made your choice IMO. You choose not to be around for your kids. With presumptive JPC neither spouse could claim bias.

In order for their to be an unequal arrangement, there would have to be a de facto move on the part of one parent to say "I don't want custody". You would have to clearly renounce custody which would then place the burden on the renouncing parent to ante up and contribute some other way.

FR groups don't want that (IMO) because then they would have not excuse to complain about bias in custody and paying child support. Any bias would be clearly of their own doing, a clear choice (hands-on fully engaged parenting) or not, for which they don't want fathers to be held accountable if they choose not to be hands-on fully engaged parents. They want it one way but not the other.

With presumptive JPC in every case the parents would have to petition the courts for an alternative arrangement. Anything less than 50/50 care (which I agree has practical challenges) would have to be expressly requested. Then we'd know whether and imbalance in mother-custody is truly a bias of the courts or not, or if so to what degree. FR groups do not wish to acknowledge the degree to which fathers don't want be hand-on fully engaged parents. (And no one can know for sure unless we have presumptive JPC).

So until then they can claim victim status for all fathers whether they want to be fully engaged parents or not ... when perhaps it is a minority who want joint or full custody and don't get it. Under presumptive JPC those who want it will get it automatically. Those who don't will have to make a specific claim to the judge why they should be released from their presumptive obligation to equally parent their kids.

In this way we can separate the wheat from the chafe so to speak, which (IMO based on the silence of FR groups on this issue) they do not want to happen. This is why they are so vague on the issue of presumptive JPC. They don't want their position clear.

Meanwhile FR groups attack the very clear (and I believe wrong but at least it's clear) position of mainstream feminists groups. It is an underhanded diversionary tactic to attack the clearly stated position of your opponent without clearly stating your own position.

What is it FR groups want exactly? Does anyone know?

Meanwhile, either kids are better off with two fully engaged parents or they are not (excluding rare abuse situations). Which is it? FR groups need to make up their minds.