Replies

Things can be fair without joint custody being the default. And things would be FAR less than fair if joint custody were mandatory.

First, there's a difference between presumptive joint physical custody and mandatory joint physical custody. The latter would seem to force it even if one parent is either unfit or just plain doesn't want it. I support a presumption of joint physical custody except where one parent can be proven unfit, defined as when a parent presents a danger of abuse or neglect. Also, should parents come to a voluntary parenting-time agreement that both agree to, that should supercede presumptive JPC.

The actual problem is that the system favors women over men just about every step of the way.

True. What no one ever talks about is that as much as feminist man-hating contributed to this, the Victorian idolatry of motherhood AND the traditionalist split of mothers and fathers into Industrial Age caregiver/provider roles contributed a lot too.

Things are getting better though, just need to make sure they don't backslide.

Exactly what on Earth do you base that mis-statement on?

The fact that JPC is starting to be used. The fact that men actually get sole custody when the mother is unfit. When I was a kid the only a the man could get custody was if the mother was in jail, and he had a 50/50 chance that if she got out she'd get custody then. Things are moving forward. It's a long trip from where they were so it might not look so good if you don't check out the historical perspective, but they are moving forward.

I support a presumption of joint physical custody except where one parent can be proven unfit, defined as when a parent presents a danger of abuse or neglect.

The key word in that proposal is "proven." For your proposal to work, "proven" has to mean "there was a trial, and the defendant was found guilty." The particular thing to be avoided is anything that would increase the now-epidemic tossing around of false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. These are seen in so many divorce cases now that the judges know that most of them have to be B.S., but nothing is done about it. There just isn't time to check them out, so in accordance with policy, the man is presumed guilty.

This is an area of law where you have be really careful what you wish for, because there are ideologues and hungry lawyers standing by who will turn anything you do into more of what we have now. If that means a few hundred thousand more men are branded as child abusers so that we can continue to award sole custody to women, they could not care less. For the ideologues, this is all about hosing men out of spite and bigotry. For the lawyers, it's about keeping the system sufficiently biased toward women that they will continue to use the legal system as a club, which causes men to have to spend money on lawyers.

If it ever came about that any legal struggle might be equitable instead of a slam dunk for the woman, women might decide to cool the jets on the lawyering. Both parties to the divorce would then spend less on it. The lawyers obviously don't want that.