[Billy_bob_bob]

Well said. I have a question. What would you think about the idea of implementing a national policy of favoring paternal custody in divorce cases? It seems to me that the scales have been way, way out of balance for a very long time now, and the only way to swing those scales back is to start favoring fathers over mothers with regards to child custory.

Of course, in cases where the father is unfit to have the children then you would give the mother custody, but in most cases the father would end up with custody. The reasons that I propose this are as follows:

First, mothers have been more or less automatically awarded custody for something like fourty or fifty years now, and it is long past time to swing the scales of justice back towards paternal rights. Since things have been so very much out of balance for so very long it is necessary to tilt the balance the other way for a generation or two.

Second, most divorces are initiated by women, who (quite reasonably) expect to have the cards stacked in their favor in court. If women did not have this expectation they would be much less likely to initiate a divorce.

Third, as I understand it the evidence is that children raised by single fathers do better than children raised by single mothers. I do believe there are studies that support this conclusion, although I don't have any links handy.

I know from my own experiences that I would have been much, much better off if my father had been awarded custody of me when I was a little kid going through a very nasty divorce.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

[There should be] a national policy of favoring paternal custody in divorce cases . . . [because] most divorces are initiated by women, who (quite reasonably) expect to have the cards stacked in their favor in court.

Maybe just a presumption that the one who initiates the divorce does not get custody? A rebuttable presumption, but a presumption nonetheless . . .

[Tom D.]

The fewer national policies there are the better. We already have the federal government messing with local speed limits. Where the justification for that in the Constitution is escapes me. I realize that the Feds have largely preempted many of the child support issues, but illegitimately (pun intended) expanding the Federal government's authority is not justified.

The reason that the mother gets custody in the typical case is that in the typical case the mother has been the primary care taker of the kids before the custody issues arises. There are several logical reasons why a judge should continue this arrangement.

First, it is what the kid is used to. Whether the divorce is the fault of the mother, or whether it is the fault of the father, or whether it there is fault on both sides, one thing is for certain: It ain't the fault of the kid. Judges are rightfully reluctant to make additional radical changes in the life of a kid whose life is already in flux by a divorce.

Second, if the mother is the primary care taker of a child before a divorce, a judge might reasonably conclude that to a large extent the parents have decided between themselves before it goes to trial, where the relative advantages lie.

Obviously, often things do not work out well, but remember, that to a very large exent Courts are trying to decide which of two houses built upon the sand is the more stable.

The concept of joint custody sounds better than it is. Suppose that there the parents disagree on which course of medical treatment is better of a kid or which courses the kids take in school or which birthday party the kids attend when there are two mutually exclusive choices. Courts are ill structured to make those decisions. Added to that are the complications that arise when one parent is transferred though his or her job, or some other such problem. No ship can sail with two captains.

Everyone who thinks is prepared to acknowledge that courts often get it wrong, but what everyone is not prepared to admit is that often divorce is toughest on those with the least fault.

Until society realizes that it is not men's advocacy groups or women's advocacy groups, but commitment, particulary in adversity, good sense, a strong gut, and the ability to laugh at yourself that produce good, well adjusted kids, there are going to be a lot of screwed up kids.

No federal policy is going to prevent or stop problems in raising kids who have no base and no experience in what a good foundation is. Congress can pass a law tomorrow that mandates happiness, health, and well-being, but it will be useless.

[Z in Oregon]

What would you think about the idea of implementing a national policy of favoring paternal custody in divorce cases?

Absolutely!

[Psycho Francis]

Odd for a FReeper to suggest the 'Jessee Jackson way', what? Can a call for reparations be very far behind?

How 'bout just evening out the custodial parent presumption?

...and the only way to swing those scales back is to start favoring fathers over mothers with regards to child custory.