Replies

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.