[ClearCase_guy]

An idea just popped into my head. I haven't really thought about it for more than a minute, so perhaps it's foolish. But, I'm wondering what would happen if it was established by statute that the party who files for divorce cannot receive custody of the child. Flat-out, written in stone you get a divorce if you are willing to give up your children.

Child custody battles would disappear because there would be nothing in dispute. Divorce rates would plummet. 2-parent families would sky-rocket. Oh, yeah, unhappy marriages would increase. But my understanding is that couples who have problems, yet stay together, almost always work through their problems and end up fairly happy together.

I'm thinking this would lead to greater happiness for most people in our society, and less happiness for only a very small number of people.

[dpa5923]

although on the surface a good idea, what happens when one party is abusive to the other to the point of threaten a spouses or childs life?

I wish I had an answer, but I don't. I do think your idea is a start in the right direction though.

[drjoe]

But, I'm wondering what would happen if it was established by statute that the party who files for divorce cannot receive custody of the child


Dream on. My wife filed for divorce and promptly enrolled my two kids in a cult [Forum]. She, of course, got full custody and now, twelve years later the kids are on their own but I have no doubt that they have been negatively affected by this. For those who truly love their children there is always lurking in the back of our minds the thought that it would be better for us to simply pack up, write the extortionist checks and vanish so as to spare the children any more pain. The man who marries and who has children in todays American Society is a fool.

[RogerFGay]

Your idea would not have seemed strange before Ronald Reagan introduced so-called "no-fault" divorce. The people who file for divorce these days typically lack reasonable grounds for breaking the marriage contract and breaking the family. It's only been within the past quarter century that marriage as a legal institution has been abolished (elimination of the marriage contract through introduction of "no-fault") and transformed into an institution of pure political corruption and pork barreling. Once no-fault was introduced, it opened the door to -- among the other things -- group politics. Individual rights and due process were eliminated and everything became the man's fault. People who get rich and famous from corruption were given the perfect medium.

[right2parent]

But, I'm wondering what would happen if it was established by statute that the party who files for divorce cannot receive custody of the child. Flat-out, written in stone you get a divorce if you are willing to give up your children.

Someone breaking up a family (filing for divorce) without cause (no-fault) is evidence of abandonment. If a mother abandons a family, although she can under no-fault laws, she still has to show grave an weighty reasons why custody should not remain with the father. This is where the "best interest" standard is now commonly misapplied. When this practice was challenged, it was only justified under the pretence of an endangerment for a child left in his father's care. That's where such ideas as the "tender years" doctrine sprouted, although today, there is little justification for assuming a father isn't as capable as a child's mother to give it adequate care.

What's more, the tender years doctrine only justified mother custody for a limited period of time, and could be challenged by the father when circumstances changed. Father custody was universally understood to be a natural right, to be overcome by the accusor under a strict scrutiny standard. It could be argued today that custody is not a justiciable issue in most no-fault divorce actions.