How is it in the best interests of children?

[SnowyMacie]

The primary care giver doctrine currently in use ensures that in most cases fathers absolutely cannot win custody of their children. Most attorneys simply advise their clients that there is no point in fighting for custody when it will simply run up legal bills and you'll loose anyway. So in the few cases where dad doesn't "agree" to be a twice a month father it's because he has an iron clad case for custody.

You should read Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths by Sanford Braver. It will clear up a lot of these silly urban legends like this one for you.

You do realize that divorce laws are by state and so what may apply in Californa may or may not imply in Texas, New York, Oregon, etc.

 

[BayCityBomber]

Yeah I'm not going to read that book. Why don't you link something instead?

In any case the core issue is that child care is view as feminine which is viewed as inferior and unbecoming of men. The root problem is sexism and gender roles.

If you aren't going to bother to educate yourself on the subject then I wouldn't jump into threads and make some really ignorant pronouncements about the family court system.

If that were the case then you'd think that feminist groups would be lobbying for father custody, and that certainly isn't the case.

 

[BayCityBomber]

You do realize that divorce laws are by state and so what may apply in Californa may or may not imply in Texas, New York, Oregon, etc.

You do realize that just because marriage law is a state matter doesn't mean that there are great differences between states? All 50 have some version of the primary care giver doctrine, which was established after the tender years doctrine was held to be unconstitutional in federal courts. As there are civil rights issues here it is not entirely a state matter.

 

[acropolis]

If you aren't going to bother to educate yourself on the subject then I wouldn't jump into threads and make some really ignorant pronouncements about the family court system.

If that were the case then you'd think that feminist groups would be lobbying for father custody, and that certainly isn't the case.

As far as I'm concerned I am educated on the subject and have seen the relevant statistics to take a position. If what you say is true then it's a trivial matter to link to supporting evidence. But I can play this game too: you can't reply to me until of you've read Gender Trouble by Judith Butler, then you'll understand.

Feminists are far more concerned with creating equal rights between genders than anyone else and are the only ones addressing the actual root of the problem.

 

[BayCityBomber]

As far as I'm concerned I am educated on the subject and have seen the relevant statistics to take a position. If what you say is true then it's a trivial matter to link to supporting evidence. But I can play this game too: you can't reply to me until of you've read Gender Trouble by Judith Butler, then you'll understand.

Feminists are far more concerned with creating equal rights between genders than anyone else and are the only ones addressing the actual root of the problem.

You have no understanding of why the primary care giver doctrine creates the illusions of uncontested custody matters. If you knew anything about the subject you would understand that the primary reason most fathers agree to the standard visitation schedule is because they'll never win more in court. So you can spend thousands of dollars in a custody battle and still end up with two weekends a month, or agree to two weekends a month. I've provided with a source, written by the man who conducted the most comprehesive study on divorce in American history. The fact you haven't read it would tend indicate you aren't well informed on the subject.

Then why does NOW, and every other feminist organization, oppose every piece of shared parenting legislation?

 

[acropolis]

You have no understanding of why the primary care giver doctrine creates the illusions of uncontested custody matters. If you knew anything about the subject you would understand that the primary reason most fathers agree to the standard visitation schedule is because they'll never win more in court. So you can spend thousands of dollars in a custody battle and still end up with two weekends a month, or agree to two weekends a month. I've provided with a source, written by the man who conducted the most comprehesive study on divorce in American history. The fact you haven't read it would tend indicate you aren't well informed on the subject.

Then why does NOW, and every other feminist organization, oppose every piece of shared parenting legislation?

Wait what now, you think that only getting two weeks a month is somehow unfair? Yeah I don't think we quite agree on what fair is.

I'm not at all convinced that shared parenting legislation is necessary or even good. The only times it would be used is when shared parenting would be most likely to be detrimental to the children since their parents are already treating each other as bitter adversaries. The welfare of the children matters more than the rights of either parent.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

This is something that I have never understood and have never been able to get a concrete explanation for: We are told that when mother and father separate or divorce and the courts are deciding who gets custody of the children they are deciding based on the welfare of the children, not the rights of the mother, father or any other adult. The standard arrangement, it seems, is that the mother gets full custody of the children while the father is forced to give half of his income for child support and gets "visitation" with the children. The only time that that arrangement is not used is if the mother agrees to some other arrangement such as joint custody or the court determines that the mother is an unfit mother and the children's welfare would be better served by awarding full custody to the father (or grandparents; or somebody other adult).

Why is it that, all other things being equal, that standard arrangement is best for children?

I expect concrete answers with concrete evidence. No "A child needs its mother" responses, please.

And please respond about the entire arrangement--the kids being with their mother is only part of the arrangement; there is also things like their time with their father being considered "visitation".

The very reason why God ordained the marriage institution was mostly so children would have a safe and prosperous upbringing meeting their vital emotional needs . When a divorce occurs while the child is young, it is a total train wreck emotionally . Kids need both parents under the same roof . Only in the case of bad emotional or physical abuse, is it best for kids to be taken out of that situation...and that should only be temporary till the abusing Parent can get help and overcome his anger or her anger.

Fragmentation of the American Family is perhaps THE biggest reason why we have escalated crime rates, abuse rates, out of control sexual hedonism with murdering of the unborn for birth control, and other tragic societal ills. A divorce when kids are young often results in apathy toward right and wrong, desensitization, hostility, depression, all from not getting treatment due to the divorce. Im not saying ALL kids will turn out like this, but many will. When Dad especially , is absent, boys suffer alot in their personality and character . Its very possible many Males find homosexuality as a comfort later on because there is such a void left .

 

[BayCityBomber]

Wait what now, you think that only getting two weeks a month is somehow unfair? Yeah I don't think we quite agree on what fair is.

I'm not at all convinced that shared parenting legislation is necessary or even good. The only times it would be used is when shared parenting would be most likely to be detrimental to the children since their parents are already treating each other as bitter adversaries. The welfare of the children matters more than the rights of either parent.

So I'm going to also conclude you are ignorant as to the research that has been conducted on the effects of such minimal contact to the parent/child relationship.

How on earth is the welfare of children served by allowing the mother to marginalize the father's relationship with his children by reducing him to a twice a month baby sitter? Of course the current divorce process is adversarial, mom has everything to gain by being as contentious as possible. That's also why women file for more than 70% of divorces nationally. If divorce was no longer a method by which she could eject dad from the children's lives it would be a lot less attractive. Shared parenting would preserve father/child relationships and reduce the incentive to divorce in the first place.

Have you read anything on these issues that isn't direct from feminist sources?

 

[acropolis]

So I'm going to also conclude you are ignorant as to the research that has been conducted on the effects of such minimal contact to the parent/child relationship.

How on earth is the welfare of children served by allowing the mother to marginalize the father's relationship with his children by reducing him to a twice a month baby sitter? Of course the current divorce process is adversarial, mom has everything to gain by being as contentious as possible. That's also why women file for more than 70% of divorces nationally. If divorce was no longer a method by which she could eject dad from the children's lives it would be a lot less attractive. Shared parenting would preserve father/child relationships and reduce the incentive to divorce in the first place.

Have you read anything on these issues that isn't direct from feminist sources?

So do you or don't you consider two weeks a month to be fair? Because if you don't then I don't think we have any common ground whatsoever. It's starting to sound more and more like you think of women as out to get fathers in general which isn't accurate. It's kind of paranoid and sexist, actually.

I've looked at many sources. The stats and arguments I've read don't lead me to believe that shared parenting legislation is needed or helpful. The strongest proponents of it are from MRA sources even more paranoid and sexist than you seem to be. Maybe if I was confused enough to think that women were just out to get men in any way they could, perhaps then I'd be more convinced by this stuff.

You're free to provide more links if you'd like, since for now I'm not convinced you have much of a point.

 

[BayCityBomber]

So do you or don't you consider two weeks a month to be fair? Because if you don't then I don't think we have any common ground whatsoever. It's starting to sound more and more like you think of women as out to get fathers in general which isn't accurate. It's kind of paranoid and sexist, actually.

I've looked at many sources. The stats and arguments I've read don't lead me to believe that shared parenting legislation is needed or helpful. The strongest proponents of it are from MRA sources even more paranoid and sexist than you seem to be. Maybe if I was confused enough to think that women were just out to get men in any way they could, perhaps then I'd be more convinced by this stuff.

You're free to provide more links if you'd like, since for now I'm not convinced you have much of a point.

Actually, if you look at polling data on the subject shared parenting is extremely popular with the people. The only strong opponents are women's groups and divorce attorneys. No rational person believes that 4 days out of 4 weeks is fair, or in any way sufficient to maintain a parent child relationship. And study after study shows just that, the contact is minimal and the relationship erodes. Not to mention that in almost all cases the father will experience visitation interference.

No one said women were out to get men. You're trying to make relationship break downs into something that involves the whole population. However, there are a number of studies on the subject, and plenty of data. There's a reason why women almost monopolize family break up. They know there's no chance they're going to loose the kids, and they'll get a favorable divorce settlement.

But no, we really don't have any common ground. Unlike you, I'm not just regurgitating propaganda.

 

[BayCityBomber]

Just looking at the numbers, two weeks a month would amount to 13% of the entire year. I fail to see how any sane, let alone reasonable person, could conclude a 87/13 split is fair to anyone involved.

 

[acropolis]

Just looking at the numbers, two weeks a month would amount to 13% of the entire year. I fail to see how any sane, let alone reasonable person, could conclude a 87/13 split is fair to anyone involved.

Uh, two weeks a month is 14/30. There's about four weeks in a month. What on earth are you talking about here?

 

[BayCityBomber]

Uh, two weeks a month is 14/30. There's about four weeks in a month. What on earth are you talking about here?

Weekends, typo.

At any rate, I sincerely hope you get to experience weekend parenting and the family court system. Then we'll discuss how fair it is.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Generally speaking this is why in most family courts the term visitation is no longer popular. The new preferred euphemism is "parenting time." It's still the same two weekends a month of course.

If one parent (mother or father) is going to have "full custody" while the other can be with the children two weekends a month then I would call the former regular custody and the latter temporary custody.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

When fathers do fight for custody they win in 70% of cases...

The source that you give seems to say that that is a myth.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I recently heard a man saying that his daughter's 18th birthday was near and he would no longer have to pay child support.

I am not saying that he is not a loving, caring father--I know very little about him. The point is that he is thinking of his relationship with his child within the context of "child support". It was not the first time that I have heard a man talk that way. That is in the best interests of children?

 

[BayCityBomber]

I recently heard a man saying that his daughter's 18th birthday was near and he would no longer have to pay child support.

I am not saying that he is not a loving, caring father--I know very little about him. The point is that he is thinking of his relationship with his child within the context of "child support". It was not the first time that I have heard a man talk that way. That is in the best interests of children?

The thing about child support is it really isn't child support. It's an arbitrary sum of money a father must pay to his ex-wife, based on consumer spending indexes. Even though the sum often goes well beyond any potential need of the child(ren) the courts will take no steps to ensure that mom is providing anymore than the bare necessities of life. In many cases the end of child support is the first time that fathers can actually financially help their children.