very glad to see you keeping an eye out for dads - thanks and welcome Teri!

As the father of 5 kids, I think I am qualified to comment. We only have 2 boys left at home. They are both teenagers. They both stuggle to get good grades. My wife is unable to motivate them. I have been able to motivate them and help them accept responibility for their own grades.

Unless Dad is a pedophile or brutal, why do women always insist on custody of the kids? It never made sense to me, because then (according to stats) kids are far more likely to live in poverty, get involved in drugs, etc. Unfortunately the sad truth and facts are that women generally make far less than men, therefore are far more likely to struggle to be able to provide for any kids they get custody of. Whereas if Dad gets them, it's a little hard for him to forget to pay child support when he has to come home to them every day. I've had women tell me that it's because the kids could never have the emotional support with their father that they have with her, but I think that's baloney. Is this an ego thing, revenge, not thinking straight, or all of the above?

Please add to the list:

1. Dad was away from home a lot with another woman and doesn't want the old family because he started a new family
2. Dad was/is on drugs
3. Dad is too involved with other women

Women don't always insist on having the kids.

Radical feminists are radical feminists. They balance out the ultra conservative male chauvinists.

Maybe mothers just want custody of their kids because they love them and want to raise them. Has that ever occurred to anyone?

Fathers usually feel that way too. The problem is that in divorce/custody situations, the parents often forget to put the kids first.

It never made sense to me, because then (according to stats) kids are far more likely to live in poverty, get involved in drugs, etc.

Are they more likely to do this if all of the following are true: their parents are separated/divorced, their mother has custody, and their father pays child support? Or is it more likely if the mother starts out as a single parent with the father nowhere to be found?

Whereas if Dad gets them, it's a little hard for him to forget to pay child support when he has to come home to them every day.

In MA, fathers -- or any parents paying child support -- can't "forget" to pay. It's automatically deducted from their paychecks.

Oh, and I'm going to change the font color from green to black. It's very hard to read on a white background.

perhaps the point is that neither gender should be assumed to be the more "natural" parent

From what I have read, courts are more inclined to grant custody to the woman in the majority of cases. I know that a male who is active duty military is NOT going to get custody.

SKI, what happens if both parents are active duty? [Serious question.]

And I agree, Eric, that we shouldn't make assumptions about who is or isn't a more natural parent.

I do think, though, that fathers have been getting better treatment in the courts in recent years, as they should. Previously, they seemed to be given a hefty monthly support bill with very limited "visitation" rights. Now they're fighting for shared custody and are starting to get it. That's a good thing.

In my limited experience, the female will still get custody.

It's a tough situation to be in, I can't imagine not being around my kids as much as possible.

the suggestion that things are better for fathers trying to see there kids is not in evidence. the stats are the same, the hyperbole and fraud is deeper to cover up that s.a.d.(standard american divorce) truth.

Me either, and it seems odd to me that the courts have perpetuated gender stereotypes for so long.

A good friend of mine is dating a divorced father of two. He shares custody with his ex-wife. The kids live with their mother through Weds. with their father on Thurs. and Fri. and every other weekend. It's working well for them and it seems like a fair balance for both parents and more importantly the kids.

a very difficult Problem here..

it appears that the Court's propensity for awarding custody to the female stems from the past where Mom was home all the time and Dad was off to work

there it woudl make sense to give custody to the stay at home parent

in today's society, where both parents are likely working, then the Logic behind the precedents falls apart

perhpas if it is looked at on a case by case basis, more appropriate Decisions could be made?

Purple Tigress made some points above that are quite valid, but the reverse can be just as true...a good friend of mine recently divorced and lost custody of his children..but it was the Mother that was screwing around, alcoholic and a drug abuser...after 2 years she was busted and he got custody after she went to jail

how could that be good for the children?

no easy answer...but how we deal with Issues like this say a lot about our Society as a whole..

Excelsior!

Terri, deserves a big thank you for her work on children and custody issues.

Nationwide it's 84% of cases that end with mothers getting sole custody. In CA which is considered progressive, (it's not), since we've had joint custody for 25 years, it's still 70%. That's 7 out of every 10 fathers walking out of court with ZERO physical custody of their children. One third of all babies born in the US are to single moms. Unless the mom agrees, which is rare, and even in some of those cases it doesn't matter to the judge, none of those dads get custody. Yet everyone is surprised when two years after custody cases 40% of those kids never see their father again, ever. Government officials will tell you that only 5% of noncustodial parents are "deadbeat". 40%/5% hmmm... We know visitation orders are rarely enforced. Looks like up to 35% of moms are keeping the kids and dads apart.

Thanks Robert.

Kids should have the right to have equal access to both parents!

Heh, there have actually been studies that if there is a Stay At Home Parent, the child will develop at a faster rate compared to that of their peers if it is the father that stays at home.

There have also been studies that the more a woman makes at work, the more housework she does compared to her husband as well.

As for custody issues... Many times they look into who would be able to provide more for the child (at least now days). My mom got custody of my sister and me. But my dad would have been a pretty lousy father and not able to provide nearly as much for either of us as my mom has done. I have quite a few friends whose fathers were granted custody for that reason as well.

I suppose I am just naive in that I thought that was how it was always decided if there was dispute between the parents?

If the court actually put the kids first, they would be giving JOINT custody - unless they can prove one of the parents UNFIT!

The kids are going through enough with the aspect of their parents divorcing - let alone the final order stating that they only get to see ONE of them every other weekend and one day a week.

How is that the best interest of the child? It isn't.

As a child of divorce and a father that chose not to be involved - I wish there was a court order in place at the time my parents where divorce that MADE him be a responisable parent and be active in my life - he missed out and NOW he regrets it.

I am not a drug addicit - no children out of wedlock - no broken marraiges - I am a college graduate - married with morals and great family values....But I also had a FATHER FIGURE IN MY LIFE, wished he was my own dad - but he a father to me, he was my uncle. My mother is still not married and vows never to do it again.

When there is divorce - there is going to be harse feelings - that is why they are getting divorced - so be an adult - and put your kids first. Quit being selfish and greedy.

Share - wasn't that taught in pre-school - it was in mine.

Well put.

If the case were true that fathers were recieving "better treatment" why are so many fathers and children suffering at the hands of the court system? At what point did fathers become so unimportant to thier children? What statistic report says men are getting better treatment? If this is true why has the suicide rate of males between 21-40 increased dramatically over the last two decades? Answer: Court gave custody to the mother, took away visitatin from the father (or gave minimal visitation), the courts impose biased opinion, they allow the mother to dictate the visitation schedule by awarding a visitation schedule that is grey and is left to the interpretation of local law agencies, they NEVER enforce contempt charges against the mother for non-compliance. If the father misses his child support the DA is all over a contempt charge. Let me say, the father is GUILTY until he can prove his innocence. Now how is it the courts are treating men better? I think not!

Many, many people think (and without facts) that children have a hard time spliting their time with seperated parents. This BS just flows from their mouth, you can tell that these people do not want the father to be part of the childrens life, what they really want is for the female to have all control, over the kids and the ex spouse. For some stupid reason that I cannot think of now, I had the same mind set at one time, I think it stems from fear, that if I did not set myself against split households, I would be the loser if I had to share.
The happiest day of the week for my daughter was the friday that she was coming with me. She hated to leave. The only things I saw from the joint custody were positive for the child. The problem was for the parent who wanted total control, usually the mother, and in my case she wanted the new husband to replace me. Most step-parents are self-centered kidnappers.

If I see one more statement posted by a mother - referring to the kids as HER KIDS alone, as if it didn't take a father to conceive them and raise them BEFORE THE DIVORCE, I think I'm going to scream. KIDS NEED BOTH PARENT! WAKE THE HELL UP AND JOIN THE REAL WORLD!

I think most children do end up under joint custody. One may be granted more time, but the other parent often gets dinners one night a week and the kids every other weekend. Might not be equal, but that's joint custody.

But as for kids needing both parents.... Sure you might need a male and a female to come into existence, but I don't think someone needs two parents or a mother and a father. It really depends on the quality of home the child is given. And I know a ton of people that would be offended saying they needed two parents when in fact they didn't and turned out just fine.

Does that mean I think the courts make the right choice every time? Of course not. And unless one parent would somehow harm the child's wellbeing- I don't understand not giving both parents parental rights. But the fact of the matter is they have to live with one. I've had friends that did 6 months with one parent and 6 months with the other, or two weeks at a time with each. And that doesn't really provide that stable or consistent a home either. I suppose it all depends on what situation would ultimately work best for all parties involved.

Here's a quote about the increase in joint custody over the past 20 or so years:

State policies on joint custody have changed significantly in the past 25 years. Because of maternal preference policies, joint custody was unusual before 1970, although divorced families in times past sometimes worked out arrangements that were equivalent to modern joint custody (Ricci, 1981). For example, the Maryland Court of Appeals considered a case in 1934 in which the division of time between parents was equivalent to joint physical custody (McCann v. McCann), although the term joint custody had not yet been invented. As maternal preference laws were found to violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law in the 1960s and 1970s (Roth, 1976), joint custody began to increase.

And here's a map of the US, showing the types of custody laws in place in each state.

And here's a page that claims that "shared parenting" has been growing since 1970.

As you can see, joint physical custody [at least 30% of time spent with each parent] is gaining steam.

E said- "One may be granted more time, but the other parent often gets dinners one night a week and the kids every other weekend. Might not be equal, but that's joint custody."

My response- No, that is not joint custody. Not only is the timeshare not close to equal, but the person, (male or female), with sole custody almost universally uses the power they have to control the relationship between the child and the other parent. The noncustodial parent is left with an awkward unnatural relationship. When parents have true joint physical custody they are equals and they treat each other that way. They are also more willing to be flexible with each other, the way people share care-giving in a marriage, in a more natural way. Noncustodial parents should not be put in the position to have to beg to take their child to a baseball game or on vacation. Having one parent asserting control over the other is not healthy for the child to see either. And it happens every day.

bhw said- "As you can see, joint physical custody [at least 30% of time spent with each parent] is gaining steam."

My response- Look at those reports again. What you will find is that in most cases they share join LEGAL custody, not join physical custody. Many fathers are told they should agree to this, that it is a fair thing for them. That is not true. All legal custody does is allow a noncustodial parent to sign school releases, to take the child to the doctor, etc. As long as they don't have joint physical custody they only have "visitation". I know hundreds of noncustodial parents. None of them are happy that they have "visitation" with their children. Do you have kids? Would you want to be demoted to a "visitor" just because you're no longer in a romantic relationship with the other parent?

And I want to be clear, this is not just a father issue. I know many noncustodial mothers. They are heartbroken, as are the fathers.

You should care about this because YOU could have your parental rights removed by a judge someday. Or your children could have it happen to them. If you are a grandparent, you could lose all contact with your grandchildren. There are broken families all over the world. None of them did anything to deserve the pain they are experioencing.

As a grandparent, for your child not to have custody of your grandchild doesn't mean you will lose all contact. Due to extremely personal reasons I chose to cut off ties with my father when I was in high school. I continued to speak to his parents at least once a week for as long as they remained alive.

You were a teenager. You were old enough to make that decision. Many parents and children lose contact when the children are very young. I know there are cases where grandparents are able to stay involved even if the parent isn't. In those cases the absent parent probably truly has problems. But there are many cases where the absent parent has been falsely accused, or the custodial parent chooses to move the children hundreds of miles away, or simply disappears. I know this is true because I know these people. I'm not relying on a report or study. These are my friends.

Teri, the first article I cited talked about joint physical custody:

This paper compares divorce rate trends in the United States in states that encourage joint physical custody (shared parenting) with those in states that favor sole custody. States with high levels of joint physical custody awards (over 30%) in 1989 and 1990 have shown significantly greater declines in divorce rates in following years through 1995, compared with other states.

The others discussed the differing types of custody laws/recommendations, including joint physical custody.

Okay, I checked it out. I'm right. (I love when that happens. lol) They are not true joint physical custody cases at all. It clearly states "The definition of joint physical custody used in the NCHS study is a minimum of 30% time share with each parent (Clarke, 1996)." They are including every sole custody case where the noncustodial parent has 30% or more timeshare. It is better than the old standard of 4 days per month, which some parents still suffer with, but it isn't the same as being equals. It still allows the sole custody parent to control the situation.

But thank you for posting the study. It has some good information.

Well...A child is concieved by both parents and I believe equal parenting is the way to go the distance. A child has many needs and it all starts with mom AND dad--remember?

Teri, here's the definition of joint physical custody from that article:

Less commonly, joint physical custody is awarded. With joint physical custody (also called shared parenting), the child lives with both parents, often on an alternating week basis. Joint physical custody is usually defined as a schedule where the child has at least a 30/70 time share between parents, although 50/50 arrangements are a common form of shared parenting (Ricci, 1981). Some form of joint custody is a preference or presumption in a few states, while in some other states with no preferred custody option, judges have favorable attitudes toward joint custody and frequently grant it. For the 19 states in the NCHS sample, the average rate of joint physical custody awards in 1990 was 15.7%, and in two states joint physical custody was awarded in nearly half of the cases.

Also, if you look at the map, and then read the details, you see that some states do indeed have laws/precedent that mandate true, equal joint physical custody as the default. Here's the blurb on Massachusetts, for example:

A presumption for shared legal custody at temporary hearing; at permanent hearing, shared parenting an option if one parent requests it. In making an order or judgement relative to the custody of children, the rights of the parents shall, in the absence of misconduct, be held to be equal, and the happiness and welfare of the children shall determine their custody. When considering the happiness and welfare of the child, the court shall consider whether or not the child's present or past living conditions adversely affect his physical, mental, moral or emotional health.

Shared parenting = joint physical custody. I was asked to give evidence to support my statement that fathers are getting better treatment in the courts than they were 20-30 years ago, and all the stuff I've linked to shows just that. Is it perfect? Do all 50 states do what Mass. does? No. But it is better than it was in 1975.

Not to beat a dead horse, but here's another quote from the study on joint custody and divorce rates, which shows that they're not talking about sole custody cases where the noncustodial parent has 30% or more timeshare, but actual shared physical custody [where neither parent has less than 30% timeshare]:

On a practical level, joint physical custody makes it less likely that a parent can move to another city to eliminate interaction with the other parent. Because both parents provide for the child directly, child support payments may be somewhat lower with joint custody, reducing financial motives for divorce. Perhaps most significant, joint custody also removes the capacity for one spouse to hurt the other by denying participation in raising the children.

I'm telling you that is not reality. I know people who are family law reformers in Massachusetts. Last year they put a ballot initiative on the ballot for equal custody. It wasn't to change the law, it was to see how the public feels about it. http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/site/ballot.php They got it on the ballot in 37 districts. It passed by 84%. Don't you think if everyone in MA was happy with their joint custody they wouldn't have bothered with this?

This description in Wiki is what is really happening:

"This initiative was sponsored by a fathers' rights group whose members believe that fathers are systematically discriminated against by family courts which nearly always award physical custody to the mother even when the father has committed no fault. Family courts typically deny faultless fathers their equal parental rights even when state law appears to require equal custody.

California Family Law, for example, states (Sec. 3010(a)): "The mother . . . and the father . . . are equally entitled to the custody of the child." The only specific examples the statute gives for denying custody to a parent are child abuse, false accusations of child abuse, abuse of someone else with whom the person has a domestic relationship, substance abuse, and conviction of certain felonies.

State laws about custody rights vary, and only about a dozen states specify a legal presumption in favor of equal custody. Iowa's new law says that if a court denies a request for joint physical custody, the judge must explain why it's not in the best interest of the child.

Whether or not a state law mandates equal rights to both parents, family courts appear instead to rely on a concept called "the best interest of the child." Since that notion is wholly subjective, an undefinable rule with no standards or accountability, in practice it rests on the personal whim or bias of the family court."

Oh, and that map... very misleading. In CA, and other states, if one parent objects to joint custody the other parent is denied. Of course this is usually the moms objecting and the dads getting denied. I was in Sacramento Tuesday testifying on behalf of AB 1307, CA's shared parenting bill. It was killed. The opposition lied and the legislators were too afraid to rock the boat. You are reading words. In family courts you will see a whole different picture.

Teri,
Your right it does not add up.I am a
59 yr old disabled 24/7 dad and raised the children since birth until their ages of 6 and 5 yrs .Then through lies, radicals and 9th party pas,mms.I found myself, without,,to a
point of not being able to see the children and this done through the aid of the court.
Even though the Fl.statute, Florida's "shared parenting" statute (61.13(3) FN1 Florida Statutes 1997) is suppose to apply,they have their own rules and agenda.The words that the radicals speak are as false as their agenda which started many years ago and have manipulated the administrators and judiciary. The focus started back in the early 70's,(Or.),the redistribution,using administration and the judiciary to apply what they want,based on their lies and their so called discrimination against them.All others have been made into peasants, plebeian,which were forced into their radical arena and agenda, and held hostage within their radical arena, being usurped,devowered.We read of all
the HHS reports and State of Mom report cards etc., as you mention,and find that what they the radicals say is different from what is, recorded,
"No it don't add up" !

Jeff

Don't you think if everyone in MA was happy with their joint custody they wouldn't have bothered with this?

When did I say that everyone in MA was happy with their joint custody? What I said was that the law now states that parents start out with equal rights and equal access to joint custody. The judge works from there when determining the actual custody arrangement.

Are you going to tell me that this situation is not better than it was in MA 25 years ago? Seriously?

State laws about custody rights vary, and only about a dozen states specify a legal presumption in favor of equal custody.

As the map shows. But are you going to tell me that those dozen states had the same status 25 years ago, or have those laws been changing since about 1980?

Iowa's new law says that if a court denies a request for joint physical custody, the judge must explain why it's not in the best interest of the child.

Good law, and another example of how things are getting better in the courts for fathers.

Again, I never said all was perfect. If you read my comments, you can see that I'm in favor of there being no presumptions in favor of any parent based on gender. But people are arguing that fathers are not getting better custody arrangements these days at all, and that's not true. It's slowly been getting better, even if there's a lot of room for improvement. That's my only point.

bhw,

I'm very happy that you support equality for all fit parents. Gender bias is a bad thing, no matter which gender is affected or what the situation.

I don't think people are arguing that things haven't improved at all. They're arguing that it isn't enough. Think about women's right to vote. What if they wrote the law loosely so when it came time for an election only 20% of women were allowed to vote? Think about racial equality. What if they wrote the law loosely so when it came time to travel across town only 20%* of the black people got to sit at the front of the bus? Do you think these situations would have been okay? Do you think they should have simply been grateful for that 20%?

Equal means equal. It's really very simple.

It looks like it's about father's rights, but it's really about children's rights. Children deserve fully functioning natural relationships with both parents.

Teri

(*20% is the approximate amount of custody cases in CA that end in joint physical custody. Most states are lower.)

I remember a time when I never even *thought* about the family court system, much less cared about it. I was raised in an intact family. I had two wonderfully nurturing parents. What did I care about Family Court?

My blissful ignorance is gone now that I am the wife of a father who has had to scrape for the time he has with his child (from a previous relationship). He is caring, nurturing, and loving and he very much reminds me of my own, amazing dad.

Why is it that my husband had to battle (and is still battling) for time with his child? Why doesn't the court hold the child's mother accountable when she doesn't turn the child over for visitation? Why is it okay for her to shortchange time with Dad, as though he is the most unimportant figure in his child's life?

Had the judge put both him and the child's mother on an even playing field, there would much fewer battles to fight and, dare I say, he'd have a more balanced child.

It is more than time for us to recognize that we all NEED our fathers and that they TRULY ARE WILLING to be parents! When we ALLOW dads to be dads, they do a damned fine job!

I think it is getting better for fathers, but oh so very, very slowly. Every day that goes by without presumptive equal parenting means more kids will be subjected to conflict between parents.

My daughter was born in 1996, and custody arrangements were ordered during a very dark time for never-married fathers. So I ended up with the "standard" visitation, very high support payments, all insurance and transportation obligations, and very few "rights" to a relationship with my daughter that her mother consistently attempts to undermine.

Unfortunately, even if tomorrow there is some groundbreaking legislation passed that insures that children of divorcing/separating parents will enjoy an equal relationship with both parents, my daughter is unlikely to benefit. Once orders are set, family courts are reluctant to disturb the status quo.

But real equal parenting go a long way toward sparing future parents and children the hell of the current "winner-loser" custody system. I only wish it was in place when my daughter was born.

Teri,

As a Dad who is fighting to keep his kids in his life, I truly appreciate all of your efforts. Someday these misguided "womens' groups" will recognize the damage they are doing to the children. Until such time, we are eternally thankful for people like you and Glenn Sacks.

Right on the money with all of your comments, Teri. Civil rights are civil rights are civil rights, whether they reference the equal right to vote, equal rights across the board for minorities, or the equal right to be a parent to your own child.

Those opposed to equal parenting protections often argue that parenting equality is a parent-centric view of things. How about looking at it from a child-centric view of things...? What child deserves to have one of their fit parents forcibly removed (or forcibly relegated to a several days a month 'visitor') just because of a no-fault divorce? Doing this to a child is no less than child abuse, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, those who are intoxicated by power and who feel that it is they who know best what is right for children, as opposed to those children's parents, will not let go easily of their socialist grip.

As Judge Judy (a long-time NY family law attorney and family court judge, as well as TV personality) wrote in her book 'Don't Pee on my Leg and Tell Me It's Raining', "FATHERS ORGANISE TO DEMAND FAIRER TREATMENT. YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE LEGAL BEEF AND YOU NEED TO MAKE THIS A PUBLIC ISSUE. RIGHT NOW THE COURTS DO NOT HEAR YOU."

We need to continue our organizing and get louder and louder. Here in NH, a small state, watch closely for it to get louder and louder. There will be no more silence. Now there will be a fast-growing spotlight instead...

Teri,
I've been thru the wringer twice, the court gave custody without serving me papers for the hearing(said could not find, Judge MOVING order, then mailed me a copy of the determination, then served me at work for the blood test 2 days after the hearing) then the mother keeps moving ever time I find out where they live, have seen my daughter 6 times since birth(and I bet you know it was only for about 2 to 3 hours each time), so I can't see my daughter, one time out of state for 2 yrs. She moved back last DEC. and I still haven't seen my daughter 10 yrs old. I talked to my daughter in JAN. and when I told her I want to come see her, 100 miles away, the mother said(must have been listening at the same time(cell call) which means coaching the childs thoughts???) the mother said the ONLY way I would see my daughter is with a court order, 200 filing, mediation cost, psych evaluation cost, trans. cost, her court appointed lawyer cost, her GAL cost, etc., all paid by me because the courts says so, and I'm current on support. I feel that the only time I will be able to see my daughter is when she is 18, if she has her own brain and not controlled by mother who still at 29 live with her mom, and is controled by her, who controls what and when I see the child. when I got the news of AB 1307 failing, I was very upset. I sent the NOW foundation (feminist movement) a letter praising there effort on the bill and made it sound like I was in cahooots with them and then in the end of the letters last line I told them this, "I want to close saying this, Due to your actions in SAC this week, I will probably not see my daughter till she turn 18, so thanks alot and by the way, just because the POPE of the century has passed it doesn't make your small brain society bigots GOD, so stop messing in society's lively hood by messing with the children's future, because all you create is more money for the courts, CSS, psych's and therapist, OH wait that mostly who your members are,
so I see clearly NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Keep up the fight Purple hearts lady, your are my tinkerbell in the peter pan life of the courts lighting the way to the future.

In my experience, the most well adjusted children have unrestricted unconditioned access to both parents. They can call, visit, or see either parent whenever they want and are encouraged to do so by both parents. These children report a more positive self-image and a greater sense of well being. In contrast, a study I conducted in 1995 revealed that daughters of single mothers with no father contact had far lower scores for self-esteem and self-image, and reported a greater need for male approval. Obviously, a child who is self assured and secure with themselves will be less likely to do drugs and less likely to become pregnant as a teenager. I am certain we can all agree that those outcomes are something both sides want for their children.

And I think we can further all agree that such an arrangement requires an unselfish and civilized attitude on the part of BOTH parents, and such civility and maturity is not the exclusive province of either fathers or mothers. I'm not sure I understand the tone of woman-bashing on this thread - I've known plenty of dads who are superb parents (my own husband included), and plenty who are complete dicks. Blaming feminism for bad parenting seems a bit misplaced.

Lisa,
What they're saying is that judges make decisions based on gender bias, or who has the most money for attorney fees, or who has the right connections, and it has nothing to do with which parent is a better parent. They blame "feminism" because NOW and other "feminists" have a powerful influence in public policy. I saw it at the capital. NOW was there telling the legislators that women don't support shared parenting.
Teri

I would really like to see you cite some source material for this, Teri. It's an interesting discussion, and a worthwhile one, but I certainly don't buy the notion that men are routinely (and I do emphasize the word routinely) discriminated against in family courts, not without some objective documentation to back it up. The other thing I would point out is that there are always two sides to every story, and we rarely hear both of them. I have seen lots of divorced couples with children in my lifetime, and their success in raising their kids seems directly related to the degree to which both parents can set aside their animosity and work towards doing a good job of parenting. While I believe in theory that children deserve to have unfettered relationships with both parents, I also know that not every parent (male or female) is a good parent.

I also find it odd that since our lawmakers in this country are predominantly men, that NOW is taking the heat for keeping the laws in favor of women. It would seem that men are largely responsible for keeping fathers out of the loop when it comes to equal parenting time.

bhw, here's an exercise for you. Google "radical gender feminists" and see what kind of web sites you pull up.

I own a company and employ 1000 people. Recently, I was hit with a review
> by
> the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of my hiring practices.
> I
> was sued for discrimination based on the fact that while the minority
> population in my state is about 40%, I had only one minority (.1%)on my
> payroll. It was therefore found that I did not have adequate policies in
> place to ensure equal employment opportunity for minorities and therefore
> was discriminating. I was given 1 year to implement policies to correct
> this
> imbalance. It did not seem to matter that no minorities who applied had the
> skills I required. The only thing that was considered, was the simple
> percentage of minorities employed out of the total employees I had. In this
> test of discrimination, the court simply made the assumption/declaration
> that it was not logical that with 40% minority population, that I could
> only
> find 1 minority (.1%) suitable to employ. I must therefore be
> discriminating.
>
> Last year, I was divorced. During the hearings on custody of our children,
> I
> requested 50% of the children's time to spent with me. I pointed out to the
> court all the data I could acquire on the benefits to the children of such
> an arrangement. My wife argued against 50% and insisted on the standard
> state guidelines of every other weekend and half of the summer. The judge
> basically ignored my request and issued a finding in favor of my wife's
> request. I filed a request for reconsideration and submitted data showing
> that in my state the woman was awarded sole custody in 90% of cases. I
> argued that this was discrimination. I argued that in every divorce case,
> the male/female percentage is 50/50. It is therefore not logical that the
> percentage of custody awards should be so heavily skewed in favor of the
> female. This must certainly represent a preference or bias on the part of
> the court, that can only be seen as based on the sex of the person. My
> argument was denied
>
> Disclaimer
>
> The preceding was a dramatization. While the stories in fact happen every
> day, my presence in the story is fictional and for illustrative purposes
> only.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rick

I'd like you to meet some of my friends...
http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/

In our society judges are the only ones who earn their keep by predation.
The preys are all of us who earn an honest living.
The predators have the monopoly on power but need collaborating agents to lead them to their prey.
Enter a wife who can tell a judge how big and lootable her husband's largesse is.
That's all it takes.
The man is picked and boned until his last penny is devoured.
He doesn't survive it, his children do not survive it but the judge and wife walk off with the loot.
Our only deliverence from these everyday familiar massacres is making
'Nobody owes anything to anyone who didn't earn it'
the default mantra of our divorce. Period!
Nothing else need be done.

A judge does not 'walk off with the loot'.

A judge does not earn his keep by predation. He gets paid the same no matter which way he rules.

This is extremist speech from someone who does not understand how our country is supposed to work. I don't understand why this rise in people openly/verbally assaulting our judicial system isn't more alarming to people.

'Nobody owes anything to anyone who didn't earn it'
the default mantra of our divorce. Period!

By that logic, when a husband and wife divorce, the husband owes the children nothing.

Damn those judges for thinking of the children!!

Steve,
It's people like you that worry me when they talk in the name of MY children.
My children have always gotten and will always get one hundred percent from me because I give it to them freely and willingly of my own free choice.
I don't need ORDERS from parasitic predators like you to commit myself to that.
Should I ever think that you or the rest of the parasitic hordes you represent, care more about my children than I do? Did you ever think that I cared more about YOUR children more than YOU did? Just who do you think you are fooling here with your spin and spiel about MY children?
True, I'm not willing to give my earnings to a parasitic horde of unemployable liberal arts graduates of the past forty years, people like you, who want to deprive MY children of their dedicated, devoted and a loving father, who wanted nothing more in the world than to see HIS children live, thrive and see better days, but just simply survive the poisonous environment you have now created for them, for life!
~Aard

I didn't talk in the name of your children. Man you right wingers just have a whole different way of thinking. Everything becomes a personal assault on your very psyche. I don't know that you have children and could care less.

I responded to this concept: 'Nobody owes anything to anyone who didn't earn it'

and I responded to your verbal assault on the American judicial system. I'm not sure when America's judges became your children, but I'm always the one who scares folks like you, probably because no matter what I say, it hits some filter in your head that turns it into a personal assault on you. The irony is that those you accuse of telling you how to live, could care less how you live.

Aard, to put it in words the rest of us understand:

Defending judges from your verbal assault does not correlate with your ability to provide for your children.

Steve,
Who are you? Why are you hiding?
Me, a Right-Winger? Why don't you call me and find out whether any of the assumptions you made about me held up? 323.465.2695.
The judges are appointed by the people who made tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars when the judges destroyed one of us and our families.
Who makes money when somebody gets divorce?
The divorce lawyers rake $100,000 a year; the psychs pull another $50,000. Even the county gets another $20,000.
Just what do you know about the hordes of parasitic predators who are profiting from divorce?
If I counted them all it would take half a page and a quarter million dollars more a year, just in my case.
Nobody elected those judges, nobody voted for those laws.
Nobody that is, except those merciless predators themselves.
I've got to wonder, Have you ever been thru a divorce?
Have you ever witnessed how those State sponsored wringers of our males and our daily breadwinners take the last breath out of their victims?
~Aard

Aard, not a good idea to post your phone number on a site that gets upwards of 30K unique visits per day.

A lot of these judges, specifically this level of judge, are elected.

Steve S is talking, primarily, about the violent words directed at judges in recent weeks by high-level politicians and advocates. Aard is speaking specifically to divorce and custody issues.

Temple'
Please do not disseminate falsehoods.
No judge is ever elected.
They are appointed by their peers and the industry they represent.
For seven years now, the Libertarian party has been trying to add 'None of the above' to the list of choices on voting on judges; all selected by the ABA and submitted to the electorate for confirmation.
To no avail.
Without this choice, the confirmation is meaningless. The vacancies always get filled by an ABA appointee.
~Aard

I'm not. I've voted for judges - so tell me again? It differs from state to state, from county to county.

Here in Texas we vote for judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. But keep an eye on Temple, his grip on the truth is teunous.

Dave

Er, excuse my fat fingers. That should be 'tenuous', not that odd greek looking word I typed.

Dave

Aard, no I have never been through a divorce. My parents divorced and my mom got the kids and my dad got everything else. Everything.

I'm just shocked at all the anti-judge talk I've been hearing over the last few months. Whether it's the Schiavo case, marriage or like your comments here about the entire divorce court system being corrupt. And shocked that middle America isn't concerned.

And I don't know your ideology, but it is odd that primarily conservatives who have railed against liberals opposed to the invasion of Iraq, for being 'anti-American' are primarily the ones attacking one of the branches of American government, verbally and through the nomination process, as well as all the judges who currently require 24/7 protection are judges who have ruled against conservative ideology.

So how it all turns out is, I'm anti-American for trying to defend our judicial system and you're the patriotic one for disrespecting it. What crazy times we live in. Getting back to the point of the thread, I do know of instances where the husband makes out quite well in a divorce, so no I don't see a judicial system out to bring down all males, sorry.

Steve,
I am averse to the word conservative. I certainly am not one and it certainly doesn't appeal to me.
I used to be a liberal during the Adlai Stevenson and Walter Lippman heydays of the early sixties.
I think you will be shocked to learn that I was a card carrying and due paying member of the:
1. Democratic Party from 1962 till 1992
2. Five Athean(Atheist) Organizations from 1964 to present
3. The ACLU, NOW and the Feminist Majority from 1972 till 1992.
My first experience at divorce was in 1992. Since then I have hated Democrats and the judiciary that they created to destroy us males and our families in this country, with a passion.
Since 1978 I have voted and been a card carrying active Libertarian.

Wait till you get a divorce to experience what a monster those lefties have created. Yes thanks to their efforts, our government is nothing but a monster now.
I think you will hate them with a passion only rivaled by mine.
The right wingers medieval mentality and oppression of personal liberties gives me the shudders but they haven't had a chance to spread their poison that deep into our government yet. That's the only difference.
~Aard

3. Since then I have hated Democrats and the judiciary that they created to destroy us males and our families in this country

I don't know about anyone else, but as a Democrat and feminist, I can say you have described my goals in life perfectly -- destroy men! Destroy families! Destroy! Destroy! Destroy!

Of course, you might consider that DIVORCE destroys families.

Nah, that can't be it.

Since they won't even let Steve get married I doubt that divorce is the biggest of his worries, of course.

Dave

Aard, I did assume by your hatred of the American judicial branch, that you would be conservative. While you might be adverse to the word conservative, if you are a 'card carrying' Libertarian, then you are ideologically standing right next to a conservative.

Blaming judges and Democrats for breaking apart families that are in the process of trying to break apart, makes you the conservative that I thought you would be. I was 100% spot on, in my assumption.

Thank you for clarifying so that others who might think I'm crazy, can see where I am coming from.

And I'm truly sorry for you, that you had a bad divorce experience. And I'm truly sorry that you erroneously believe that Democrats want to destroy males and families.

Thank you Rush, thank you Anne Coulter, thank you Bill O'Reilly, et. al.

You know, free speech is free speech but there is a consequence this country is going to pay for allowing garbage, rhetoric and falsehoood to equate with fair and balanced news under the banner of free speech.

And I say the consequences of this will be devastating to the America we were all raised to believe in.

Sorry to turn this thread away from the child custody issues. The assault on the judges caught my eye, I am glad I spoke out about it and brought it to everybody's attention, and I hope you all can see how such an anti-Democratic position affects the mindset of someone wishing to discuss 'fair and balanced' child custody issues with you all.

That's all I have to say. Thanks.

I had a chance to speak with Matt O'Connor yesterday, founder of Fathers4Justice. I can't give away any secrets, but I will say, again, this is sure to be a very exciting year in Fathers Rights! Have a listen to a NPR interview with the author of the Sunday New York Times article on the Fathers Rights Movement:

Fathers Become Vocal on Parents' Rights
http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/

Click here to hear: Fathers Become Vocal on Parents' Rights

One thing I don't like about homosexuals. They don't come and tell you they are one. While you're open with them, they hide and speak as if they were none.
My wish for you Steve is that First you make a lot of money, the kind that wets the appetite of the Democratiaclly created Divorce Industry.
My Second wish is that homosexuals do get their wish come true and are able marry each other legally.
My Third wish is that you and your homosexual partner do get your chance to adopt a few children siezed from a heterosexually destroyed family the kind the Democrats are happy to do day in and day out.
My Fourth wish is that I don't get invited to read your obituary when those same Democratic Party created judicial minions, kill you for being such a good, loving, and perfect parent to your children just to get a crack at the money you've made for them.
~Aard

Aard, SteveS has been "out" on BC since ... forever. Is he supposed to put a disclaimer next to his name every time he posts a comment here: "SteveS, homosexual"?

And what the hell is a "heterosexually destroyed family," and why would gay couples want their children?

Steve has his own child, btw, not taken from any heterosexuals.

One thing I don't like about homosexuals. They don't come and tell you they are one.

They get tired of you telling them to keep it in the bedroom probably.

While you're open with them, they hide and speak as if they were none.

And of course, my orientation needs to be pointed out beforehand, otherwise you get upset you didn't get to turn on the appropriate filter in your head. Meaning you need to know beforehand, because that will affect the legitimacy of my words, I could say one thing about child custody to you without mentioning my orientation and it would be received totally differently than if I said it now.

My wish for you Steve is that First you make a lot of money, the kind that wets the appetite of the Democratiaclly created Divorce Industry.

I make enough to provide for my family and my future, anything I make beyond that, I do not need and give away. So a lack of greed would prevent me from ever falling into your shoes.

My Second wish is that homosexuals do get their wish come true and are able marry each other legally.

Yes, and when a Libertarian says it, can't you just feel the 'love'.

My Third wish is that you and your homosexual partner do get your chance to adopt a few children siezed from a heterosexually destroyed family

As bhw pointed out, I already have my own, gay parenting is what my blog is about. However, I love family values immensely and if it were possible, I would love to take children out of foster care and give them a loving home. I would make room.

My Fourth wish is that I don't get invited to read your obituary when those same Democratic Party created judicial minions, kill you for being such a good, loving, and perfect parent to your children just to get a crack at the money you've made for them.

oh, so now we are up to judges killing people for being good parenting. Anne Coulter must have just had an orgasm.

And I'm the crazy one folks.

Can I offer my opinion as to WHY this man ended up with nothing, or is that out of bounds?

WTG, Steve - take that! Vader!

What's so bizarre is that if anyone believes in and argues for equality in family matters, it's SteveS. And yet he finds himself under attack because he dared to assert that judges aren't the evil handmaidens of the Left out to destroy men.

Of course, once we get rid of those leftie judges and replace them with good ol' family values conservatives, I can just imagine how much better things will get for father's rights. /sarcasm

to Steve S..he started it, yer "in-bounds" ta take whatever shot ya would like..

to Aard - firstly...sorry to hear about a bad divorce and loss of custody...never a good thing..

however, after reading the drivel you keep spewing out here that demonstrates less active cells within your cranium than exist in a cup of Dannon yogurt, i have a bit of news..

Aard wins today's Insidious Troglodyte award !!

due to his overflowing with the very milk of human kindness, exhibiting the compassion of an upholsterer in Dachau
and keen fashion sense..."we" are hereby granting Aard with this prestigious award...

thanx for playing, please try again..

Excelsior!

It was a rhetorical question, of course.

It's always sad to see someone who has [had] liberal values become so disillusioned over the loss of money that he converts to Libertarian. Sad but noteworthy.

It's always horrible when someone gets treated unfairly in the judicial system. It is made up of human beings, but I still believe in it's integrity.

Nobody should lose 'everything' in a divorce. But to go back to the comment I was addressing:

'Nobody owes anything to anyone who didn't earn it'
the default mantra of our divorce. Period!

which was then followed up by the statement that the children would be provided for, that only leaves the wife as the one who would get screwed. I don't know the specifics of his case, I don't want to get into that, but setting things equal in a divorce, certainly is not present in that premise.

And if you perceive yourself to be a liberal, but you also perceive a judge is liberal and you come to hate him, so you switch your entire ideological belief system, is either a very traumatic event or you did not adhere to your liberal values very strongly to begin with.

In either case, I do sympathize with your divorce and the consequences that have come from it.

If you want to say that sexism is present in some courthouses, then I will agree with that. So is racism, homophobia and numerous other prejudices. The court system is made up of human beings, but the system is not out to bring down good Americans. This is hate speech, now voiced by millions of Americans.

After reading SteveS, Aaman, bhw, and gonzo I get the message.
The moment I speak of my own experience, I am cast as their hated conservative right-winger Republican whether am one or not.
None of you had my experience, yet none of you speak of your experience.
No matter how many times I have reminded you that I neither agree with nor identify with such figureheads of the right as Rush, Coulter, O'Reily or Bush, of the only TWO FRONTS that our flawed political system permits, you keep throwing me there.
Folks I do not represent them. They do not represent me.
Is anybody listening?
This is not the kind of crowd I want to spar with.
You will not hear from me again.

ok..look up..did i say anything about your political affiliation?

ummm...nope...

what you experienced was a bit of thoughtful discussion in response to the hate speech you were tossing out here

i think, all things considered..you got off mildly

but that is because Steve S. is a MUCH nicer guy than i am...and even i was being restrained

as for your "personal experience" you gave no quantifiable details, merely emotionally charged rhetoric fueled by your own hatred and obvious disappointment...

it woudl be quite interesting to see the transcripts of your actual case..

but you are listening any more , are you?

nuff said?

Excelsior!

I am cast as their hated conservative right-winger Republican whether am one or not.

If you don't want to be lumped in with the rowdy kids at the back of the class, then don't act like them.

Steve,
You might be interested in the fact that AB 1307, California's shared parenting bill, applied to domestic partnerships as well as marriages. Unlike Texas, and other states, we did not add wording to leave out same sex parents. I support fit parents of all shapes, sizes and styles.
Teri

I would imagine that shared parenting advocates would find most all gay and lesbian parents as allies.

There is so much unchartered waters for us, that there is no way we can protect for every contingency, but for us to create families can be so radically different than the norm, by the time a child for a same-sex couple comes into the world, we've already got every contingency we can think of down as a legal document.

There are some things that can be foreseen but cannot be prevented, like the current custody case of the two lesbians currently making the news. That involves 'interstate divorce' for a couple where only one state recognizes the marriage. We have so much to work through ourselves, any type of shared parenting law that guarantees that both caregivers have continued contact/access to the child, would help immensely.

For the life of me, I cannot conceive of depriving my child of her right to have both parents in her life, and I do sympathize with anyone who finds themselves on the short end of the stick in such a situation.

I predict that one day men in mass, will one day refuse to pay forced extortion to the State, feds and "family" courts no matter the barbaric punishments for doing so. For their money they get to loose their home, children, assets, self respect, and they get to watch as their children turn to drugs, crime, and a course to hopelessness. This attack on men has to end.

Over years, the divorce industry and government has placed fathers in a no win situation before the step foot in a court house. Children are gradually stolen, money, time and future stability as well. Worse of all your child is stolen from you and you. Try to correct the problem in the "family" court and you are now part of a high conflict divorce and punished by less time w/ your child. Then people wonder why dads are upset?

Bless you. It amazes me how after grieving parents post message after message of their devastating cases, others still have the nerve to say these situations don't or rarely exist.

I have not imagined all the emails and phone calls I've received since joining this cause. This is truly an epidemic affecting families in America.

If feminists and domestic violence "pros" didn't lie under oath, we'd probably have equal parenting laws nationwide. This is America. Equality, remember?