What I have heard about my state (NY) is that the National Organization for Women has a very strong lobby that has influenced the government into ensuring that the bias for women in custody and child support issues continues unabated.  We have a law that if there is 50/50 custody, the parent who makes more money pays FULL child support to the other parent.  8/10 that's going to be the father.  There is no presumption for shared custody at all here. 

The issue with females having an unfair advantage in family court is a result of many complex issues.

First and simplest is we allow judges in family court way to much discretion. There are very few solid laws that say this MUST happen but more what CAN happen. A judge is allowed to look at the laws in place and can completely ignore them because they are recommendations that don’t have to be followed. This allows a judge’s personal bias to impact their decision making.

Second let’s look at our culture. Despite all the evidence and changes in place we still see females as the ones who run the house. If they are in charge of the house and children in a “normal” family why wouldn’t it stay that way after the divorce?

We see men as bread winners and not caregivers. That will continue to be an issue as long as we have inequality of pay in the work place. We’ll continue to have inequality of pay in the work place as long as we continue to penalize women for being women and having children.

Until a judge looks at a paper with nothing but last names of the parents and has a set law of what they HAVE to do nothing will change. The law should say that 50/50 happens unless xyz. At that point these conditions are considered. Both parents can present their facts and without gender attached and a judge can go from there.

We also need to stop seeing change of environment as the most devastating thing that can happen to a child. BM in our case was going to keep the kids because she already had them. She left SO homeless so of course she kept the children after she left him. Didn’t matter that at the time of their divorce he was able to show more stability and the place we live in ranks as one of the best cities in multiple categories. For our state BM lives in one of the worst cities for crime. Our school district is also far better than hers. However since the kids already lived with mom and were enrolled no one would even consider that dad might be the better home because that would change what the kids were used to. Let’s ignore the fact that BM had moved 4 times in one year and introduced the children to 3 new daddies. That she left SO because she was cheating on him, he had evidance of her being phsyically abusive towards and we could produce evidence of her using the kids to blackmail SO and that she barely had the kids as it was becuase she would leave them for days on end with her father who wouldn't release them to SO. Nope moving the kids in with dad was more disruptive.

even get angry about this because it’s so blatantly silly. “We need more equality in the family court system because men are better at raising kids than stupid, stinky women.” 

Please provide links to these studies? 

“Single motherhood in our country is soaring - upwards of 70%, dependent on the demographic.”

Firstly, which demographic are we depending this Information on?

Could it be that, based on demographics, there is a 70% rate of single motherhood because the sperm donor is uninterested in being the strong male role model in his child(ren)’s life? Based on him making his child’s mother a single mother, we can assume he lacks moral character and responsibility. How, then, does that make him a superior choice for guiding his child to completing education and avoiding incarceration?

but we live literally on the same street, five blocks apart in the same neighborhood. And we do half the week . We gets Monday Tuesday and half of Wednesday. I get Thursday and Friday. We rotate weekends. My kids seem very well adjusted and happy. We also did our own agreement . Neither one of us are high conflict . My kids do well and school and have active social lives.

dd4's dad got the steps every other weekend maybe. North Korea always scheduled horseback riding lessons or competitive cheer on his four days a month. She just used him for money. He had no say in anything . To say they have issues is an understatement. I think they definitely would have benefited if he had been allowed to parent and shape his own children but he was prevented at every turn.

I didn't have time to read all the other responses, so please excuse any repetition.

Divorce Corp (2014)

There's currently a financial incentive for women to divorce their husbands.  CS is extremely inflated, much more than the incremental cost to raise the child.  States get federal matching for collecting CS.  So there is an incentive for states to take custody away from the wage earner.

So one parent wins and the other loses, an adversarial relationship, intensifying conflict.  Parents fighting about money for years.  Kids suffer for the conflict.

I think a lot of men do not know that they do have rights and are afraid they are gonna get financially screwed if they appear before a court to see if they have these rights. My DH was one of them. It took me more than a year to convince him to spend some time straightening out some issues and then only after BM witheld visitation did he gett off his behind. It took less than a day and less than $ 500 total.

That said; bias towards the mother. Does exist and it is based firmly on laws from the times when the mother was a homemaker and there were no DNA tests or contraceptives or other methods of determining paternity. I can also tell you that the law is progressing to a spot more equal.

There are two separate issues being discussed. The issue of child support and the issues of visitation/physical custody.

The child support issue is pretty fair in many states. I am referring to those states that do percentage of income regardless of who has physical custody. In that they take the income of the mother(regardless of marital status) add it to the income of the father. That is the total income per year. Then they take the noncustodial oarent and make them pay a percentage of the total based on a chart that is set up by the government. I believe that is fair. Each parent then pays to accomodate the child.(it is assumed the custodial parent pays their percentage bc the majority of time is spent with them)

The visitation custody is the issue heatedly debated. Custody is most often awarded to the mother bc " you always know who the mother is bit you are never sure who the father is". (See above -archaic yes). From the point of view of a small government governing 500+ million ppl it is easier to track these children by placing them with the mother who has medical records of their birth etc.

Now as far as the unfairness of it all I have heard many dads complain that the system is biased towards the mother but I have not seen a single one go to the court an demand custody(including my DH until convinced there was nothing to fear). I explained it to my dh this way.

She has carried the child in her belly and given birth to it in a hospital. She is automatically the mother bc baby came out of her. Also(see above) traceable in govt accounting to the point of birth/ origin

The man in the equation has the same rights as far as custody as the woman does only that man has to go apply for this and claim that right before a court. There is primary custody(the child spends the majority of time in the mothers home) and physical custody( the parents both have the sam rights in regards to issues pertaining to schooling, medical etc). When the man applies for physical custody he can demand 50/50 primary custody(that means that the kid shares equal time in each parents home). My dh had to o and apply for visitation and when he went he applied for physical custody . We kept primary custody with BM bc that was already the routine for SS14.

The child has the right to be financially supported until such time as it is no longer a child. In this case the woman acting as cistodian of the child has the right to file for child support - the responsability to claim the childs right before a court.

The bias toward the mother simply exists because there has to be a point of origin for the court. When understood as this it is easier to discern that there are indeed rights you have as a man and as a father. But you have to go claim those rights before a court. Juat as the woman has the right of child support but she has to go claim it before the court. 

A thisd issue of competence then arises. Based upon personal experience having CPS called once bc of BM and once bc of DH I can tell you that they actually treated DH the same in both cases. In fact they had followup visits with BM but not DH in both instances(remember one call was supposedly his fault). The issue of competence is the one where I believe the government should be a lot stricter. It takes waay too long for the government to do something for the children who live in inadequate homes. Often it has to be by the intervention of a relative that the court is allerted of a problem.

i see your new to step talk....as in today.

Follow the money.

Another hit and run I see...............thesis?

Delete