After divorce the courts always lean towards the women. It's fine that the woman has the kids but its now "her" kids and the father needs permission from her and/or the courts when to see and if he can see the kids......everyother weekend, once a week, etc. Why is it so important for them to be with the mother and not the father. Why is it such a womens court when (in some cases) it can be their fault on why the marriage ended.
2007-07-20 08:34:14 · 28 answers · asked by Unknown, CA 2 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
this goes for the familys that are pretty much "normal". Two people married with kids and then the marriage not working out. And the CA doesn't necessarily mean I'm from California.
2007-07-20 08:39:19 · update #1
Again, if both parents are normal! Both are fit. My thing is that WHO ARE THEY TO TELL ME HOW MANY DAYS THAT IT'S OKAY FOR ME TO SEE MY KIDS. If I am paying all her bills, and I am not complaining cause it's for my kids, but if I am giving so much, why can't I see my kids more. I can't fight for joint living arrangements yet cause all my money goes to her and as of now, I can't afford a house and no judge will give me the joint custody until I can provide a good living arrangement for my kids. It's just so frustrating.
2007-07-20 08:49:07 · update #2
In CA, I am surprised you are even asking this question because it is rare to even know who the father is there with all the liberals and gays........and all their screwed up ways of life.
2007-07-20 08:36:54 · answer #1 · answered by no jap crap 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I believe that the courts give women more often then not the children because statistics show that SOME men run away from all their responsibilities. It matters not to the court why the marriage ended. What does matter is that the kids are taken care of. I don't necessarily believe that the mother is ALWAYS the best parent to raise children. The father has to prove to the courts that the mother is unfit before custody is granted to the father when there is a battle for the children.
2007-07-20 15:40:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not necessarily true, when men are the better provider and the kids are better off with them, the courts will award the children to the father. However, in most cases, the fathers have moved on to another relationship or are absentee and some don't want to take care of their children or visit them, they feel that the relationship is over and the kids will survive or strive with her and as long as they can send some money, they are fine so that is one of the reasons why the courts lean more towards the mothers than the fathers.
2007-07-20 15:44:50 · answer #3 · answered by justaboutpeace 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Why the marriage ended has nothing to do with who gets the children. Fault and blame for the ruined marriage is something that is totally separate from the childs well being. And should be kept as far away from the children as possible. Regardless of the reasons for divorce, the children should not be subjected to any more than they already are with just the parents separating.
2. Mothers, are in most cases, are more nurturing than fathers, that is the only reason they tend to side with the mothers even though both parents are willing and able to care for kids.
3. And honestly I don't think that I can explain the bond I have with my child, same bond that MOST mothers have with their child. Fathers don't always take the opportunity to develope that bond with their children. Therefore it would be harder on the child to be separated from the mother.
2007-07-20 15:45:45 · answer #4 · answered by gypsy g 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because all men are louses and dogs, doncha know?
Seriously, the courts are biased. The problem is a direct result of stereotyping and pigeon-holing. It's a double standard that has been around for ages. MOST of the time, this double standard favors the men (i.e., they have the power, they make the money, they're taken more seriously, they're stronger, etc.) and sometimes it favors the women (i.e., we're the nurturers, we're in touch with our emotions, we're kinder and gentler).
Things are changing though. Fifty years ago, a woman would have to be a crack-smoking whore living in a hovel to get her kids taken away from her in a custody case. But now, while the numbers are still in favor of women, men do get awarded custody on occasion. And even when they don't get full custody, they still get a fairer deal than they did years ago.
You've got to keep fighting for your rights. That's what we're doing. Well some of us anyway :)
2007-07-20 15:43:18 · answer #5 · answered by Debra P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's traditional and comes from the time when the woman was expected to stay home and raise the kids. These days, that's not always the case, but the law hasn't caught up to reality.
However, most courts do recognize that a child is better off with the parent who can provide a better life, and men are winning more custody cases. Just prove your ex is a psycho nutjob who does drugs, and you'll get the kids!
2007-07-20 15:40:32 · answer #6 · answered by Frinn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My guess is b/c (while not the majority anymore) the wife/mother is usually the one that is home with the kids all day long while the husband/father is at work and not the primary everyday caregiver. And by caregiver I mean, changing diapers, potty training, cooking, grocery shopping, school clothes shopping,etc..
Remember, the judge is supposed to be doing what is best for the kids, regardless of how the marriage ended, if she's a good mother then that's probably why they are with her.
Good luck and sorry for what you are going through.
2007-07-20 16:24:56 · answer #7 · answered by Lindsay G 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think WHY the marriage ended is important. I think WHO is best for the child is. I think a lot of times the mother either leaves with the children, or, the man lives the home with the mother, so the kids "routine" at the time of court is to be with the mom. I do agree, though, the courts are biased to women.
2007-07-20 15:41:27 · answer #8 · answered by Amanda h 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because women are less likely to end up a dead beat parent! Too many mens skip out on their kids and make a bad example for ALL men. There is no way for the court to predict whether or not a man will be a good father, so they have to rely on what they see in the general population.
2007-07-20 16:09:50 · answer #9 · answered by landgraf1021 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It takes two people to make a marriage work, and two people to destroy it. If the judge feels that the father would be better suited for full custody of the children, then that is what will happen. If the mother is deemed better suited for full custody, then she will get the kids. It's about what is best for the children, not the parents.
2007-07-20 15:39:05 · answer #10 · answered by from_a_dark_place 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is not necessarily true. I have a couple of friends who divorced and the kids are living with the Father.
If the kids are 11 years or older - the judge will ask them who they want to live with. It will be his final decision though if there is a custody battle.
I agree that sometimes, the Dad is a better choice, as there are "dead beat" mom's out there too!
2007-07-20 15:38:48 · answer #11 · answered by kimmer727 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋