On divorce/separation are children the exclusive property of the mother?

Question

"property" maybe a misnomer please don't criticise the wording

[KINZ]
You obviously have no idea do you of the real world.
And in fact I do know custody laws in the UK. And I know how the legal system is trashed by dogmatic feminists like you.

Answer 1

Too often this is the case. It is not supposed to be and the best interest of the child is supposed to be the highest concern. Selfish women manipulate the court so that they are granted full custody and the father is diminished to a mere visitor in the childs life. Just because mom had the child does not mean that she is a better parent and should not win custody by default.
I am subject to this and going through a custody battle. Mom has used the Violence Against Women's act to try and establish me a an abuser but with the help of a good father's rights attorney and support from my family I have fought off most accusations and now I have 50/50.
Too often men give up in the face of this discrimination and then women use this as a defense in saying that the man abandoned his child.
There is no other solution but to grant shared custody by law automatically.

Answer 2

You're right, "property" is the WRONG word, and the attitude behind it may well be why you don't have custody.

It should be a on a case-by-case basis. It's truly tragic that most couples can't seem to come to agreements between themselves, based on what's best for those children they brought in to the world and are responsible for taking care of until they're old enough to take care of themselves.

Usually, this means both parents are in their lives in a major way, with whichever parent the 2 decide being primary care-giver; or them sharing.

Sometimes, one parent is clearly the better person to have primary custody and decision-making powers, and sometimes one parent needs to be completely kept away from the children.

You see, it's not at all like "who gets the good TV" -- it should be about those young lives who still depend on their parents.

Answer 3

usually the courts have a formula it somewhat is per how lots you're making and that they'd care much less if u have yet another toddler on the way. U had this toddler first and the courts say this toddler is entitled to the existence they might have had if u and the mum stayed mutually. additionally, u would are transforming into to be a level, yet u for sure have not grown up! Calling ur toddler's mom a "loser" or the different call is definitely infantile despite if she is! The courts will maximum in all probability tell u "u chosen to have yet another toddler understanding ur financial difficulty with this one. yet another toddler shouldn't impact this one. This one DOESNT get from now on inexpensive and should no longer lose out as a results of fact u have yet another on the way." that's precisely what they informed my father (my mom had a damn reliable activity/my stepdad did too), then they raised the toddler help. If something, u would desire to be worried approximately getting an criminal professional and getting custody of ur daughter. Or can u no longer arise with the money for to get ur daughter (which will desire to be your FIRST precedence) as a results of fact uve have been given this new toddler coming? Oh properly! This toddler got here first and is in a foul difficulty in accordance to you, consequently SHE would desire to be your FIRST precedence impressive now! EDIT: i'm sorry then. basically worry approximately getting ur toddler out of that difficulty.

Answer 4

Generally no, but the outcome depends a lot on what jurisdiction you're in, and even on what region or courthouse within that jurisdiction.

In Maine (and other states), there's legislation on the books establishing the presumption that custody, both physical and legal, should be joint, absent a showing that an alternate arrangement would be in the child's best interest (or mutual agreement). That's what I call progressive!

In Connecticut, on the other hand (at least in my experience), to get joint physical custody absent an agreement, the father has to prove the mother's a crack whore or Britneyesque lunatic to get anything better than every other weekend custody and joint legal custody.

Answer 5

I have strong objection on the word "property" connected with children.Why not with mother or father? Aman and a womangets united to satisfy their needs .The by product is a child.When their needs are satisfied, there is a ego clash which results in seperation.Why they gave birth to a living thing like their own, when they are not able to stay united.Socially such parents must be brought on books that these arethe most irresponsible persons who are not able to take care of their own, than how they will be able to take care of others. They should not be allowed to regroup with other persons to satisfy their needs again. It should be left to the child,,where he/she wants to go. In case of a minor ,the parent must be penalised to remain united, whatever their differences may be,till the child attains majority.

Answer 6

No not at all. I see many examples of men having not only joint custody but also full custody which shows that men are just as capable of nurturing as women are.
If I were you I would ask the two women who post incessantly on this forum why they feel men cannot raise children. As a feminist I strongly advocate for the rights of fathers to equally contribute to the raising of children.

Answer 7

First of all, children shouldn't really be considered property. Second, to answer your question, mothers are usually granted custody of the children in a divorce, unless there is very strong evidence that the mother is an incompetent parent. Courts have only recently begun to grant fathers sole custody, and it does not happen very often.

Answer 8

George when I asked who cared the most for a handicapped child you answered the mother. You said the father may help too. So you answered your own question that women are the primary care givers and that is usually how they base the judicial decisions. You are such a hypocrite as well as your other finger pointing accusatory masculinists.

Answer 9

Of course not. They are STILL the parents of that child, regardless of whether they are a couple or not, and they should act accordingly. Joint custody should be the default unless abuse is involved.

Divorced couples should realize that they will have a connection for the rest of their life, and they should work together to parent their child/children, regardless of of how they feel about one another.

Answer 10

of course not. what would make you even think this? the court decides who gets custody, period. often, fathers lose out on partial or full custody because they DO NOT PURSUE IT.

being a parent is more than just goofing around and rough-housing. but if a father is willing to really rise to the challenge, and he is more capable of parenting than the mother, of course he can fight (and even win) custody. no reason he shouldn't be able to.

i really see you and your kind being more hateful and argumentative than any of the feminists on here. when it comes down to it, most of the feminists agree with you guys about issues like child custody. none of us want men completely out of the picture. i just don't understand what your deal is. these questions don't even make much sense, honestly. if you knew custody laws, you'd know each parent has a right to their child. you're just being antagonistic.