Divorce, child custody?

Question

"How are men compensated when they are separated from their children against their will?
Oh that's right - they have to pay then too."-Bah Humbug
(I really liked his answer so I'm gonna be putting this in my question.) Men never get custody, they might get every other weekend, but really is that fair? We have to pay when we dont get custody, which I find a bit ironic. So feminist, what do you think of child custody in todays society?

"punch" that was one of those blue moon scenarios, she's obviously a crack "hore" (misspelled it on purpose people.)

Answer 1

Feminism think that women should get what they want when they want it. Its weird how feminists claim a mom can be a mom and work, but it hurts children if men do it therefore in the event of a divorce the child should stay with the mom.

Answer 2

I think the courts should look at what's in the best interest of the child. When my parent's divorced, my father won custody and my mother had to pay child support. I think that was fair. He didn't make a lot of money, but he was my main caretaker. He had even been a stay at home dad for a rather lengthy period. I think that was a fair decision. Be wary of using words like "never" in debate- you tend to negate your argument that way.

The person who makes the most money isn't necessarily the one who's most fit to have custody. Besides, childcare is only supplemental. It's often nowhere near half the expenses. My father was certainly providing for me more than my mother was, as a result of the divorce.

However, I do suspect that men often do not get equal consideration when it comes to custody. If I'm correct in that, then that should certainly change.

BTW, though it's debatable whether humbug makes a good point or not, I would say it was clearly not a "good answer," as it didn't really answer the question it was in response to at all.

Answer 3

the laws suck.

Unless the woman is a child abuser or an IV drug user, men don't have much of a chance of getting custody. This "best interests of the child" crap is just that - crap.

Even if a man does get visitation, the woman can make a mockery of the deal, I.E., not being there when it's time for the man to pick up the kid, saying the kid was sick, etc., etc. Plus, besides the few hours when the father has the kid with him, she has the kid full time, and, especially in the case of acrimonious partings, will use that time to poison the father's image in the kid's mind.

But the old man still has to shell out the child support dough, no matter how badly she behaves. Either that or end up in jail.

Like I said, the whole thing SUCKS.

Answer 4

Hm. It seems you mistake wittiness for intelligence. Anyone who has ever been in a custody battle will tell you that the court's decision is usually in the best interest of the child. While I do agree that the courts have a predisposition to side with the mother (on some level), a mother who is unfit to care for her children will not be granted custody simply because of the fact that she is a woman.

When my parents fought for custody of me, my mother won. My father didn't want custody at all until my mom started making a lot of money. I guess the judge saw what his motive was in that case.

Anyways, I do agree with you that the ruling is not always 100 percent fair, but a parent who feels that the custody arrangements are unjust -and really wants to be with their children- will continue to fight. There are no irrevocable decisions when it comes to things like this, due to the changing nature of household/life situations.

A father who is fit to care for his children is usually not denied custody (at least entirely.) And it is entirely possible for him to be granted sole custody in the case that the mother cannot provide for her children.

Answer 5

There is no such thing as a military divorce. All divorces are civil matters. Having said that, the amount of child support is based on income. If there is a court order in place that states how much child support he should pay, then that's what he needs to pay. The only way he could petition the courts to lower the amount is if his circumstances changed and he suddenly started making significantly less money. As for sending more money whenever his ex asks for it, he is not obligated to do that and he is in fact a fool to do so.

Answer 6

"Seperated (sp) against their will"- We don't know that is the case. When I first read that I wondered what remedy would be acceptable. Not allow divorces if the man did not want it?

Custody- The current system decides on the 'best interest' standard. I think that is usually the way it should be. Child support is just that - to support the child.

I do think we need to have family courts in all states. In most states the same judges who hear criminal cases hear these cases. The mind set may not be what it should be.

Answer 7

As a lawyer - I think you are overgeneralising. The law and the courts are supposed to not make sure that "men never get custody", but decide according to what is in the best interests of the child. In Australia, the law is that, "the child's best interests are of paramount consideration." If that how is the law is applied in real life, I think that child custody laws are practical, sensible and fair.

As for payment of child support - it makes sense, if both parties play by the rules. If the father gets custody, mothers are required to pay child support and vice versa. The laws aren't the problem - its the people who are supposed to abide them.

BTW - I'm not a feminist.

Answer 8

Like it or not, a lot of men don't actually want custody of their children but fight for it because they know they can use their children as a way to get back at their ex-wives. It happens a lot more frequently than a lot of people think.

Answer 9

Feminist strive to reduce sexual discrimination. It stuns me how many men as a voting block bitterly fight against women's and children's rights, such as equal wages, equal opportunities, paternity and maternity leave, quality affordable childcare, quality school systems, nutritional and health care for young children, prenatal care programs, and who insist or hold residual cultural expectations that it is women's role to care for children, and who in general spend themselves only one-fifth as much time in direct childcare as do mothers, yet who still bitterly complain when male dominated courts award custody of children to women. Go figure.

As long as sexual inequality and the double standards of patriarchal systems are perpetuated, there are going to be unfair discriminations. But, the courts actually do a rather great job of determining custody arrangements. A BIG deciding factor that I've observed is when a parent makes the totally self-centered mistake on the record of whining about HIS or HER rights, all the while never even once expressing concern about their CHILDREN'S rights or welfare or needs. It's enough to make you sick the way people think of children as property to fight over in a divorce.

I saw a great program once in which divorced parents had to provide a home for their children. The children stayed in the home and the PARENTS took turns living there, two weeks on, two weeks off, in joint custody. Instead of the poor children being shuttled back and forth like a pigskin between parents, the parents had to absorb the turmoil of sharing children. I really liked that.

Answer 10

Matriarchy is a superior form of parenting and marriage gets in the way of supporting and enshrining that in law as children must remain the property of women and legal patronage and matrilineage are the same through the women.