Why are US laws unfair towards men when it comes to parenting?

[Vendetta]

Unless there are severe circumstances I tend to believe that when it comes to child custody issues, the courts side with women. I feel that men has a much as so as women. People typically think that because women carry children for nine months that is a default for children staying with mothers hence, symbolism that women are typically are more fit parents than men. After reviewing some of the psychological issues of several patients during my intership I was appalled that because of their disorders (which weren't severe enough to warrant custody) they were deemed not fit to be parents. I also personally know friends who have to have visitation even though they make more than the woman. Does anyone else see somethig wrong here?

 

[beenie]

The welfare of a child goes far beyond finances. Yes, I too believe that fathers' rights are being abused, but let's face it. Most men are working, and where are these children supposed to go all day? Daycare? Ideally, in a custody battle, the mother can stay home long enough for the children to start school. Women are nurturers, and in MOST cases, are suited to rear children. There are many men who are capable as well, and in some cases, more so than women. I'm sure there are several cases where the children would be better off with their fathers, and I'd hope the courts would rule that way. But overall, the nurturing tendencies still favors (most) women. It's probably one of the very few areas that women actually have an advantage over men. Sorry, it's just fact.

I also don't think it's a "women are more fit" than men, it's that it's more "convenient" for women than men. I'm sure there are women who have a real problem with this as well, just not big enough to change it, I suppose.

 

[Pegg]

there was a time not so long ago when women had no rights to be with their children if the marriage ended. Everything became the property of the man and the woman did not get one thing...not even her children.

it was the womens liberation movement that changed that imbalance...but now the imbalance goes the other way. In australia the laws have changed recently to opt for 50/50 custody of the kids to balance the scales a bit and I think its a good thing. Maybe america will do the same soon.

 

[Vendetta]

The welfare of a child goes far beyond finances. Yes, I too believe that fathers' rights are being abused, but let's face it. Most men are working, and where are these children supposed to go all day? Daycare? Ideally, in a custody battle, the mother can stay home long enough for the children to start school. Women are nurturers, and in MOST cases, are suited to rear children. There are many men who are capable as well, and in some cases, more so than women. I'm sure there are several cases where the children would be better off with their fathers, and I'd hope the courts would rule that way. But overall, the nurturing tendencies still favors (most) women. It's probably one of the very few areas that women actually have an advantage over men. Sorry, it's just fact.

I also don't think it's a "women are more fit" than men, it's that it's more "convenient" for women than men. I'm sure there are women who have a real problem with this as well, just not big enough to change it, I suppose.

Well I reject the notion of a "stay at home mother" as we see statistically that in most households, there are two people working. I believe though that the courts ought to not looking at the nurturing aspect of women, rather, it should look at the financial ability. Yes I understand you said its not all about finances but usually financial ability tends to transform into provider ability. The courts don't look at which parent gives the most hugs and kisses. The courts look at which parent can provide support for their child without risk of abuse and neglect.

 

[Vendetta]

there was a time not so long ago when women had no rights to be with their children if the marriage ended. Everything became the property of the man and the woman did not get one thing...not even her children.

it was the womens liberation movement that changed that imbalance...but now the imbalance goes the other way. In australia the laws have changed recently to opt for 50/50 custody of the kids to balance the scales a bit and I think its a good thing. Maybe america will do the same soon.

I understand but I don't think because women lacked rights back then, now men shouldn't have rights. It looks like tit-for-tat rather than justice. Men don't have equal rights in America and its terrible. For example if a woman decides to be vendictive because she is angry she can file for child support (assuming the child isn't 18) and the man has to pay despite the possibility that the man took care of the child the whole time.

As a man I would be afraid to get married and have a child in such an unfair system

 

[Pegg]

I understand but I don't think because women lacked rights back then, now men shouldn't have rights. It looks like tit-for-tat rather than justice. Men don't have equal rights in America and its terrible. For example if a woman decides to be vendictive because she is angry she can file for child support (assuming the child isn't 18) and the man has to pay despite the possibility that the man took care of the child the whole time.

As a man I would be afraid to get married and have a child in such an unfair system

yeah is pretty rough

Justice seems to always be out of balance...perhaps its the result of lawmakers not being capable of getting it right

they certainly do need to strike a balance because kids are not assets to fight over. Kids have a right to both their parents.

 

[Warren Clark]

Unless there are severe circumstances I tend to believe that when it comes to child custody issues, the courts side with women. I feel that men has a much as so as women. People typically think that because women carry children for nine months that is a default for children staying with mothers hence, symbolism that women are typically are more fit parents than men. After reviewing some of the psychological issues of several patients during my intership I was appalled that because of their disorders (which weren't severe enough to warrant custody) they were deemed not fit to be parents. I also personally know friends who have to have visitation even though they make more than the woman. Does anyone else see somethig wrong here?

I agree.
There are a few unbias judges.

 

[beenie]

Well I reject the notion of a "stay at home mother" as we see statistically that in most households, there are two people working. I believe though that the courts ought to not looking at the nurturing aspect of women, rather, it should look at the financial ability. Yes I understand you said its not all about finances but usually financial ability tends to transform into provider ability. The courts don't look at which parent gives the most hugs and kisses. The courts look at which parent can provide support for their child without risk of abuse and neglect.

You can reject whatever you'd like. Just because a father makes more money doesn't prove to me he should have the children removed from their mother. I guess we'll have at agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Kathryn]

I agree that some laws are definitely biased toward the mother. For instance, visitation laws - a mother can inhibit visitation from the father, make it difficult, simply ignore his rights, etc. and the only recourse a father has is to take her back to court at his own expense. If he lags in child support, however, she can get him back into court at no expense to herself - and he can go to jail or lose his professional licenses.

I have seen many women abuse the parental rights of the father and yet the father is left with little recourse. Even if he takes her back to court about it, all the court will do is say something along the lines of, "Hey, we already told you to let him see the child regularly. So...again...let him see the child regularly. Now, everyone go home and behave." Jail time? Absolutely unheard of.

My husband's ex wife is a master at manipulating both visitation and child support issues. And to be honest, my husband has pretty much given up on fighting her because the laws simply do not do well to support his rights, and she has the ongoing threat of "I'll take you back to court for more child support" which she's been able to hold over his head for years. Of course she can do this - the state will pay all the costs. However, he could not take her back to court over impeding his visitation rights without incurring substantial expenses out of his own pocket.

Even then - nothing will cure the central issue - that she's a ***** determined to try to get one more thing over on him - day in and day out - for years.

Thank God his son turns 18 in a few weeks and we are out from under all that legal crap regarding visitation. She's used that power tool to hurt my husband for over a decade. This in spite of the fact that my husband has NEVER missed a SINGLE child support payment, and in addition to the very hefty child support payment, has also paid out of pocket for all sorts of things far beyond anything "required by law."

Note - my husband has a very unusual work schedule, which makes standard visitation difficult. He has asked her for years to allow him to switch weekends occasionally to make up for weekends he's had to work. No way. This did not change until his son was old enough to drive and push back when he wanted to see his dad - which thankfully has been far beyond the limits of legal visitation. Since he's been driving, he's over here as much as he can be without wigging his mother out.

All that being said, I wonder just how many dads actually request full custody?

 

[Vendetta]

Kathryn your husband is rare, and his perseverence is about his kids, not about visitation. I salute him in that respect

 

[Vendetta]

You can reject whatever you'd like. Just because a father makes more money doesn't prove to me he should have the children removed from their mother. I guess we'll have at agree to disagree on this one.

Ssainhu you're just a gooberhead

 

[McBell]

All that being said, I wonder just how many dads actually request full custody?

I was given full care, control, custody, and concern of my oldest child.
That was 13 years ago.

 

[beenie]

Ssainhu you're just a gooberhead

I haven't been called a gooberhead in a long time.

 

[Penumbra]

I think judges should be as objective as possible, but there are more factors than just finances to be considered.

My father won full custody of me rather than my mother when I was a child. It can happen.

 

[Vendetta]

Well what you guys have shown are rare cases but am I wrong to have that feeling? Do you guys think there is some gender bias in the court system when it comes to visitation?

 

[McBell]

Well what you guys have shown are rare cases but am I wrong to have that feeling?

My apologies if I have led to think that I disagree with the OP.
There is most definitely gender bias when it comes to who gets custody.
AS for the visitation, from my own experiences and from what I have seen of those I actually know and converse with, sems there is no difference when it comes to visitation.

Do you guys think there is some gender bias in the court system when it comes to visitation?

What do you mean?
If you mean when it comes to court ordered visitation schedules, I have to say yes.
If you are meaning enforcement of court ordered visitation, no.

 

[Vendetta]

My apologies if I have led to think that I disagree with the OP.
There is most definitely gender bias when it comes to who gets custody.
AS for the visitation, from my own experiences and from what I have seen of those I actually know and converse with, sems there is no difference when it comes to visitation.


What do you mean?
If you mean when it comes to court ordered visitation schedules, I have to say yes.
If you are meaning enforcement of court ordered visitation, no.

Well I was referring to custody. It seems the courts award women custody by default. I feel that is unfair to men since it takes two to make a baby. As far as visitation, I am referring to court ordered.

 

[bain-druie]

Some things depend on the state in question. Get ready for a hugely personal example:

I have a deeply painful situation right now pertaining to this issue; I relocated to the West Coast from Pennsylvania in March because of an excellent job offer (to my husband) and the unique educational opportunities available (for me). My first marriage ended three years ago; my ex is a fundamentalist Christian who throughout the final 3 years of our marriage was slowly losing his mind over his inability to control me or my beliefs, and it led to an increasingly abusive situation. When he actually began to make threats, I left and took the kids with me.

I never once tried to keep the kids away from him, though I retained primary custody, because overall I believed he was a good father. It seemed I was the catalyst for his insanity. I got a PFA (protection from abuse) based on the threats, and the local police were very watchful, especially if they saw my ex's vehicle near my house.

My impression that I was the trigger for my ex's unstable behavior was reinforced by reports from the kids that he had improved consistently since I left. When our divorce was final, he remarried almost immediately to a woman I believed could be helpful to him and keep him in line. This really seemed to be the case over the past two years, and the kids were happier than ever before (so was I). I retained primary custody, but agreed to joint legal custody.

My children are old enough (17, 15, 10) and mature enough that I believe they should have the freedom to choose where they live, whether that be with me or their father. So when we knew we had to move (there is NOTHING financially feasible in PA in our fields right now), I gave them the choice about where they'd stay when. They chose to stay in PA with their dad for the school year and come to me for vacations.

My ex and I agreed to this before I left, but nothing was done officially. More fool me, expecting integrity where I'd never seen it for myself.

Once I was gone, my ex filed papers behind my back which called my fitness as a parent into question, claiming I never gave him notice when I moved. As a result, my children cannot legally leave the state. I still have primary custody by law, but since I do not live in PA and cannot do so, I can't see my children. Since that time, his lawyer has canceled the court dates repeatedly, so that this is becoming an incredibly long, dragged-out process (sort of like this post - :sorry1:, I never learned the art of brevity).

Lots of other factors have become involved, including the health of the children and his crazy beliefs about medicine. None of this is helping me to expedite the process of even getting heard by a judge. Even when I do get a court date (and I've counter-filed for relocation at the urgent requests of my children and in light of my ex's actions), my lawyer's not optimistic about my chances despite my ex's obvious lunacy.

First, because PA does not like to send the children out of state unless there's family where they're going. Job and school are not enough reason to relocate, in many PA cases.

And second, because I was ok with leaving the kids there in March; all my faith in human nature and hoping he'd changed simply look like indecision to the court. The way many judges see it, this looks like flakiness, which = untrustworthiness; especially in women.

All that to say that even in an extreme case with many factors in the mother's favor, it does not automatically go her way.

 

[Songbird]

Ugh, sad and chilling story, bain-druie.

 

[Revoltingest]

Certainly, court is a blunt instrument which is all about procedure.
Justice is an occasional fortunate side effect.