Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except in most cases the mother is granted primary custody and the father is allowed only minimal "visitation" rights. In many cases the mother also does everything she can to make sure he can't even exercise those minimal rights, so contributing 50% of the physical care of the child is next to impossible. You say it'll never change but it will have to change significantly in order for most fathers to have the opportunity to follow your advice of 50% participation.
If fathers were originally 50/50 caregivers, has a job that enables them to be a 50/50 caregiver, lives within close proximity of the child in order to enable a 50/50 caregiver lifestyle then they have a very, very good chance at 50/50 custody as it stands now. Preference to a particular gender as a consideration is simply not true. Preference to the primary caregiver is true (which happens to be the mothers, as you say, "in most cases)."
Parents have the right to see their kid because that's usually what's in the best interest of the child (unless they are drug addicts (that's a big no, no) or there is clear evidence that the parent is unfit but even then it has to be proven). If a man rarely cared for the child, lives 50 miles away, the odds are absolutely against him. Those are hard facts to swallow. But many men don't get this. If he's skirting his responsibilities, he will pay in child support.
Essentially judges will go with status quo. Judges have seen this time and again where a disgruntled, angry parent tries to "punish" the other parent thru their kids. It's transparent and pathetic when people do this, so judges have to sift out the BS and they do sift thru it.
The best thing you (in general you) can do is play an active role, request the "right of first refusal" which allows you to have the child with you first before the child goes into daycare/babysitter, live close, be there for your kid as much as possible. If she's being difficult then by all means - save all the text/emails that indicates that she's refusing to let you (in general) see your kid and bring it all to court. Also, keep a detailed record of visits (time, place, etc.). Any good lawyer worth a darn would tell you this.
Also, it really helps if the relationship is not combative between the parents. 50/50 custody may be refused if one is belligerent, difficult, or abusive (I've seen this happen). You can do everything right, but if you're always fighting with the primary parent, refuse to take them to extracurricular activities because it's "your day to have them," if you're belligerent to the judge, and you refuse to be a mature co parent then... well... your just shooting yourself in the foot.
Keep in mind that communication between parents is admissible in court including your text/emails to the mother. If you're calling her a money grubbing wh*re... well, the judge may determine that you have anger management issues and decline a 50/50 custody.
I think children have the right to see both parents but both parents need to be responsible and do what's best for the kids. Granted, family law is complicated and there's so much more involved than what's on this forum. But 50/50 is possible to any man or woman willing to play an active role.
A male who sires kids who then won't support them should have his balls cut off. That is guaranteed to work 100% of the time.
Actually, I myself am an enthusiastic supporter of making safe elective surgical castration, including for sterilization purposes, much more accessible than it currently is. After all, unfortunately some aspiring eunuchs have previously been compelled to seek elective surgical castrations in "back-alleys" due to the fact that they could not get them done in a safe, medical setting. Seriously. Also, if anti-abortion legislation is misogynistic, then withholding safe elective surgical castration, including for sterilization purposes, from men is misandrous. Seriously. Indeed, I myself certainly want to become a (literal) eunuch by any means necessary. Seriously.
However, in regards to your own point here, this should very much depend on the specific circumstances. After all, if a man gets a vasectomy and/or a Vasalgel injection beforehand (which ends up failing) and the woman that he has sex with promises him abortion or adoption beforehand and lies or changes her mind in regards to this later on, then this woman should be the one who is losing her gonads and/or her uterus. After all, women don't have to give birth to unwanted children--rather, they can simply get abortions instead. Thus, don't blame all of this on the man and instead give some blame to the woman as well. After all, just like men, women are likewise capable of making their own, autonomous decisions, including in regards to reproduction. If a woman doesn't want a man to be a "deadbeat dad" later on, then she should avoid having sex with men who are personally okay with the idea of opting-out of paying child support. Seriously. After all, if pro-life men can be expected to abstain from having sex with pro-choice women, then pro-life women can likewise be expected to abstain from having sex with pro-choice men.
It seems only the father is expected to be responsible and if not he could be thrown in jail and has no options to walk away from responsibility as the mother.
"ONLY" the father is expected to be responsible? You make it sound like the mother can drop the kid off on the father's doorstep, skip on her merry way, and never spend another moment (or another dollar) caring for that kid.
If the mother decides to not abort, then BOTH the mother and father are responsible. Or she doesn't keep the kid, then the father isn't responsible either. There really isn't any scenario where she can only leave him responsible and have no burden (financial or of her time and energy) of responsibility for that child.
If fathers were originally 50/50 caregivers, has a job that enables them to be a 50/50 caregiver, lives within close proximity of the child in order to enable a 50/50 caregiver lifestyle then they have a very, very good chance at 50/50 custody as it stands now. Preference to a particular gender as a consideration is simply not true. Preference to the primary caregiver is true (which happens to be the mothers, as you say, "in most cases)."
Parents have the right to see their kid because that's usually what's in the best interest of the child (unless they are drug addicts (that's a big no, no) or there is clear evidence that the parent is unfit but even then it has to be proven). If a man rarely cared for the child, lives 50 miles away, the odds are absolutely against him. Those are hard facts to swallow. But many men don't get this. If he's skirting his responsibilities, he will pay in child support.
Essentially judges will go with status quo. Judges have seen this time and again where a disgruntled, angry parent tries to "punish" the other parent thru their kids. It's transparent and pathetic when people do this, so judges have to sift out the BS and they do sift thru it.
The best thing you (in general you) can do is play an active role, request the "right of first refusal" which allows you to have the child with you first before the child goes into daycare/babysitter, live close, be there for your kid as much as possible. If she's being difficult then by all means - save all the text/emails that indicates that she's refusing to let you (in general) see your kid and bring it all to court. Also, keep a detailed record of visits (time, place, etc.). Any good lawyer worth a darn would tell you this.
Also, it really helps if the relationship is not combative between the parents. 50/50 custody may be refused if one is belligerent, difficult, or abusive (I've seen this happen). You can do everything right, but if you're always fighting with the primary parent, refuse to take them to extracurricular activities because it's "your day to have them," if you're belligerent to the judge, and you refuse to be a mature co parent then... well... your just shooting yourself in the foot.
Keep in mind that communication between parents is admissible in court including your text/emails to the mother. If you're calling her a money grubbing wh*re... well, the judge may determine that you have anger management issues and decline a 50/50 custody.
I think children have the right to see both parents but both parents need to be responsible and do what's best for the kids. Granted, family law is complicated and there's so much more involved than what's on this forum. But 50/50 is possible to any man or woman willing to play an active role.
Your lengthy list of "ifs" usually only applies to the father, not the mother, and you left an important if off of the list. IF the father has tens of thousands of dollars to spend on a lengthy court battle. And where 50/50 is denied because of one parent being belligerent, if the belligerent parent is the mother, she usually ends up being the one to get custody. These laws also vary wildly from state to state. So yes you are correct, getting 50/50 is possible for the father IF a whole bunch of IFS fall in to place, the father has the financial means to pursue the matter and they live in one of the few states that are open to such arrangements outside of extremely extenuating circumstances. This is an improvement over how it used to be but it is a far cry from where we need to be on these matters. Hopefully it is a sign of things to come but in the meantime it is still a horrible time to be a father in a divorce.
However, in regards to your own point here, this should very much depend on the specific circumstances. After all, if a man gets a vasectomy and/or a Vasalgel injection beforehand (which ends up failing) and the woman that he has sex with promises him abortion or adoption beforehand and lies or changes her mind in regards to this later on, then this woman should be the one who is losing her gonads and/or her uterus. After all, women don't have to give birth to unwanted children--rather, they can simply get abortions instead. Thus, don't blame all of this on the man and instead give some blame to the woman as well. After all, just like men, women are likewise capable of making their own, autonomous decisions, including in regards to reproduction. If a woman doesn't want a man to be a "deadbeat dad" later on, then she should avoid having sex with men who are personally okay with the idea of opting-out of paying child support. Seriously. After all, if pro-life men can be expected to abstain from having sex with pro-choice women, then pro-life women can likewise be expected to abstain from having sex with pro-choice men.
Do you live in a cave or something? No one can "promise" to have a medical procedure, certainly not an abortion for God's sake, and then be held to it because they changed their mind. EVER. What is wrong with you? You really sound rather disturbed.
"ONLY" the father is expected to be responsible? You make it sound like the mother can drop the kid off on the father's doorstep, skip on her merry way, and never spend another moment (or another dollar) caring for that kid.
If the mother decides to not abort, then BOTH the mother and father are responsible. Or she doesn't keep the kid, then the father isn't responsible either. There really isn't any scenario where she can only leave him responsible and have no burden (financial or of her time and energy) of responsibility for that child.
I repeat a question nobody has answered yet...you know how the father it is completely responsible for raising a child and sending child support because he was part of the making of the baby, correct? If not he faces jail time or wage garnishment which I agree. Well, if he is completely responsible for creating that life and he wants to be a father, what happens if the mother decides to kill the baby (abort)? Tough luck for the guy and that's it? I would imagine the women that fought for equality would look for a way to have these scenarios a bit more balanced for both parents.
I repeat a question nobody has answered yet...you know how the father it is completely responsible for raising a child and sending child support because he was part of the making of the baby, correct? If not he faces jail time or wage garnishment which I agree. Well, if he is completely responsible for creating that life and he wants to be a father, what happens if the mother decides to kill the baby (abort)? Tough luck for the guy and that's it?
There are two issues. One is how we expect parents to be responsible for their offspring, and how do we do that fairly. The other is biology. There's really no way to make biology more "fair," because we are not God.
Quote:
I would imagine the women that fought for equality would look for a way to have these scenarios a bit more balanced for both parents.
There are a lot of ways to improve child custody and child support laws to make them more fair. We've all heard stories about a man finding out her was paying support for a child that is not biologically his. The mother lied, the state doesn't care, they make the guy keep on paying. That's appalling. There are a lot of flaws in the system that need to be fixed.
But we cannot make biology more "fair."
Fathers cannot demand that the mother get an abortion, or prevent her from getting an abortion. That's because abortion is legal. If it was illegal, the state would be forcing her to not get the abortion—not the father.
If men want more 'fairness' in biology, then maybe they should be forced to get a vasectomy if the mother wants it. But if men don't want someone else to force (or prevent) them from having surgery, they can't force (or prevent) another person from having surgery.
Forcing another person to have surgery (or not have surgery) is an entirely different issue than who pays what for something THEY are RESPONSIBLE for.
Your lengthy list of "ifs" usually only applies to the father, not the mother, and you left an important if off of the list. IF the father has tens of thousands of dollars to spend on a lengthy court battle. And where 50/50 is denied because of one parent being belligerent, if the belligerent parent is the mother, she usually ends up being the one to get custody. These laws also vary wildly from state to state. So yes you are correct, getting 50/50 is possible for the father IF a whole bunch of IFS fall in to place, the father has the financial means to pursue the matter and they live in one of the few states that are open to such arrangements outside of extremely extenuating circumstances. This is an improvement over how it used to be but it is a far cry from where we need to be on these matters. Hopefully it is a sign of things to come but in the meantime it is still a horrible time to be a father in a divorce.
The "ifs" apply to both parents (specifically whoever is the noncustodial parent). Family court can be complicated because divorce is complicated - so my "ifs" I mentioned - though lengthy - are just the tip of the ice berg. I just compacted it to help those who might benefit from it. In family law there are no absolutes as each case is different.
I bet you could look up any family law in any state and you will see the same "primary caregiver" rulings because that tends to be the norm. You won't see "mother preferred" as that's discriminatory. But that's essentially what you're saying I guess. That the law discriminates against males even though you won't find it written anywhere.
Money is definitely a problem in a divorce. No doubt about it. Which is why a mediator is the best option for both parties (but that takes a certain level of maturity that many don't have). I implore anyone to do everything possible to avoid family court. You don't want a judge to determine your child's fate. I know though, that former spouses can be unreasonable.
Primary caregivers have real power in family law. People should think about that before they get a divorce.
And you do have rights as a father it just doesn't trump the child's rights. Courts should not be "father centric" or "mother centric." It should always be what's in the best interest of the child. That could mean anything, depending on the case. Family courts try but they are limited by their very nature. Which is why it's important that parents present factual information to help their case. I by no means am advocating for men to get the shaft when it comes to seeing their kid. But there should be an understanding of WHY rulings tend to favor primary caregivers.
Location: Somewhere in a Field of Hopes and Dreams
596 posts, read 627,678 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomadic_Cajun
Why is it that women have 2 choices when it comes to pregnancy and men only get 1?
They both have a choice to have sex, but because it's "her body", she has a choice to keep the baby or not. Shouldn't the male have the choice to pay child support or not? That would sure eliminate a lot of excessive population in this country, if no monetary award is given to women.
What about accountability? shouldn't vouchers be provided instead of checks? I want some accounting of where my money is going, and not to "nails and hair did".
I love how the feminist put men in jail for not paying, yeah that makes a lot of sense! now he gets fired because of being in jail, or doesn't stand a chance of getting a job because there is a gap on the resume from "doing time" because he couldn't afford the rapeage that the male hating courts handed down. How are you ever suppose to get ahead to pay the support under these conditions?
No wonder so many men whack their (ex) wife and kids!
Quit being cheap and pathetic. If you're grown enough to get someone pregnant you should be MAN enough to support that child.
Or just keep your unworthy d*** in your pants!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously. Also, if anti-abortion legislation is misogynistic, then withholding safe elective surgical castration, including for sterilization purposes, from men is misandrous. Seriously. Indeed, I myself certainly want to become a (literal) eunuch by any means necessary. Seriously.
You really sound rather disturbed. 
that's so true though