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.
Pragmatically at birth there is 100% parental rights available. Given no other option they go to the mother whether she likes it or not. Unless a male and she have agreed otherwise she is the default. And she has no choice. She cannot get out of the deal by refusing to sign the BC. Basically the state discriminates against the mother by forcing her to take on the burden whether she wishes to or not.
At a later point a father may choose to join or the state may force him into parental rights. Or the woman may go to court to force his participation.
So again the pragmatic solution forces things both good and bad on the woman in the default case.
Why do you frame the discussion as if the only choice is give Mom 100% parenting rights and Dad 0? That's a completely false premise.
Ever heard of DNA tests? How come the State doesn't create this high a barrier for entry when it comes to awarding child support? (that's a rhetorical question)
There is no reason that Mom should not be required to identify Dad. No reason whatsoever.
Not at all. I know that factually, unmarried Moms get full parenting and full custody rights by default, while unmarried Dads get 0 parenting and custody rights by default.
Because, by default, without an acknowledgement of paternity in place... the dad isn't legally recognized as a dad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
let me just say that even though we've been going toe to toe for several pages, I do compliment you on working something out with your child's Dad.
It's only natural; just wish more parents would do it. Just 'cause the relationship wasn't gonna work out doesn't mean making like crap for the kid. Or my ex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
Now, onto the bolded. In your situation, rights were not 'conferred' to your child's Dad, they were given to him by you! This is pretty much what I expected, btw...that's why I asked you the question. You do realize that if you hadn't made this agreement with him, he would have been like every other unmarried Dad in the country- he would have had 0 parenting rights by default and he would have had to go to court in order to attempt to get any rights.
Our agreement regarding physical custody had nothing to do with him getting rights.
His rights were conferred to him, by the state, when he signed the acknowledgement of paternity. At the hospital. Because he was physically there, he was able to sign it and have it submitted alongside the mountain of paperwork required to get her a birth certificate, social security number, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
Do your research- you are way off here.
I provided you a dissertation that referenced several studies.
Now, it's your turn to provide one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
Who doesn't? But do you support a policy of giving one gender 100% parenting and custody rights as a default when parents aren't married, and giving the other gender 0% of parenting and custody rights when parents aren't married?
I support a policy in which parents discuss custody and make an agreement before the child is born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
How do you suppose these men will save money if they have to take the child support money they are remitting to Mom and use it for their children? The only way this is even possible is if there is a built in profit in child support awards in the first place. Notice that I wasn't the one making this argument- you were.
I never said anything about "saving money". I said that there are men who try to obtain 50/50 physical custody because they don't want to pay child support. If they think it will save them money, they're obviously wrong and would be in huge surprise.
You said you're a parent, so something I'm sure we can both agree on is that taking on 50% physical custody would be hella more expensive than most child support awards. Especially when kids outgrow all of their clothing every 3-6 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
There is no reason that Mom should not be required to identify Dad. No reason whatsoever.
Even if it was proven in a court of law that he raped her? Dang.
This has to be the most ridiculous thread I've seen on her in a long time. It is quite obvious, even to the most dense of people, that only the mother is certain to be the parent at birth so only she can have custody at birth when parents are unmarried but once paternity has been established the father has legal custody immediately, but physical custody must be agreed upon or challenged in court because it is the life and well-being of an infant at stake, not a bloody car.
My ex and I were unmarried when our child was born, we established paternity with the child welfare officer (this is how it works in my country) about a month after she was born - immediately after signing those papers he had legal custody and parental rights. We were co-habiting so visitation wasn't an issue but parenting plans can be drawn up with that same official so I expect couples that are separate at the time of birth do that (if they are agreeable, otherwise they have to wait for court, but that's life, if you can't agree then you need someone to make the final decision for you)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
I suggest that if the parents don't agree on custody, custody is evenly split 50/50 as a default. Meaning 50% of the time with each parent.
That would be highly impractical to implement straight from birth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Actually 54 men carried to full term in Western Australia and Victoria last year. Australia accepts the concept of gender identity and legal gender being identical (and the US is heading in that direction). Now in truth those men were born with female reproductive organs, and retained them for the purpose of having children, but legally they are men, and they have had partial gender reassignment.
So, if what you are saying is true, and the US does resolve to people's gender identity being their legal gender. Then where does the law stand in regards to trans men having kids, given that cis men (who would be legally indistinguishable from trans) have this discrepancy? This isn't a legal hypothetical, if gender as identified becomes legal gender, then, how do we resolve the current discrepancy of US Law (or any Western Law) that unfairly discriminates against men, given that Australia has 54 or so annual examples of male "mothers"?
Biologically they're not men but if you want to say they are then go with the word 'birthgiver' which is what I think is favoured these days - only the birthgiver has automatic custody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
I would say that shorter intervals would be appropriate for younger children as a general rule. Perhaps 2 days on, 2 days off for infants, 3 and 3 for toddlers, 5 and 5 for grade school, and 1 week on, 1 week off for beyond. That's just a general suggestion.
50/50 physical custody would not be in an infant's best interests. For a start, it would make breastfeeding impossible, and it would impact the infant's ability to form secure attachments. It is far far far more important that an infant forms at least one secure attachment (which is not going to happen if they are switching caregivers every two days) than they have equal time with both parents from the start. Sorry mate, but the child's needs are always going to be more important than the parents' and that means primary custody with one parent for the first year at least.
From my observation and watching two men I know struggle through divorce (possibly myself included), I do agree that there is a bias that results in an uphill effort for men/fathers in divorce and custody issues. The laws are not specifically gender bias but those that are involved in legal matters, including the court systems, do seem to carry a bias.
A lot of information regarding divorce/custody (i have three children) have come from a lawyer friend of mine who works for a law firm which specializes in representing fathers/husbands in divorce and custody. She herself was two times divorced knowing very well how the system worked in her favor.
I found the following material (also from the law firm she works for) informative:
"The inherent bias of the court system in favor of women furthre exacerbates divorce for many men. The result is that the judicial system - lawyers, judges, social workers, and the administration - is prone to assume, without proof, that moms should be the primary custodial parent, that men accused of abuse are guilty of abuse, and conversely, that men alleging abuse are lying or overreacting. The "system" assumes that women are not as capable of generating income as men are, and that a man is less deserving of assets earned by a woman than when the reverse circumstances exist."
The firm is large and growing fast. It has offices in almost every state in the US and has just recently opened an office in the UK. Obviously if there exists a need that can grow a law firm to that size working on the premise that men face an up hill struggle in regards divorce in custody there is most likely some truth to to that matter.
One of the reasons for the bias is that mothers still do the majority of care of the children. They are more likely to stay home, work fewer hours and spend more time looking after the children, or even work more hours and STILL spend more time looking after the children. It only makes sense to award primary custody to the primary caretaker and the vast majority of the time that is the mother. If a stay-at-home dad wouldn't get primary custody I'd be as outraged as the next person, but until more dads start taking over more of the care of the children then the bias is likely to continue because it matches reality.
If dads want more rights then they need to take more responsibility.
One of the reasons for the bias is that mothers still do the majority of care of the children. They are more likely to stay home, work fewer hours and spend more time looking after the children, or even work more hours and STILL spend more time looking after the children. It only makes sense to award primary custody to the primary caretaker and the vast majority of the time that is the mother. If a stay-at-home dad wouldn't get primary custody I'd be as outraged as the next person, but until more dads start taking over more of the care of the children then the bias is likely to continue because it matches reality.
If dads want more rights then they need to take more responsibility.
And I would seriously question if men are biologically prepared to be better single parents as a group.
Plus, this entire thread has as it's basis the sad, whiney idea that white males in the USA are at some sort of disadvantage.
If you are promoting THAT idea, please turn in your giblets at the nearest collection center. Tissues to weep into are available at the counter.
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.
