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.
Ok, so as not to misquote or misstate your position:
Unmarried Moms have full custody and full parenting rights, unmarried Dads have 0 parenting rights, by default. You would not necessarily call this good, but you also have no problem with it, correct? Furthermore, you don't see this as a discriminatory policy, correct?
Again it is situation specific.
Cohabiting parents where the father acknowledges the child may well inherently share custody in some states. In most states a person who denies paternity would have no parenting rights.
So mom starts out with a least partial custody to full custody lacking a named and agreed to father. Fathers begin with partial to no custody depending on the circumstances.
So yes there is a pragmatic favoring of mom with varying degrees of parental rights depending on the circumstances.
And yes I think that reasonable and appropriate...and I actually see no practical alternative.
What happens when Dad has NOT established a substantial relationship with his child through no fault of his own?
And furthermore, why does Dad have to take the case to the Supreme Court in the first place, when Mom was given full custody and parenting rights as soon as the child was born?
What do you think the financial cost of bringing this type of case to the US Supreme Court is? What do you think the emotional cost is? How long do you think it would take to adjudicate such a case, and what is Dad's remedy when the judgment is not adhered to?
Such things go to the USSC because the matter is one of state law where the Father believes the state laws violated his constitutional rights. It happens. And it is how the limits get set on state law. Generally a good thing.
Cohabiting parents where the father acknowledges the child may well inherently share custody in some states. In most states a person who denies paternity would have no parenting rights.
So mom starts out with a least partial custody to full custody lacking a named and agreed to father. Fathers begin with partial to no custody depending on the circumstances.
So yes there is a pragmatic favoring of mom with varying degrees of parental rights depending on the circumstances.
And yes I think that reasonable and appropriate...and I actually see no practical alternative.
What you are saying is flatly incorrect.
The way the system works, in every single State, is that an unwed Mom gets full custody and full parenting rights while and unwed Dad gets 0 parenting rights by default.
To address your example, what this means in practice is that if unwed Mom and Dad are living together and Mom decides to move out with the child, unwed Dad cannot have ANY parenting time with the child whatsoever- not even 15 minutes. To be clear, if Mom agrees he can have parenting time, he can have it; but in that case those rights would be effectively given to him by Mom, not the State. For parenting time sanctioned by the State, he would need to go to court. This is a great example of what I'm talking about. In this example, why should Mom be given full custody and parenting rights and Dad be given 0 parenting rights? Do you believe the best interests of the children Dad being kicked out of the child's life?
As to reasonable and appropriate- you think it's appropriate to award full custody and parenting time based on gender? You think it's reasonable and appropriate to bar one gender from having any parenting rights whatsoever based on gender?
As to alternative, I've already given it to you. Mom is required to identify Dad and 50/50 joint legal and physical custody is the default. This would actually be easier to implement than the system we already have.
Such things go to the USSC because the matter is one of state law where the Father believes the state laws violated his constitutional rights. It happens. And it is how the limits get set on state law. Generally a good thing.
Name for me the number of times that an unwed Mother has taken her case to the Supreme Court to get parenting rights for her child.
What you are saying is flatly incorrect.
The way the system works, in every single State, is that an unwed Mom gets full custody and full parenting rights while and unwed Dad gets 0 parenting rights by default.
To address your example, what this means in practice is that if unwed Mom and Dad are living together and Mom decides to move out with the child, unwed Dad cannot have ANY parenting time with the child whatsoever- not even 15 minutes. To be clear, if Mom agrees he can have parenting time, he can have it; but in that case those rights would be effectively given to him by Mom, not the State. For parenting time sanctioned by the State, he would need to go to court. This is a great example of what I'm talking about. In this example, why should Mom be given full custody and parenting rights and Dad be given 0 parenting rights? Do you believe the best interests of the children Dad being kicked out of the child's life?
As to reasonable and appropriate- you think it's appropriate to award full custody and parenting time based on gender? You think it's reasonable and appropriate to bar one gender from having any parenting rights whatsoever based on gender?
As to alternative, I've already given it to you. Mom is required to identify Dad and 50/50 joint legal and physical custody is the default. This would actually be easier to implement than the system we already have.
The law is pragmatic yet again. Practically a dad has to go to court to enforce his rights but if he is on the birth certificate he will have equal standing. He is forced to use the court and she is not but that again is do to the basic structure of the law and the certainty of motherhood versus fatherhood.
Again and again and again . Motherhood is known. Fatherhood is purported. And that is the difference which you cannot make go away.
The law is pragmatic yet again. Practically a dad has to go to court to enforce his rights but if he is on the birth certificate he will have equal standing. He is forced to use the court and she is not but that again is do to the basic structure of the law and the certainty of motherhood versus fatherhood.
Again and again and again . Motherhood is known. Fatherhood is purported. And that is the difference which you cannot make go away.
You keep using the loaded phrase 'equal standing'. That's just a lawyer's trick. 'Equal standing', if it were truly equal, would translate into equal parenting rights, equal custody, and equal parenting time. It doesn't.
Everybody is equal but some are more equal than others, I guess.
Unwed Fathers can also not walk away from their financial responsibilities anywhere in the country. However, unwed Mothers can walk away from theirs by putting children up for adoption.
You seem to be defending a system that blatantly and openly discriminates one gender.
When it is possible for an unwed father to push the baby out his ***, then they won't be discriminated against. Unless the man is named on the birth certificate, he pretty much doesn't factor into the issue. That isn't discrimination, that is... what did they say... oh, yeah... Life Is Unfair. Bummer, dad.
When it is possible for an unwed father to push the baby out his ***, then they won't be discriminated against. Unless the man is named on the birth certificate, he pretty much doesn't factor into the issue. That isn't discrimination, that is... what did they say... oh, yeah... Life Is Unfair. Bummer, dad.
This right here. This post is exactly what is wrong. This individual indicates that they believe that gender privilege (in this case, female privilege) is a good thing, while simultaneously indicating that they believe that gender oppression (in this case, oppression against men) is a good thing, while simultaneously believing that its ok to make jokes about children being kept from their parents, while simultaneously indicating that they don't care about children being kept from their parents.
This is how discrimination, human rights violations, crimes against humanity, and oppression happen. It's a combination of entitlement and dehumanization. And its right here, right in front of everyone to see.
When these issues of unequal laws towards men are brought up, we very seldom see women give a damn. Women generally don't care about men at all and even discussing men's rights offends and annoys many women. The rub is that many women expect men to care about women's rights, but these same women feel no obligation to reciprocate.
Female privileged is rampant in western society. It's been that way for a LONG time too.
This is why nobody with common sense takes the feminist movement seriously anymore.
By "nobody" do you mean men?
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.
