JenniferHChrist Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
1	It's not worth having kids now a days. ~50% divorce rate with ex-wives winning custody most of the time That’s just not true. The vast majority of custody disputes never reach the court room—the arrangement is determined by the parents and is subject to change at any time. But even in cases where the court does get involved, the parties must present evidence supporting their position to get what they want. No one is getting custody by just putting a “spin” on their ex.	/r/MensRights	19/10/22 11:43 AM
1	It's not worth having kids now a days. ~50% divorce rate with ex-wives winning custody most of the time If your attorney advises you that your children are not worth fighting for, then get a new attorney. Source: Attorney. But really, the client rules. Lawyers can’t actually do anything without the client’s input. If a father wants to push for primary custody then they need to find an attorney that will work with them, not one that wants a quick case turnaround.	/r/MensRights	19/10/22 02:02 AM
1	It's not worth having kids now a days. ~50% divorce rate with ex-wives winning custody most of the time It’s determined on a case-by-case basis. The parent who has been the primary caregiver has a big advantage should they need to determine custody. If Parent A has been spending the majority of their time working outside the home and Parent B has been the one doing the bulk of the childcare, then that status as primary caregiver would weigh heavily in B’s favor because maintaining normalcy is in Child’s best interest. It doesn’t matter if B is the mother or the father. For example, I’ve seen cases…	/r/MensRights	19/10/22 01:48 AM
1	It's not worth having kids now a days. ~50% divorce rate with ex-wives winning custody most of the time Does having sole or primary custody necessarily benefit women? Wait it doesn’t matter—the ONLY consideration for custody arrangements is what is best for the child. That’s the “benefit” the laws are concerned with, not any “win/loss” for the parents. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, if the laws were designed to favor women/mothers, they wouldn’t neatly apply to same-sex marriage, or grandparents gaining custody in an emergency, or adoptions, but they do.	/r/MensRights	19/10/22 01:29 AM
1	It's not worth having kids now a days. ~50% divorce rate with ex-wives winning custody most of the time I 1000% agree that the court system in this country is imperfect in a lot of ways, and racism is a big fat imperfection. However, the courts that determine child custody are entirely separate from the courts that send people to prison. They often aren’t even in the same building in cities. Moreover, less than 5% of custody decisions ever make it to a courtroom. The vast majority of custody arrangements are made between the parents without any initial intervention.	/r/MensRights	19/10/22 01:08 AM
1	It's not worth having kids now a days. ~50% divorce rate with ex-wives winning custody most of the time That’s just not true. Also “custody” is very rarely given to one parent. It’s almost always joint or shared. Dads are not being forcibly legally removed from their children without cause, just like mothers aren’t.	/r/MensRights	19/10/22 12:59 AM
1	It's not worth having kids now a days. ~50% divorce rate with ex-wives winning custody most of the time Again, historically that’s because the mother has been the “primary caregiver.” That’s not necessarily true anymore, but it is still more common than the father being the primary caregiver in a heterosexual marriage. Which statistics show that the laws or the application of the laws purposefully favor women by virtue of being women, as opposed to women as the primary caregiver?	/r/MensRights	19/10/22 12:45 AM
1	It's not worth having kids now a days. ~50% divorce rate with ex-wives winning custody most of the time These laws exist to do one of three things: equitably divide shared property following a divorce/annulment; provide temporary financial support for a spouse who was not formally employed/was underemployed during the marriage for reasons related to the marriage (i.e. raising children, caring for parents/in-laws, etc.); and/or arrange custody in the best interest of the children involved. They do not exist to support one gender over another. There are far too many examples of men receiving alimony…	/r/MensRights	18/10/22 09:45 PM
1	It's not worth having kids now a days. ~50% divorce rate with ex-wives winning custody most of the time I know many fathers who have 50%-share or primary custody of their children. If it was the best decision for their child at the time, then the court made it happen. Source: close friends working in family law practices.	/r/MensRights	18/10/22 09:39 PM
1	It's not worth having kids now a days. ~50% divorce rate with ex-wives winning custody most of the time Right, so there aren't any "female centric laws" in the family law context. In fact, the laws are pretty clearly agender, especially since some form of same-sex marriage has been legal in many states for decades and finally across the US since 2015. The laws re: entering into the actual marriage have no gender requirements. The laws re: alimony, division of property, and the other economic aspects of a marriage/annulment/divorce also have no gender requirements. Additionally, the default legal p…	/r/MensRights	18/10/22 08:41 PM
1	I once got mocked here for saying there is a link between women into witchcraft & feminism. Now I discover a feminist sub called "Witches Vs Patriarchy"..... Told you feminism was linked to anti science & anti logic things! I'm sorry--you found one (1) sub called "witches vs. patriarchy" and now feminism as a whole is "linked to anti-science and anti-logic things"? This guy talmbout "anti-logic," ok	/r/MensRights	18/10/22 08:22 PM