This is why. Basically, a study back in the 80's provided "results" that men are inherently prone to using violence to establish power. Conversely, women cannot commit violence and any violence or assertion of power is only because their significant other hurt them first.
This needs to go away. It's a 35+ year old model that is outdated and needs to go away.
An excerpt from their FAQ:
Why don’t you use gender neutral language to describe domestic violence?
The battering of women by men continues to be a significant social problem–men commit over 85% of all criminal assaults and women are killed 3.5 times more often than men in domestic homicides. Not naming this gender disparity, and the continued underlying social, cultural and institutional structures that support it, keeps us from naming the social problem for what it is. While we do recognize there are cases of domestic violence other than male perpetrated violence against women, even in those cases the perpetrator’s sense of entitlement to control or dominate another remains the predominant cause of violence.
Do women use violence as often as men in intimate relationships?
When women use violence in an intimate relationship, the circumstances of that violence tend to differ from when men use violence. Men’s use of violence against women is learned and reinforced through many social, cultural and institutional experiences. Women’s use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support. Many women who do use violence against their male partners are being battered. Their violence is used primarily to respond to and resist the violence used against them. On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women.
Because whoever has more custody gets more $$. Legislate automatic 50/50 after separation or put an end to child support and see custody battles plummet. It's all about $$. Never really about the kid.
Absolutely, my jurisdiction refuses to pass 50/50 although the neighboring states give it as default so long as there's no fitness issue. The divorce rates and custody hearings are lower per capita. Also, it acts as a deterrent for women literally making a living from having kids with a stable male and leaving him for a new stud while bi dad supports the new couples lifestyle. I see a lot of "I cheated, I want a divorce, but I still want you to maintain my way of life as if we are married" here. Adultry bars alimony, but you essentially have to catch them in the act. It has no bearing on custody which is favored heavily on the women.
I can see why they would want to do it where the relationship is abusive, and it may make sense. But I think there should always be attempts to address the relationship, counseling or whatever it may be. Even if it's supervised visitations until the relationship is addressed.
My (extremely good) lawyer made the point of saying "it's expected that during the break down of the relationship there will be some form of conflict, [we wouldn't be at this stage if there wasn't conflict]", that's not abuse, but it could be conflated and exaggerated into "emotional, mental, verbal abuse".
My (okay) lawyer said "why not dad?" as part of a leading question about why cannot dad provide care if the child is in daycare, or is being cared for by others. (I had two lawyers, and had pre-meetings with ~6 total.)
There are some very interesting and depressing stats that come out of family court:
unwed fathers in my jurisidiction have 8% shared custody. Eight percent. E-i-g-h-t. That's rights to documents, rights to make decisions, rights to be involved. It doesn't get better if you're married: 10 and 16 percent. EDIT: it's slightly better when you take into account sole custody, but not particularly, shared custody should be around 40-45%, with both parents having 10-20% sole due to co-parent issues.
The results of Table 5 confirm what is known based on other data sources: after separation, mothers were given custody of the children in the overwhelming proportion of cases. Close to 80 percent of children under the age of 12 were placed in their mothers' custody in cases where a court order existed. Almost 7 percent were placed in their fathers' custody, and for 13 percent of children, a shared custody arrangement was established.
In my own case, I went up against the unwed father situation against a very high conflict person. The cost was 3 years of a full time job documenting and preparing for court, and working a stressful job fulltime. The dollar cost was $100k. My Christmas vacations were spent preparing for court. I took one vacation during a 4 year period, and that was my sister getting married.
So fathers that are extremely highly motivated and will bankrupt themselves will achieve equality.
And when I mean motivated and "it was the hardest thing I ever did", that is not a joke, and not a "oh, it was hard", or a "look at how hard working I am". I know it took years off my life.
Sometimes the bio dad is a piece of shit and it’s way better for a woman to raise a child alone than have the bio dad not show up for their kid. Some bio dads are just spermatozoon donors.
Generally, fathers cut themselves out of the child's life by not fighting the mother.
This borders on propaganda. Most of the time, the father CANNOT fight the mother. Either her cannot afford the exorbitant fees of attorneys, or he gets a massively unfair shake in the court system.
Canada is getting better. In most provinces, at leat.
Lawyers fees, carrying the existing lifestyle as assets are reconciled, and spousal and child support.
My monthly spend at one point was 4x my paycheque for several months in the early days of the process; later on fees would be that alone (so 6x my monthly paycheque).
Stories I know:
myself, $100k in legal fees, 50/50
guy at work, $150k, 50/50
coworker and friend, $40k, shared 2/3, no custody on medical
guy #1 at parenting sessions, $88k at that time, 50/50, alienation issues
guy #2 at parenting sessions, $160k and a criminal investigation that was dismissed at trial
guy #3 at parenting sessions, $no idea, but multiple child welfare and police agencies called on him, complaints were deemed (his accounting) without basis by those agencies
guy #4 at parenting sessions, $seemed low, he didn't complain, he was in a lower court, so costs were less, 50/50 irrc
guy #5 at parenting sessions, $no idea, police investigations, etc, 3 kids with one wife no issues, 3 kids with another many issues
I don't know about that, to be honest. The "tender years doctrine" isn't on the book, but it's still observed.
The stats I can find on Canada are quite old at this point, but movement from 8-10-16% shared custody to 45% shared (and both genders having 5% sole custody due to coparent issues) is unlikely.
I'd like to know what you're basing that on, as I know quite a few men who only have /shared/ custody because they dumped in tens of thousands of dollars. And some that have have shared 2/3, but no custody on medical.
I meant in cases where the father fought for shared custody. Unfortunately, if you don't fight for shared custody, then you definitely lose.
Fighting doesn't have to cost tens of thousands of dollars. I had multiple court appearances and spent substantially less than $20,000. Just control your lawyer. Offer to settle then straight to court. No time-wasting with letter writing and other nonsense. No major preparation until there is a trial.
I base my observations (increased shared custody) on two things:
1) Anecdotal
100% of my divorced friends have shared custody, and that is not a small number.
2) Case Law
Canada publishes case law online (canlii). Generally, unless the father was a doofus ("I travel around the world for business but I want shared custody") most cases seem to result in shared custody.
3) Discussions with my lawyer
(after the case was done and I had paid my final bill, so she wasn't trying to push me in any direction)
Your statistics are from 1994, and I feel I saw some stats that showed that the change started in the early 2000's. I realize it is on me to come up with those numbers, I'll see if I can!
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The Duluth Model
This is why. Basically, a study back in the 80's provided "results" that men are inherently prone to using violence to establish power. Conversely, women cannot commit violence and any violence or assertion of power is only because their significant other hurt them first.
This needs to go away. It's a 35+ year old model that is outdated and needs to go away.
An excerpt from their FAQ:
[–]Fhaze1117 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Because whoever has more custody gets more $$. Legislate automatic 50/50 after separation or put an end to child support and see custody battles plummet. It's all about $$. Never really about the kid.
[–]driftwood7386 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Absolutely, my jurisdiction refuses to pass 50/50 although the neighboring states give it as default so long as there's no fitness issue. The divorce rates and custody hearings are lower per capita. Also, it acts as a deterrent for women literally making a living from having kids with a stable male and leaving him for a new stud while bi dad supports the new couples lifestyle. I see a lot of "I cheated, I want a divorce, but I still want you to maintain my way of life as if we are married" here. Adultry bars alimony, but you essentially have to catch them in the act. It has no bearing on custody which is favored heavily on the women.
[–]SecondChantzes 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I feel that too often this is the default that courts and society falls into all to easily.
[–]jakeup58874 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I can see why they would want to do it where the relationship is abusive, and it may make sense. But I think there should always be attempts to address the relationship, counseling or whatever it may be. Even if it's supervised visitations until the relationship is addressed.
[–]postalmaner 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
My (extremely good) lawyer made the point of saying "it's expected that during the break down of the relationship there will be some form of conflict, [we wouldn't be at this stage if there wasn't conflict]", that's not abuse, but it could be conflated and exaggerated into "emotional, mental, verbal abuse".
My (okay) lawyer said "why not dad?" as part of a leading question about why cannot dad provide care if the child is in daycare, or is being cared for by others. (I had two lawyers, and had pre-meetings with ~6 total.)
There are some very interesting and depressing stats that come out of family court:
women who try to allege abuse and child alienation lose more often than not I personally would hypothesis that this is because the fathers that actually fought back were highly motivated and well funded. That pre-selects for winning cases.
unwed fathers in my jurisidiction have 8% shared custody. Eight percent. E-i-g-h-t. That's rights to documents, rights to make decisions, rights to be involved. It doesn't get better if you're married: 10 and 16 percent. EDIT: it's slightly better when you take into account sole custody, but not particularly, shared custody should be around 40-45%, with both parents having 10-20% sole due to co-parent issues.
In my own case, I went up against the unwed father situation against a very high conflict person. The cost was 3 years of a full time job documenting and preparing for court, and working a stressful job fulltime. The dollar cost was $100k. My Christmas vacations were spent preparing for court. I took one vacation during a 4 year period, and that was my sister getting married.
So fathers that are extremely highly motivated and will bankrupt themselves will achieve equality.
And when I mean motivated and "it was the hardest thing I ever did", that is not a joke, and not a "oh, it was hard", or a "look at how hard working I am". I know it took years off my life.
[–]DeletedLastAccount 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
As with almost anything it's extremely context dependent.
Some children really are better off without one of the parents in the picture.
Sad, but true.
It's too often abused though.
[–]NohoTwoPointOh 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
For sure, some. But those are outliers.
Generally and statistically speaking, children have far better outcomes with two equally involved parents.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Sometimes the bio dad is a piece of shit and it’s way better for a woman to raise a child alone than have the bio dad not show up for their kid. Some bio dads are just spermatozoon donors.
[–]NohoTwoPointOh 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Sometimes the bio mom is a piece of shit. But that's where the symmetry ends.
[–]mozerleslie 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
It’s not.
[–]Knave7575 -3 points-2 points-1 points (4 children) | Copy Link
Generally, fathers cut themselves out of the child's life by not fighting the mother.
In Canada at least this is changing drastically, and shared custody is rapidly becoming the de facto standard.
[–]NohoTwoPointOh 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
This borders on propaganda. Most of the time, the father CANNOT fight the mother. Either her cannot afford the exorbitant fees of attorneys, or he gets a massively unfair shake in the court system.
Canada is getting better. In most provinces, at leat.
[–]postalmaner 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Lawyers fees, carrying the existing lifestyle as assets are reconciled, and spousal and child support.
My monthly spend at one point was 4x my paycheque for several months in the early days of the process; later on fees would be that alone (so 6x my monthly paycheque).
Stories I know:
myself, $100k in legal fees, 50/50
guy at work, $150k, 50/50
coworker and friend, $40k, shared 2/3, no custody on medical
guy #1 at parenting sessions, $88k at that time, 50/50, alienation issues
guy #2 at parenting sessions, $160k and a criminal investigation that was dismissed at trial
guy #3 at parenting sessions, $no idea, but multiple child welfare and police agencies called on him, complaints were deemed (his accounting) without basis by those agencies
guy #4 at parenting sessions, $seemed low, he didn't complain, he was in a lower court, so costs were less, 50/50 irrc
guy #5 at parenting sessions, $no idea, police investigations, etc, 3 kids with one wife no issues, 3 kids with another many issues
[–]postalmaner 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I don't know about that, to be honest. The "tender years doctrine" isn't on the book, but it's still observed.
The stats I can find on Canada are quite old at this point, but movement from 8-10-16% shared custody to 45% shared (and both genders having 5% sole custody due to coparent issues) is unlikely.
I'd like to know what you're basing that on, as I know quite a few men who only have /shared/ custody because they dumped in tens of thousands of dollars. And some that have have shared 2/3, but no custody on medical.
[–]Knave7575 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I meant in cases where the father fought for shared custody. Unfortunately, if you don't fight for shared custody, then you definitely lose.
Fighting doesn't have to cost tens of thousands of dollars. I had multiple court appearances and spent substantially less than $20,000. Just control your lawyer. Offer to settle then straight to court. No time-wasting with letter writing and other nonsense. No major preparation until there is a trial.
I base my observations (increased shared custody) on two things:
1) Anecdotal
100% of my divorced friends have shared custody, and that is not a small number.
2) Case Law
Canada publishes case law online (canlii). Generally, unless the father was a doofus ("I travel around the world for business but I want shared custody") most cases seem to result in shared custody.
3) Discussions with my lawyer
(after the case was done and I had paid my final bill, so she wasn't trying to push me in any direction)
Your statistics are from 1994, and I feel I saw some stats that showed that the change started in the early 2000's. I realize it is on me to come up with those numbers, I'll see if I can!