Custody issues in your state

grasshopa · 2017-11-26T19:37:12+00:00

I may be out of touch, but I believe it's still "Best Interest of the Child" standard, which is code for "Judges and mediators are given license to let their bias fly free".

Because the standard is amorphous and open to interpretation, you can well imagine the disparity inherent in it's execution. I've seen everything from male bias to female bias ( generally the latter ), but I've rarely seen a mediator ( or judge ) who does a competent job.

I don't know what it is about the job, but decent human beings are few and far between in the family court system.

Tedesche · 2017-11-26T22:44:32+00:00

I'll let Judge Judith Scheinlin speak about the issue from her time adjudicating family court cases in my state:

https://dadsdivorce.com/articles/judge-judy-on-child-custody/

The problem lies in (a) sexist biases that flout the law, and (b) the lack of a presumption of joint custody. The latter allows judges to stack the deck against one parent (usually fathers) from the outset, and to do so under whatever they personally feel fits the "best interests of the child."

pteawesome · 2017-11-27T13:30:34+00:00

In Ontario Canada, the default position is joint custody. Now it gets tricky when only one parent works, or when one parent left the matrimonial home and the other parent creates a status quo arrangement by with holding the child. Puts us into other issues such as police being reluctant to force a parent to hand over a child without a court order..so reality is it defaults to mom.

MagicTampon · 2017-11-27T06:37:35+00:00

The general setup in each state, is that if the woman wants to take primary custody, she can. The man will be reduced to contact once every other weekend, and pay for the privilege of having been dicked over.

God, don't they teach you kids anything in school anymore?

In every case where states have come close to passing shared custody legislation, women's groups and bar organizations have blocked it.

The usual damseling shitheadery.

It's everywhere more or less the same.

For example in New York:

https://www.berkbot.com/blog/laws-new-york-courts-consider-when-awarding-child-custody/

"The case Braiman v. Braiman established the precedent that if both parents agree to joint custody, the Court will respect that decision and award it. In cases where parties cannot agree to a joint custody arrangement, courts consistently do not award joint custody."

(A little confusion here because in this case from the state of NY the term "joint" is used in the meaning of "shared custody".)

In the U.S., it is virtually impossible for a man to achieve shared custody, unless his ex-wife agrees to it.

Feminist organizations have had their way using the usual damseling antics. Their position has been that, any degree of "disagreement" on child custody issues sufficient to bring a lawsuit for custody can be construed as incompatible with the court issuing a shared custody order. Therefore, whenever a parent (almost always the female) petitions a court for primary physical custody, the courts are forced to make a choice, and are often more or less obligated to choose the female. This is why the usual child custody order (barring a mutual agreement otherwise between parents) results in the woman receiving the bulk of the custodial time, and the father, even if receiving "joint" custody, is relegated to a once-every-other weekend presence in his children's lives -- not eve enough to maintain a meaningful relationship with his children over the long term (you wouldn't normally expect a married couple to maintain a relationship on a once-every-other-weekend basis over the long term, not sure why they expect anything different).

So basically, "ladies first" women choose and men are (allegedly) obligated to suck it up "for the ladies."

You know, the usual damseling / chivalrous fuck holery.

Realistically, the Department of Justice ought to have swept in decades ago in to rectify the inequity.

Furthermore, it's inexplicable why a man should be forced to pay someone else (the mother) to do something he would much rather be doing himself. It's a disgusting habit that women are allowed to sue a man to take his kids from him against his will, then sue him again afterwards for money to what she just did. In an equitable world, when a woman sues a man for primary custody of his kids, that ought to be her way to at least proclaim that she doesn't need his money to raise him.

Shared custody. Just because a woman wants more, doesn't mean she should get it.

c_megalodon25 · 2017-11-27T18:49:11+00:00

I can see that this is turning into a thread about how men are getting screwed by women. I wasn’t trying to go that route. Rather, I was curious as to actual determination of primary custody (or whatever your state calls it) and how visitation is structured.

Oh, I’ve learned another reason why women want primary that doesn’t have to do with child support. Even if the man and woman are both equal in pay, time at work, quality of parenting, etc, if a woman doesn’t get custody, all the other moms wonder why she lost and it makes her look like a bad mother.

Fortspucking · 2017-11-27T18:49:32+00:00

Marketing.

SamPayton · 2017-11-27T20:27:46+00:00

If you are the higher earner you can expect to get screwed. The decision will be just how bad will you get screwed and how much will it cost you to get screwed.

Title	Custody issues in your state
Author	c_megalodon25
Upvotes	3
Comments	9
Date	November 26, 2017 6:52 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7fov3n/custody_issues_in_your_state/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/custody-issues-in-your-state.910394 https://theredarchive.com/post/910394

Comments