I don't have the sources, but I remember hearing studies that found that when men sue for custody, they are more likely to get it. More women end up with custody, but when men push for it, they get it.

The suggestion that men back off due to fears of being accused of child abuse is unsubstantiated. It sounds like it's just something you've heard from a friend and shouldn't be repeating as gospel. I've heard from a lawyer that men threaten women with loss of custody if the women don't back down on demands for support/assets. I'd like to see actual data on either claim, but I don't think you can put one forth without the other.

The most important thing, though - men and women in America don't even remotely share child care. Just check out the american time-data studies. Women, whether or not they work, spend more time with kids. They do more work caring for kids. They spend less time at wage-earning. So most of the time, they probably should get custody and some financial support.

Actually, my real life experience has been that women accuse their ex-husbands/ex-lovers of all sorts of abuses and I would say the main reason for that (other than when it's actually true, which it can be) is MONEY.

In CA, where I practice, the less custodial time you get, the more you pay in child support and the more custodial time you get, the less you pay in child support.

I suppose this was a way to make sure dads spent time with their children, but it's also a way women use to get more money.

No one is innocent on this. There are deadbeat dads and deadbeat moms.

And yes, it is about what is best for the child. But judges are human, too, and some are as dumb as posts, some don't care and a very few (VERY FEW) are intelligent enough to listen to both sides and make them work things out themselves rather than constantly bickering in court.

While I'm sure some men have made the threats, their threats don't have as much bite if the woman can accuse the man of domestic violence, not just against the children, but against her as well.

All kinds of red alerts go off and more money is spent on custody evaluations and supervised custody, and trying to get back the time lost for custody.

The system was basically written by lawyers (and as one I feel like I can say that) to make money.

The system should be made so that people are discouraged from bickering in court and working out their own problems.

Couples wanting divorce should be forced to show that they tried counseling when warranted (I understand not going for counseling if your spouse just hit you upside the head with a backhand or frying pan) and that it didn't work, but also forced to show that they attempted good-faith mediation and divorce settlement BEFORE filing anything with the Court.

The Court should only deal with those situations where the splitting of property may be more complicated than lay people can handle or if the couple really needs the teeth of the Court and its sanctions and punishments to get the job done.

Otherwise, work it out yourself (I know in CA you have every right to). Once in Court it's a strategy of trying to wear down the otherside by filing all kinds of paperwork and making the other side spend money like water.

Too often the judges don't reign that in and that's part of the problem as well.

While its true that women may spend more time on caring (especially if they stayed at home for at time with the younger infants and babies), but the father's role, whatever the AMOUNT of time it is, is also very important.

Initial custody should be 50/50 unless something extraordinary warrants something another arrangement. The evidence required for anything else should be closer to "reasonable doubt" than "preponderance of the evidence" (I believe there is another showing that is in between but the name is escaping me at the moment) in order to take away custody of one's child.

So, while it's not necessarily "feminism" at its core that causes it, I would say that women have learned how to work the system, if you will. Crying domestic violence and such gets them noticed and gets them sympathy, etc. And it shouldn't. Because for all those "crying wolf" incidents, the people who are really hurt by that are falling into the cracks and are harmed greatly by it.

All a woman needs to do is threaten domestic violence, rape or even child molestation and that's the end for the father, even if its not true. I have read about many men who still have "supervised" visitation with their children because their ex-wives "worked" the system and those men are 100% innocent.

The problem is not to count numbers on each side to see who WINS. The solution is to make the system punish bad behavior and reward good behavior. Encouraging people to work out differences, even if that means getting a divorce, but at least working out who gets what and having a custody arrangement that is healthy for the kids as well as the parents.

That's the real solution, IMHO.

I support any arrangement that is fair to both parents. Automatically granting women full custody--and by extension the power to blow off visitation--is kinda crappy, and I've witnessed plenty of guys suffering because of.

ladykrystyna:

Are you truly a lawyer? Your post is way too even-handed and well argued. Come on, 'fess up.

Another well thought out post LadyK. Thanks.

hear hear, Lady K. Finally someone got it just right.

I know a guy who got custody. Spent $200K trying to clean up his ex's coke habit. Then she got half of what was left. That went up her nose. She's been back repeatedly for more. Only recently, the judge finally put his foot down!

What an ordeal.

"...I would say that women have learned how to work the system, if you will. Crying domestic violence and such gets them noticed and gets them sympathy, etc. And it shouldn't. Because for all those "crying wolf" incidents, the people who are really hurt by that are falling into the cracks and are harmed greatly by it."

This is an unsubstantiated myth.

Even batterers get custody (see michael flood, stop family violence, liz library, mothers movement, Time (Dec, 2007) and do a google search using "scholar" to pull up peer-reviewed articles.

When women allege DV, judges DONT believe her and many think a violent dad is better than no dad at all.

Even when there is documented evidence of DV, it is given little weight.

Research this -- this guy is probably not a lawyer. I want to see your stats of false allegations (ie women are vindicative liars that manipulate the system)....Gee, if judges so often hand children over to women so easily as all these guys purport, why do women even need to use DV?????? huh, guys?

Also, almost all states have a gender task force. Most indicate men have more financial resources and that women do not - hence, they may lack legal representation, have difficulty navigating the system, etc.

And, how about talking about how FR men use PAS and MMS and so on to gain custody? Hmmmm, very little talk of that here.

PAS = Parental Alienation Syndrome ("lacks evidence" but is still used)

MMS = Malilcious Mother Syndrome. (nice one, huh?)

Jomada:

"...I would say that women have learned how to work the system, if you will. Crying domestic violence and such gets them noticed and gets them sympathy, etc. And it shouldn't. Because for all those "crying wolf" incidents, the people who are really hurt by that are falling into the cracks and are harmed greatly by it."

This is an unsubstantiated myth.

Even batterers get custody (see michael flood, stop family violence, liz library, mothers movement, Time (Dec, 2007) and do a google search using "scholar" to pull up peer-reviewed articles.

When women allege DV, judges DONT believe her and many think a violent dad is better than no dad at all.

Even when there is documented evidence of DV, it is given little weight.

Research this -- this guy is probably not a lawyer. I want to see your stats of false allegations (ie women are vindicative liars that manipulate the system)....Gee, if judges so often hand children over to women so easily as all these guys purport, why do women even need to use DV?????? huh, guys?

Also, almost all states have a gender task force. Most indicate men have more financial resources and that women do not - hence, they may lack legal representation, have difficulty navigating the system, etc.

And, how about talking about how FR men use PAS and MMS and so on to gain custody? Hmmmm, very little talk of that here.

PAS = Parental Alienation Syndrome ("lacks evidence" but is still used)

MMS = Malilcious Mother Syndrome. (nice one, huh?)

I never said that dad's don't also work the system. They do, as well. Also, many men in the system are young men not married to the child's mother and they also have limited resources and either have to hope they can pay the attorney or do it on their own. It goes both ways. Family law litigation is VERY expensive for everybody and even more so if one or both parties are trying to work the system instead of working for the best interests of the child.

Basically, what it comes down to many times is the individual judges. If one is old-fashioned enough or easily duped, then yeah, a batterer can get custody. Maybe the reason why the woman is not believed is because IT'S NOT TRUE. Ever think of that?

See, you are painting all men as bad and all women as good. I, and others, are more realistic - both sides are good and bad. That is the better attitude to have to fix any problems there may be instead of blaming one side or the other.

As to this:

Gee, if judges so often hand children over to women so easily as all these guys purport, why do women even need to use DV?????? huh, guys?

They use DV in order to get MORE time with the kids and make the dad pay MORE. I thought that was pretty clear.

As to those the compliments, you can't see me, but I am blushing. Thanks.