In both cases cited by the article, the determination by the court was ultimately vindicated. In Rockefeller's case, the court recognized the the danger the man posed. And he did pose a danger. Without even getting into the sordid allegations regarding his past, keep in mind he intentionally hit the social worker with his SUV.

Maybe the reason it takes a hothead to draw attention to the problem is because there isn't a problem. Of course, people leave court after having a contested custody battle feeling like they were wronged. There's really no good way to have a stranger decree how you're going to raise a child. But to infer some sort of bias from the fact that fathers are unsatisfied with custody arrangements is simply reading into something that's not there.

Keep in mind also that 98% of cases are settled by the parties. Even the McGreevy's, who had an incredibly contentious divorce, settled the custody portions of the case. So you're talking about 2% of all contested cases where the judge makes the decision. And generally speaking if you're reaching that point, there's going to be at least one expert report, and possibly as many as three. There's going to be witness testimony. There may be interviews with the children. To come back, based on a 200 word summary of the case (likely provided either by one of the parties, or the lawyer to one of the parties), without reviewing that evidence, and to question the final judgment is somewhat absurd.

It's easy to attack the typical every other weekend arrangement for parenting time. But look at what that schedule actually provides. For a school age child, the kid is spending most of his/her time at school. The child's free time comes mainly on the weekends, which is split between the parents.

Divorce is hard. Child custody disputes are hard. I've worked in the field long enough to recognize how difficult it is for the people tasked with making those decisions. I also can't tell you how often I've seen a judge be criticized (often within the same hour) as being biased toward both mothers and fathers. Most of the people I've worked with have expended every effort to ensure their work is unbiased.

'Most of the people I've worked with have expended every effort to ensure their work is unbiased.'

as long as the default position of the mother being the primary custodial parent using that flimsy 'best interest of the child' excuse, it is not unbiased. don't try to kid yourself.

that default position automatically casts the father as an adversary in the eyes of the court.

BTW what will you do when the so called gay marriages start falling apart? say they adopted a kid. do you peel away the veneer of a marriage to reveal which is the mother and which the father so the kid can stay with the 'mother' in the best interest of the child?

i'd like to be a fly on the wall at one of those hearings.

I don't know enough to say if there is a problem or not, but fwiw, society (which influences the law in various ways) still does seem to favor the mother in custody battles. The finger on the scales might very well be relatively small, but I truly doubt if it is isn't there.

As to the 98%, that isn't too far from the number of criminal cases decided w/o a trial. This is useful to remember, but doesn't suddenly erase concerns about what happens when there isn't a "plea bargain" of some sort.

As to free time, school dominates the day, but the custodial parent still has the child a majority of the day. They also can have a leg up (ask Michael Newdow) on important school decisions. They are there for very important moments like when they get up in the morning, go to bed and on the way to/from school (car trips often are those times when children raise important matters). So, come on about the weekends.

Anyway, I appreciate your remarks, especially if you are in the business. And, honestly, if there is a problem, the kidnapper here isn't really what made me think about it. It was a big story in the local tabloid, and honestly, I don't recall fathers' rights coming up or anything.

-j

Most divorced fathers I know (including my ex husband) accept the status quo for many reasons. The cost of fighting custody decrees is prohibitive, the effect such battles have on the children themselves, and the fact that they traditionally feel less confident in their ability to manage as a single parent within the societal construct than women do.

Unfortunately, a father with primary custody is still considered unusual, even when the father has been the primary caretaker, or when the parents have jobs which absent themselves equally from family life.

My ex and I had a traditional setup, so I am the primary custodian. I know that my ex struggles with the situation, and does a good job staying involved with school activities and their personal lives. However, it is the daily contact that suffers. Obviously a case of divorce necessitates that one parent has less access to the children, but the means of rectifying the situation are not feasible at this time. A true joint custody is often difficult to enact, especially if the parents do not live in the same town. The results of equally-divided time, too, are mixed, since the children often do not feel as comfortable with a month-by-month arrangement or something that similarly results in an equitable division of time.

I am not in any way suggesting that the system should punish successful women, or that fahters should now be considered the de facto custodians, but I would caution you against assuming that because the majority of non-custodial fathers do not complain, there is nothing really worth complaining about.

Maybe the reason it takes a hothead to draw attention to the problem is because there isn't a problem.

Wow, that's a stupid thing to say. You're totally wrong. How could you find it acceptable that it's borderline impossible for a man to have the same parental rights as a woman? I realize that our culture has been poisoned by political correctness and its loathing of the ordinary man, but has it also addled your brain to the point where you can't see the obvious? If there was a case where men were so blatantly favored over women in our society the outrage would be deafening.

I am revolted that you find it acceptable that in our system in a separation the man is automatically financially raped and deprived of equal parenting rights, and that you would go so far as to deny the very existence of the problem.

You make me sick.

wahhh!! boo hoo, poor men!!!!

let's see... we're you all complaining when the mothers of your children grew fat and queasy and had to strictly monitor their diets, and had to pee every 5 minutes, and had acid reflux, and were kicked from the inside, and were subject to raging hormones and the pain of childbirth, and getting up every hour to feed the newborn and worried constantly about the little life that they were responsible for? we're you all complaining that you didn't get to suffer all that equally?!?!??

in addition to all of those things, in my personal experience, i had to deal with a man who taunted me, hit me, throttled me because he was angry i was pregnant, locked me out of the house on hot days when i had neither food nor drink (at 8 months pregnant), baited me into fights constantly and then would call the police on me for falling for the bait in my hormone-addled state, kicked me out the our home for the first month of our daughter's life, and then when i was allowed to return home, would lie there and sleep while i had to get up every two hours to feed our daughter, and call me crazy when he did dangerous things with her, like holding a 5 week old in the palm of his hand, wobbling 4 feet over a tile floor, pretending to step on her head when i was giving her some tummy time on the floor, not too mention his frequent nights out at the bar while i stayed home in isolation with the baby.

i left him. i filed for divorce, and i am damned if he is ever going to have any custody of the child who I bore, who I feed, who I am raising, who I have bought all the books and toys and equipment for, who I am determined to raise to be an intelligent, happy, well-adjusted child. she doesn't need to see her father treating her mother like dirt.

no. some men don't deserve custody of a child, and that is the truth. you want a child? go find some other woman to have one with. i'm sure all these men's rights fellows are real prizes and shouldn't have any problem acheiving that.

jerks.

Get mad at the original author of this thread, not me.

oops, sorry, I was talking theRaven and all other men's right supporters out there.

I just didn't want to be associated with arguments with which I also disagreed.

I agree trellistin, congress needs to pass a law that so that both men and women carry fetuses to term. I suggest you write to your congressman and the editor of your local newspaper stating so.

If there was a case where men were so blatantly favored over women in our society the outrage would be deafening.

Which certainly explains why you still pretty much have to go to a feminist blog or forum to see any meaningful discussion of the fact that women still earn less than 80 cents on the dollar in comparison to men, right?

I've been picking through the threads on this article, and, after reading your responses, it's easy to see:

a.) why your marriage didn't work

and

b.) why you didn't get custody

Hint: it's not the system, it's you, buddy.

trellistin,

Sure, at least from your version of events it sounds like you got a bad apple (there are always two sides to these stories--and we haven't heard the other side).

But....does someone reallly need to SAY that it's stupid to then declare contempt for all men because you had a hard time with a bad one? Gender (or race, or...whatever) prejudice is NEVER an accurate or useful resolution to a problem.

"some men don't deserve custody of a child"

This suggests some do, even if you had a lousy experience, and women have so much to bear during pregnancy (pun recognized).

So, bottom line -- you disagree that there remains stereotypes in family law, reflections of society, stereotypes that probably leads to "some" men being treated unfairly? Or, maybe think women suffer so much more, so it's not really worth men whining about it.

I think andkathleen's post suggests a bit more nuance is required. Telling men who have had bad experiences to "tough it up, and chose better at the altar" (neat trick for many people) really rubs me the wrong way, even if I think there is a bit too much shouting by the guys here.

-j

Trellstin's hates her ex, therefore all men suck, therefore it's perfectly justifiable that they can't have custody of their children unless the mother is in prison. And then only provisionally.

Speaking as someone who worked in the family law system, in my fairly liberal state, women always got custody. It wasn't even close. No matter what a piece of shit Mom was, Dad got a giant bill for child support and a chance to see his kids every other weekend. If he was lucky, Mom didn't spend the other 12 days demonizing him in front of his children. If he was lucky, Mom wouldn't decide to withhold visitation on a whim (daring him to spend money on a lawyer for the contempt motion).

No one who has any knowledge or experience with family law can say with a straight face that men are treated on an equal footing with women when there are kids involved. From the general and very strong bias in favor of custodial mothers to the ease with which a woman can accuse a man of everything from "emotional abuse" to child rape, the system favors women.

(And quoting the generally accepted and utterly false figures for income disparity is the functional equivalent of calling someone a Nazi, BTW: it signifies the utter abandonment of fact and reason on the part of the quoter.)

What's wrong with saying that it's wrong that women get paid less AND that men aren't treated equally in custody battles? Why does it have to be "hey, my group gets screwed in this area, so screw you on that other issue". By the way, that less than 80% figure is misleading, but I'd still agree we as a society have a ways to go in terms of equality for women in the workforce.

<link>

"Women working full time earn about 77 percent of the salaries of men working full time, Babcock said. That figure does not take differing professions and educational levels into account, but when those and other factors are controlled for, women who work full time and have never taken time off to have children earn about 11 percent less than men with equivalent education and experience."