I have zero family law experience, so take my comments for what they are worth. My comments are based entirely on anecdotal evidence. (And not even personal anecdotal experience at that).

It seems to me that the problem is the judges. At least in California, the presumption in a divorce case is joint physical and legal custody. And yet, the woman still seems to win most of the time that custody is contested. That suggests that while judges claim to be applying the correct legal presumption, they are actually presuming that the child would be better off with the mother unless the father can show otherwise.

My experience is that there only two forces keeping judges honest (i.e., applying the law correctly, instead of just doing what they feel like doing): Attorneys, and Appellate Judges. And in many divorces cases, the father is unrepresented by counsel, and the case is never appealed. The Judge therefore has no danger of being reversed on appeal, and there is not even a lawyer there to call B.S on an erroneous application of the law.

Additionally, the system really doesn't take child custody issues seriously. If you were being prosecuted for the lowliest misdemeanor (like a trespass), you would afforded the right to free counsel, a speedy trial, and a speedy appeal, even if there was no reasonably likelihood that you would go to jail for the offense. Just simply charging someone with a crime triggers these rights. But if you're facing the prospect of a court-ordered reduction of your status as a Father to, as Dahlia wisely observes, to an alternating-weekend-carpool-da­d, you get nothing. Most men who need lawyers don't have them because they can't afford them. It's absurd. For many dads, losing custody of their kids would be a far greater horror than even spending time in jail.

The presumption favoring full joint custody only applies when the parents jointly petition the court for it---in which case it's usually granted. When the parents differ and there is a contest, it's ``the broadest possible [judicial] discretion'' that's the entire, pertinent law. When the judge has complete discretion, he can't err, and there's nothing to appeal: even the most outstanding, competent attorney can do nothing, because the law gives him no tools. Yes, the judges are bad: bigotted and biased against fathers, and firmly in the clutches of political correctness; but that the law as legislated gives them such sweeping powers, and parents and their counsel no recourse, is the root problem.

Thank you! As a father who finds himself "wronged" by the court system, I can attest that I have/would do/spend anything within my power to assure that I get to be a part of my son's life and be an active participant. Unfortunately, the court in the state of Oregon doesn't see it that way and feels that the best interest of the mother also includes the child. Therefore, living 4.5 hours away from the father is acceptable. It's funny how dead beat dads are punished to the full extent of the law, but those who fight to remain an active participant are still shunned.