This is a personal issue for me so I am a bit enthusiastic on it.

Fathers are not legally respected as much as mothers. The dead-beat-dad narrow mindlessness pervades our society. Our expectations in the laws is one of the fathers being bad people and the mothers being good people unless evidence is given to prove otherwise. The standard is to have fathers seeing the kids every other weekend. Why is the standard not equal time for both parents? Our society complains about fathers not being involved with children then legally restricts them to every other weekend?

In our society, if a mother does not have the means to support their children, we give them money. If a father does not have the means to support their children, we throw them in jail, take away their licenses, and garnish their wages.

The lack of value we have for fathers is very damaging to our society. Fathers are not second class citizens and much less criminals. We need to aggressively push to change existing laws and attitudes. Laws need to treat parents as equals unless otherwise proven. Parents should never be treated as criminals unless they have broken some law other than ones presuming a parent to be bad. Keeping family issues out of the court system should be a goal. The large exchange of money between parents should end. There is an incentive by lawyers to keep is this way as large exchanges of money via the courts is a great way to get your fingers in the pie.

This is another one of those issues in which many people have been exposed to the incompetence of the current system but for some reason do not use their vote to change it.

I think the worst social policy we have is a welfare system that rewards families that a female headed-households with children. If a male shows up in the household and is honestly reported as a resident then all assistance is withdrawn.

This is a strong economic disincentive to have a male present in the household. I believe that we should all take care of our own, but what if someone steps into a situation in which he had no prior responsibility? We go from thousands of dollars of government assistance to zero?

I also understand that female headed households with children quite prone to be impoverished, but I think our system creates more of these households than we would normally have.

In Britain, a new system of child benefit has just been introduced which is paid directly into the mother's wage packet or bank account. I don't actually know much about how it works, but the focus is once again on the mother as the parent is ultimately responsible for the child, once again relegating the father to a secondary role

I agree that today in divorce the mother is given the children in most cases. (not all). I know a few where the kids are with the father. However, in my case I had 3 kids. Their father wanted the divorce. He moved in with his secretary. In Illinois a child under 13 is not allowed to spend a night at the father's house if they are not married. It is considered immoral. My youngest was 10 at the time. I think the law was just. What kind of morals are you teaching a child when he see his father living with someone and they are not married at 10 yrs old?
Now my ex never failed to paid any of his child support, but he was given visitation every other weekend and when he got married he had the choice to keep my youngest from Friday night till Sunday.
That never happened. When he got married my son was now 12. In the 6 yrs till he turned 18 he never once took him for a whole weekend. I could count on one hand how many times he took him for "1" night. Take him on a Sat. night and bring him home on Sun.
So I do feel sorry for the fathers who do not get more from the courts about visitations. But I know several people who are divorced and the fathers do not take them every weekend, It cramps there style. So maybe you can tell those Dads who do not follow their right have ruined it for the fathers who would like to able to father.

I've only been a step-daddy, helping to clean up other people's messes. Figured that was my karma for deciding not to have kids way back in puberty.

Seems to me that marriage laws are designed to make it painful to break up marriage, thus creating a negative incentive to remain married. Are the laws on child support and visitation rights similar? Negative incentives to remain married?

The single mothers whom I know well aren't getting thousands of dollars from welfare. Well, if you look at it over maybe two years or so, it comes up to thousands. And if you consider the help on rental rates for the dumps they get to live in, yeah, thousands. Single mothers have a lot of fiscal problems that can lead to dealing illegal drugs or working in the sex industry, or both. One single mom I know stays with a man she doesn't like, has a bachelor degree, and is working on a master's--just to get some autonomy in her life.

I suspect we need to rethink the whole situation regarding why folks get married, why folks have children, and what all of our responsibilities are for raising children. When I start thinking along these lines, I am all for socialism in support of families. Before anyone dives down my throat on this, listen up:

We are no longer an agricultural society. Families worked pretty well when the farm was the common source of support. Then we went industrial and problems started to happen. First it was war and the need to bring women/mothers into the workforce. This lead to latchkey kids, pretty much taking care of themselves. I was one of those (impacted my no-child resolve).

Then we get the information economy and a sense that everyone works 7x24 for the corporation. Families sicken, break up, and die.

I know I am over-simplifying, and this is because my fun time on the board is up for the day. Have to wrap up quickly.

Anyway, I propose that we study the family as it is today and how it might evolve for tomorrow. Then use our highly creative professionals working with everyday folks to come up with better supports for families--with our focus on raising healthy kids.

In the end, we all have responsibility for everyone's kids, not just our own. As for playboys like me, well, there's lots of stuff we can do to help kids too. No kid gets left behind, and no adult gets away without experiencing at least some of the torture of child-rearing.

So, I guess messing with the details of fathers' rights after divorce isn't what I'd like to focus upon, but avoiding divorce in the first place. Also, changing the focus to the kids. We are the adults and should be accustomed to taking care of our own needs.

by Momof3

Are you suggesting that all men should be treated poorly because some men are poor parents?


by AuthorMusician

I do like your idea of society taking a fresh approach to what a family is and what is considered a healthy environment. I will point out that divorce is part of family life today. It is important to not stereotype divorce as a bad thing to be avoided.



by Momof3

What has this to do with the ability to love and nurture a child? Does a marriage certificate certify that a person is capable of parenting? This should not be the basis to deny a parent access to their children.


by AuthorMusician

In Illinois, if a woman wishes to divorce for profit and control of the kids the laws are there to support them. I am not saying all women do, in fact a minority of women do so. I am saying the law is there to support women who choose to do this. I know many will be skeptical as to this fact. It seems too far fetched and different from the stereotype of divorce and the single mom. However, it is true and I have numerous cases to illustrate it. This should be a major concern of society. Please do not put blinders on to its existence because you do not want to believe this is happening.

Gray Seal whether you like it or not there are not that many Dads that would be willing to have full time custody of their kids. Hell I wish there was. I never said they should be treated poorly. I just stated a fact why women get full custody of the kids.
As for a child under the age of 13 being able to stay at a father's new residence without being married I stand my ground. It is not that they can't love or nuture a child it is not morally right. And that is why the courts will not allow that.
As for many of the women I know including myself, I don't know of one that divorced for profit or made a profit.

You really do not think many Dads are unwilling to have full custody of their kids? That seems such a odd statement to me. When I think of all the Dads I know, I can not picture any of them thinking like this. Maybe it is a generational thing? There might be a way to see if your supposition is true. Take the unfortunate situation where the Mom has been killed and the Dad was left to parent the kids. Are you saying the records will show the Dads in these cases were unwilling to raise the kids? Will the records show they asked other relatives to raise them or they gave them to the courts?

I do have a different set of morals than you do. It is immoral to separate a parent and a child because someone a third person does not like what they are doing. Unless you can demonstrate the child is being harmed parents should not be denied their right to be a parent. You state that a parent who is completely capable to love and nurture a child should be separated from the child. You think this is good for the child? I contend this is doing great harm to the child.

The courts are indeed making decisions based on such frivolity. It is time to correct the harm created by the current family law.

This moral argument is the one used to prevent a homosexual from adopting a child. That subject is on a different topic and well presented. Homosexual men and heterosexual men both face discrimination in regards to their ability to parent based on their sexual lives.

by Momof3This statement bothers me. Fathers are not visitors. They are parents. Why should either parent be treated as a second class parent based on their sex? I appreciate you do not think men are getting a fair chance in the courts but your wording implies they should be kept in the category of being a visitor.

Through all my posts on this subject, you will see I am nitpicking on the use of words. This needs to be done as the words used in family court have been distorted and carry much baggage. It is important to point this out in solving the family law problems. For example: anytime you see the use of "mother" or "father" when "parent" should be the proper word, it is a signal a prejudice exists.

In a situtation where a parent is killed there is no question where the child should go. As for parents who are left alone to raise a child do they ask their relatives to raise that child. Yes they do. It is in the papers all the time. And I know several who do just that. Have a relative raise that child.
I never said the child should be separted from the parent. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I should of said that if the parent who is not married and leaving together cannot have that child spend the weekend for moral reasons. I never said they didn't have visitation rights.

Have you ever heard of equal parenting? I dont see alot of Fathers out there looking for full custody either. The reason for this is because they have enough sense in their heads and care about their children enough to want EQUAL parenting. Equal time with each parent. Yet Fathers cant even get that much time with their kids.



What? Do we need to start showing our kids a marriage certificate? You would really have a fit if your Ex decided he was gay after you divorced wouldnt you?

I will have to introduce you to my Ex some time.

I adopted my Ex's 3 children when we first married. They were 5 through 9 and I have been Dad ever since. We divorced last year, and with the money that I make, I pay enough child support for my Ex to support our children 100% and support her 50%, and I am not even paying the highest percentage allowed under Georgia Law.

I would love to have custody of our kids, and have several friends that feel the same way about their children.
As my Lawyer explained it to me, during the divorce, if I could prove her to be unfit I could get custody, if not I had no chance. But to prove her unfit I would have had to prove that she used illegal drugs, was an abusive parent or was mentally insane.
I get regular visitation, basically when ever I want, as long as it doesn't interfere with school.

However I am mistreated by the large amount of child support that I have to pay. Please don't misunderstand me; I want to pay for half of the expenses of raising our children but with me paying all plus a large part of my Ex's that is wrong!

Showing a marriage certicate has nothing to do with the law in Illinois. It is just that. You are not married and living with someone and the child is under 13 they are not allowed to spend the night in that home. It is for moral reasons. As for if my ex was gay, what does that have to do with the price of eggs? If my ex turned out to be gay it would still stand if the child was under 13 he/she would not be allowed to spend the night in that home.
Aje all I can say is your situation is very very low in the percentage of women who are divorced. I will get back to this but I want to get some statistics that show how many women are close to the poverty level.

Most interesting thread, I wish I had seen it sooner. I am a twice-divorced father with full legal custody of both of my children from those marriages, a son and a daughter. In both cases, it was a protracted and expensive battle in the courts for my kids, but that's not why I prevailed. I also invested a huge amount of time in my children, going to their school functions, meeting with their teachers, calling them everyday and just being with them at every opportunity. In my daughter's case (she's 11), I had every accusation imaginable thrown at me and California Child Protective Services got involved for nearly 2 years, but eventually they found out the truth and it was on their recommendation that my daughter now lives with me, my son and my fiance, full time with limited and supervised visitation for her mother.

I am sympathetic to a father's plight in child custody issues, I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt (and the legal bills) to prove that, but fathers can fight back and they can win if they are true fathers. The legal system is stacked against them for sure, but it is still possible to overcome that hurdle. I'm actually seriously considering writing a book about my experiences, the working title is "Exploding the Mommy Myth" to help dads understand what it takes on their part to be a part of their children's lives. I'll save y'all the expense of buying that book and tell you the bottom line here. You just have to be a good dad.

I wish it was that simple. It sounds like in one of your cases, with limited and supervised visitation for her mother, you had grounds for proving the mother was not a good parent The system is biased against fathers who want to be parents. If both parents are good parents when a divorce occurs, the parents are not treated like equals. It should be that simple: be a good parent and you will be treated as one.

I think that kind of varies from state to state. I don't know how it is in your state Gray Seal, but in California two good parents normally means joint custody which is a separate topic worthy of it's own thread I think. I do agree with you that the system is stacked against fathers though, that's part of the "Mommy Myth", ie. there are good parents and bad parents, but there is no such thing as a bad mommy.

Still though, time and time again I see fathers shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to custody. They think that if they show up in court, pay their lawyers, etc. that should be all they have to do to get a fair shake. It just doesn't work that way. What they do with their children out of court, dedicating time to them, sharing with them is more important, much more important. I know one guy who lost in court partly because he never managed to make it to his son's baseball games on Saturdays. Why? He had to work. Opposing counsel asked him, "Sir, what is more important, your work or your child?" and he was dead meat. Fair? Not really, the guy has to earn a living, but he should have come up with a way to work around the conflict for the sake of his son. I suspect had he really tried, he could have arranged something with his employer that would have enabled him to take in the baseball games.

The point to this is that while the system is stacked against dads without question, dads can still prevail in family court. I am proof positive of that. It takes an enormous effort and dedication to do it though. Your mindset has to be "my kid comes first" and you have to live that mindset and prove that your kid comes first by your actions.