I wanted to post a poll but did not see the option so I will post is as a simple question.


Do you think that Men are at a disadvantage in divorce and/or custody case?

I thnk there is no doubt that this is the case but I am not the only person in the world. How do you feel?

Do you think that Men are at a disadvantage in divorce and/or custody case?

Yes, generally speaking, this is true. I believe it is a part of a left over traditionalism. Throughout history, and certainly throughout American history, women have been the primary caregivers - in fact, generally, they still are. It is still by and large women who are expected to raise their children.

This goes hand in hand with the fact that women, working in the same jobs as men, are almost always paid less. Even in traditionally 'female' professions like nursing, males will make more money and get promoted faster.

I have also seen studies which show that even in homes where both parents work full time, women do the majority of child-rearing and housework.

Men who want to fight for increased equity in custodial issues, must also fight equally hard for pay equity and housework equity, because these are all left over from old traditions. If men fight only for increased custody rights, and win that, the equation becomes even more unbalanced against women. Right now, women face far more gender inequity than men.

I feel heartbroken for individual men's stories in this area, but if we step back and look at the big picture, the majority of problems in this area are still men leaving/abandoning their families, and not paying support at all. I just read that 48% of all child support is collected.

Maybe if men become more aware of and involved in righting the constant gender inequities women face, women (and court systems) will in turn become more understanding of men's custodial issues. In a way, the (sadly, a minority) 'good' men in this issue are being punished for something which is not their fault - just like women getting the brunt of other inequities is not their fault. I do think the biggest onus is on men to address the vast gender inequities that exist - I think the custody issue will solve itself if the rest of it gets ironed out.

The problem is that for men who have been in this situation, it is very emotional, which often leads to a myopic view of the issue.

Yes. Men are at a disadvantage in getting custody.

Quarkhead brings up some good related issues. All of us should support the end of sex biased laws. It is not just men who need to do this. Women who are concerned with less pay due to sex role bias should also be against sex role bias against fathers as parents.

It is not OK that only a few men seem to be affected by this disadvantage while seemingly lots of women are disadvantaged in other ways. This disadvantage is profound with its affects on the children and fathers. We should not be striving for a balance between wrongs against the respective genders. We should be striving to minimize them.

I do agree with you. The reason I say the onus is really on men is because, whether we like it or not, men run this country. As a gender, we are recipients of so much advantage, which we by and large take for granted. I'm not looking to balance wrongs, I am also looking to minimize and eliminate them. I just think we need to start with the other side, because I believe that if those issues are resolved, this issue will also resolve itself. It's not that this problem does not deserve redress; it's that I don't get too riled up about this, considering that in almost every other facet of life in this country - in this world - men have SO much advantage handed to them.

Quark,

Excellent points, as usual. Can't really disagree with the general sentiment expressed (ie, that this is a result of a bigger set of inequities). However, would like to point out that the current child custody laws basically enforce those inequities. When men receive 'unfair' custody settlements, they are put into situations forcing them to adopt the very social roles society should be striving to eliminate. The same goes for the women in these situations. Also, putting the onus on men to make the changes you suggest (while I cannot disagree with the general sentiment) puts things in a situation where one inequity 'justifies' the other--which is a scenario I always have problems with.

The problem, as I think you also suggest, although not directly, is that the court system is more setup to handle the majority of cases, leaving those who are 'out of the norm' treated unfairly. I tend to disagree also with this type of adjudication (--courts should treat issue on its own merits, irregardless of the norm, lest 'innocent' people get treated as if they were guilty. There is somewhat of a bitter circle here...many of the man who do abdicate their parental responsibilities do so because they know the system will, or did, treat them unfairly. This adds to the stereotype, making it harder and harder for the system to judge each situation individually, creating more and more 'unfair' resolutions....and so on. Not sure where this cycle gets broken....

I would also point out that if men truly 'ran' this country, then we wouldn't have this situation in the first place...although I do understand what you are trying to convey, and won't disagree that we are certainly advantaged.

Forgive me if my english is bad.

I think that men are at a disadvantage in getting custody. Studies show that the mother gets custody about 90% percent of the time. Even with the points made above about women being the primary caregivers this does seem a little lopsided.

Half of the voters are men and half of the voters are women. Each group has an equal chance to vote for people who will reform gender inequality issues.

Family Law can be changed via legislation. Laws are made by elected officials.

Employers are not elected. Since most employers are men, this group does currently have more influence on salaries. So, more women need to seek employer status or whatever gender the employers are, they should seek the fair treatment of employees unbased on sex.

Societal change does go slowly, Quarkhead. Fundamentally I do agree with you but my activist leanings wish for a less passive position. Change can occur sooner(but still oh so slowly) if issues are pushed some.

Absolutely, men are at a disadvantage in a custody battle. As far as I am concerned, it is nigh impossible for the father to get sole custody. Unless dad comes to court with video of mom Snorting lines of crack, dad's not getting sole custody if mom is against it.
-----------------------------------

http://www.menweb.org/throop/custody-divor...es/whoGets.html
"For the conflicting families (Father wanted joint custody, mother wanted sole custody).

Maternal Sole Custody awarded: 77%
Joint Custody awarded: 23%"

When it comes to the children, the mother gets what she wants a majoity of the time, which is disappointing.





I haven't seen anything that would indicate that is true. This Thomas Sowell article is worth reading about the subject - http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3807

"People without the slightest knowledge of economics or the slightest experience running a business will boldly assert that women are paid only 75 percent -- or some other percent -- of what men make for doing exactly the same work.

Think about it. If an employer could hire four women for the price of hiring three men, why would he ever hire men at all?

Even if the employer was the world's biggest sexist, he could still not survive in business if his competitors were getting one-third more output from their employees for the same money."

I agree that women do get custody more than men, but I think that if a judge gives a man or women custody of a child i believe that it is because he/she thinks it's the best place for the child to be raised and sometimes the judge gives custody to both the father and the mother. I don't think that father's are being treated unfairly it's just a matter of who the court thinks will take care of the child better.

When it comes to babies, men are at the mercy of women the majority of the time.

1) If the woman wants to have an abortion, the man has no way to object of force the woman to have the baby.

2) If the woman wants to keep the baby and you don't, ya can't make her have an abortion.

3) And if she wants to keep the baby, in most states YOU'RE gonna pay for the baby...and maybe even pay for the mother.

4) If you divorce, at least here in Michigan, women are almost automatically given custody. As a mother, you have to either not want the child or be a raving lunatic to not get custody.


When it comes to children, men are not in control. That's why you shouldn't be reckless regarding sex. You could argue that women stuck with children cannot force a man to take care of the child....but there are laws that hunt down deliquent fathers and take their money.

I think it's a bit unfair, but if you understand that going in then you won't be blind sighted.

I'm glad you revived this thread, Tim-Mello and by the way, welcome to America's Debate.

Do you think that Men are at a disadvantage in divorce and/or custody case?


I am, unfortunately, something of an "expert" in this area, at least from a California standpoint since I've been through two divorces each involving a child, one boy and one girl. I daresay I probably know more about California Family Law than most attorneys not practicing California Family Law do. There is no question that California law (and I assume most states) is somewhat biased against the father, but not completely. In my case, I have been awarded custody for both of my kids by the courts - so, it is possible.

Was it easy? - No
Was I at a disadvantage? - Yes, initially
Was it expensive? Yes
Was it worthwhile? Absolutely!

I think the main disadvantage comes from perceptions of how the legal system really works. Even the laws, or at least the interpretation of the laws contain an implicit assumption that the father is the provider and the mother the nurturer. Thus the court tends to start out with that basic assumption that the father provides money and the mother provides nurturing and so mother raises child and father pays for it. So, father starts out facing this inherent bias and figures there's no way he can overcome it. So, often times he follows the advice of one of the so-called "Father's rights" groups out there and seeks "joint custody" as the best deal he can get. Well, it may be a good deal for him, but it's the worst thing in the world for a child and that's another thread that we've had here in the past so I'll leave it at that.

On the surface it may appear that the father has no chance in a custody/divorce case (which are 2 separate issues really), but he does if he's willing to invest the time in actually being a parent. It's not just a matter of spending a bunch of money buying stuff for your kid, but spending a more valuable resource on them - yourself. Spending the day with them at the beach flying kites instead of playing golf with a client or watching the big game on TV. Canceling a meeting with a client in order to attend a parent-teacher conference at their school. Turning off the TV or computer or putting down the book you are reading at night to help them with their homework. These are things that I fear many two parent families don't do, but they should. But, if you want to be a single dad, these are the things you have to do. It's called being a dad.

i think that yes, men are at a disadvantage on this issue, nut only because, they have jobs, and are the providers, women are seen as being able to spend more time nurturing the kids

in this state and time.. yes.

eventually women will rise to society superiority...

and when that happens, if men are still in existance.. they'll finally have the advantage durin' custody cases.

point bein'. the underdog is always the favorite.

Of course women have the advantage when it comes to custody, just as they have the advantage in the majority of cases concerning of the law. Society believes that women can care for children better then men, men are just the walking bank account.

If feminists truly want gender equality and a gender transition movement, then we would see more of them fighting for men to have equal rights when it comes to custody battles and abortion issues. I know some of them that do...but they are few and far between.


Also, I can't resist responding to this:



The reason women are paid less is because they tend to make life choices that better their life, rather then bettering their pay. There are many statistics that support this, however those statistics are never publicized. Check out Warren Farrell's new book Why Men Earn More for more information.

I am also trying to make a collection of little known statistics at http://www.freewebtown.com/menplace/index.htm

Yes women do more house work when both parents work full time. However, when the women of the house earns more then the man, the man does more house work. That seems fair, doesn't it? This statistic is even taking from a "woman victimhood" book The Second Shift, by Arlie Hochschild. Oddly, this statistic didn't make the news.

Do you think that Men are at a disadvantage in divorce and/or custody case?

In a divorce, each participant must give a percentage of his/her assets to his/her former partner. Men generally make more then Woman do. Males are therefore usually at a disadvantage, but this is only a generalization (Sometimes the woman will make more then the man, and sometimes the man will make more then the woman. However the second of these two situations is more common).

One thing that is not considered is how much each party is losing. Let's assume for the moment that it is a traditional household, he works, she stays at home. No addictions, abuse or criminal behavior on either party's part.

She will likely get the kids.

In California, she will also probably get the house.

She will get child support for the kids.

She gets society's sympathy as a "single mom", almost invariably without regard to the circumstances of how she came to be a single mom.

She loses... what does she lose?


He will lose his kids.

He will likely lose his house.

He will lose the child support.

He will lose the benefits of her housekeeping. This is never talked about. When women like to complain about how much housework they do, and how much it would cost to replace their labor in the market, there is never any consideration to replacing this labor for the husband. She still gets the benefit of his wage labor, indirectly via the child support, but he does not get the benefit of her domestic labor.

He will lose years off his life, not even taking into account the much higher risk of suicide.

He will be villified by society and hounded by the government if he fails to pay his child support, without regard to his capacity to pay support.

He will be villified for not being there as a Dad for his kids, without regard to the extra hours he has to put in at work to pay for two households, without regard for any obstacles she may throw up.

All this, and she's twice as likely to seek a divorce as he is... no wonder, given that the cost/benefit analysis is pretty much her way.

Most feminist legal activists charge that men have the advantage when it comes to family law. They like to point to guys like Kirk Kerkorian, Billionaire, and how much money he has to spend versus the poor woman who bore his child. As a result, they work hard to put into place all sorts of support systems for women who are divorcing, to help "even the playing field." What they fail to consider is that very few men have that sort of money, and the result is that enforcement of child support (overwhelming going to women) is publicly funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, private charities and publicly funded organizations provide millions of dollars in services to women, etc. Enforcement of child custody, overwhelmingly a concern of the father? The average Joe has to come up with the $$$ himself, even when felony interference is taking place.

yeah, men are at a disadvantage in the legal system.

Definetly. Men are made out to be neglegent, unclean, quick-to-anger, unfit fathers; especially in sutody cases. Judges look at mothers as the " one that brought the child into this world" meaning mothers generally are given custody because children bond quicker to their mothers especially between birth and around 5 or 6. I am not saying that either party is unfit to raise the child, I am saying that parents don't look at what is best for the child they look at what is best for them. Custody=child support= more $$$. The only ones that look at this is a remotely unbiased way are the judges, who are still biased to the mother because children bond to them more than the father.

As a woman, who has worked with non-custodial groups in the 80's and 90's,, the answer is an overwhelming yes. The courts are interested in dollars only. They are not interested in what is just. In times gone by, generally, men were the bread winners. The courts are happy to leave the laws the state of yester years, in order to take the income of the men to fund the attorneys and the legal system.

Having worked in a field that is mainly men, Engineering, I witnessed women marry, have a child, and then turn around and find someone else. These women do this 3 or 4 times and have $750.00 to $1000.00 a month child support, per child, due to the income level of the job. Another game played is accusing the man of wrong doing, pulling them back into court, again finances for the courts. Then they are charged with contempt, thrown in jail and have to bond out. The bond is purchased by the State, which in turns sells it to the Federal government, which in turns sells it on the International market. Again financial gain for the courts. It's all a money game.

When big business began using the prisons for financial gain, the corruption became worse. Businesses are having sports wear, for one, screened, embroidered, etc at the prisons.

One of the biggest cons is putting lifetime alimony, for any reason, at the judge's discretion, in the judgment. No one should have to support another adult, who is not disabled, for the rest of their life. That is out and out slavery. Men should be standing together to ABOLISH LIFETIME ALIMONY.

This is not about what is just, it is about the money that the government can and will make off the family.

Yeah, men generally get soaked here. Ask my boyfriend. His wife is divorcing him for one reason: he happened to mention, after fifteen years of marriage, that he prefers the same sex and had kept quiet about it just to keep her from feeling uncomfortable. He didn't cheat on her (I promise you, he's too geeky and vanilla, and his idea of living on the edge is drinking a little coffee in the afternoon or having more than one beer on a Saturday night), but he's at risk of having to pay so much in alimony, child support, and house payments as to barely afford to make ends meet. Fortunately, his legal advisor was kind enough to direct him to a cutthroat she-lawyer who's going through exactly the same ordeal (she's even a lesbie), and she thinks that, with some luck, she can win him partial custody and make wifey sell the (five-bedroom, protected community, high-end part of town) house for a fully paid-for four-bedroom (which would still leave her with a room to keep guests in) and get him off with as little as paying out most of his income for her to sit on her seat-warmer for the next ten years. I only hope that she can keep the courts from soaking him completely; it's hard enough to get him to take care of his health when he can afford it, but throw an irrational fear of doctors in with a legitimate-looking excuse to cut costs, and you'll understand what I mean. This boy'd give the lady everything if I didn't order him to have a backbone, and he'd have told his wife to stop being a fool and keep a good thing if I'd been around when she started talking about divorce (I wouldna touched the kid if he hadn't already let the ninny break things up).

Personally, I think the courts should be more level-handed about this sort of thing.

The obvious answer is a resounding YES!

Here is a perfect example of why America is in such a fiasco. It never fails that when a pertinent issue is raised, another issue is always tossed into the mix to cloud the subject. I know Mr. Quark did not intentionally do this, but if yo watch enough cnn & c-span, you will realize this is exactly why so much good policy fails to pass, and ridiculous agenda seems to always make it.

Yes, but most studies like this are very circumstansial and unreliable. You can always get desired results by selecting your test pool. Mass Media does it to America all the time... I believe its called propaganda.

I know You mean well, but if You really want to come to the BEST SOLUTION for any problem, the problem must be dealt with individually on its own merit, not thrown in as a compromise or concession on some other agenda. Fair treatment should never be used as a barganing chip. As long as it is used that way, it will NEVER get its true value or warranted attention.

Don't be so naive. Women are afforded very biased protection and preferential treatment in all phases of life in the United States, and this is not a risidual effect of old traditions, it is the voting effect. Fact is, women make up >60% of the voting population, thus politicians come up with, and support, biased policy to gain footage with the voting majority.

Well if you take another step back, and look through a wide angle lens instead of tunneling binoculars, we might see that the more the government invades the family, the more fathers are going to be forced from the homes. We always cloud the real problem (estranged families) with a side issues (like monitary support) because those issues garner sympathy and support from the majority (women).

Mmmmaaaayyybbbeeee....if men actually address issues that effect men, instead of waiting on these issues to "correct themselves", maybe they will see some inroads. Sadly, womens issues are all that ever get addressed in our courts systems.

Now maybe I'm just looking way too deeply into this, but it seems men are simply victims of a government money making and vote grabbing scheme. The government actually makes money off of each kid in the system. When money and votes are at stake do you really think our government would do what is best for our children and their families....absolutely NOT!

This is very true, but the real issue is no one ever answers the most basic question....."WHY?"

What advantage are You referring too, being able to move heavier furniture? Besides not having to suffer through PMS every month, I don't see any advantages afforded to men. Hell, women have even been able to use PMS to their advantage in the legal and work arenas.

Historically, this is a recipe for failure. Anytime you leave a problem to fester, it grows, not corrects itself.

Not in AMERICA

My apologies to quark. I really did not intend any attack or insult in using the word naive. Naivety usually signifies innocence rather than ignorance or beligerance. As for the tunneling binoculars, I didn't say he had tunnel vision,,, I was inferring that he could step back further and look even wider. Absolutely no insult intended, and again I apologize.

Yes, absolutely.

And I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing for society. Women have always had the primary role in bringing children into this world and then raising them. That puts demands on them both physically, emotionally, and socially that are not placed on men. Biologically, men and women are generally wired differently as well when it comes to the procreation instinct with women being more selective and looking for a long-term mate while the man is biologically driven to fertilize as many females as possible. Of course, there is an entire layer of culture, social mores, etc., over this basic anthropological reality, but the basic human instinct remains.

If women were not at an advantage in divorce/custody, I believe that more men would abandon their women and kids out of convenience. We can see a microcosm of this phenomena within the inner-city underclass where the majority of children are born out of wedlock and where the majority of children are raised in single parent households. In that case, there is little financial (or cultural) incentive for the father to stay with the kids he has created because he is not financially liable. Instead, the "state" in the form of welfare payments is on the hook, not the dad.

I also think that since the biological fertility cycle of men and women is a lot different as people age, that changing the divorce laws would remove a pragmatic obstacle that would prevent more men in the 50's and 60's from leaving their post-menopausal spouses in favor of younger, and more fertile women.

I think that radical feminism have attempted to force the notion that "men and women are equal" down society's throat at the expense of common sense. I believe that men and woman are NOT equal. They are equally worthy, but not the same, therefore, not "equal". Men and women play different roles and have different areas of expertise. Our divorce laws recognize these realities in a way.

This is, IMHO, a myth. The equation is very unbalanced again men to begin with. Men have a whole host of issues, with essentially no groups supporting them. Consider that women live longer than men. How much is life worth? Consider the number of men who work in dangerous occupations. Also consider that men suffer much higher degrees of stress, and the related symptoms, than women. No, the equation is already considerably unbalanced against men. In fact, it is the same assumptions that create these imbalances that create the custody imbalance...men are simply expected to accept the unfairness of it and move on, as we do for so many other issues. Also, it would be very helpful to review the excellent rebuttal of this statement on many other factors earlier in this thread. No, women are not the ones facing inequity...rather the supposed inequities are there to balance the equation to begin with. Even if this were true, I'm not really sure that other supposed issues are proper justifications for not resolving this one. Following this line of logic, I don't any societal inequities would ever be addressed, since there would always be some other outstanding issues not being addressed, and you seem to be advocating not working on one unless all could be resolved simultaneously, which will simply never happen. Also, there is another issue with this line of thinking...why should one person be denied custody of his children because someone else, who he's never met, has some supposed societal advantage? Should one have to pay more for child support because someone else, completely unrelated to the case, makes more money? Is this how our judicial system should be set up? Can you imagine the multitude of other issues this would create?

I think they are, but that's not necessarily unjust. In most marriages, it's the mother who has spent the most time taking care of the child(ren). It's the mother who has put in the hours, who knows the pediatrician, who has done most of the cleaning of diapers and vomit, who has done most of the laundry and the cooking, and so forth.

From the child's perspective, if there's going to be a divorce, it's in the best interest of the child to live with the parent who has the most skill and experience at providing direct child care.

Think of it as a job application: You have two people applying for the same job. One of them has years of intensive, full-time experience doing the job. The other one also has years of experience doing the job, but not full-time and not as intensively. Logically, if you want the job done as well as possible, which candidate do you hire?

That's why women get custody more often. And it's not unfair.

Keep in mind, as well, that in the overwhelming majority of mother-custody cases, that decision wasn't made by a court or judge; instead, BOTH husband and wife mutually agreed on mother-custody. 80% of custody cases are decided without the court having to intervene at all. So it's a mistake to blame biased courts for an outcome that, 80% of the time, the courts have nothing to do with.

In the minority of cases, in which courts have a role, are couts biased in either direction? There are tons of anecdotes on both sides of this question, but when you look at actual evidence, it's hard to say.

For example, in their book DIVIDING THE CHILD (1992), Maccoby and Mnookin found that in the most common cases of dispute over custody in California (mother wants sole custody, father wants joint custody), mothers were more likely to see their wishes prevail when the two sides reached a settlement. However, when the conflict required an evaluation or trial, fathers and mothers won equally often; and if a judge decided the case, fathers were slightly _more_ likely to prevail. (p. 150). The authors go on to point out (p. 153) that "both advocates for women's rights and advocates for fathers' rights" would reject the idea that a more-or-less "50-50 distribution of outcomes suggest[s] gender neutrality," and to argue that the evidence simply doesn't exist to prove either side correct or incorrect, or even that any gender bias exists or doesn't exist.

In my opinion, the bottom line is that inequality in child custody is NOT caused by the courts; the majority of child custody decisions are made by parents, not courts. If we want equality post-divorce, then we should be trying to bring about equality pre-divorce. When men are doing half the child-rearing labor and women are bringing home as much income as men, then we'll be able to justly reach custodial equality, but not before.

* * *



I want equality in custody issues, but not isolated; it has to part of a whole package of equality in child-rearing issues in general.

As for abortion rights, I don't think it's physically possible for men and women to have equal abortion rights. However, as a matter of theory, if man ever gets pregnant, then absolutely I support his right to choose to have an abortion or not, regardless of what the mother wishes.

So, you are advocating that our judicial system just assume that this person is the mother? To heck with those fathers who do in fact perform the majority of the parental duties? Isn't this essentially stating that the father is presumed guilty of being a neglectful parent...thereby violating one of the core principles our country was founded on (presumed innocence)? Do you have any evidence that backs this claim up...and if so, shouldn't women's groups be up in arms about that particular situation? This completely flies in the face of equal rights....groups can't argue for equality on one side, and then argue against it on the other.

No, of course I'm not advocating that. I'm saying that the judicial system, in contested custody cases, should look at both parents and, if there isn't some significant other factor to consider (like abuse or severe drug addiction), give custody to the parent who has the largest amount of direct hands-on childcare experience with that child (or children).

Courts that use the primary caretaker standard consider factors like:



"In theory, the court will determine which parent did more of the things which are enumerated on the above list, and that parent will be deemed the primary caretaker." (Paul Smith, Indiana Law Journal).

An acquaintance of mine is a college professor whose husband is a stay-at-home-dad; if they got divorced and couldn't agree on custody arrangements, then I'd hope the courts would give him custody. He's the one who has spent the most actual time providing direct childcare; he's the one who best knows things like teachers' names, clothing sizes, when shots are due, and so forth. In short, if we HAVE to choose between these two caretakers (both of whom are good, neither of whom are neglectful), then he's the one who is best qualified.

It has nothing to do with gender. It's about the best interest of the child. And in most cases, the best interests of the child are served by putting the child with the primary caretaker.

I admit that in our current society, the "primary caretaker" standard will usually favor women. But the way to solve that isn't to take on some different standard that will ignore the child's best interests in the name of political correctness; the way to solve that is to change our society so that men do an equal amount of childrearing work. The way to achieve post-divorce childrearing equality, is to achieve pre-divorce childrearing equality.

(By the way, of course I never said that a parent who isn't the primary caretaker is "neglectful.")

In my divorce, the time spent with child rule was applied. I worked more hours than the mother. Hence, she ended up having more hours with the children than I did. Did we split child rearing duties between us other than hours worked ? Yes. So, she had about 55% to my 45%. I do not think that should have resulted in me be treated the same as an absentee father.

Also, the idea of a winning parent and a losing parent should be removed from the equation. Having one sex win half the time and the other sex the other half of the time is not fair. It is being completely unfair all the time. The fair situation is dividing parental time as equally as possible between the parents and children.

It was applied incorrectly. A explicit part of the "primary caretaker standard" is that it should only decide custody if one parent is clearly doing more of the caretaking than another. A 45/55 split shouldn't count either way.



If the parents get along reasonably well, I think that's a great idea - but if they get along reasonably well, then they shouldn't need a court to decide custody.

If the parents can't get along, a 50/50 split of custody is a recipe for turning the child into the rope in a constant tug-of-war between parents, which can be very damaging to the child. The chlid is constantly involved in parental conflict, and never has a steady home; moving back and forth constantly separates the chid from friends, means that s/he can't easily join after-school clubs or socialize with friends, etc.. Not a great idea.

The 'if the parents can get along reasonably' argument is another can of worms which I had to deal with in my divorce. It takes two people to get along. If one person decides they do not want to cooperate there is no ability to get along reasonably. Unfortunately, with the current 'primary caregiver' standard, the person who decides to not get along can also be the 'winner' and awarded custody and the money that goes with that title.

We should not have a system which rewards a person for not cooperating in the best interest of the children.