Another Day, Another single mom killing her kids
(archive.is)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (52)
sorted by:
It doesn't imply a majority, but yeah, that one demographic is worse on this score.
I know it's orthodoxy here, and I believe there's a core of truth to it, but is that really true? Folks defending the system claim that most men don't even ask for custody, and that this explains a large part of this. What do you say to that?
This one is easily debunked, they are describing current numbers after the dust has settled so to speak. When you look at the rates since the adoption of no fault divorce it’s like a cliff drop in the past 20 years because any family lawyer will even tell you it’s an absurdly expensive process and you are at the complete whim of judges whose track records speak for themselves. The system created the no contests because it’s financially impossible for the 80% to win. This extends so far that even men who want to take their own children off the adoption list after their mother released them to the state will have to pay thousands in legal fees and court costs to do so.
OK, so the counter-argument is that actually asking for custody is prohibitively expensive, with little chance of winning, and that this is the reason why men don't do it. Sounds reasonable, but why is it not also expensive for the mother?
How can the mother even unilaterally put children up for adoption? Now that is crazy.
Because the mother is granted custody by default under the law in every circumstance unless the state deems otherwise (in which case the state takes custody and chooses whether to release custody to the father). You add in the fact that men often have to pay for their ex wives lawyers because they are the “provider” and you can easily see why men go no contest, they simply can not afford to pay for two lawyers, alimony, child support, and court fees. Very few people in the country can afford that expense.
I tried to argue this once and had people claim men get custody a lot, too. Then you look deeper in the cases where men get it and its almost always special cases where the mother is beyond unfit. And even then there's tons who are horrible mothers and did not lose custody. Women have it the easiest in custody battles, you could just claim the father hit the kids. Just a superficial glance can tell you women win most of the time and a deeper look into will show that even horrible women win and very, very rarely lose.
Because despite the lies you peddle here fathers have no legal rights whatsoever.
It isn't the first time Antonio simped for single mothers.
You may as well ask why most soldiers don't rush into the line of fire of a machine gun nest.
Every case I've seen resulted in some sort of shared custody arrangement, unless one parent was a deadbeat. HOWEVER. I have seen both parents try to get the other disowned or whatever you call it unfairly. So, fight, yes. It's a fight. "Near impossible odds". Nah, the odds of getting some custody are in your favor.
HOWEVER, courts do go out of their way to bankrupt men with child support even when they're the half or primary caregiver. Which then often ends up with them in a position not be able to maintain a nice home, and then Mom says they will be better off in the house she kept.
I've even seen men forced to pay for arbitrary women's lawyer's fees. The court makes no provision for a lawyer for the man, but if a woman claims she can't afford one, they do something.
That is the core of truth I think. The more money you have, the more likely you are to be able to get a fair deal. And of course that's relative money vs Mom too. She can pay more lawyers, etc, in extreme cases.
Shared custody isn’t quite the victory most think it is. Women by default are given primary custody, this is why women can take the child and move out of state with little to no recourse on the father’s end. There’s also the very real financial burden placed solely on men who have to pay legal fees for both parties in most cases. Partial custody, like you said, also doesn’t lower or eliminate child care expenses, and makes the burden, once again, entirely on the male (for example, if the father pays for their kids haircut and clothing even though it is supposed to be paid for by child support, he can not write it off or lower payment, instead he would have to appeal to lower child support which involves more expenses and will be denied almost every time. If the man loses his job he will still have to pay the same until the courts deem otherwise. On and on and on.)
Antonio said, referencing someone else
This does not match my experience. I think every father I know had at least partial custody at some point. I know people who have been through drug battles (or just failed a drug test...) and stuff and have lost their custody.
This is why some men pay the child support and not a dime more. If the whore begs for more money tell her to use free money she gets every month instead of blowing it on shit. So many problems could be solved the men had control over how mommy support is spent.
The problem with that is women will do that and then use it to poison perception of the dad when he refuses. Women will use kids as weapons almost every time.
Interesting. This is very far from my personal experience as a European. I know people who are divorced but not the dragged-out court fights. Then again, marriage is in terminal decline here, so no wonder.
Same for criminal court, unless your name is Trump of course.
Sticking to family court, everything drags out in the US if you have the money to keep funding it. So if you get two people who have different things and can afford lawyers, it goes on. It never really ends until the children are grown. Even if some arrangement is made, a party can go back to court to ask for a change.
I am not an expert on this, and I've never been divorced. I just know people from various things, including family.
I've seen it several times: the man is far and away the best parent, but the mother gets custody by default. It takes mountains of evidence to overcome this.
A single accusation from the mother and the courts will defend her to the max. This requires no evidence, just her saying some magic words and he's facing a huge legal battle.
"He abused me" are the magic words that any woman can utter to win in family court.
There's a reason why "primary care giver" is just legalise for "mother".
It simply reflects the results they expect to get if they fight it out. Lawsuit settlements (and that's pretty much what this is in the family law context) tend to reflect the results that would be expected if the case was tried with smaller monetary settlements to account for time and money saved by forgoing trial. Cases only get tried if both parties think they can gain more at trial than what the other party is offering to settle for.
It's a little different in family law because they they're fighting over a finite resource (custody percentage) and the courts aren't honest brokers, but a lot of the same logic applies. The rule in family court is that the woman wins unless the man walks on water and has a shit ton of luck, so the settlements (custody "agreements") reflect that. Could the woman offer some custody to avoid a fight? Yeah, but they're out to completely and utter destroy their husbands for cash and prizes, and since the court is going to hand the bitch what she wants on silver platter anyway after a show trial she doesn't really have much incentive to do so. Besides, if the guy offs himself she gets all of the assets and custody instead of just the lions share.