Do you think that woman receive preferential treatment

[billiechic]

I agree with Represtingself's answer. I think it's important to look though at the roles that each parent has played in the family prior to separation. In cases where the mother provides substantially more of the parenting and nurturing, it makes sense to award more time with the kids to her, as they are more reliant on her for this care. In cases where the parenting is more balanced, then shared custody makes sense. (now don't jump all over me yet...)

And then there are cases like mine, where I provided 90% of the care and work full-time and make a comparable wage to my ex. Luckily for him he has had 2 months now to establish a good parenting role that would swing the courts back towards shared parenting. While I would love to have Sole custody of my child, in the long run shared parenting is best for her. Part of the reason we are trying to settle this ourselves. He can't chance that he would not get her 50/50. I don't know how I would live with it if he was only given visitation. It would be devastating for both of them, and I would feel guilty that they were both suffereing because of it.


yes, the courts do favour women, but in many cases it is justified.
(ok, you can have at it now)

[sufferer]

I think each case should be seen separately.When both parents are ready to take their responsibility shared custody should be given preferance.There are case where either parent is happy to be a weekend visit.

In such situations most of the times it is the dad who wants to run away from their responsibilities.And then women do receive preferential treatment which is fair enough.I went through a legal battle for more than 3 years and i did get lots of emotional support but nothing out of the system.

[Stargate]

The question for this thread was "Do you think woman receive preferential treatment?" which has little to nothing to do with what's best for the kids as some responses allude to. The fact is that the Courts are indeed preferential to women even if the women are not the primary caregivers for the children during the marriage. Judges continue to display their bias towards women based on their gender and not always on actual facts.

[representingself]

Originally Posted by Stargate

The question for this thread was "Do you think woman receive preferential treatment?" which has little to nothing to do with what's best for the kids as some responses allude to.

I believe that women receive preferential treatment... but in my answer, I made no mention at what was best for the children...

However, what is best for the mother is directly related to what is best for the children and vice versa.....in most circumstances..

Originally Posted by Stargate

The fact is that the Courts are indeed preferential to women even if the women are not the primary caregivers for the children during the marriage. Judges continue to display their bias towards women based on their gender and not always on actual facts.

The gender bias is due to the historical and statistical fact that women are most often the primary caregivers of children.

It is also due to the fact that there are more men out there who either skip town, hide, quit jobs and shirk their responsibility to their children... then there are men who take a primary role in their children's lives.

The laws reflect the truth of society.

[Stargate]

Originally Posted by representingself

............

It is also due to the fact that there are more men out there who either skip town, hide, quit jobs and shirk their responsibility to their children... then there are men who take a primary role in their children's lives.

The laws reflect the truth of society.

Even if men DO take an active/primary role in child rearing during the marriage the Courts will ignore this fact and render their decision in favor of the woman. Hence, women receive preferential treatment even given the facts.

[representingself]

Originally Posted by Stargate

Even if men DO take an active/primary role in child rearing during the marriage the Courts will ignore this fact and render their decision in favor of the woman. Hence, women receive preferential treatment even given the facts.

Once again, I agree....

All I am saying is that there are very real and valid reasons why that is the case.

Judges base their decisions on historical truths (case laws)... and while every situation is different, it is often impossible to decipher fact from fiction in family court.

People lie....

Some women use thier children as a means of financial gain and vengence...

Some men claim to be primary caregivers and demand joint/sole custody to get out of paying child support.

Those are also facts!

[billiechic]

Originally Posted by Stargate

The question for this thread was "Do you think woman receive preferential treatment?" which has little to nothing to do with what's best for the kids as some responses allude to.

I DID answer your question. I said yes, they do get preferential treatment. And in most cases it IS what is best for the kids.

For thousands of years women have been the primary caregivers for children and men have been the providers. It is only in the last century that both sexes have been able to do both jobs at once. And not everyone can do a good job of it. It's going to take more than a few years to change society's idea of what is "best". And right now there are too many dead beats out there for the courts to take a risk on every dad simply because he is a dad. It's sad that a father has to "prove" he can be a good dad, but women have had to "prove" they can be providers. it's not fair, but it's life.

[dadtotheend]

I got sole custody of our children, who were 18 mths and almost 4 yrs old when we separated.

Of course women are treated preferentially but a resourceful, persistent, child centred father who leaves no stone unturned can and will prevail when the circumstances warrant it.

BTW, mom's are awarded custody in 80% of cases, not over 90% as mentioned earlier. It's in the research if one takes the time to review it. This Dad did.

[representingself]

Originally Posted by dadtotheend

I got sole custody of our children, who were 18 mths and almost 4 yrs old when we separated.

Of course women are treated preferentially but a resourceful, persistent, child centred father who leaves no stone unturned can and will prevail when the circumstances warrant it.

BTW, mom's are awarded custody in 80% of cases, not over 90% as mentioned earlier. It's in the research if one takes the time to review it. This Dad did.

There must have been something seriously wrong with your ex that would bring a Judge to take an 18 month old baby away from its mother.

[wretchedotis]

A couple of comments on the below:

a) women have received the benefit of government legislation to equilize the playing field when it comes to equal opportunity in employment and rights. I don't see anything similar occuring for Dad's in Ontario.

b) I think you are using false logic predicated on stereo-types and annecdotal evidence that it is "reasonablë to assume" that Dad's should be relegated to the sidelines in the access and raising of their own children. I'm against either parent taking sole custody of their children. Both parents have the duty, the obligation to their children, to be as involved in their day to day life as they can possibly be. It would be nice to see some changes in the law to close this gap.

Originally Posted by representingself

Yes... women most definitely get preferrential treatment in the family court system. Especially if the children involved are very young.
And that preference is based on historical and statistical information.

The gap is closing, but in some situations, men not only make more money, they also get more promotions then women.

In business, women are still seen as a liability. There is always the chance that a female employee with get pregnant, which costs the company $$$$....time off for morning sickness, pregnancy complications, maternity leave, parental leave and medical benefits.

In addition, women with children are unable to work flexible shifts, often have to take time off work to care for sick children, deal with "family issues"... yadda, yadda, yadda.

Women are viewed as 'unreliable', so therefore, they are often passed over for the big promotions.

In a lot of families, when the decision to have children is made, SOMEONE has to step back from their career paths to be there for the kids, that's just the way it is, we can't all afford live-in nannies and daycares aren't open 24/7.

And while in some cases it is the father who takes the role... in most, it is still the mother.

So when you take into account the inequity in employment, plus the care taking role that most mothers assume, it is only reasonable to presume that in most families, when a divorce happens...the mother keeps the children, while the man becomes a weekend parent.

As such, he must pay spousal and child support, while the woman continues in her caretaking role, hopefully working in a field which allows her to be home in the mornings to get the kids off to school, and home in time to make dinner.

Historically speaking, since the dawn of mankind, men were the protectors, hunters and gatherers, they provide for their families.....whereas women are child bearers, nurturers, home makers, who birth and take care of the children and the home.

That is still today... the picture of the nuclear family.

It is going to take a LONG time to change this general perception... if ever.