Do you think that woman receive preferential treatment

[bayleaf]

I don't mean want to stir this pot again, but I am feeling seriously pissed off by the comments above of two Senior Members (I guess that means you've been around a while). Talk about reaching harsh judgements in lightning speed!

Mess says: "She just up and refused to work so you caved in and became the wallet. That's not my quick judgement on your marriage, it's your oversimplified description."

No sorry, that is a quick judgment. And a flawed one, in my opinion. He didn't 'cave in', he decided that putting food on the table and trying to keep the marriage alive (probably for the sake of the kids) was more important than either brinkmanship or walking away as you suggest. I'd call it exercising maturity responsibility.

You are right that he might have chosen better in whom he married; that would be true for me too. I suspect that might be the case for you too (else why are you here)?

dadtotheend says: "It burns my ass when Dads (and I'm not saying this is you) give up or use gender bias as a crutch to excuse their own unwillingness to get down and do the work required to be successful at court." Oh come on. I spent hundreds of hours on preparing and attending multiple excursions to court, and thousands on being a good dad to my kids, but I custody anyway. And I'm a former lawyer. Her rich daddy hired a senior female family law lawyer who deployed all sorts of malicious strategies before I finally (exhausted and approaching bankruptcy) capitulated.

I'm glad it worked out for you. But the fact that there is a significant gender bias in family law by definition means that many men walk out of court with few rights and/or greater responsibilities than either justice or the best interests of the children would dictate.

It's bad enough to be on the losing end on an uneven playing field; it really sucks to be put down by those who think they could have and would have done better. I think we need to support each other.

[Mess]

"our initial intention was, we'd stay financially equally responsible after the child birth, but suddenly she started to play the victim and refused to work. "

This is what I was responding to. "Suddenly she refused to work". This isn't bias in the courts or preferential treatment for women. This was his choice to go along with what she wanted. Unfortunately she backed him into a corner. Let's say he put his foot down, and she still said no, I'm not working. So he should realize that she is a deadbeat, end the relationship, and the status quo that the courts are looking at is that she worked, she suddenly refused to work.

But instead he went along, and became the sole breadwinner and she became primary caregiver. That was the status quo that the courts ended up seeing, because he chose to play along with her.

So now, claim that he's a victim of the courts, when in reality he is a victim of his ex's attitude, and his own choice to stay with her for too long.

And I say I'm reacting to his own "oversimplified" version of events, because it is oversimplified. What personality issues made her not want to work? What other choices were there? What counselling was available? What made him take a passive response the situation and live a life he did not want? What eventually ended the marriage? We don't know any of this. What we have is an oversimplified picture. So I state again, I am not commenting on his life, I am commenting on a few sentences he used to describe it.

[dadtotheend]

Originally Posted by bayleaf

Her rich daddy hired a senior female family law lawyer who deployed all sorts of malicious strategies before I finally (exhausted and approaching bankruptcy) capitulated.

It's bad enough to be on the losing end on an uneven playing field; it really sucks to be put down by those who think they could have and would have done better. I think we need to support each other.

So her deep pockets sunk you. That's not gender bias.

Did you go to trial? If you did, and presented your evidence well, and had a good case then I would like to hear about it.

I'll support you. Just stop being a patsy to gender bias.

[bayleaf]

"So I state again, I am not commenting on his life, I am commenting on a few sentences he used to describe it."
You sound like a guy who likes to call a spade a spade -- and the above are weasel words. You made a hasty and harsh judgment about the choice he made. I invite you to own it.

As for the substance, I don't buy your arguments, although if we had all of the facts, I might reach the same judgment. But it's the kind of thing that neither of us can really comment on. Often we make sacrifices for those we love and perhaps he thought that making this concession was best for his family in the long run. Maybe she was breastfeeding and that made her the logical one to stay at home. How can we judge him without knowing all the facts?

My point is simply that we ought not be so quick to criticize others who make choices that we might not have. This thread was about gender bias in family law and process anyway -- a subject that does warrant both comment and action. What was the need to slam him?

[piggybanktoex]

Careful Junior Member,

The Senior Members may not like dissension in the ranks. ; )

[bayleaf]

Originally Posted by dadtotheend

So her deep pockets sunk you. That's not gender bias.

Did you go to trial? If you did, and presented your evidence well, and had a good case then I would like to hear about it.

I'll support you. Just stop being a patsy to gender bias.

You're right, the fact that her pockets were much deeper than mine had nothing to do with gender bias. It's just another significant defect of the family 'justice' system.

As for gender bias, I'm interested in your comments on these two facts?

1. I dont' know the current stats, but the vast majority of contested custody decisions go in favour of the mother, where sole custody is awarded.

2. The state (government) will do everything to enforce child support orders on behalf of custodial parents (mostly women, see #1), but will do virtually nothing to help access parents (mostly men, see #1) enforce access.

[dadtotheend]

Originally Posted by bayleaf

You sound like a guy who likes to call a spade a spade -- and the above are weasel words. You made a hasty and harsh judgment about the choice he made. I invite you to own it.

You think he calls a spade a spade? Well so do I and he's one wise opinion. Listen to him. He's not being nasty or harsh. Unlike yourself, he certainly isn't attacking anyone's character.

Please don't call him a weasel or maybe I will start calling you bitter.

And by the way, for someone who "didn't mean to stir the pot again", you're doing a bang up job.

[dadtotheend]

Originally Posted by bayleaf

As for gender bias, I'm interested in your comments on these two facts?

1. I dont' know the current stats, but the vast majority of contested custody decisions go in favour of the mother, where sole custody is awarded.

2. The state (government) will do everything to enforce child support orders on behalf of custodial parents (mostly women, see #1), but will do virtually nothing to help access parents (mostly men, see #1) enforce access.

1.See my views already expressed near the beginning of this thread and in numerous others on this forum. Mothers are primary caregivers most of the time, therefore they get custody most of the time.

2.WRONG.

[Mess]

Originally Posted by bayleaf

"So I state again, I am not commenting on his life, I am commenting on a few sentences he used to describe it."
You sound like a guy who likes to call a spade a spade -- and the above are weasel words. You made a hasty and harsh judgment about the choice he made. I invite you to own it.

You know what? Bugger off.

In my time here I've owned everything I said. If I'd thought that guy was a total jerk I would have told him so. What I said was that I wasn't commenting on his life because it wasn't my intention to rip him apart. I was commenting on his few sentences. If he'd presented a different story I would have had a different opinion, but I don't assume that any amount of paragraphs anyone writes here describes their whole life.

I will comment on you. You're being a prick, and if you don't like what I post, you're free to disagree with the message. But if you're going to comment on who I am personally, or what you somehow think you know about my thoughts and motives, you're just being an asshole.

[bayleaf]

I'm not sure if the best defence is a good offence, but your words are certainly offensive. Please lay off the name-calling.

Your words: "She just up and refused to work so you caved in and became the wallet. That's not my quick judgement on your marriage, it's your oversimplified description. You're a born victim, with no control over your life, and it's all what she did to you and what the corrupt legal system did to you."

Sounds like a harsh judgment to me. Judging by Helpless Dad's responses, it did to him to. If you don't like criticism, don't dish it out.