Do you think that woman receive preferential treatment

[Mess]

I'm happy to hear criticism. I don't hear any criticism from you, you just keep quoting my post and telling me I'm harsh. There's no content there, just opinion. I'm sure you're just going to obsessively quote my post again and tell me I'm harsh. I'm still waiting for you to show me how I'm wrong.

[bayleaf]

Mess, I did that in my first message and again in my second.

Dadtotheend, I don't understand your response to #2. Re #1, yes I know women get sole custody far more often than men becuase they are far more commonly the primary caregiver. But that just begs two questions.

The first is not a gender question, but simply this: why should the primary caregiver get sole custody? My income paid for far more of the matrimonial home than did hers but that didn't stop the law from giving her half. In my view, sole custody should never be awarded. Children are not property and neither parent should have 'custody and control' -- as if the kid was a car or something. Children need both parents and the law should start from the presumption that mothers and fathers are of equal importance to children and thus should be equally accessible by them.

The second question is the gender one. Women are usually the primary caregiver because they are typically closer to, and spend more time with, the child during infancy. They carry the unborn child, they give birth to it and they alone can breastfeed. As a result, mothers start from a much closer point than does a father in their relationship with the child. They are genetically more likely to be the primary caregiver than are men.

Similarly, men are bigger, stronger and have more testosterone. They are thus, prima facie, more suitable as firefighters, police officers and combat soldiers. Feminism however correctly pointed out that women can overcome those disadvantages if given a chance, and were successful at bringing in affirmative action programs to achieve just that.

As a society, we can't have it both ways without being gender biased. Men too can be just as capable 'caregivers' as can women if the genetic disadvantage is not held against them. Awarding custody to the 'primary' caregiver maintains the gender bias in the same way as did firefighter competitions that required applicants to be able to run while carrying 150 pounds. If the latter is wrong, so is the former.

I'm no longer sure which way is right. But after spending most of my youth being a radical feminist, I'm becoming more conservative. Let the women have the kids and let the men be the firefighters. Sometimes nature is smarter than we are. But please, let's figure it out and let everyone know. At this point, thousands of men are feeling seriously misled and mistreated.

In my case, I thought that I was an equal parent and tried very hard to be one -- I certainly changed a hell of a lot of diapers. After separation, my community made it clear that I'm not and that my proper role is more like a visitor in my children's lives, much like that of a grandparent. By order of the court, I am permitted only to see them every other weekend. Within that limited amount of time, I simply cannot know and understand them well enough to be an effective parent.

I had an emotional reaction to this thread because I made the same unhappy choice that Helpless Dad did. I agreed to let my ex stay home with the children when they were infants. I thought -- and still think -- that it is better for the children if at least one parent is at home and she was not only breast feeding but she was a wonderful mother. I knew, only because of my legal training, that that would give her primary caregiver status and that that would be a problem should we ever separate.

Yeah, maybe I should have said 'fuck you, if you're not going to work, neither am I'. But that somehow seems immature and irresponsible. I loved her and the kids and like almost everyone in a relationship, I made a concession in the belief that it was the best decision for all. I'd probably make the same choice today but this time I wouldn't make quite the same investment in being a great father that I did then. In much the same way, it seems to me now, as my father did.

[dadtotheend]

Originally Posted by bayleaf

The first is not a gender question, but simply this: why should the primary caregiver get sole custody?

Because if two parents are unable to come to a consensus as to how to care for the children in the aftermath of a family breakdown, the court's best solution is to look at who cared for the kids prior to separation and to continue that.

The court understands that it is in a position of weakness vs the parents in understanding what's best for the kids. But if the two parents cannot agree and force the court to decide for them, the court's best solution is to keep the routines for the kids as best as possible in the face of all the other changes the children are being required to deal with.

That doesn't necessarily mean sole custody, but it does mean primary residence stays the same. And that's why it's cardinal sin #1 in family law to leave the home without a separation agreement and without the kids.

[bayleaf]

I think that is good tactical advice if you're willing to keep the kids in a home that is fraught with hostility, emotional warfare and potential violence. So the responsible father should just up and take the kids? Which transition house might be available to him?

Speaking of gender bias, I'm interested in your comments on the second question I posed.

[got2bkid]

Bayleaf - Well said. The following is an article that was written on Glenn Sacks, a fathers/mens rights site. Canada is completely going against the current research that shows children do better with presumed shared parenting (50/50) after divorce (where both parents are fit). Add to that that 80% of polled Canadians believe shared parenting should be the norm after divorce, and you realize that only a small number of people actually like the system the way it currently is. And that is certainly not the fathers or the children. Of course the shrill reply will be that children need one stable home, and it hurts children to be shuffled back and forth. But this common reply is shown to be completely false and 2 parents can work out shared parenting in a way that benefit the children far more than the common "sole physical custody at moms and dads money to support this scenario".

Kruk maintains equal shared parenting is the key to preventing parental alienation and “preserving the integrity of the child’s relationship with both parents.” He says the time has come to “get rid entirely of this dominant, full custody regime that we have where one parent is removed from the child’s life via a sole custody order.”

That's Edward Kruk, sociologist and "Canada's foremost expert on custody issues" quoted in this article (The Epoch Times, 4/1/09). One of his most important points is that equally shared parenting can go a long way toward eliminating the animosity of custody battles. A system in which custody of children is "awarded" to the parent deemed by the court to have been the dominant caregiver, children easily become prizes given to the winner of the dispute. Kruk's simple point is that that is not a healthy environment for anyone, particularly children.

And beyond that, the fact that one parent tends to do more childcare than the other is, by itself, no reason whatsoever for the child to lose contact with the other parent. If, as is usually the case, the father spends more time at work and less time in childcare than the mother, that doesn't mean the child doesn't have a significant relationship with the father that needs to be maintained. On the contrary, mountains of sociology point to the fact that children need greater contact with fathers post-divorce. As things stand now, paternal contact with children drops sharply after divorce. That's bad for children.

It is reasonable to assume that the same holds true for mothers when fathers are the primary caregiver. There's less social science on that because mothers make up 84% of custodial parents. But there's no good reason I'm aware of to displace mothers from children's lives post-divorce the way fathers so frequently are now.

Speaking of animosity in divorce cases, the same article discusses a book about divorce written by Canadian Justice Harvey Brownstone. It details some of the hateful, childish things parents do during divorce. Brownstone has had parents tell him that they would rather see their children dead than with the other parent. Unsurprisingly, sentiments like those do deep harm to children.

The process that Brownstone describes exacerbates the conflicts between parents at the expense of children's wellbeing. It is that process that Kruk wants to change by removing the "winner-take-all" character from divorce. Once children cease being trophies awarded to the "good" parent and denied to the "bad" one, maybe parents will pay more attention to their children's welfare and less to one-upping the other parent.

I've argued before that reducing the adversarial nature of divorce is necessary to improving children's outcomes following marriage dissolution. Establishing in law the presumption that, absent egregious neglect or harm, parents share equally the time and expense of childcare will go a long way toward that goal.

[piggybanktoex]

**Pissing contest in progress**

Some good points on both sides, but bring down the hostility a notch.

I personality side with the views of "leaf", but understand the argument from "dadend".

Just remember that "no good deed goes unpunished" in family law.

[dadtotheend]

Originally Posted by bayleaf

So the responsible father should just up and take the kids?

If things are that bad, yes.

[bayleaf]

Originally Posted by piggybanktoex

**Pissing contest in progress**

Some good points on both sides, but bring down the hostility a notch.

I personality side with the views of "leaf", but understand the arrangement from "dadend".

Just remember that "no good deed goes unpunished" in family law.

Thanks for waving the yellow flag. The family law process is so adversarial and destructive that even talking about it can bring out the worst in us. It certainly gets me going. I'd prefer to focus on how we can change it for the better rather than merely venting our frustrations with the status quo.

got2bkid, I appreciate your thoughtful and insightful comments. There is a growing mountain of research that children in high conflict custody cases suffer badly as a result of the animosity between the parents.

I've read Justice Brownstone's book which records his observations as a judge presiding over contentious family cases in Ontario. He seems to ascribe the cause of these disputes to the immaturity of the parents. But it's a bit like a surgeon complaining that his patients are careless and get into too many accidents. Of course some parents will be immature! That no doubt is one of the factors in the marital breakdown and certainly a key reason why they failed to collaborate and work out their own post-separation parenting plan. The raging emotions of family breakdown are simply not conducive to mature and responsible behaviour, and parents in this situation often need guidance and support from others.

In my view, it is professionally irresponsible for lawyers, judges and senior justice system bureaucrats to continue to maintain a legal process that pits mothers against fathers and sees the children similar to the other family property that is to be divided up following a lengthy, adversarial and wasteful legal battle. Not only does this process frequently inflict even more damage to the already troubled relationships within the family, it bleeds the family of both emotional and financial resources. And it wastes time that is so critical to developing children.

Enough venting about the status quo. It seems to me that we need to provide a process that ameliorates the conflict and supports and encourages parents to collaborate and make responsible decisions, in a timely way, about the future care of their children. What might such a process look like? What would help these troubled people who love their children but can no longer live together as husband and wife?

I agree that the critical point of intervention is pre-separation. I don't agree that either parent should pick up the kids without the knowledge of the other and simply leave. I think that would engender hostility and exacerbate the conflict.

Why not require parents in such situations to participate in free government-sponsored mediation for the purpose of creating a joint parenting plan? Parents are in the best position to know their own and each other's skills and resources, as well as the needs of the children. But they need some help to set their personal issues aside and create an appropriate plan for their children.

If either parent refused, or took the children and ran, the file would be passed to the local child protection agency for immediate action -- the assumption being that a parent unwilling to collaborate peacefully in a parenting plan for their children is acting negligently and may harm the children. If the parents could not reach agreement after a term prescribed by the mediator, they would only then be referred to court -- along with a full report from mediator describing the process, the parties and the remaining obstacles to agreement.

Comments? Improvements? Other ideas?

[representingself]

Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are all emotionally driven human beings, whose ability to maintain rational thought is greatly diminshed during a marital breakdown...

Maturity levels aside... each party (regardless of gender), wants to play the part of the victim.... pointing fingers and laying blame on each other for their circumstances.

Anger, resentment and bitterness overrule what is right and fair. Rarely does either party openly admit that they are BOTH AT FAULT....regardless of who served the final blow.

How many posts have you read on here where men and women want to "tell their children why the marriage ended", or make statements like, "when they are older they will understand what he/she did to this family"?

It is disgusting, but an unfortunate reality.

Is the system greatly flawed...damn right it is, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who has any real knowledge of family law, who would disagree.
Is there a gender bias... ofcourse there is. And as DTTE, MESS, and LEAF have all pointed out... there are reasons why this is true.

Does it make it right.... NO! Is there an easy solution... NO!!

The government/courts have the impossible job of trying to sort through the endless piles of false accusations and bullshit, to try and determine what is really and truly "best for the children".

Sure, there are lots of families that split the child rearing 50/50... and there are just as many families who, for whatever reason, have had to choose a primary caregiver for the children. There are many emotionally/mentally unstable women, and just as many aggressive, abusive men, and vice versa.

When the time comes.... who do you believe? How do you decipher the truth from the lies?

Can 50/50 be the default?

Sure, if Mom and Dad both work 9 to 5 Monday thru Friday and live in the same school district. Sounds simple enough....

But what if Parent #1 is a Firefighter/Police Officer/Correctional Worker/Factory Worker/Truck Driver/Registered Nurse etc. and works a rotating schedule of 12 hour shifts, days/nights/weekends/holidays.... and Parent #2 is a Dental Hygenist/Legal Assistant/Office Worker/Retail Worker, who has a standard "dream" work week of Mon to Fri 9-5??

Then what? On Parent #1's week... they will have to get some miracle child care provider who is willing to work overnights and swing shifts.... and prove that being in the care of said Nanny is better than being at home with Parent #2......Yeah Good Luck with THAT!!

My point is, every family situation is different, and there is no cookie cutter solution to the mess that is Divorce... Each situation should be looked at individually and a solution should be based on what is not only best for the children... but also best for the parents.

Problem is, there are too many lies, manipulations and emotional garbage that gets in the way.... and thousands of blood sucking Lawyers just standing on the sidelines waiting to pounce on the emotionally driven parents....

I have no brilliant ideas that will fix everything..... but it seems that no one else does either.

[JustChillin]

Originally Posted by Jupitor

Do you think that woman receive preferential treatment in separation and divorce issues, in Ontario.

Do you mean by preferential treatment doing most of the child-rearing? Having to make all the child-sitting arrangements? Getting sporadic child-support payments (if any, sometimes?)

Oh, right, let's take a look around the country, and the world and all cry about how bad men have it.