Why is it that many years are thrown away?

[afajato]

When people are married for like 15yrs with kids,both taking care of their children in a respectful,responsible manner,and all is good in the marriage till say the 14th year when one of the spouse have an affair,become controlling,abusive to the other spouse not to the children,Why is that in custody battle all the past 14 years of good deeds are not taken into consideration but 1time abuse,control or whatever is proven becomes a fault for the other spouse to get full custody?
Is this Fair?All these might happen due to the fact that the other spouse deviated and the hurt one changes to be who he/she was to the other but not to their children.
Is this how the courts work?throwing all the good years in the garbage and making decisions based upon 1yr of change?

[dadtotheend]

YouTube - The Doors - People Are Strange

[Epona]

It's not the courts that cause it. It's people and the courts profit from it, though it wasn't intended that way. Nothing in life is fair. We just learn to cope with it in the way best for us.

[afajato]

But is that the way it should be?

[Mess]

I don't actually believe that this is the way it is, much less as it should be.

After 15 years, the children are in their teens. They have a strong say in where they will live and with whom. If both parents have a strong relationship and bond with the children, it would be difficult or even impossible to set up a sole custody regime without the childrens' co-operation. Certainly my teenager would never stand any order that kept her from living half and half with both parents, we have both created a strong relationship with her throughout her life.

If the relationship with the children has fallen apart due to the actions during the final year, as you describe, then it isn't the law or the courts or even the ex spouse that is creating the situation.

[dadtotheend]

Infidelity and/or controlling behaviour are not considered when applying the best interests of the children test.

I think that people can be bullied or guilted into believing those behaviours may be relevant by the other parent and/or the other parent's lawyer. As a consequence they cave in, but do they may be doing so for the wrong reasons.

Since 98% of cases settle prior to trial based on an order on consent of the parties, you have to remember that the vast majority of settlements are agreed to by the parents.

So most of the time it's not a judge making the decision. It's the parents. Even if those parents are being pressured by a judge it's still them making the call. And that might be the wrong call based on inaccurate perceptions of the determinants of custody.

[afajato]

Infidelity and/or controlling behaviour are not considered when applying the best interests of the children test.

I think that people can be bullied or guilted into believing those behaviours may be relevant by the other parent and/or the other parent's lawyer. As a consequence they cave in, but do they may be doing so for the wrong reasons.

Since 98% of cases settle prior to trial based on an order on consent of the parties, you have to remember that the vast majority of settlements are agreed to by the parents.

So most of the time it's not a judge making the decision. It's the parents. Even if those parents are being pressured by a judge it's still them making the call. And that might be the wrong call based on inaccurate perceptions of the determinants of custody.

Good reply,i did not think it is suppose to be so.
But when the kids interest are taken into consideration,i believe that each parents ability to cater for them is important not their past behavior.

[Rioe]

People change over time, and if one of them changes from a respectful and responsible person into an abusive cheater, why shouldn't it be the most recent behaviour that is used to judge their current character? If someone has proved that they are willing to treat someone they loved so cruelly and throw away a good relationship for such selfish reasons as having an affair, why shouldn't we consider that precedent when deciding if it is appropriate that they look after children?

Is it in the children's best interests to be raised by someone who teaches, by example if not directly, that lying to people you care about is perfectly okay, that abusing people you are supposed to protect is just fine, and that personal gratification is more important than not hurting other people?