From the book
From the book
Judicial Discrimination: Custody judgements
From Kevin Thompson’s book following are court arguments
used to discriminate against fathers.
THE PRIMARY CARETAKER ARGUMENT
The "primary caretaker" is a "Court-invented" label that does not exist in the intact family. In intact families, recognized by most as the optimal family unit, the parents are "co-caretakers." Parenting responsibilities are shared equally with each parentcontributing gender-specific influences that uniquely enhance the child's physical, mental, and emotional development.
"ONE HOME BASE" ARGUMENT
A widely used argument to oppose joint physical custody is that children need one home base for continuity and routine. This argument revolves around the false notion that children need unvarying sameness above all else, to the exclusion of the other parent's involvement if necessary. The classic refrain is that children will not be able to cope with two different caretakers and
two different homes.
Yes, children need stability, but even more important are the need for consistency and predictability, or an awareness of what is to come. Children cope and adapt quite well with change when they know what to expect. Giving both parents equal parenting time with a consistent schedule contributes to continuity in the child's life, not confusion.
Sacrificing the significant involvement of a father in a child's life to accommodate the pie in the sky ideal of providing one home base for a child is insane.
The reality is that the child has two parents who do not live together. The court should have no higher priority than preserving the relationship with both parents because there is not a more powerful predictor of future well-being than the significant involvement of both parents in a child's life.
Research and experience with infant day care, early pre-school, and other stable care-taking arrangements indicate that infants and toddlers readily adapt to such transitions and also sleep well, once familiarized. Indeed, a child also thrives socially, emotionally, and cognitively if the care-taking arrangements are predictable and if parents are both sensitive to the child's physical and developmental needs (Lamb, 1998).
The evening and overnight periods with non-residential parents are especially important psychologically not only for infants, but for toddlers and young children as well. Evening and overnight periods provide opportunities for crucial social interactions and nurturing activities, including bathing, soothing hurts and anxieties, bedtime rituals, comforting in the middle of the night, and the reassurance and snuggling in the morning after awakening. These everyday activities promote and maintain trust and confidence in the parents while deepening and strengthening child-parent attachments (Emery, 1999).
As child expert, Dr. Joan Kelly, points out, "Courts have overemphasized providing geographic stability of residence for the child at the expense of the more important emotional stability of regular time with each parent. It has been thoroughly shown, by work done in the last decade, that the problems associated with movement of children between homes are less than those created by removing one parent from day-to-day connections with a child."
In Wallerstein and Kelly’s book Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce, Basic Books, (1982). Instead, the courts exaggerate the effect of two home bases so that this MINOR inconvenience illogically outweighs the very real problems with sole custody to the mother.
"INABILITY TO COOPERATE" ARGUMENT
The "most flawed" argument used by the courts to deny a father his right to parent is that if one or both of the parents will not cooperate with the other or one parent will not agree to joint physical custody, then any form of joint custody is impossible.
This argument eliminates any possibility of due process and equal protection for fathers because mothers have the gender-exclusive power to "not cooperate" and "be hostile" to the father to ensure that joint physical custody is not even considered by the Court.
The unilateral choice to be hostile and uncooperative after separation is often used by mothers as a legal tactic since they are overwhelmingly more likely to gain custody. Mothers also enjoy the added convenience of pleading their case to judges who are eager to confuse legal conflict with genuine conflict outside of court. The out of touch judges in the family court system will rule
that "since you two are in dispute over the custody arrangement, then joint custody will not work." Therefore, in the best interests of the children, the primary caretaker of the children (guess who according to court stereotypes?) will have sole custody.
Joan Kelly in her work, Further Observations on Joint Custody, expresses a concern about the position that argues that joint custody should not be awarded when parents do not agree. As she points out, it is the woman who is opposed to joint custody. Women do not need to ask for, nor agree to, joint custody. They are presumed by society, lawyers, the courts, and themselves to have a right to keep the child. It is the father who must ask for joint
custody and it is the mother's power to agree or disagree. The Mother has a financial incentive to not cooperate. She is rewarded by the court for her refusal to cooperate with monthly tax-free support payments.
How does sole custody to the mother better respond to the parents' inability to communicate? Sole custody forces the parents to be chained to each other financially for 18-23 years where, in many cases, the financially responsible parent hands over more than the money needed to support his children to the financially irresponsible parent, sabotaging his own ability to save for his Children’s future activity and educational costs. I call this argument "the most flawed" because, contrary to family court opinion, 50/50 joint physical custody is actually the most appropriate custody arrangement when the parents DO NOT get along. Joint physical custody provides a clearly defined schedule that does not give either parent the power to intrude in the other
parent's life, emotionally or financially. Neither parent is humiliated, devalued, or stripped of his dignity. And each parent has a more isolated influence on their child, independent of the whims and malice of the other parent.
"BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD" ARGUMENT
The "best interests of the child" standard is where we are now. A standard that is so vague that it gives judges the discretion to play God and interpret its meaning as they subjectively see fit.
I find this argument the most despicable because the "best interests of the child" is the very last thing that these profit-driven hypocrites are considering when they make their rulings. If the courts cared at all about the best interests of the child, then they would be interested in hearing what BOTH parents believe is relevant before making their rulings.
The Courts have subjectively interpreted the "best interests of the child" standard to mean removing loving fathers from the lives of their children and replacing them with cash payments and visitation hours. This is NEVER in the "best interests of a child" because there is not a more powerful predictor of future wellbeing than the significant involvement of BOTH parents in a child's life.
