Gender Bias
- Thread starter Links17
- Start date
standing on the sidelines
New member
I am thinking that what the op is more focused on is that the father in this case isn't employed and its being held against him or so it seems from skimming the document. I think its a combination of things and not just being unemployed.
Rioe
Well-known member
On the surface, I would agree that it looks a bit like gender bias. When a woman is unemployed, judges often give her custody of the children because she has lots of spare time to devote to them. This guy is unemployed, but the judge refuses to give him even shared access because his life is unstable? I'd like to see this case used to fight women who insist on remaining stay-at-home parents after separation.
Digging further though, I see that the judge is just continuing the schedule the parents set up themselves. Status quo is what is ruling here, not gender bias. Also, he received SS from her, and still does not have to pay CS, which is not what you would expect if there was a gender bias.
Status quo is a killer evil, frankly. If it's in the best interests of the children to have equal access with each parent, and both parents wish as much access as possible, that should be the end goal no matter what the current status quo. Especially a status quo created unilaterally by underhanded means. If a judge thinks that the change would be too abrupt, there should be a transition period. Not just indefinite continuation of the status quo.
Digging further though, I see that the judge is just continuing the schedule the parents set up themselves. Status quo is what is ruling here, not gender bias. Also, he received SS from her, and still does not have to pay CS, which is not what you would expect if there was a gender bias.
Status quo is a killer evil, frankly. If it's in the best interests of the children to have equal access with each parent, and both parents wish as much access as possible, that should be the end goal no matter what the current status quo. Especially a status quo created unilaterally by underhanded means. If a judge thinks that the change would be too abrupt, there should be a transition period. Not just indefinite continuation of the status quo.
Last edited:
That is the dream that no JUDGE ever orders in a marriage like this. EVER EVER . And when they do it ALWAYS gets overturned in appeal.
The bias is the following:
-his lack of income was used against him though he was the stay at home parent
-the time limited order
I think in a role reversal if a stay at home mother walked out - not sure what would happen.