Do We Need A Fathers' Rights Movement?

[Madeline]

Most people see their local domestic relations court through the lens of their own experience, perhaps expanded by the experience of others close to them. I suppose this is natural; little else is more deeply felt than a property settlement with a former spouse or an award of child custody.

The purpose of this thread is to ask, do you feel fathers usually get a raw deal in your domestic relations court? Do you feel men have a legitimate need to come together and try and change laws or remove judges they feel are unfair to them? (No one is disputing their right to do so.)

It'd be hard to point out another area of American law that has undergone greater change in my lifetime. When I was young, few states had no fault divorce laws. The right to divorce did not exist unless one party had proof the other had misbehaved. These antiquated notions led to many, many unhappy people who could not leave, or faced ruination if they did.

No fault laws ushered in a greater sanity, imo. But women lost almost all rights to seek alimony, helping to ensure that women and their children lived in dire poverty after the divorce. Women were typically granted full custody (I can remember when shared custody was viewed as a bizarre idea) and judges calculated child support by the seat of their pants. Many/most women were never able to collect the child support they were owed.

The rising sensitivity to domestic violence and the rights of women and children led to some modification of these principles or usual outcomes. Women found it (somewhat) easier to collect child support as the government undertook collection actions, established garnishment procedures, etc.

Nothing can ever be codified to eliminate judicial bias or prevent unfair results -- that is why we have an appeals process. I am not opposed to the objectives of the Fathers' Rights Movement insofar as they seek to maintain the father-child bond, level the playing field for contested custody cases, or deal with neglectful or abusive mothers.

What bothers me is that the claims some members of the Movement make regarding women. Such claims as women abuse men more than men abuse women. That most applications for a protective order are specious. That sex abuse charges arising during divorce proceedings should almost never be believed.

In short, I don't object to the goals of the Fathers Rights Movement until they attempt to turn back the clock and reverse gains made by the Womens' Rights Movement.

Comments?

 

[ConHog]

we already have one, and they work hard. But there is bias in the system when it comes to mothers. If no kids are involved there is not, but the system still seems to foster the idea that in most cases the mother is preferable to the father for custody.

NFRC - Fathers for Equal Rights - New Membership Levels

 

[Madeline]

It is possible ours will be the last generation of Americans who perceive a bias towards moms in custody awards, ConHog. There has been a radical shift in the percent of women in the workforce and the pay equity gap has thinned. (Not closed, but thinned.) It's not easy to parse out exactly what the Fathers' Rights Movement is about from a quick scan of their website, but here are some undesirable results I have personally seen:

* Men who do not sincerely want custody threaten their wives with a custody battle to reduce the property award made to them. Twenty years ago, such a threat didn't hold water. Now it strikes terror and is abused.

* Men who seek protective orders without grounds as a means of prejudicing the judge against their former spouse. This seems to be especially attractive to men who commit domestic violence. Yes, I know -- some women do this too.

* The outright elimination of alimony, even transitional alimony. Most women will never need alimony, but some will. So will some men.

* A bias in favor of shared custody arrangements that one spouse (usually the wife) opposes. When a woman senses her former spouse wants shared custody as a means of intruding and controlling, rather than of remaining in the children's lives, shared custody can be a nightmare. It is also being abused (imo) to eliminate a women's right to child support.

I'm not saying there have not been inequities and gender bias in the courts; there has been. Most likely, the domestic relations courts and law should be under almost constant revision. But trust me when I say, very rarely is a loving father separated or alienated from his children as compared to the number of cases where uncaring and manipulative men use threats about the children to bend their former wives to their will unfairly.

 

[ConHog]

It is possible ours will be the last generation of Americans who perceive a bias towards moms in custody awards, ConHog. There has been a radical shift in the percent of women in the workforce and the pay equity gap has thinned. (Not closed, but thinned.) It's not easy to parse out exactly what the Fathers' Rights Movement is about from a quick scan of their website, but here are some undesirable results I have personally seen:

* Men who do not sincerely want custody threaten their wives with a custody battle to reduce the property award made to them. Twenty years ago, such a threat didn't hold water. Now it strikes terror and is abused.

* Men who seek protective orders without grounds as a means of prejudicing the judge against their former spouse. This seems to be especially attractive to men who commit domestic violence. Yes, I know -- some women do this too.

* The outright elimination of alimony, even transitional alimony. Most women will never need alimony, but some will. So will some men.

* A bias in favor of shared custody arrangements that one spouse (usually the wife) opposes. When a woman senses her former spouse wants shared custody as a means of intruding and controlling, rather than of remaining in the children's lives, shared custody can be a nightmare. It is also being abused (imo) to eliminate a women's right to child support.

I'm not saying there have not been inequities and gender bias in the courts; there has been. Most likely, the domestic relations courts and law should be under almost constant revision. But trust me when I say, very rarely is a loving father separated or alienated from his children as compared to the number of cases where uncaring and manipulative men use threats about the children to bend their former wives to their will unfairly.

I got divorced in 1996. My ex wife had to be ordered by the court to take a drug test. I had video evidence of her being unfaithful, and she perjured herself in court; and even at that there was actually some question as to would I get custody. I prevailed, unheard of back then for a father to get sole custody.

Since that time, I haven't heard from ex wife once, she makes no effort to contact or support her child.

So absolutely I am biased. However, I am a member of the organization that linked above and I can tell you a few things.

1. Custodial mothers are notorious for using the children as little weapons against a father that they are generally angry at.

2. Many fathers simply give up and leave because they are tired of fighting for their rights and being nothing but wallets for their ex wives.

3. Non custodial parents have NO say whatsover over the money they are paying in child support and in many cases those parents just get fed up with watching their kids do without while the custodial parent just blows the money on whatever.

4. It is absolute FACT that men are pursued more aggressively by the state than women when it comes to failure to pay child support.

5. Society in general has more "sympathy" for the single mother than they do for the single dad.

6. It is a myth that a father's lifestyle improves while the mother's lifestyle decreases after divorce - I posted an interview on 20/20 in another thread I'd be happy to bring it over here where that is disproved.

7. A ridiculously high percentage of women claim abuse when none exists during a custody hearing in order to garner sympathy from the court. I would think that w omen's groups would be pissed about this because it lessens the impact when he see REAL cases of abuse, but instead they jump on any claim no matter no matter how illegitimate.

 

[FA_Q2]

As the child in one of these disputes I can attest to the outright abuse the system levies on the father no matter what the evidence. My mother is literally insane and I was under her custody for the first ten years of my life. Many times she tried to use me as a tool to hurt my father. It took an INSANE amount of fighting in court for several years before my father was awarded custody. The system is a joke.

To alimony - in most cases I believe there should not be any alimony at all. Only in cases with very long relationships with a single breadwinner should alimony ever come into the picture.

 

[Madeline]

I'm sorry to hear this, FA-Q2. IMO, everyone involved deserves a portion of the blame. The judge ought to have shut down the carrying on. The lawyers should have leaned on the parents to cooperate (although I'll admit, the ethics here are tricky).

I heard today Texas is the only state that permits litigants in a custody battle to choose a jury trial to decide the outcome. Mebbe that would be an option worth looking at?

BTW, on the whole I agree with you about permanent alimony. If there are children and wide disparity of income earning power, I would like to see rehabilitative alimony granted more often. (This is very short term support meant to help the recipient parent through a college degree or skills training course; if they abandon the education, they are no longer entitled to the support.)

 

[ConHog]

I'm sorry to hear this, FA-Q2. IMO, everyone involved deserves a portion of the blame. The judge ought to have shut down the carrying on. The lawyers should have leaned on the parents to cooperate (although I'll admit, the ethics here are tricky).

I heard today Texas is the only state that permits litigants in a custody battle to choose a jury trial to decide the outcome. Mebbe that would be an option worth looking at?

BTW, on the whole I agree with you about permanent alimony. If there are children and wide disparity of income earning power, I would like to see rehabilitative alimony granted more often. (This is very short term support meant to help the recipient parent through a college degree or skills training course; if they abandon the education, they are no longer entitled to the support.)

I don't know about a jury trial to settle custody. I've met my fellow citizens.

To me, a better solution would be to require a child's advocate in the courtroom, an attorney paid for by both parents who's sole concern is the child's welfare. Why does the person MOST affected by the custody case not have representation?

 

[Madeline]

They do in many jurisdictions, ConHog. I doubt that a guardiem ad litem is a prerequisite to a custody hearing in any state as there are usually many more such cases than people able and willing to serve.

 

[ConHog]

They do in many jurisdictions, ConHog. I doubt that a guardiem ad litem is a prerequisite to a custody hearing in any state as there are usually many more such cases than people able and willing to serve.

You can request it in ANY jurisdiction, but you pay for it out of your own pocket, which is fine, I don't expect the courts to pay for it. Split it with each parent paying half, but I don't know of any jurisdiction where it's mandatory. And of course the court can order it.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm sorry to hear this, FA-Q2. IMO, everyone involved deserves a portion of the blame. The judge ought to have shut down the carrying on. The lawyers should have leaned on the parents to cooperate (although I'll admit, the ethics here are tricky).

I heard today Texas is the only state that permits litigants in a custody battle to choose a jury trial to decide the outcome. Mebbe that would be an option worth looking at?

BTW, on the whole I agree with you about permanent alimony. If there are children and wide disparity of income earning power, I would like to see rehabilitative alimony granted more often. (This is very short term support meant to help the recipient parent through a college degree or skills training course; if they abandon the education, they are no longer entitled to the support.)

I don't know about a jury trial to settle custody. I've met my fellow citizens.

To me, a better solution would be to require a child's advocate in the courtroom, an attorney paid for by both parents who's sole concern is the child's welfare. Why does the person MOST affected by the custody case not have representation?

That is what the judge is supposed to be. No need for another arbiter when there is one. The sad part is that people rarely if ever actally know what is in the best interest of the child.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm sorry to hear this, FA-Q2. IMO, everyone involved deserves a portion of the blame. The judge ought to have shut down the carrying on. The lawyers should have leaned on the parents to cooperate (although I'll admit, the ethics here are tricky).

I heard today Texas is the only state that permits litigants in a custody battle to choose a jury trial to decide the outcome. Mebbe that would be an option worth looking at?

BTW, on the whole I agree with you about permanent alimony. If there are children and wide disparity of income earning power, I would like to see rehabilitative alimony granted more often. (This is very short term support meant to help the recipient parent through a college degree or skills training course; if they abandon the education, they are no longer entitled to the support.)

Never heard of rehabilitative alimony but I like the idea. That sounds like the actual purpose of alimony. Permanent payments that many of the courts give out today are a croc. The concept of 'accustomed to' is complete bullshit and should not be placed in any case whatsoever. Rehabilitative alimony for the time spent making house while the other worked so you can get back to caring for yourself is a far better concept.

I would not choose a jury case though. There are far too many bigots, sexists and idiots for me. That would be similar to using a dice roll to decide custody and that scares me.

 

[ConHog]

I'm sorry to hear this, FA-Q2. IMO, everyone involved deserves a portion of the blame. The judge ought to have shut down the carrying on. The lawyers should have leaned on the parents to cooperate (although I'll admit, the ethics here are tricky).

I heard today Texas is the only state that permits litigants in a custody battle to choose a jury trial to decide the outcome. Mebbe that would be an option worth looking at?

BTW, on the whole I agree with you about permanent alimony. If there are children and wide disparity of income earning power, I would like to see rehabilitative alimony granted more often. (This is very short term support meant to help the recipient parent through a college degree or skills training course; if they abandon the education, they are no longer entitled to the support.)

I don't know about a jury trial to settle custody. I've met my fellow citizens.

To me, a better solution would be to require a child's advocate in the courtroom, an attorney paid for by both parents who's sole concern is the child's welfare. Why does the person MOST affected by the custody case not have representation?

That is what the judge is supposed to be. No need for another arbiter when there is one. The sad part is that people rarely if ever actally know what is in the best interest of the child.

No, the judge's duty is to judge on the facts presented, they can't present facts, I suppose they can question parents, but they rarely do. A judge's responsibility though is to guard the law, an attorney's job is to guard his client's rights.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't know about a jury trial to settle custody. I've met my fellow citizens.

To me, a better solution would be to require a child's advocate in the courtroom, an attorney paid for by both parents who's sole concern is the child's welfare. Why does the person MOST affected by the custody case not have representation?

That is what the judge is supposed to be. No need for another arbiter when there is one. The sad part is that people rarely if ever actally know what is in the best interest of the child.

No, the judge's duty is to judge on the facts presented, they can't present facts, I suppose they can question parents, but they rarely do. A judge's responsibility though is to guard the law, an attorney's job is to guard his client's rights.

That is not true in a child custody case as there is no legal black and white for rulings. Trust me I was there and the judge DID question not only my parents but ME as well all in the privacy of his chambers. He made his decision mostly on the interview with me. Basically stated, he said that I seemed collected enough to decide where I wanted to go. I was 10 at the time. The judge IS the representative of the child and he is supposed to make his ruling on where he believes that the best place for the child will be. That is why women used to be so favored in the courts. It used to be that people feat that there was a special connection that was born between the mother and the child and it was more detrimental to break that connection than it was to break the fathers. There is a little credence to that theory but today it is rightly becoming an issue about who is best equipped to raise the child.

 

[ConHog]

That is what the judge is supposed to be. No need for another arbiter when there is one. The sad part is that people rarely if ever actally know what is in the best interest of the child.

No, the judge's duty is to judge on the facts presented, they can't present facts, I suppose they can question parents, but they rarely do. A judge's responsibility though is to guard the law, an attorney's job is to guard his client's rights.

That is not true in a child custody case as there is no legal black and white for rulings. Trust me I was there and the judge DID question not only my parents but ME as well all in the privacy of his chambers. He made his decision mostly on the interview with me. Basically stated, he said that I seemed collected enough to decide where I wanted to go. I was 10 at the time. The judge IS the representative of the child and he is supposed to make his ruling on where he believes that the best place for the child will be. That is why women used to be so favored in the courts. It used to be that people feat that there was a special connection that was born between the mother and the child and it was more detrimental to break that connection than it was to break the fathers. There is a little credence to that theory but today it is rightly becoming an issue about who is best equipped to raise the child.

I was speaking more of cases involving young children who can't articulate to a court.

 

[FA_Q2]

The judge is still supposed to rule in favor of what is best for the child. Just because they cannot speak does not change that.

 

[ConHog]

The judge is still supposed to rule in favor of what is best for the child. Just because they cannot speak does not change that.

Right, but if the child can't speak for themselves that leaves the judge with he said /she said evidence from the parents to base a decision on. That is totally insane.

 

[FA_Q2]

The judge is still supposed to rule in favor of what is best for the child. Just because they cannot speak does not change that.

Right, but if the child can't speak for themselves that leaves the judge with he said /she said evidence from the parents to base a decision on. That is totally insane.

I agree and therein lies one of the problems. This part of the discussion did begin with the statement:

To me, a better solution would be to require a child's advocate in the courtroom, an attorney paid for by both parents who's sole concern is the child's welfare. Why does the person MOST affected by the custody case not have representation?

and an independent council would not help that situation whatsoever. There really is no other way around that but typically in a custody case there will be character witnesses and that helps alleviate the he said/she said problem. In my custody case, the judge was INCREDIBLY biased to the mother in previous cases but my father showed up with a 1200 page document of character witnesses from landlords to friends for both parties and that did help make the judge see the light of day. There is a concern that the judge may not give the weight they should to such evidence but that is another matter.

The biggest problem I think that custody cases have is the time and cost involved. I think that needs to be addressed because some very good parents are left by the wayside from simple lack of funds and cases take 2+ years. Sometimes the case cannot be resolved before the child grows up and that is bullshit. A case should be resolved cheaply and quickly (under 6 months) with simple appeals processes for changing custody rules. I almost feel that the process would be better served without legal counsel at all. That can cloud the issue as this is not a criminal matter.

 

[dilloduck]

The judge is still supposed to rule in favor of what is best for the child. Just because they cannot speak does not change that.

Right, but if the child can't speak for themselves that leaves the judge with he said /she said evidence from the parents to base a decision on. That is totally insane.

I agree and therein lies one of the problems. This part of the discussion did begin with the statement:

To me, a better solution would be to require a child's advocate in the courtroom, an attorney paid for by both parents who's sole concern is the child's welfare. Why does the person MOST affected by the custody case not have representation?

and an independent council would not help that situation whatsoever. There really is no other way around that but typically in a custody case there will be character witnesses and that helps alleviate the he said/she said problem. In my custody case, the judge was INCREDIBLY biased to the mother in previous cases but my father showed up with a 1200 page document of character witnesses from landlords to friends for both parties and that did help make the judge see the light of day. There is a concern that the judge may not give the weight they should to such evidence but that is another matter.

The biggest problem I think that custody cases have is the time and cost involved. I think that needs to be addressed because some very good parents are left by the wayside from simple lack of funds and cases take 2+ years. Sometimes the case cannot be resolved before the child grows up and that is bullshit. A case should be resolved cheaply and quickly (under 6 months) with simple appeals processes for changing custody rules. I almost feel that the process would be better served without legal counsel at all. That can cloud the issue as this is not a criminal matter.

without legal counsel ? well that would defeat the whole purpose wouldn't it ?

 

[ConHog]

The judge is still supposed to rule in favor of what is best for the child. Just because they cannot speak does not change that.

Right, but if the child can't speak for themselves that leaves the judge with he said /she said evidence from the parents to base a decision on. That is totally insane.

I agree and therein lies one of the problems. This part of the discussion did begin with the statement:

To me, a better solution would be to require a child's advocate in the courtroom, an attorney paid for by both parents who's sole concern is the child's welfare. Why does the person MOST affected by the custody case not have representation?

and an independent council would not help that situation whatsoever. There really is no other way around that but typically in a custody case there will be character witnesses and that helps alleviate the he said/she said problem. In my custody case, the judge was INCREDIBLY biased to the mother in previous cases but my father showed up with a 1200 page document of character witnesses from landlords to friends for both parties and that did help make the judge see the light of day. There is a concern that the judge may not give the weight they should to such evidence but that is another matter.

The biggest problem I think that custody cases have is the time and cost involved. I think that needs to be addressed because some very good parents are left by the wayside from simple lack of funds and cases take 2+ years. Sometimes the case cannot be resolved before the child grows up and that is bullshit. A case should be resolved cheaply and quickly (under 6 months) with simple appeals processes for changing custody rules. I almost feel that the process would be better served without legal counsel at all. That can cloud the issue as this is not a criminal matter.

So you advocate a mediation? I have seen that work, BUT a judge still has to sign off any agreements made. I have seen judges refuse to sign an agreement that was made simply out of bias when they didn't know any of the facts of the case . Granted those judges should be ran out of the job, but the won't be. Of course a simple "if you agree to meditation is is legally binding even without a judge's consent" would also suffice.

 

[ConHog]

Right, but if the child can't speak for themselves that leaves the judge with he said /she said evidence from the parents to base a decision on. That is totally insane.

I agree and therein lies one of the problems. This part of the discussion did begin with the statement:

To me, a better solution would be to require a child's advocate in the courtroom, an attorney paid for by both parents who's sole concern is the child's welfare. Why does the person MOST affected by the custody case not have representation?

and an independent council would not help that situation whatsoever. There really is no other way around that but typically in a custody case there will be character witnesses and that helps alleviate the he said/she said problem. In my custody case, the judge was INCREDIBLY biased to the mother in previous cases but my father showed up with a 1200 page document of character witnesses from landlords to friends for both parties and that did help make the judge see the light of day. There is a concern that the judge may not give the weight they should to such evidence but that is another matter.

The biggest problem I think that custody cases have is the time and cost involved. I think that needs to be addressed because some very good parents are left by the wayside from simple lack of funds and cases take 2+ years. Sometimes the case cannot be resolved before the child grows up and that is bullshit. A case should be resolved cheaply and quickly (under 6 months) with simple appeals processes for changing custody rules. I almost feel that the process would be better served without legal counsel at all. That can cloud the issue as this is not a criminal matter.

without legal counsel ? well that would defeat the whole purpose wouldn't it ?

A man, or a woman, would be a damned fool to enter into a child custody agreement without legal representation.