It Takes a Hothead?Why does it take a cliché to draw attention to the problem of fathers' rights?

Remarks from the Fray:

Maybe the reason it takes a hothead to draw attention to the problem is because there isn't a problem. Of course, people leave court after having a contested custody battle feeling like they were wronged. There's really no good way to have a stranger decree how you're going to raise a child. But to infer some sort of bias from the fact that fathers are unsatisfied with custody arrangements is simply reading into something that's not there.

Keep in mind also that 98% of cases are settled by the parties. Even the McGreevy's, who had an incredibly contentious divorce, settled the custody portions of the case. So you're talking about 2% of all contested cases where the judge makes the decision. And generally speaking if you're reaching that point, there's going to be at least one expert report, and possibly as many as three. There's going to be witness testimony. There may be interviews with the children. To come back, based on a 200 word summary of the case, without reviewing that evidence, and to question the final judgment is somewhat absurd.

It's easy to attack the typical every other weekend arrangement for parenting time. But look at what that schedule actually provides. For a school age child, the kid is spending most of his/her time at school. The child's free time comes mainly on the weekends, which is split between the parents.

Divorce is hard. Child custody disputes are hard. I've worked in the field long enough to recognize how difficult it is for the people tasked with making those decisions. I also can't tell you how often I've seen a judge be criticized as being biased toward both mothers and fathers. Most of the people I've worked with have expended every effort to ensure their work is unbiased.

--ozymandiasxp

(To reply, click here.)

It will be a long time before society thinks of fathers as little more than a source of money for their children. The label of provider we have been relegated to as fathers has been twisted and perverted to paint us as emotionally detached dispensers of money. Not only has it been a long time since we have been the sole provider in that sense, but the public simply refuses to acknowledge any of the other means by which we provide.

We are not all soul-less money making machines. We love our children just as much as their mothers do. Some fathers may have difficulty showing that emotion because society has, for far too long, chastised men for doing so. For the most part we were raised to be this way by the example of our own fathers and their fathers before them, by how boys and girls are treated differently in school, and by how boys and girls are treated differently at work.

We all know and agree on how women are treated unfairly in what is perceived as the man's world: work, education, and sports; but precious little is talked about how men are treated unfairly in what is perceived as the woman's world: child rearing, homemaking, and the family. If we truly want prejudice, bigotry, sexism, and racism to go away we must be willing and able to treat everyone as equals; no advantages or disadvantages applied to anyone due to some wrongly-perceived racial or gender-driven inferiority.

--MikeStorm

(To reply, click here.)

As a clinical psychologist I regularly work with children in joint custody situations. Our current system of letting fathers see their children only a few days a month is cruel to all involved. I can not imagine how painful it would be to have someone take my own son from me and not to be able to hold him for 2 weeks. I have observed it for years--children and fathers in this situation are damaged by this infrequent contact. They can still function much of the time, true, but how sad to have to live like that.

--Dr B

(To reply, click here.)

Too often, con artists and abusers highlighted to show the plight of fathers in our nation. The fact is, the vast majority of men have a vested interest in making sure children (both ours and others') are raised right; after all, we have to live in our society with them, too.

Nothing would help feminism more than a generation of children who value both the male and female perspective. Nothing would help that happen more than a generation of parents who allow both men and women to participate in raising kids.

--jdstew

(To reply, click here.)

I agree with the overall point of the piece, that these two guys are bad "poster boys" for the overall problem of father's rights--even though I don't see people putting up statues of them anywhere--but how did Alec Baldwin get dragged into this? He didn't kidnap anyone, he didn't kill anyone, he yelled at his kid for what he saw as inappropriate behavior. In other words, he acted like a father.

I know, I know, he used language that might damage the kid's self-actualization, or something. Nevertheless, what he said wasn't any worse than 90% of us have heard at one point or another from our parents, and it didn't destroy us or our relationship with our parents. Relating a relatively mild telephone call with kidnapping and/or murder is just silly.

--Dennissism

(To reply, click here.)

It seems to me that the problem is the judges. At least in California, the presumption in a divorce case is joint physical and legal custody. And yet, the woman still seems to win most of the time that custody is contested. That suggests that while judges claim to be applying the correct legal presumption, they are actually presuming that the child would be better off with the mother unless the father can show otherwise.

My experience is that there only two forces keeping judges honest: Attorneys, and Appellate Judges. And in many divorces cases, the father is unrepresented by counsel, and the case is never appealed. The Judge therefore has no danger of being reversed on appeal, and there is not even a lawyer there to call B.S on an erroneous application of the law.

Additionally, the system really doesn't take child custody issues seriously. If you were being prosecuted for the lowliest misdemeanor (like a trespass), you would afforded the right to free counsel, a speedy trial, and a speedy appeal, even if there was no reasonable likelihood that you would go to jail for the offense. Just simply charging someone with a crime triggers these rights. But if you're facing the prospect of a court-ordered reduction of your status as a Father to an alternating-weekend-carpool-dad, you get nothing. Most men who need lawyers don't have them because they can't afford them. It's absurd. For many dads, losing custody of their kids would be a far greater horror than even spending time in jail.

--CaLawyer

(To reply, click here.)

I've watched a lot of unfair custody results, especially when a custodial parent decides to take the child and move far away from the area where the child has been raised. To me the solution to this particular problem is simple: when one parent, whether the primary custodian or not, decides they want/need/must move too far away for there to be at least regular weekend visitation with the other parent, then the "stationary" parent is granted primary custody, unless proven unfit. Period. No exceptions. This assures that the parent contemplating a move is not allowed to arbitrarily deprive the other fit parent of the right to be a real part of their child's life. It also assures more stability for the child, who will remain in a familiar environment (this may also increase the involvement with the child of parents, aunts, uncles, etc). Let's face it -- parents who decide on their own that its OK to separate their child from the other parent, unless the other parent is dangerous to the child, are making a selfish decision, and are not placing the welfare of the child 1st. Even if the move means a much higher standard of living, no amount of money can replace a good parent.

--nemesis

(To reply, click here.)

(8/16)