Parental Rights Questions: why does the mom seemingly always win.

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay.. this is a personal question. I have a friend, who I'll refer to as D. and his ex as B., who just recently after YEARS of in and out of court shenagins got full custody of his daughter. Here is why I'm frustrated:

B., his ex, has committed (and gone to jail) for MASSIVE credit card fraud. She admitted in open court she did it. Got a couple years and change (then only did a few months with parole).  She kept custody.
-got caught trying to leave the area without notifying her parole officer or the courts (her other kids father notified him, yeah..she had a kid out of wedlock while getting a divorce from D. my buddy)  She kept custody.
-Repeatedly got reported to child social services for not taking care of her daughter (lice, unclean house (WAY too many cats))
-Repeatedly denied D. his visitation (or tried to).  She kept custody.
-Has not bothered to use her child support money to keep the girl up in clothing, medical care (she got put out of school for not having required vacinations)  She kept custody.
-Lied to the family court judge about the payments she got, claimed she hadn't gotten them. D. proved he was playing by the rules.  She kept custody.
-Finally after YEARS of in and out of family/children's court, he's awarded primary custody and she is given contempt of court. She threatened him right there in court. I told D that if I was him, I'd be very careful around her. (Bluntly I told him 'That bitch is crazy enough to try and kill you')

Only this month was he awarded sole custody (she's got very limited visitation) after claiming he wasn't the girls father and putting forth a petition. Why? She made a claim and didn't SHOW UP for the hearing. He didn't win because of an argument or logic but because she didn't show up for a petition hearing she set up.

The difference in outcome from what I can tell? She finally got things moved out of children's/family court and into an actual criminal proceedings court..then pissed off the judge.

I don't get this.. it has been proven.. REPEATEDLY.. that she is a sad excuse for a human and dangerous mother. She lost her other kid to the man she was cheating on D with.. and the guy submitted statements in my friend's behalf.. repeatedly.

Word is, from D's lawyer, is that her other claim of him not paying child support and alimony will be reviewed by the same judge who she just didn't show up to put the paternity claim into play. He's, bluntly put, not amused with her.

My question is.. while I support parental rights being an issue that deserves consideration.. why are the mother's so clearly more favored in the courts. She's been proven to lie (IN COURT), committed fraud, planned on fleeing the jurisdiction, risked the daughter's health, stolen money for her daughter's needs to do who knows what..threatened my friend (IN COURT.. in FRONT and in the hearing of his attorney AND the judge. ) And continually refuted rulings, and been in with child services and the school several times and..

only after she personally pissed off a CRIMINAL court judge did she lose custody and had her visitation down to court supervised visits in D's state of residence.. IE.. she has to travel to HIM.

My friend, by the way, is a retired vet (with disabilities like me) who has a good job (she mooches off her exes (husbands/boyfriends/ect)), with a good paying job and a loving wife and a healthy home. He's been responsible, his family backs him up and yet.. till things got bumped from Family court..he was the 'unsuitable' parent.

Why is the system in some areas so skewed? (His issues were in the virginia courts)

[Beguile's Mistress]

I'm not sure why she was initially given custody but quite often family court judges refuse to reverse their decisions or the decisions of other family court judges because reversals are looked at badly in reviews of the judges' performance. 

This isn't always the case and there are many judges more that capable of making the best decision for the child regardless of the way it looks on their record. 

The unfortunate aspect of this is that you are at the mercy of the way cases are assigned in the first place.  Sometimes you get a good judge and sometimes you get one that just seems to go through the motions.  Then there is the fact that if you petition for a new judge when the ruling goes against you you can prejudice your own case by looking like a troublemaker.  It's hardly fair and never works out for the best interest of the child. 

I am glad your friend's child had things go her way in the end and hope and pray she comes out of this with very few scars.

[Callie Del Noire]

It just confuses me... B. (the ex) has done so many things that were admitted into court and is so chronically STUPID.. yet she got custody.

She was shown to commit fraud. She ran up nearly six figures of credit card debt. D, he was on deployment at the time, got off with the normal limit of the card.. which he paid off.

When he got pulled from the officer program (because of her actions) she cleaned out his savings and retirement accounts.

She tried to use the navy against him.. claimed that he had left her to have a homosexual affair with his supervisor, despite paperwork showing that she'd kicked him out of the base housing they were in.. the list of shenanigans she's done goes on and on.

It just confuses me that a judge doesn't have the stones to say 'No, you're not a healthy person for a child to be around' when it is clearly (and repeatedly) been proven she's a danger.

The other kid was born in another state and that is the only reason the father got custody after the kid was a special needs child. (Respiratory issues) Otherwise her other daughter would have died by now.

[Shjade]

I'm not sure one example of the courts going awry constitutes grounds for "moms seemingly always win."

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm not sure one example of the courts going awry constitutes grounds for "moms seemingly always win."

I know from talks with my brother, the lawyer, that his advice to any man going for custody is to settle out of court. He told me that something like only 1 in 5 custody settlements come out in the father's favor. (He typically lets his partner the 'divorce shark' handle them). I know from my experience in seeing divorces go through in the miltary.. the guys don't get custody nearly as often as the mothers.

I'm not talking about moms vs. servicemen.. I'm talking in cases of two sailors going against each other, a service woman vs at home dad. Any damn combination it seems that moms win over dads. Sitting here chatting with a buddy of mine.. we did a survey of the guys we know who got divorced.

Let's see.. 12 guys..
2 didn't want custody.. (1 proved the kid wasn't his.. and is currently trying to get his name from the birth certificate)
1 got sole custody (I think mom literally dropping off the kid and vanishing for 12 weeks had something to do with that)
the rest got limited/restricted/partial custody.

Granted my personal experience is just military families.. but it seems from what I read through the newspapers that it is typically the mom who gets majority custody.

[Torch]

Custody issues are complicated. Not to mention there are two types of custody: legal and physical, and each parent may have one, both or neither. So when you say "custody", it's important to make the distinction between each type, and whether it is sole or joint.

Laws differ from state to state, and since family court issues are decided by a judge and not a jury, the whims of the judge could factor in any decision.

Up until recently the courts followed the "tender years" doctrine, in that minor children were generally better off in the custody of the mother because a mother was considered better suited to provide for a young child's needs.

Currently, most courts make their decisions using a "best interest" doctrine in determining custody matters, which is supposed to be gender-neutral. But just as in a divorce, hearing one side of things (from the viewpoint of your friends) is rarely going to be the absolute truth. Unless you are privy to the same court documentation and testimony the judge hears, you really don't know the whole story.

[Callie Del Noire]

Custody issues are complicated. Not to mention there are two types of custody: legal and physical, and each parent may have one, both or neither. So when you say "custody", it's important to make the distinction between each type, and whether it is sole or joint.

Laws differ from state to state, and since family court issues are decided by a judge and not a jury, the whims of the judge could factor in any decision.

Up until recently the courts followed the "tender years" doctrine, in that minor children were generally better off in the custody of the mother because a mother was considered better suited to provide for a young child's needs.

Currently, most courts make their decisions using a "best interest" doctrine in determining custody matters, which is supposed to be gender-neutral. But just as in a divorce, hearing one side of things (from the viewpoint of your friends) is rarely going to be the absolute truth. Unless you are privy to the same court documentation and testimony the judge hears, you really don't know the whole story.

Thank you.. that makes quite a bit of sense for how things in the past came out like they have for my friends.

[Torch]

Here's the latest Census data on child custody and support:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf

Currently, about 1 in 6 custodial parents are fathers, so some Dads are getting custody of their kids. I have heard anecdotal data that suggests one of the reasons there are so few fathers with custody is because they are advised (or they decide) not to challenge the court for it.

[AndyZ]

It's really just sexism.  Not everyone is sexist, but there are always those out there who believe that one gender is simply better at stuff than another, without looking at other factors.

[ExisD]

I haven't actually found any major studies about this, but these are the feelings I have based on what I see in the news along with what I see with people I know going to court. If anyone has good sources for this I'd be very interested in seeing them.

Right now America on average sees women as being better care providers than men unless there's a large amount of evidence to the contrary. There's also a large amount of sexism in favor of women in the criminal court system, mainly in the number of years in jail sentenced, and family court system, the mother is very much favored. Though from what I understand civil courts are sexist against women most of the time, requiring a higher standard of proof than they do men.

[Caitlin]

It's horrible to read about this. Unfortunately in my country similar things happen, though not as badly as here.

Rather than looking at the well-being of the children they look at the rights of their parents, with the children ending up as a playball. At least it's finally changing a little bit with judges finally giving fathers slightly more rights, but there is still a really long way to go.

To me this also proves one point very much; fathers simply aren't seen as full parents by the judge. Apparently contributing half of the genes isn't enough to earn half of the rights as well. I understand that women do the majority of the work for the 1st 9 months and generally take care of the children after giving birth as well, but it's not like fathers can afford to sit on their lazy ass and do nothing. Good fathers take care of their wife while she's pregnant and after she gave birth. There are plenty of cases (like the example above) where they contribute more to the well-being of their children than the childrens' mothers do.

Sorry about the rant, but it's just frustrating to see things like this happen.

[Kate]

its extremely simple.

There is always a pendulum effect in the law before it reflects common sense.

Before women / moms etc had no rights, and to satisfy strong views otherwise the laws changed to be very mom/women bias during divorces and custody.

The lawyers and judges themselves are aware of this but its hard to change the laws when there isnt marches on the street of men demanding these laws be reformed.

Which would likely make the pendulum move the other way ...

Politicians can order "overhauls" of some legal systems but doing so is effectively political suciside as it takes so much longer for that to be shown to be working than it does to prove you did the right thing next election poll.

In short its how people are elected and the election process, if you are only in for 3  yrs and HAVE to prove your changing things for the better before that term expires (so they vote you in again), you can't have many 4 plus years policies at all (its not in your best interest - even if there is NO resistance to it.

Something like this that is controversial, and passionate to many would be well isnt an easy road, and will not give returns to that position in the time they are elected.

If you were Kennedy or someone super charismatic, ie PM or presidents, different story but they have other things that effect more on their plate to deal with (economy, defense, education, health etc)

[Serephino]

Some days, it boggles my mind too.  My neighbor, who I will call psycho bitch, because it fits  her so accurately, has no business having custody of her kids.  I know more about her than I want to because the duplex walls are thin, and she pays no mind to that fact. 

I've heard her scream at the kids.  At least once a week she tells them she doesn't want them anymore, to pack their shit and get out.  She loves sex, and apparently loves being heard we think, since she got even louder after we said something.  If we can hear her, her kids can hear her.  One morning my boyfriend actually called child services on her because she was keeping him awake, and I guess her kids decided to keep barging in on her.  She wanted her man friend to just keep going, figuring they wouldn't want to watch their mom having sex, and seeing that they couldn't stop her, would just give up.  He wouldn't do it.  So the next time they barged in he heard a door slam, and the kid started screaming about his hand.  Put two and two together, she slammed his hand in the door.  Then he heard what sounded very much like the kid getting shoved down the stairs.

Someone from child services came, but the kids weren't taken.  She told my mom that her own mother had called child services on her, and she lost the kids for a month.  We're pretty sure she leaves them alone a lot (don't know the ages, but I don't think the eldest is any older than 11 or 12 and the youngest maybe 5 or 6).  Sometimes we see a babysitter, sometimes the only sign of life is the kids.  She'll be gone for days at a time. 

She tells the kids their dad doesn't care about them.  From what I've seen and heard when he's over there, he cares a fuck of a lot more than her.  He was pissed because she wouldn't let him have them for Christmas; and they spent the day with a babysitter.  The kids listen to him.  He doesn't yell when he's there watching them.  When they manage to call him, for any reason, and don't have the phone wrestled away from them and told not to bother because he doesn't care, he always comes if he can.  He works.  She sponges off welfare and boyfriends.

Their father really should have them.  He wants them, but she keeps threatening to cry rape if he takes them.  Because, you know, she's on welfare for single mothers, and no kids = no welfare.

[Chris Brady]

Custody issues are complicated. Not to mention there are two types of custody: legal and physical, and each parent may have one, both or neither. So when you say "custody", it's important to make the distinction between each type, and whether it is sole or joint.

Not really.  Sadly, the woman is regarded as the most important for raising kids.  Men are usually seen as mostly deadbeats.  I mean, the first image a lot of people get when you think of a 'family', is mom doing everything, with dad in the living room watching TV.  It's not right, and it's probably even remotely accurate, but it's perception, and that counts a lot more than we realize.

There are also legal wrangling that allows the woman to move away without having to legally notifying the man.  Which makes him into a 'deadbeat' by default, because he can often no longer pay his wife.  Not to mention that his visitation rights are now gone, despite being legally allowed to see his child.

And this is accepted as normal.

Some of the men deserve to have their visitation rights removed, even if they were given them.  And frankly some women shouldn't be allowed to breed, but they do.  The law sides with the woman 90% of the time in a custody battle.  It has nothing to do with law in the end.

[Torch]

Not really.  Sadly, the woman is regarded as the most important for raising kids.  Men are usually seen as mostly deadbeats.  I mean, the first image a lot of people get when you think of a 'family', is mom doing everything, with dad in the living room watching TV.  It's not right, and it's probably even remotely accurate, but it's perception, and that counts a lot more than we realize.

There are also legal wrangling that allows the woman to move away without having to legally notifying the man.  Which makes him into a 'deadbeat' by default, because he can often no longer pay his wife.  Not to mention that his visitation rights are now gone, despite being legally allowed to see his child.

And this is accepted as normal.

Some of the men deserve to have their visitation rights removed, even if they were given them.  And frankly some women shouldn't be allowed to breed, but they do.  The law sides with the woman 90% of the time in a custody battle.  It has nothing to do with law in the end.

There are so many inaccuracies in your post I wouldn't know where to start. Of course I realize all of the above is merely your opinion and has no basis in fact whatsoever, but honestly, would it pain you to provide some statistics to back up your specious claims?

[Chris Brady]

I'm speaking from experience, which is purely anecdotal.  But I'm finding that what Callie's friend is going through to be amazingly common.  Also, I know several family lawyers (I had to work with a couple to get my Disability) and they all say the same thing.  The laws are SUPPOSED to help, and keep both sides of the equation fair, but there's some older perceptions that prevent it from doing so.  And one of these perceptions is that the woman is more important in the child's life than the male is.  And apparently a lot of the current judges (At least in North America) work off that perception.

It's not right, I wish it didn't happen, but you'll find Callie's story to be very, very common.  In fact, it's been the 'norm' for at least 20 years.

Wish it would change, though.  Some men should never be fathers, but at the same time, there are probably an equal amount of women who shouldn't be mothers.

But this is all anecdotal.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I wouldn't be so quick to label that the norm.  This link does indicate a study or at least a researcher taking note and making a publication.  The review of the book was done in Psychology Today.

http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/464/mothers-on-trial

[Chris Brady]

Self-promotion sites are a bit sketchy to me.

[Callie Del Noire]

I wiki'ed her. She's a women's right advocate and has some chops in the area. She also has some serious experience in dealing with the issue of women's rights in the middle east, as she was left with her in-laws back in the 70's Afganistan.. she does have a feminist leaning but she's also a professor emerita of psychology and women's studies.. so she knows how to research her material.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The review posted on the site, which is a self-promotion site, is from a review posted in Psychology Today.  So the review is not written by the author and is posted in a fairly reputable magazine in regard to issues affecting psychology, a scientific field.  The author is a psychotherapist, professor of psychology and feminism.  She would be at least a more reputable source on the subject at hand than someone simply referencing unsupported, personal opinions.

[Callie Del Noire]

The review posted on the site, which is a self-promotion site, is from a review posted in Psychology Today.  So the review is not written by the author and is posted in a fairly reputable magazine in regard to issues affecting psychology, a scientific field.  The author is a psychotherapist, professor of psychology and feminism.  She would be at least a more reputable source on the subject at hand than someone simply referencing unsupported, personal opinions.

It could also be argued her writing has a definite skew in outlook and approach. (Personally I don't think she lets her experiences skew her research but they have definitely given her focus.. of course if I had in-laws like she had.. I wouldn't forget it either.)

All I can go with is my personal experience, second hand, of watching friends go through divorce and most of the guys getting slammed in the courts. My buddy D, the guy above, spent THOUSANDS defending his rights against a woman who was a criminal, conspiring to flee her parole, and didn't give two damns about anyone other than herself. The only reason she kept custody of D's daughter was that it kept him on a leash and allowed her to screw more cash out of him.

I've seen a mother in a performance critical rating who KNEW she weren't going to be in country for YEARS (and going places that were in the 'please don't go there' list such as Columbia, Afghanistan and places elsewhere who got custody..who then put the kids in with her sister while the father was there in state, staying there with a home, an a rating that basically promised he'd stay there and when he got out he'd stay there still just make more money. And the kids ASKED to stay with dad.

Instead of staying in an area where they had family they get shipped off to a hell hole ranked as one of the worse places to live in in the US (a lovely little hell hole in East St. Louis).

I've only seen one father of a mutual military family get custody without the mother waiving custody. I've seen only ONE non-military mother NOT get custody..and that was because she was arrested for trying to contract the murder of her soon to be ex.

I haven't seen a lot of amicable divorces and custody tends to make them nastier.

[kylie]

     Claims about biological parenthood are very serious in many places.  Some states will honor only the parents listed on the birth certificate, which are not always accurate either... 

If she could convince a court that he wasn't the genetic father (or maybe just the certified father), and he has no other established legal tie...  I could see a court dropping him on those grounds.  Not approving of the criteria prioritizing there, just saying it's out there from what I understand. 

[Sabre]

I wouldn't be so quick to label that the norm.  This link does indicate a study or at least a researcher taking note and making a publication.  The review of the book was done in Psychology Today.

http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/464/mothers-on-trial

Getting my hand on a copy, I find myself taking issue with the way this book is written.  It's no less anecdotal than any of the above stories from other posters.  The book is a collection of interviews with women who approached the author or whom the author contacted while forming a narrative of a judicial war on mothers and slipping in her personal opinions on why this or that study is heinous, false or malicious. 

It also focuses on high profile cases a lot with some false comparisons - an Illinois state court deciding murder of the mother by a father does not automatically give them grounds to strip him of custody without a separate custody trial is contrasted with another case where a father and mother are in dispute over custody and the mother loses on the grounds that she has a live-in boyfriend.  She makes no attempt to tell us why these two cases should be compared, they just are without explanation.

The rest of that chapter is a Q&A list of specific court cases, not trends or averages, which asks "Can a mother lose custody if she ____?" but never once offers a comparison with a case that shows if a father is in the same situation he is treated different by the court.

I don't think this is a study at all, or at least doesn't resemble anything like the psychology and drug test studies I've known.  It reads more like an ideological attack against an opposing political party (which by the end is singled out to be what she terms 'father supremacist' groups).  Indeed, the book pulls on other statistical studies for percentage numbers and focuses entirely on constructing a historical and anecdotal narrative about the state of motherhood in family court cases.  Specifically it points to a "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Gender Bias Committee" study which, after some searching seems to be a convoluted statistical study that advocates for both sides seem to claim as favoring their side.  The very study which the author says shows 70% of fathers win custody battles is claimed by other people to have said that mothers win 65% of the time while fathers win 48% of the time.

Messy, partisan politics at its worse, it seems.


I can't help but find how partisan and almost petty this subject is after trawling through the net just hoping to find government statistics and nothing else.  Thankfully I did find one though it's from Canada (are they vastly different from the U.S.?) and see that half of all their custody hearings are settled out of court, but those that aren't award mothers ~80% exclusive custody while the fathers receive ~6%.

[Chris Brady]

Getting my hand on a copy, I find myself taking issue with the way this book is written.  It's no less anecdotal than any of the above stories from other posters.  The book is a collection of interviews with women who approached the author or whom the author contacted while forming a narrative of a judicial war on mothers and slipping in her personal opinions on why this or that study is heinous, false or malicious. 

It also focuses on high profile cases a lot with some false comparisons - an Illinois state court deciding murder of the mother by a father does not automatically give them grounds to strip him of custody without a separate custody trial is contrasted with another case where a father and mother are in dispute over custody and the mother loses on the grounds that she has a live-in boyfriend.  She makes no attempt to tell us why these two cases should be compared, they just are without explanation.

The rest of that chapter is a Q&A list of specific court cases, not trends or averages, which asks "Can a mother lose custody if she ____?" but never once offers a comparison with a case that shows if a father is in the same situation he is treated different by the court.

I don't think this is a study at all, or at least doesn't resemble anything like the psychology and drug test studies I've known.  It reads more like an ideological attack against an opposing political party (which by the end is singled out to be what she terms 'father supremacist' groups).  Indeed, the book pulls on other statistical studies for percentage numbers and focuses entirely on constructing a historical and anecdotal narrative about the state of motherhood in family court cases.  Specifically it points to a "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Gender Bias Committee" study which, after some searching seems to be a convoluted statistical study that advocates for both sides seem to claim as favoring their side.  The very study which the author says shows 70% of fathers win custody battles is claimed by other people to have said that mothers win 65% of the time while fathers win 48% of the time.

Messy, partisan politics at its worse, it seems.


I can't help but find how partisan and almost petty this subject is after trawling through the net just hoping to find government statistics and nothing else.  Thankfully I did find one though it's from Canada (are they vastly different from the U.S.?) and see that half of all their custody hearings are settled out of court, but those that aren't award mothers ~80% exclusive custody while the fathers receive ~6%.

So, in the end, that book was as I thought it would be, a political essay masquerading as 'facts'.  *Sigh*  I had hoped to be wrong.

And yes, that site is where I got my information from, being Canadian.  It is, however, at last 13 years out of date.  Although looking around me, I am wondering if things have really changed.  From my perspective, it doesn't seem to have.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, the fact that a noted researcher performed the interviews does actually make them better than a bunch of people sharing stories.  That is a form of research called subjective.  Still, I suppose people are wanting more rescources.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/more-fathers-getting-custody-in-divorce/

http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Jan/59218.html


Q: How well do fathers do in custody cases?
A: In contested custody trials, while there are no statistics on point, I believe the percentage is tipped in favor of fathers.
Q: Why ?
A: Probably because fathers and their lawyers do not go to trial in a custody case unless the odds of winning are in favor of the father.
Q: But, are not mothers usually awarded custody?
A: Yes, but these are cases which are settled and not tried. Lawyers should advise their clients that custody is usually determined on the basis of who has been the primary caretaking parent. In our society it is usually the mother who has been the primary caretaking parent.

http://www.gitlin.com/pages/questions/qa_custody.html