Uh... My friend wanted his daughter. He was an honorably discharged Vet and she was a convicted felon with nearly six figures of fraud under her belt. She literally had to insult the judge in the last hearing for him to get custody of her for the last year. Now I'm waiting to see how the final hearing goes this week. Apparently she owes her old lawyer about 10 grand in back pay. So hopefully she'll lose custody.
I also know of three Canadian men who wanted their kids, but did not get. Thing is BOTH the parents are not criminals or have any abusive tendency, I know for a fact that one man, doesn't disparage his ex-wife in any way. He would have rather have shared custody (in fact, according to him, that's what he went for during the divorce proceedings.) For whatever reason, she decided that she couldn't be near him and moved away. Which is her right, should it cause mental 'pain' for her. But seeing as she takes his son with her, and by law the courts do not have to tell him where she moved to, he now has no means to see his son, nor pay alimony. Worse, he had to sell most of his stuff to pay it in the first place.
People say that most men can, with their increased paychecks, pay alimony easily. One thing that gets me about this argument is how 'white room' it is. I mean, yes, in general a basic 30K-45K a year paycheck should easily cover a few extra hundred dollars a month, right? That's of course assuming things like not having to pay income taxes, property taxes, car insurance, power bills, mortgages (which by the way don't always end when the family splits), former school loans and any medical emergencies that may crop up that isn't covered by any sort of national or privatized insurance, which is also ANOTHER payment that most people have to do, including life insurance as well, premiums don't go down just because you're not together anymore. Not to mention that when they were married, there was effectively twice the money they have after a divorce.
That's not saying that should a woman have to pay alimony she'd get it easy. More often than they TOO have the exact SAME bills as men do. She'd be as badly screwed as the men are or worse.
The other two guys I know, are classified as 'deadbeats', mainly because they don't know where their ex-wives are. And they have no tools to find out where she is because by law, no one has to tell them here. Especially if the woman claims she's moving away due to potential emotional harm she's feeling. Which is totally legit. Discomfort, memories and associations, just by smells or seeing something can do a lot of psychological damage, or create aversions to what would be normal behaviours. And as we all know, even the whiff of something mentally 'wrong' can get you canned.
But that means that the man is effectively screwed.
One of the ex-coworkers I know has been fighting that. He's even set aside a relatively decent sum of money for his daughter to claim, it's under her name, and he's notified both a law agency and government agency to let the child know that on her 18th birthday, she'll have funds to continue her education. But he was accused of being a deadbeat because he could find his Ex-Wife, and it was claimed that he did 'look hard enough' to find her. Don't know about any of you, but any sort of tracking down could be seen as stalking and get him to lose his rights.
And Dim Hom, outside of the law journal site, the rest of those are opinion pieces and potentially as anecdotal as what we've all been discussing, and I know for a fact that the Phyllis Chesler site is a self-promotional one (and is about 16 years out of date.) Also, why don't we see these things on the news? It's usually how the woman gets the child, rather than men getting them, often celebrity families too. And I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure most national news agencies would absolutely LOVE to get their hands on an abusive man getting his kids after divorcing his wife story. Where are they?