It's about the ethics in deadbeat daddy's child support payments and access to the child.

Sumptinsfuckey said:
Because family courts preference for mothers isn't just a myth.
Click to expand...
So the judge said "You can't have custody because I'm biased against fathers"? Bullshit.

Why didn't the judge give him custody when he first asked for it?
 
Dyn said:
So the judge said "You can't have custody because I'm biased against fathers"? Bullshit.

Why didn't the judge give him custody when he first asked for it?
Click to expand...
Because and I quote "Young children need thier mothers"

So basically yes.
 
Dyn said:
So he wasn't denied custody in the first place, he was trying to get full custody and take away her visitation rights?
Click to expand...
He was trying to get primary custody, but trying to take away visitation rights. He was "awarded" every other weekend. Despite the fact that she missed the first hearing due to being in jail on meth charges, having a history of arrests for meth possesion.
 
Sumptinsfuckey said:
He was "awarded" every other weekend.
Click to expand...
There is no family court judge in any developed country that would reject a 50/50 custody based on "kids need their mothers". You're just outright lying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stan
Dyn said:
There is no family court judge in any developed country that would reject a 50/50 custody based on "kids need their mothers". You're just outright lying.
Click to expand...
Sure. Keep thinking that. Fortunately you'll never learn different first hand since having kids would require losing your virginity.
 
Sumptinsfuckey said:
Sure. Keep thinking that. Fortunately you'll never learn different first hand since having kids would require losing your virginity.
Click to expand...
I have a buddy who lost his virginity, and he got full custody because there's no gender bias disparity in family court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stan
AltisticRight said:
Yeah, this lines up with my research on the subject as well. Those that ask for custody either gets it or the very least obtains joint custody 90%+ of the time.

This is the same idea of the paygap. Women who pursue payrises aggressively gets it about the the same rates as men. The tiny infractions are usually due to company's discrimination towards upcoming mothers. The gap diminishes when age is accounted. For countries with explicit maturity leave compensation laws, the gap is non-existent.

If you didn't ask for something, you won't get it. Simple as.

"Dads almost never get custody" is the MRA version of "muh paygap".
Gay.

Anyway, have fun. Surprise that deadbeat fathers are deadbeats and don't deserve visitation, oh the humanity.

Edit: stupid typo
Click to expand...
The Foxtrot said:
If you don't want to pay child support, you should also be forced to sign away any and all rights to the child and a no contact order enforced.
That being said, I've never really believed the statement of "Mothers get preferential treatment in courts!". In my (admittedly little) experience, most courts and judges are only looking at who is the most fit to care for the child. And that's not just financially, they also factor in who is the most stable as a person, has the most (numerically and stability-wise) relatives to help with the child, criminal history, work history, and so on.
Most (deadbeat)fathers who bitch about "muh baby momma took mah kidz away from me!" tend to omit the fact that they're drunks or otherwise have a substance abuse problem, they're instable and immature, and they can't hold a fucking job or stay out of prison. And above all of that, they omit the part where most of the time, their poor behavior is why their baby momma left them and took the kids with her.
Click to expand...

Good points^. I have some numbers, but first, understand the differences among legal custody, physical custody, and parenting time. This clip from a Michigan court makes the distinction but the bottom line is that custody is not the same thing as the amount of time with your child. "I lost custody" does not necessarily mean you don't ever see your kid.

Legal Custody and Physical Custody​

There are two types of custody, legal and physical. Legal custody means having the right to make important decisions about your children, such as where they go to school, what religion they are (if any), and major medical decisions. Physical custody refers to the children's living arrangements.

Custody can be “sole” or “joint.” Sole custody means only one parent has custody. Joint custody means the parents share custody. If parents share legal custody, they must make important decisions about their children together. If parents share physical custody, the children live with each parent some of the time.

Parenting Time​

Parenting time is the term used in Michigan for the time a child spends with each parent when parents do not live in the same home. When one party is awarded sole physical custody, typically that parent has a substantial amount of parenting time or time with the child, and the other parent has less. When parties have joint physical custody, although that doesn’t have to mean equal parenting time, it is often equal or close to equal.
Click to expand...

People talking about custody without distinction between legal and physical, without distinguishing between sole and primary custodial parent, and without accounting for parenting time arrangements don't know what they are talking about.

Some stats for the dummies who won't read them or understand them or who think data hates them, personally:

>90% child custody decisions are by agreement, with the court merely blessing what the parties agree. Only 4% go to actual trial.
States are hard-trending to shared physical custody and have been for decades. One example of trend: in Wisconsin the percentage of shared physical custody situations rose from 12% in 1989 to 50% in 2010.


As noted in the paper below, this trend is due not to characteristics of people divorcing so much (though higher education levels tends to result in more shared custody), but rather to norms and processes around custody determinations.


Norms and processes?: Laws in an increasing number of states promote shared custody. In 2017 25 states had such legislation or proposals.

In 2018 Kentucky formally moved to 50-50 as the starting point and a rebuttable presumption. Other states have followed suit.

www.parents.com

States Are Making Shared Custody the Default—Could This Be the Arrangement We've Been Waiting For?

50-50 custody policies can be in the best interest of families—and advocates say they could help end gender bias in the family court system, too. But they're not always a good idea. Here's what parents need to know.
www.parents.com www.parents.com

Equally or near-equally shared parenting time is so common some question it:

Reality of time awarded, legislation aside:

1693320684422.png


Only 22% or Red states give equal custody. About 40% of Dem states and almost 60% of swing states do.

And an expansion of the article that Lidl excerpted earlier - which is from a Dad's divorce page, analysis is their own but fwiw :

"The most recent available Census statistics show that fathers represent around one in five custodial parents—an improvement over the 16 percent of custodial parents reported in 1994. However, studies indicate that dads simply do not ask for custody as often as mothers do, and courts generally do not award what is not asked for in that regard.

A Massachusetts study examined 2,100 fathers who asked for custody and pushed aggressively to win it. Of those 2,100, 92 percent either received full or joint custody, with mothers receiving full custody only 7 percent of the time. Another study where 8 percent of fathers asked for custody showed that of that 8 percent, 79 percent received either sole or joint custody (in other words, approximately 6.3 percent of all fathers in the study).

Of course, this leads to the obvious question: Why do so few men attempt to gain custody? While there are multiple factors at play, one to note is that since many men still believe that the court system is inherently prejudiced in favor of the mother, they do not try to seek sole or joint custody, believing it to be a waste of time and money. This contributes to any lingering biases or claims that men care less about their children, which is, in fact, mostly untrue."


Not only is this a problem mostly of men's own imagination (and making by not even trying), but despite that whining, people are agreeing to, and courts are awarding, substantially shared time; and states are revamping their formalized requirements, assumptions, guidance, and encouragement toward shared parenting time and physical custody.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Stan, Gog & Magog, BSC and 1 other person
Why in the fuck do these retarded men vs women threads keep popping up all over the place all the sudden? There's like four of you spergs that keep making these retarded threads jfc.
 
Abbadon's Gate said:
Why in the fuck do these retarded men vs women threads keep popping up all over the place all the sudden? There's like four of you spergs that keep making these retarded threads jfc.
Click to expand...
Cause people keep responding with this exact same statement which feeds dopamine to the people who make them.
 
You know what, I'm gonna sperg for a minute since I'm here anyway:

It isn't a question of Ethics if the Ragepig should pay child support to his children. He is their father, it is his responsibility to take care of his children.

There is nothing that will bring contentment to a man like taking care of his family, even if it goes unrewarded, he will live with pride in his heart knowing that he did the right thing, even when it was hard, even when it was thankless, because it is of the highest of callings that a man raise and support his family in anyway that he can.

There is a reason why men are instinctively drawn to ideals of family, and comraderie, why we have a feeling of espirit de corps in the share suffering of our fellows when we work to better ourselves. To do what is right, because it is right, because we have a duty to do so, especially when no one is watching is reason enough.

Ralph should, absolutely be responsible for his children. If not because he is legally expected to do so, then because his spirit as a man should compel him to do so. Its not a matter of what is legally men's rights or not, or what is ethical or not.

The world makes more sense when a man lives his life in service to his family, and to his friends, and to his community. Perhaps, if Ralph lived his life this way, he wouldn't need conflict with groypers and anyone else in order to stay sober.
 
  • Like
  • Dumb
Reactions: Stan, The Foxtrot and Spud
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back