I'd just like to point out that mother vs. father isn't the only difference between these two situations. The top pic is for women with custody of their children so that both they and the children can have somewhere to live. The bottom pic, I presume, is for men who don't have custody of their children and don't pay the child support they're supposed to. I'm not arguing that custody disputes are fair, or that they don't often favor the mother, but I feel like this difference should be noted. I think it's fully possible to have a father in the top situation and a mother in the bottom.
@Claudia Auditore, just very rare
@Claudia Auditore, honestly statistics show that the reason most women get custody of their children because the fathers give it up, or refuse it. When there are two people fighting over the custody of a child, their gender isn't taken into consideration - what is is their history (have either been accused of being abusive in the past? Do they have a history of drug or alcohol abuse? Have they been able to maintain stable housing?), their financial standing (do they have a solid job? Does it pay more than minimum wage? Is it responsible - aka not a stripper or owning a strip club? Do they have an active savings account?) And lastly, who does the child want to be with (yes this is taken into consideration, the child is asked if they are over a certain age and can be trusted to understand who would be the best option for them). But again, most men decline custody, for whatever reason.
@TwistedTea, Not entirely true. It depends on the state you live in. A majority of cases in my state go to the mother, regardless. My brother is a perfect example. Custody went to his ex, even though she had a crappy job, history of poor decisions and a crappy apartment she couldn't pay for without child support. Meanwhile, my brother made 6 figures, owned a house, and was 17 years into working at the same job. But all custody went to her by court order. He still ended up financially supporting the kids above the child support he paid
@ Strider2k, this is true. It does depend in what state you live in. You pretty much summed up what happened to my brother. Women normally get custody.
@ Strider2k, one case isn't a good representation of all the cases in your state
@TwistedTea, ok. Citations please for "gender isn't taken into consideration".
@big freedom, search westlaw or Lexus nexus for any family law related cases or for laws in each state relating guidelines for child care and/or custody.
@TwistedTea, I asked you to back up your statement. I'm not doing any searches. You make a definite claim that "gender is not taken into account".
@big freedom, Federal Statue determines that child custody shall be decided based on what is best for the child, NOT based on the gender of the parents. Citation: U.S. Code Title 28 Part V Chapter 115 § 1738A
@TwistedTea, thanks. Now if we can just get "progressive" judges to follow the statute.
@big freedom, Judges have a measure of power to make decisions as they see fit but they need to provide sufficient reason why they make the decisions that they do. Talk to a lawyer, they can help.
@TwistedTea, You forget, it is often seen by our society as "better" for the children to not be seperated from the mother, as a matter of course. In fact, WSCCR which keeps stats on custody outcomes, clearly states that 64% of cases give the mother full custody, while only 17% give it to the father. The remaining are various amounts of joint custody. You see, what the law says, and what the judges do, can be 2 totally different things. I used the case of my brother to show an example of mothers with less resources and ability to provide, being chosen still over the fathers. I've now cited a statistic clearly showing proof of that. Citation of stat + obvious example = we're done here.
@TwistedTea, Talk to any man that has dealt with CPS and you'll hear a completely different story.
@ Strider2k, I already explained that. Most men GIVE UP THEIR RIGHTS to the parents.
@TwistedTea, My stats were not about cases where both parties agreed, my stats were *strictly* about contested cases where a court had to decide. This *does not* include where mothers and fathers agreed upon the parenting plans themselves.
@ Strider2k, and what were the circumstances behind these cases? WHY was the mother chosen? Is it at all possible that the mother was chosen because the father was completely unsuitable? Because that tends to be the deciding factor. Not the gender.
@TwistedTea, You are incorrect. Here are more stats. In cases where a father had no risk factors (abuse, unemplyed, drug use, etc) but the mom had 1 risk factor, 26% of the cases awarded full custody to the man. When men had 1 risk factor and women 0, 44% of cases went to the women, and 18% different weighted towards women. In the case of 2 risk factors? 42% to men, 63% to women, a 21% difference. Face it, the stats prove the law favors the females, you have only opinions to counter that. You'd lose in court too.
@ Strider2k, Where are these statistics coming from? What are your sources? (Better be more that one).
@TwistedTea, I previously posted the source (WSCCR) and the stats are pulled from actual court casr filings and determinations, not pulled-out-of-your-ass opinions like what you've posted. You asked for sources and stats previously, you've been provided such, if you still think you are correct, the burden of proof lies with you to prove your opinion, otherwise, you're just talking out your ass.
@TwistedTea, lawyers in the family. Judges have a lot of discretion - unfortunately. I have no dog in this fight. Happily married and father to my children. Just see a lot of abuses of power.
@big freedom, I have lawyers I my family too. I am a paralegal. I am becoming a lawyer. I know this fight. They have some discretion, but it is limited, they cannot just bang the gavel and decide whatever they want. They are bound by rules as well. Checks and balances. It is how our system works. If someone doesn't like a judge's ruling, there is ALWAYS the ability to appeal it.
@TwistedTea, be a good lawyer. Respect the constitution. Fight for individuals rights and limit governments authority and I will always back you! Fight the good fight.
@big freedom, I have no intention of becoming a constitutional lawyer or family lawyer, though I have a lot of respect for both systems. I AM a Libertarian, I strongly believe in our constitution, and balk at all the ways it is currently being violated.
@TwistedTea, all lawyers should follow the constitution even if you're not practicing constitution law. Always fight for more rights and less government intrusion.
@big freedom, well I agree that all lawyers should practice law following the guidelines set by our nation's constitution. The problems we are seeing aren't created by our Judicial branch however. You want change, go to the idiots creating the laws that are trampling our constitution in the legislative branch.
@Claudia Auditore, one time I had jury duty and had to sit in on one of the child support cases for one man. He owned a construction company and the judge basically gave the mother the company and his belongings for not paying child support for two months because he was injured from working at the construction site
The system is dumb and needs to be fixed. My friend and his ex have shared custody but she has no job and is a psycho and abuses her daughter, has had the cops called on her several times, many anonymous calls made, yet they still won't take the kids away from her.
Let's not forget that mothers can neglect child support payments too. It's just not as frequent
And women still want "equality"
@JWF, Honestly, I hate the whole feminism thing. If they want equality, good. I agree with that. But if they always say "Why is it a man and not a woman?" Then it finally becomes 50/50 and they STILL say that, then they don't want equality. They want woman to rule. And I hate the whole "Womankind" thing. Whenever someone says that, I say "you know it's called mankind because man is in both man and woMAN, right?" I know is a lie, but honestly, I don't really care. That's how I see it, and that's the easiest way to go. And the fact that they adopted the word feminine is stupid. The words feminine and masculine were invented to stop the sexist usage of girly and manly. But the fact that a good portion of feminists are masculine makes my eye twitch uncontrollably. Thus, we can conclude that I am an inconsiderate asshole that won't let anything anything happen unless it is 100% actuate.
@Silly Polar Gringo, you seem like a reasonable guy. I feel like I've said this a thousand times but I'll say it again: a feminist is someone who wants equality for women. We want to be equally represented and not limited by our gender. Someone who, for example, thinks all men are rapists or evil, or who want to turn literally everything into a gender issue, has, in my opinion, gone too far and needs to find something else to occupy their time. Most feminists are just normal looking girls you see walking around every day, not necessarily the hairy, cropped-cut, tattooed, smelly rebels we're inclined to think of. You probably already know that but I like to remind people.
@HolyCatchphrase, I've seen people state that "most feminists are every day people, etc etc" but when you look at the leadership of the feminist movement, when you look at the publishers of feminist newspapers and propaganda-- the people who largely shape the movement, that is simply not the case.
@PB4UGAMER, I don't know who you consider to be the leader of feminism, but I'm telling you as someone from an area where pretty much everyone is a feminist: I see so few extremist feminists in real life. I really only encounter them online. More often than not we're just normal looking men and women who like to treat women like everyone else. That's all I'm saying.
@HolyCatchphrase, What I'm talking about are the people who shape the movement and influence many of the follower's thoughts. Spokeswomen and writers & editors of feminist literature.
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
@PB4UGAMER, and I don't think that's true at all. Many would agree with me. Yet I still consider myself a feminist. That woman is not feminism itself, she's just one feminist. Some people agree with her and some don't.
@HolyCatchphrase, It extends to far more than just Ms. Morgan, her quote was merely one that I was most familiar with and could find in a two second google search.
@PB4UGAMER, and you'll find reasonable people as well with a second google search. I'm feeling bad about how long this discussion is getting so let me just say this: whatever political party or religion you're affiliated with, I'm sure there are a handful of weird and extreme people you don't agree with who are affiliated with it as well. And people who don't agree with you like to point to those people and say "see that's why all people of this party are [crazy, dumb, delusional, etc]". But you don't consider yourself affiliated with those people even though you agree with the principles of the group.
Cornell University Law School (Ivy League): " When determining the home in which to place the child, the court strives to reach a decision in "the best interests of the child." A decision in "the best interests of the child" requires considering the wishes of the child's parents, the wishes of the child, and the child's relationship with each of the parents, siblings, other persons who may substantially impact the child's best interests, the child's comfort in his home, school, and community, and the mental and physical health of the involved individuals."
Cornell University Law School (Ivy League): "Under the common statutory provision, if the spouses have children together while married, the parents have joint guardianship over that child and the parental rights are equal. Each parent has an equal right to the custody of the child when they separate."
The obligatory *triggered* comment. I'll go now.
The top is for kids to live WITH their moms so they arent homeless. The bottom is for any parent who refuses to be a part of their kids life and help pay for their expenses. There should be exceptions if you simply cant help it though.
Excuse you I sourced WestLaw, LexusNexus, Federal Statute (by NUMBER) and Cornell University Law School, which is an Ivy League school. You have sourced one secondary source, with no way to verify it's information. Westlaw and LexusNexus are legal data bases that include federal and state court cases directly, as well as federal and state statues. WSCCR is one STATE based research firm, hardly a good representative of nation wide statistics.
I have several coworkers and friends who are males whose families were split. It doesn't matter, the vast majority, as shown by records, give up their rights. There are plenty of women who doesn't get custody of their children either, I know my fair share of those too. I also know men who fought it and lost, AS THEY SHOULD HAVE because they could not have been good parents.
Dr. Evil quote marks "Equality"
And which is more expensive for the public?
@Handless Juggler , I dunno, which is?
@TheColossalTitan, I don't know about the US, but in the UK prison is more. It costs £65,000 just to imprison a person, and after that it costs a further £40,000 for each year they spend incarcerated.
@Handless Juggler , Its pretty expensive here too. Im not certain what the cost of family emergency/long term housing costs in comparison however.
@Handless Juggler , well if you think about it, prisons have to pay a lot to just maintain the building itself, pay for updated security, pay for armed guards, pay For health insurance for the prisoners, feed them, and pay for activities for the prisoner. The public housing provides a home, pays for utilities and maintenance, maybe provides food from donations or the residents have food stamps.
What happens if someone identifies as both...
Wait, what if you identify as neither? 😕
@Rathalos, halfway house?