|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's about time that the courts started truly ruling "in the interests of the child" instead of simply using this as a whitewash for blatantly woman-centred decisions. Perhaps we can finally dispense with "momma lion at the gate," guarding access to her children in order to extract money (rightfully owed or not) from their father.
Mark my words, though: after this come two very interesting other battles, which will probably start up just as I'm retiring.
First, there is the problem of the "best interests of the child" versus the interests of the parents. The suit by the girl in England over enrolment in an exclusive private school is an example of this, albeit only partially. If all court decisions are in the "best interests of the child," does that now mean that savvy children now have their parents by the short hairs? Can children demand anything they want? If the courts side with children, do the parents still have the power to parent them (viz. deny them things)? To what extent?
Second, this still doesn't resolve the problem of balance between the parents. If the parents have "joint custody," and most disputes are resolved by thinking about what is "best for the child," some disputes will come up neutral for the child. In these cases, how do the courts decide? Do they go back to the old "the woman always wins" strategy, or do they take a more balanced approach? For example, in a joint custody situation, one parent may request that the other temporarily pay more so that he/she can do some skills upgrading and ultimately get a better job. The child could care less where the money comes from, so "the child's best interests" don't figure so long as the child's situation doesn't change. So must mommy pick up the slack for a while so that daddy can take some courses? I think that the courts will deal with these kinds of problems more fairly because men will be more likely to fight for themselves now that they threat of losing their children has been lifted.
On the other side, it may become more difficult to keep nasty, scrappy ex-husbands from legally "beating up" on their ex-wives because they know that their ex has no power to cut them off from their children. Of course there is no shortage of nasty, scrappy ex-wives, either, but in joint custody cases the ex-husband probably has a bit more in the way of financial resources.
Oh, and that brings up another interesting point: will women who are receiving support still receive free legal representation based on the idea that they have "no" money (but they really do have money... coming from their ex's), while men will have to pay for legal representation (as they do now) based on the idea that they have "lots" of money (that they really don't have... because it goes to their ex's)? I wonder if this new "joing custody" thinking will also bring balance to other areas of the divorce battle.
All in all I think that this movement will bring more balance to a grossly unfair process that currently ignores fathers and treats children as chattel. It will be most interesting to watch where it leads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 23, @04:18PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Buster, be certain you read THE GARBAGE GENERATION and THE CASE FOR FATHER CUSTODY both by Daniel Amneus, these two books are about divorce, why fathers should get custody etc since you normally comment on divorce issues I think you should read them.
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I'll put them on my reading list. Unfortunately I'm so busy working (who isn't) that I don't get much time to read, but these sound worth the extra effort.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
