UK: The courts took my children away from me because I'm a working mother

Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2009-08-27 20:24

Article here. Excerpt:

'As a successful working mother, Jo Joyce always thought that women could have it all.

A high-flying divorce lawyer, she revelled in the cut and thrust of the courtroom, proudly combining her career with bringing up two young children, Ross and Madelaine.

With her businessman husband, Andy, the family lived in a £600,000 detached house set in a three-acre garden in a glorious part of Nottinghamshire.
...
After years of high profile stunts by male pressure groups, such as Fathers4Justice, many people assume that men still systematically fare badly in battles over custody (or what is now known as the residency) of children heard in family courts.

Yet, gradually, the pendulum is swinging against mothers or, at least, mothers who go out to work.

The Equal Parenting Alliance, advising those in such heartbreaking disputes, believes that with the acquiescence of the courts half of the children of splitting parents now end up in the care of the father.
...
She says:'The system is flawed. Custody should not come down to whether you're a woman who works or stays at home.

It should be based on behaviour and, most importantly, whether you're a good parent. Other mothers should beware.'

And she is, almost certainly, right.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Man: "Courts gave custody to the mother because I worked."

*crickets chirping*

Woman: "Courts gave custody to the father because I worked."

"Oh God it's a travesty of justice, that isn't fair, oh God, something MUST be done about this, arrgghhhh!!!!"

.............

As long as men get penalized for working when they face judges over child custody, if you do the same to women, you will finally have an effective check against rampant population growth.

The idea that men instigate reproduction is ludicrous yet somehow, feminists actually convinced themselves that such was the case. The people needing cold water splashed on them vis-a-vis kids is now and has always been women. Penalizing men and rewarding women for reproducing doesn't change the rates much since women also have much more control over when a new baby gets produced. However if you now penalize women for having kids by saying they are working and so fair is fair, you either 1) discourage women from working or 2) discourage reproduction (finally), or both.

One could just be encouraging childlessness by encouraging women to work and to let them know however they'll be penalized if they have kids but don't stay with the father. So really you'd be encouraging either childlessness or single motherhood. Or maybe you'd be encouraging both but in different people but also encouraging women to work outside the home. Or maybe not.

Just get some pets. Much simpler.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by mcc99 on Thu, 2009-08-27 20:37

"Yet, gradually, the pendulum is swinging against mothers "

Another nut trying to foment hysteria based on the rare occurence which happened here.

-ax

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by axolotl on Fri, 2009-08-28 01:03

The commenters--even the women!--are really letting the feminist author and the divorce lawyer mom have it. Viva la revolucion!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Hunchback on Fri, 2009-08-28 03:25

"A high-flying divorce lawyer,"

Oh the irony, the sweet, sweet irony!

----------------------
Rise, Rebel, Resist.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MichaelClaymore on Fri, 2009-08-28 08:36

That fathers rights will be the spear tip of the mens rights movement because it appeals to the general public without a lot of explanation. AND it will draw a lot of women since the present system cuts off not just the father but the whole paternal side of the family--including grandmas, aunts, female cousins, etc.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Hunchback on Fri, 2009-08-28 11:25