Mail Online: "Agony of being a 50/50 mum: Women once held the upper hand in custody battles. Now fathers are winning EQUAL access..."

[Halubaris Maphotika]

"Agony of being a 50/50 mum: Women once held the upper hand in custody battles. Now fathers are winning EQUAL access... and mothers are struggling to cope"

 

https://archive.is/Bs4nd

 

What do you guys feel about this? Is this equality in division a good or bad thing?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

imo it doesn't matter what the ratio is. I don't care how much percentage of moms and dads get custody. All I care for is if the right person gets custody. This is one thing that "equality" doesn't necessarily matter in.

[vla1ne]

I like how they frame it as a tragedy when it happens to women. it's essentially the same thing that's happened to guys for years. it's not really something that should be a cause for concern.

 

of some major interest is one of the opening statements:

"Imagine, then, the agonizing pain of being privy to your child's life for only half the time. The milestones missed. The lost cuddles before bedtime. The long nights spent wondering if they are sleeping sweetly or crying out for Mummy."

 

 

to sum up flaws in the entire article

"Imagine, then, the agonizing pain of being privy to your child's life for only half the time. The milestones missed. The lost cuddles before bedtime. The long nights spent wondering if they are sleeping sweetly or crying out for *Daddy*."

 

there is nothing more that needs to be said. here.

[♪ ♪Aria ♪ ♪]

This is an example of "equality isn't always fair", since the larger portion should go to the better place, in this case, the women....

[ENMaker]

This is an example of "equality isn't always fair", since the larger portion should go to the better place, in this case, the women....

 

??????????????????????

 

That's a fairly broad statement there pal. What exactly makes the mother "the better place"? Even in this, the 3 women who the article wants to be seen as victims of this system acknowledge that the children's fathers are good parents and they know that the kids enjoy being with them. A man can be a shite parent, a woman can be a shite parent, both can be shite parents, both can be good parents.

 

That's why this is a case-by-case subject, and it's important that it be that way. It's not as if children are being ripped from their mother's hands, the fathers who want to be involved with their children's upbringing are just starting to get more of an ability to do so. What vla1ne said basically sums it up, everything that these women who have to share custody endure emotionally is exactly what divorced fathers have had to deal with for years. If they both want to have a part in the lives of their children and are deemed fit to do so there's no reason why 50/50 custody shouldn't be granted.

[vla1ne]

This is an example of "equality isn't always fair", since the larger portion should go to the better place, in this case, the women....

please clarify. I have a ton of objections already, but if you have some actual reasons behind that statement, I need to hear them.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

If the father is not a bad person, there is literally no reason why a father can't have equal access. Not having a father figure around can really affect kids and teenagers.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Good. If both parents are sane reasonable adults, responsibility and availability should be shared between the two. If one is clearly less fit for this than the other, then one parent should have more rights over the children till such an age the children have there own legal rights to chose. It's a pretty sane approach to handling this, that in theory is fair. Not nessicarily equal, but fair because fairness is better for the child than equality if one side of the divorcee is shitty. 

 

The only other thing I think should be done away with is fixed amounts of benefits to be paid to one side, and instead make it a percentage of income. Bankrupting one side of the divorce due to child payments simply because one side has a better lawyer or such is such a stupid idea. I think Brendan Fraser for example was forced to destroy his career and reduced to bankruptcy to meet an alimony of $900,000 a year. Which I think is disgusting. 

 

In short, the best thing to do for this, as in most disputes is to make something that is a fair, sane system.