The Pope is dope

No, it's not true. It may be different in different law systems, but when the mother is a drug addict or has serious mental issues that could prevent her from taking adequate care of her children, the best she can hope for is shared custody. And there is a very good reason why kids belong with their mother, particularly in their early years, and it has nothing to with with sexism.
 
Yes, you're correct in that there are real reasons why - I'm not denying that. But in over 90% of all cases? I really don't think that's accurate, nor appropriate.

I realize the plural of anecdote isn't evidence, but I am personally aware of two people on parole for drugs convictions that have sole custody over their children, and one woman I know only lost her kids when she started dating a person on the sex offender list. "Children belong with their mother" with no qualifier isn't a reason for custody decisions - yet it often is.
 
In over 90% of the cases, the mother is the one who takes care of the child since birth. Therefore, she's more experienced in it and knows her child's needs better. On the other hand, this also helps the children live through a separation or a divorce more easily because they still lives with the parent they are used to depend on.

If a junkie mother has sole custody of her children, chances are the father is not the most reliable person either. I don't think any court would willingly send kids to live with a drug addict just because she's their mother is there is a better option.
 
Ariana said:
If a junkie mother has sole custody of her children, chances are the father is not the most reliable person either. I don't think any court would willingly send kids to live with a drug addict just because she's their mother is there is a better option.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not denying that in most situations there are no valid reasons to separate a child from their mother. What I am saying is that there is a difference between what you think happens and what actually happens in some communities. You're describing an ideal situation, and I'm saying some cases fall through the cracks and get a judge that has a stubborn view of family.

In the case of the anecdotes, in one of the situations with the woman who is a drug addict, her ex who was trying to get custody was also a paroled drug addict - but he had gone through rehab and was maintaining some sort of 12 step program, whereas she was still using. In the situation of the woman who lost her kids, she has severe mental problems and flat-out told the judge she refused to take her medication. Her ex, who is an police officer, lost that case first time out.

These are extreme examples, but they happen. Sexism is prevalent in at least my justice system in lots of types of cases, the same way racism is.
 
LooseCannon said:
In the situation of the woman who lost her kids, she has severe mental problems and flat-out told the judge she refused to take her medication. Her ex, who is an police officer, lost that case first time out.
Click to expand...

Do you have or have you seen a written statement from a medical expert that explicitly states she is unable to take care of her children?
 
It would be nice of a parent (male or female) had at least the option to stay at home if they wanted.

LC is dead on with the inequality in the courts, even though the law says differently. Some men are better parents, some women can make more money .. but the court generally starts with the opposite assumption.
 
bearfan said:
It would be nice of a parent (male or female) had at least the option to stay at home if they wanted.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. But the reality is that in the vast majority of cases, the mother is the one who takes care of her newborn baby and that's the way things should be. So it's only natural that three or seven years later, the mother is still the one who takes the bulk of the responsibility.
 
Ariana said:
Do you have or have you seen a written statement from a medical expert that explicitly states she is unable to take care of her children?
Click to expand...
I have no idea if one of those does or does not exist. I do know that the woman's husband requested a court-ordered medical examination and the judge dismissed that out of hand. This is after she admitted she didn't take her anti-psychotics.
 
I'd argue that the things you guys are debating exist only because of gender roles common in society that may have contributed to the parents taking on the roles they have, rather than any distinctions of being male or female.
Ideally, one's gender should have no relevance in the discussion of child custody — the welfare of the children should be the sole determining factor.
 
So, is there a difference between biological sex and social gender?
 
LC, I don't know what the judge's reasons for that were but it doesn't really matter. We are discussing an individual case that we know no details of.
I just strongly disagree with your claim that "kids end up with mom more due to ingrained sexism in the divorce courts" because if most kids stay with their mothers, this is not just because the judge happened to be a sexist moron. At least that's not the main reason in most cases.
 
mckindog said:
I'd argue that the things you guys are debating exist only because of gender roles common in society that may have contributed to the parents taking on the roles they have, rather than any distinctions of being male or female.
Click to expand...

It's not a social role, it's purely biological and physiological and it starts at birth. Not many women feel fit enough to go back to work after they give birth and sometimes need a month or two at least to recover physically from the birth. A newborn baby needs to be fed between six and 12 times a day and if it's breastfed, it will be harder for a woman to leave work and do that a few times every day for months.

But I agree that when we talk about adopted children or any other case in which the caretaker is not the biological parent this issue does not exist.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I am missing the point here (because it was about drug addicted parents?), but -if the welfare of the child is in order- I think that every person, has the right to have/adopt a child: One man, one woman, one man and a woman, two men, two women, one transgender, two transgenders, etc.

Equality for the caretakers involved.

After separation it's often the case that if mothers want their children to not see their father (or as least as possible), that they succeed in it. It's terribly difficult for fathers to not see how their children grow up, or if they can see them (way) less than their mother.
(I have nu figures but I think that the man mostly looses cases in the end)

Also it's debatable that ex-husbands should always have to finance their ex-women.
 
Forostar said:
After separation it's often the case that if mothers want their children to not see their father, that they succeed in it.
Click to expand...

Not here. A father can be banned from seeing his child altogether only if the mother manages to prove in court that he's a danger to the child. If the father is not a criminal or a violent drunk, the mother can't simply cut off all contact between him and the child.
 
Cut off is indeed not possible, but I thought she can manage to disrupt the 50/50 balance and get away with it. Well, I saw a documentary about this some years back (maybe things have improved now) and when a mother is not cooperating well (picking up early, bringing late, cancelling appointments, no communication with ex-husband), it can be very hard to amend the 'deal'. But I admit I am no expert in the rules.
 
You always have to differentiate between the official, legal situation, and how a person behaves. When one party is not cooperating according to what has been agreed upon, that's hardly the lawmaker's fault.
 
Ariana said:
It's not a social role, it's purely biological and physiological and it starts at birth. Not many women feel fit enough to go back to work after they give birth and sometimes need a month or two at least to recover physically from the birth. A newborn baby needs to be fed between six and 12 times a day and if it's breastfed, it will be harder for a woman to leave work and do that a few times every day for months.

But I agree that when we talk about adopted children or any other case in which the caretaker is not the biological parent this issue does not exist.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are saying (broad brush here, for the sake of the discussion):
a woman is biologically more suited to be a parent than a man?
or a mother is biologically more suited to be a parent to her child than the father?
Or am I missing the point?
 
Neither. All I'm saying is that a mother is needed at home during the first few months after birth and that maybe a mother needs to stay at home in that period.
 
Perun said:
You always have to differentiate between the official, legal situation, and how a person behaves. When one party is not cooperating according to what has been agreed upon, that's hardly the lawmaker's fault.
Click to expand...
It is if the lawmaker can't correct a situation. Because then the victim is mostly the father. Again, I can't back this up (atm).

Another inequality is the amount of free days a father gets compared to the mothers after childbirth. In the Netherlands it's pretty OK but in e.g. Poland a mother has a zillion times more days off from work than the father. I think she doesn't need to work for a whole year or something. Ridiculous. Also women can go with pension way earlier than men. :/
 
Forostar said:
It is if the lawmaker can't correct a situation. Because then the victim is mostly the father. Again, I can't back this up (atm).
Click to expand...

It's not the lawmaker who has to correct the situation, but the victim who has to insist on his rights that were set in legally-binding decisions. He can see a lawyer, or take the woman to court. If the woman is a bitch, it's not the lawmaker's fault. But we're poking in the dark here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top