How many divorced men win custody of their children?

[andyandy]

The question stems from a debate I was having elsewhere. I've always been under the impression that here in the UK at least the family courts will favour women over men all other things being equal when it comes to joint custody. However there seems to be virtually nothing (that I could find) on the Internet with any credible statistics. So, are men actually discriminated against by the family courts? Do the family courts simply prefer to award custody to whoever isn't at full-time work ? Do lots of men simply decide not to contest custody?

I'd be interested in hearing from people about how the system in their country works, and any personal stories people want to share. For such an important issue it does seem pretty neglected in the media.

[tyr_13]

For interesting background on why this seems to happen I suggest looking at the changing attitudes about parenthood and specifically the role of the mother during what we Yanks refer to as the 'Antebellum era', the time before the American Civil War.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by andyandy

The question stems from a debate I was having elsewhere. I've always been under the impression that here in the UK at least the family courts will favour women over men all other things being equal when it comes to joint custody. However there seems to be virtually nothing (that I could find) on the Internet with any credible statistics. So, are men actually discriminated against by the family courts? Do the family courts simply prefer to award custody to whoever isn't at full-time work ? Do lots of men simply decide not to contest custody?

I'd be interested in hearing from people about how the system in their country works, and any personal stories people want to share. For such an important issue it does seem pretty neglected in the media.

Got a good bit of experience on this one.

In the US- its a combination of issues that vary from state to state.

In many states, a woman is defined by law as a "priviledged" suitor and walks in with an upper hand.

Its also political ( women's groups have a lot of power)

Its also rooted in "old" laws where women generally couldnt fend for themselves and were the "traditional" home parent.

Despite "windowdressing" techniques- the female in the US will normally get custody of pre teen minor children for those reasons.

its heavily biased toward the female well over 95% of the time deliberately and due to no fault of the male. ( females actually have to go to great lengths to screw up to lose custody where a male simply has to do nothing)

I was one of the FEW men in my state who actually won custody of a minor child and even then, it had nothing to do with me being the better parent- it was because she abandoned him/me for another man for over 6 months.

Even then- the judge made it clear that she could sue for custody after 1 year. ( she didnt but even my attorney said that if she established a household and such- plan on losing)

You wont find much in the case of those statistics and official commentary in the US because it would be a black eye for a nation that prides itself for "equal justice under law" and has a family court system that is deliberately biased toward one universal side for no more reason than their sex. They wouldnt want Lady Justice to accidentally drop her blindfold and see that- her scales might tilt.

[Dancing David]

Um, it really should depend on the merits of the basis for child care. Now I know that what in Illinois the beef is, it is the standard, 'on the weekends' division of custody. But I have known many parents who live in the same school district, so they share custody throughout the week.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

You wont find much in the case of those statistics and official commentary in the US because it would be a black eye for a nation that prides itself for "equal justice under law" and has a family court system that is deliberately biased toward one universal side for no more reason than their sex. They wouldnt want Lady Justice to accidentally drop her blindfold and see that- her scales might tilt.

Given the paucity of statistics in the UK I was given to wondering if things are kept deliberately opaque here as well because the government doesn't want to start discussing the topic. Given that Labour love statistics more than anything else in the world the lack of them does seem odd...

Is there any men's rights groups in the US? We have "Fathers for Justice" who unfortunately have been reduced to dressing up in skimpy lycra costumes and climbing up various monuments and buildings to gain publicity for their campaign for equal custody rights.

[Fiona]

In this country there are a great many factors but I think it is still true that women get care of the children more often

Among the things which are in play are:

1. Unmarried fathers do not have automatic parental rights (though this is changing)
2. Many fathers do not apply whether because they do not want custody or because they think it is pointless
3. In many cases the woman has been the primary carer while the couple were together: she has either been at home for some part of the child's early life or she has worked part time or she has been the one to take time off when the kids were sick etc


I have no doubt that traditional views of gender roles also play a part but not in a simple way because those factors I have listed both reflect those views and support them

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by andyandy

Given the paucity of statistics in the UK I was given to wondering if things are kept deliberately opaque here as well because the government doesn't want to start discussing the topic. Given that Labour love statistics more than anything else in the world the lack of them does seem odd...

Is there any men's rights groups in the US? We have "Fathers for Justice" who unfortunately have been reduced to dressing up in skimpy lycra costumes and climbing up various monuments and buildings to gain publicity for their campaign for equal custody rights.

I joined one back then. ( I admit I thought it was different until it was "me")

Those groups have made some accomplishments as its a bit more "heard of" now and the more northern states seem to be a bit more balanced but in the Southern US- its so deliberately tipped that its not even funny.

For the most part, those groups are politically impotent.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by Fiona

1. Unmarried fathers do not have automatic parental rights (though this is changing)

Unmarried fathers have almost no rights at all in regards to their children, but they do have obligations. In some states, they do have the right to apply for custody if the mother wants to put the child up for adoption, but they are not proactively informed that a child of theirs is being put up for adoption, they generally have a very small time period in which to state their desire for custody (typically 20 days to a couple of months), and they don't automatically get custody.

Unmarried fathers have even fewer rights when the mother is declared unfit.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4156

Quote:

I've written before about the frank unwillingness of child protective agencies to contact fathers before placing children in foster care.

In 2006, the Urban Institute along with the National Opinion Research Center did a study here of CPS agencies for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It found that in 88% of cases in which a child is removed from the home of a single mother, the identity of the father is known to CPS personnel. But fathers are actually contacted in only about half of those cases, and half of the fathers contacted express a desire to care for their children.

Despite those facts, the preference on the part of CPS workers for foster care over father care is evident. The reason is money. State agencies receive per diem payments for each child placed in foster care. They receive nothing for children placed with fathers.

So this article should come as no surprise (The Pittsburgh Channel, 8/27/09). Recently, motorists in western Pennsylvania were startled to see four boys, aged 9, 7, 5 and 3 hitchhiking toward Pittsburgh, about 40 miles away. Police were called and the boys told them that they had climbed the fence surrounding their foster home to escape the abuse and neglect there. Their intention was to hitch rides to Pittsburgh to be with their father.

When the police picked them up, the boys were dehydrated and hungry. The three-year-old bore marks on his back that appeared to be caused by the use of an object. Police attempted to contact the CPS agency and the boys' foster parents, two sisters named Sharon and Shirley Baker. It took six hours for anyone to respond.

Guess what happened then. As the article says,

The boys -- as well as their 1-year-old sister, whom they had to leave behind when they decided to hitchhike -- have all been removed from the Bakers' custody and placed in new foster homes.

That's right, the children have a father. They, at least, think well enough of him to head straight for him once they'd gotten away from the Baker sisters. So what's the response of CPS? Foster care.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4108

Quote:

When a mother and father are divorced or separated, and a child welfare agency removes the children from the mother’s home for abuse or neglect, an offer of placement to the father, barring unfitness, should be automatic. Yet in the report What About the Dads?, the Urban Institute presents a shocking finding: when fathers inform child welfare officials that they would like their children to live with them, the agencies seek to place the children with their fathers only 15% of the time.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=916

Quote:

Smith was born to an unwed couple in 1988. Her father, Thomas Marion Smith, a former Marine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, saw Melinda often and paid child support. When the girl was four, her mother abruptly moved without leaving a forwarding address. Two years later, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services found that Melinda’s mother was abusing her. Though the social worker for the case noted in the file that Thomas was the father, he was never contacted, and his then 6-year-old daughter was placed in the foster care system.

Thomas--whose fitness as a father was never impugned nor legally questioned--continued to receive and pay his child support bills. Authorities refused to disclose his daughter’s whereabouts, and didn’t even inform him that his daughter had been taken by the County. Smith employed private investigators and attorneys to try to find Melinda and secure visitation rights, but he eventually ran out of money.

Rather than allowing Smith to raise his own daughter, the system shuttled Melinda through seven different foster care placements. An understandably angry child, her outbursts led authorities to house her in a residential treatment center alongside older children convicted of criminal activity—when she was only seven years old.

Melinda says that during this period she was told that her father was a “deadbeat dad” who had abandoned her. When Melinda was 16, she told an investigating social worker that the “most important thing” for her was to find her dad. Moved by her story, the social worker began searching for Melinda’s father--and found him in one day. In 2005, Thomas and Melinda were finally reunited.

As far as UK statistics, the only statistic I've seen is from a hyperbolic article in the Times. The article breathlessly proclaims that family courts are a "raw deal for mums", but if you read the article you'll see where the article admits that in 95% of cases, mothers have primary custody, with dads getting the remaining 5%. How that is a "raw deal" for UK mums, I don't know.

[MikeMangum]

In the US as a whole, 84% of mothers win primary custody. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf

For some interesting breakdowns of who gets custody under what conditions (applies only to my state of Washington) check out http://www.courts.wa.gov/wsccr/docs/...maryReport.pdf

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

In many states, a woman is defined by law as a "priviledged" suitor and walks in with an upper hand.

Hell, you managed to surprise me with that Texas law in the other thread. I dare you to surprise me again.

I won't be surprised however if the issue arises from paternity concerns.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by andyandy

The question stems from a debate I was having elsewhere. I've always been under the impression that here in the UK at least the family courts will favour women over men all other things being equal when it comes to joint custody. However there seems to be virtually nothing (that I could find) on the Internet with any credible statistics. So, are men actually discriminated against by the family courts? Do the family courts simply prefer to award custody to whoever isn't at full-time work ? Do lots of men simply decide not to contest custody?

I'd be interested in hearing from people about how the system in their country works, and any personal stories people want to share. For such an important issue it does seem pretty neglected in the media.

I have custody of my three girls. I didn't have to fight very hard at all as she left and moved out of state for several months and then moved back in state to live with her new boyfriend. She didn't really put up much of a argument and judge took all of ten minutes to give me custody. I get child support as well.

[Duncanthrax]

Legally, in all U.S. states, there is supposed to be no discrimination based upon the sex of the parent. The standard for custody is the "best interests of the child." That really is no standard at all, it's just what the judge thinks is best, and there often is bias towards the mother.

However, there is case law, and sometimes statutes, defining "best interests of the child" as favoring the "primary caretaker" of the child. I don't like that at all, as it reminds me of the old Jim Crow laws discriminating against blacks while never specifically mentioning race. The "primary caretaker" is defined as the person who spends more time doing things that mothers stereotypically do, sometimes matters not involving time with the child at all, such as cooking and cleaning.

If the "primary caretaker" standard was consistently applied, it would mean that in many wealthy families the nanny would receive custody. Of course, that's not the case, and it illustrates the extreme flaws in that standard.

Personally, I favor equal joint physical custody with each parent absent circumstances which would make that extremely impractical or harmful to the child.

[Kariboo]

Having done my share of divorce mediation and counseling in 2 countries:

In general courts will grant whatever custody agreement that parents agree on. This is important because all the other cases are disputed and the court would have to make a decision. Those are the ones you hear about. Most people are able to agree on their arrangements and just have a court sign of on it. So disputed custody is a minority of cases.

There is a difference between shared legal custody and shared physical custody. The former means that both parents have an equal say in important decisions about the children (medical, schooling, religious etc). The latter means that the child lives roughly equal time with both parents.

It is difficult not to be awarded shared legal custody since it would have to be proven that one parent is unfit (i.e they are severely mentally ill, they can not be found etc) to make those decisions. Not being able to get along is not a reason to be awarded sole custody. If sole legal custody is awarded to one parent there is usually no or very limited visitation with the child.

Now shared physical custody. In my experience this is often awarded to the mother. Several reasons. In a large number of cases that I have seen the father does not want sole physical or shared physical custody. They do want a fair amount of time with the child averaging to about 2 days a week. So in these cases it gets awarded to the mother with consent by the parties. (even though they do have shared legal custody).


Then there are those cases where physical custody is disputed and it can get pretty ugly. In my opinion the courts at the moment favor shared physical custody however that only is in the best interest of the child if parents can make that work. If a child is shuttled between 2 parents who are not able to keep their divorce issues (and often quite deep hate and resentment) between themselves and fight over every meal, playmate, clothes choice, use the child as a postoffice for messages, keep telling the child that mommy/daddy sucks etc. It is obviously not a viable choice. Also more often than not courts would like to see a feasible plan concerning schooling (parents will have to live in the same district, housing etc) in order to award shared physical custody. So parents have to show that they are able to figure out a way to have the child live between the two of them and a lot of people are not able to do so since they are too entrenched in their fights.

If this is the case and parents are not able to figure out a way to share custody. Often the court would then favor the primary caregiver to be the primary home for the child. Since mothers are still the majority the primary caregiver this is the way it is often decided. In those cases that the father has been the primary caregiver that I have seen custody goes to the father.

Now my experience has primarily been with couples who are fighting (otherwise they wouldn't see me). So this is a biased view on that group. While I agree that in principle it is in the best interest of the child to spend equal time with both parents, in reality it often doesn't work out so great. Children often have the feeling of having no home instead of two homes, it is very difficult to consistently raise a child living in two homes (different rules etc) and it can be a very confusing and uncertain situation for a child. Some children adapt well to this but a sizable group does not. For those children shared physical custody should not be done however uncomfortable that is for the parents.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Hell, you managed to surprise me with that Texas law in the other thread. I dare you to surprise me again.
I won't be surprised however if the issue arises from paternity concerns.

That wont be difficult to do, all I basically have to do is post.

In the case I'm referring to- those laws predate the existance of the technology of paternity testing

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Fiona

2. Many fathers do not apply whether because they do not want custody or because they think it is pointless

Or, as happened in a case I know about, they come to the conclusion that the chances of winning are slim to none, but the chances of pissing off the ex and making visitation negotiations harder are fairly good. It's probably not the kind of fight where you want to go in just to try your luck.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by timhau

Or, as happened in a case I know about, they come to the conclusion that the chances of winning are slim to none, but the chances of pissing off the ex and making visitation negotiations harder are fairly good. It's probably not the kind of fight where you want to go in just to try your luck.

Well thinking it is pointless is usually due to a perception that the chances of being awarded physical custody are slim, as you say.

I have little to add to Kariboo's post though: my experience is very much the same as his or hers. As that post says, most people work it out as best suits the child and the parents. In those cases the court generally endorses the arrangements. Problems arise when the parents cannot agree and in those cases it is messy and difficult. Best interests of the child is the principle: what that means in practice is immensely difficult.

One of the things which is missing from this discussion is the wishes of the child. In this country they must be consulted once they are of an age to take a view (usually 12 but it can be younger): their wishes can be overridden but they have to be considered.That is extremely difficult with all the problems of torn loyalties; but it is also hard because children's priorities are different from those of adults.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by andyandy

The question stems from a debate I was having elsewhere. I've always been under the impression that here in the UK at least the family courts will favour women over men all other things being equal when it comes to joint custody. However there seems to be virtually nothing (that I could find) on the Internet with any credible statistics. So, are men actually discriminated against by the family courts? Do the family courts simply prefer to award custody to whoever isn't at full-time work ? Do lots of men simply decide not to contest custody?

I'd be interested in hearing from people about how the system in their country works, and any personal stories people want to share. For such an important issue it does seem pretty neglected in the media.

In my experience as a Physician, and doing a fair bit of family and marriage counselling, I would tell you that VERY RARELY are all things equal.

The mother almost always spends more time with the children. She spends more time teaching them, feeding them, getting them dressed, generally...raising them. The father, to varying degrees, is involved, but RARELY to the degree the mother is.

I am sure (or at least I hope) that this is the main reason behind courts decisions to grant in most cases, custody to the mother, or joint custody at worst.

TAM (I am not a woman by the way)

[Rika]

I know WA is hell on fathers, from what I've heard, but my sources are rather biased (two fathers paying child support, and I think only one has partial custody)

[Kariboo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiona

his or hers.

I'm a her

Quote:

One of the things which is missing from this discussion is the wishes of the child. In this country they must be consulted once they are of an age to take a view (usually 12 but it can be younger): their wishes can be overridden but they have to be considered.That is extremely difficult with all the problems of torn loyalties; but it is also hard because children's priorities are different from those of adults.

I agree, and it is a tough call to decide how much a child is involved in the decision making. A child over 12 will generally be heard by a judge. In my experience I would only talk to a child if I felt it would add something to the parental discussion. I would never ask a child to choose where he or she wants to live or if they like one parent over the other. I would talk with them if it were unclear to me what sort of personality a child has so I can take that in consideration with the parents. What do they like, dislike. School, friends. What is important in their life etc. I never want to knowingly put a child in a situation where they feel torn or the decision maker. I hate it when parents let their child make a decision that they themselves are unable to do.

[Fiona]

That is all true Kariboo: but it is a legal requirement here that the child be heard unless they do not wish to express a view

[andyandy]

Many thanks to the contributers, some very interesting posts. I suppose you are always going to have to some arbitrary inequality built into the decision-making process in cases where the parents both want physical custody and are unable to share for whatever reason. When awards for joint physical custody are granted do both parties have to agree not to move beyond a certain distance from each other? That would seem to be quite a millstone.

Children, eh? who'd have them?

[Fiona]

No they don't andyandy: that is a whole other minefield, if custody is shared. But there is no provison to make conditions on where adults live, so far as I am aware: though if one parent gets custody they do have to notify if they move out of Scotland: not sure if that applies elsewhere

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by andyandy

Children, eh? who'd have them?

I would.

[Kariboo]

Originally Posted by Fiona

That is all true Kariboo: but it is a legal requirement here that the child be heard unless they do not wish to express a view

Ok, didn't know that, still there are better and worse ways of asking questions in that situation

Originally Posted by andyandy

When awards for joint physical custody are granted do both parties have to agree not to move beyond a certain distance from each other? That would seem to be quite a millstone.

Often but not always. Depending on the needs of the child. If a child goes to school both parents would have to be in the same schooldistrict I believe. In any case it should be possible for the child to attend school every day without hardship (like a 3 hour commute) Also it is preferable that they can stay generally in the same social situation (i.e playmates , contact with family etc). Keep the same doctors. None of this is set in stone but it helps to support a petition for shared physical custody.

Although I have worked out situations where that is not the case (children that are infants, children that can easily travel on their own, there are ways to have shared custody even if you are in different states or on one situation different continents.) Usually parents would have to step away form the one week with you and one week with me (or aarrgh: 1 day with me one day with you, imagine keeping track of that) division. They come up with something like schoolyear with you, extended vacations ( 1 month Xmas, 3 months summer) with me, not exactly 50-50 but a good chunk.

In my opinion, if shared custody for your child is what you want you will just have to work hard for them to make that work and not let them bear a lot of negative consequences that are not necessary.

ETA seems like Scotland has some different provisons

[CynicalSkeptic]

Originally Posted by andyandy

When awards for joint physical custody are granted do both parties have to agree not to move beyond a certain distance from each other?

Probably depends on jurisdiction, but in my case no. She can pretty much move whenever/wherever she wants, and visitation varies depedning on how far apart we are.
Roughly:
- As long as we're within 100 miles of each other, transportation is up to me.
- If she moves more than 100, but less than 300(?) miles away, she has to pay transportation, but the visitation schedule is unchanged.
- If she moves more than 300 miles away, visitation is completely different, instead of weekends, I get extended summers or something (and she has to pay).

[ferftunk]

I cannot speak to the "divorced father" but as an unmarried father, i just went through the process and was just awarded full legal and physical custody of my now 13 month old son.

I was living in Utah at the time and from everyone i talked to there, i was told that Utah was a Mommy State. That is, mothers got custody the majority of the time. There were at least 3 men where i worked that attempted getting custody of their kids in utah, but none of them ened up getting custody.

my situation im sure is different than most and for that reason, i had absolutely no problem getting full custody, without even having to step foot in court. i'm sure i could have also gotten her to pay child support, but as my lawyer told me, that would mean i'd have to stay in contact with her. so, for that reason, i didn't even bother with that.

My sons mother is an addict, was/is in trouble with the law, had/has outstanding warrants in both Utah and Montana, she didnt bother fighting the custody and right before the judge finally ruled, she took off back to montana (abandonment). Tho, the lawyer never had to bring up the abandonment issue with the judge.

She did almost nothing to help support my son, even when we were all living together. I was working full time and the only time she spent with him was when i was at work. other than that, she was never around. I was the one paying all the bills, buying all the food, buying all the baby supplies, paying for daycare, etc.

Even with all of this, it still took my almost 6 months to get custody legally. In my opinion, the only reason it took as long as it did was that Mommy State thing. It almost seems like the judge just did not want to give in to a father getting custody. I am thankful that it was much easier than what i hear most people have to go through and i've also heard that things are slowly changing as far as men getting a more level playing field of late.

-Ferftunk

[BenBurch]

Here in Illinois, joint custody is very common.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by ferftunk

I cannot speak to the "divorced father" but as an unmarried father, i just went through the process and was just awarded full legal and physical custody of my now 13 month old son.

I was living in Utah at the time and from everyone i talked to there, i was told that Utah was a Mommy State. That is, mothers got custody the majority of the time. There were at least 3 men where i worked that attempted getting custody of their kids in utah, but none of them ened up getting custody.

my situation im sure is different than most and for that reason, i had absolutely no problem getting full custody, without even having to step foot in court. i'm sure i could have also gotten her to pay child support, but as my lawyer told me, that would mean i'd have to stay in contact with her. so, for that reason, i didn't even bother with that.

My sons mother is an addict, was/is in trouble with the law, had/has outstanding warrants in both Utah and Montana, she didnt bother fighting the custody and right before the judge finally ruled, she took off back to montana (abandonment). Tho, the lawyer never had to bring up the abandonment issue with the judge.

She did almost nothing to help support my son, even when we were all living together. I was working full time and the only time she spent with him was when i was at work. other than that, she was never around. I was the one paying all the bills, buying all the food, buying all the baby supplies, paying for daycare, etc.

Even with all of this, it still took my almost 6 months to get custody legally. In my opinion, the only reason it took as long as it did was that Mommy State thing. It almost seems like the judge just did not want to give in to a father getting custody. I am thankful that it was much easier than what i hear most people have to go through and i've also heard that things are slowly changing as far as men getting a more level playing field of late.

-Ferftunk

Welcome and best of luck to you. You're not alone.