Dads can win custody battles

[swamp]

I was in the a family Court attorneys waiting room today, and there was a discussion about how often dads win custody when they actually have a trial over it.

Someone actually analyzed the results for our county formthe past 10 years, and it was determined that when a custody case actually went to trial, dad is awarded custody on 62% of the cases.

By the way, the two judges who handle the vast majority of custody cases are female.

So much for the argument that the courts don't award dad custody.

[Deleted]

I think custody should be joint unless there is some very compelling reason not too.

[swamp]

Jul 13, 2012 21:49:31 GMT -5 @shooby said:

I think custody should be joint unless there is some very compelling reason not too.

In most cases it is because the parents can stop being buttheads long enough to think about what's best for the kids and work together. For thoses cases where a custody trail is required, joint just isn't going to work.

[Deleted]

The courts could make them make it work. I cant see taking a child away from one of the parents. Both parents should have equal access and equal responsibility. The Law can compel people to do things they can't seem to do on their own.

[Mardi Gras Audrey]

My understanding is that the results are very similar to what you found in your county, swamp. I saw stats a few years back that indicated that dads win custody the majority of the time that they PUSH FOR IT. I don't know if most guys just hear the stereotype and assume they will lose so they don't even try, think the mother is the better full-time parent, or just don't want to be bothered but it is very refreshing to know that they can win if they actually try.

[swamp]

Jul 13, 2012 21:54:49 GMT -5 @shooby said:

The courts could make them make it work. I cant see taking a child away from one of the parents. Both parents should have equal access and equal responsibility. The Law can compel people to do things they can't seem to do on their own.

The court can't stop an asshole from being an asshole.

In a perfect world, you're right, but themworld isn't perfect. Some people use their kids as pawns in their quest "to get" the other parent. Some parents can't separate their hatred for the other parent for their kids need for a relationship with the other parent. It's not ideal but it's reality.

[Apple]

I have worked with several guys who fought for full custody and won. However, each one paid a HUGE amount in either legal fees, or to pay the mother to walk away and never look back. So yes, dads can absolutely get custody (thinking specifically of three of the fathers, all had a girl--one had a boy as well--and all the "kids" are now in their 20s or 30s). I know a few guys who fought, but spent so much money they finally gave up.

[whoami]

Of the 2 fathers I have known to be *serious about wanting primary custody of their children, both won. The rest gave it lots of lip service but it was more about ego and money.

[Deleted]

No, people can be jerks. But, unless there is some compelling reason, i think there should be an assumption of Joint custody.

[swamp]

Jul 13, 2012 22:16:26 GMT -5 @shooby said:

No, people can be jerks. But, unless there is some compelling reason, i think there should be an assumption of Joint custody.

There is, until the parties show they can't get along, and requiring a trial is a pretty good indication they can't get along.

[thyme4change]

The courts could make them make it work. I cant see taking a child away from one of the parents. Both parents should have equal access and equal responsibility. The Law can compel people to do things they can't seem to do on their own.

That would be nice. Sometimes there is no way to do joint custody well. Like, if one parent needs to move to support themselves and the other parent cannot. Or, if the child has care needs that can't be simply transferred between two houses on a weekly basis.

Last weekend I was at a party with a lady who had just stopped practicing family law. She said it was because she was working with people who were using custody as a bargaining chip. THat sucks, but listen to the deal. Both the mother and the father offered to give full custody and child support to the other parent if they got to keep "the trophy." Apparantly they had owned a race car which had won some big race, and they both wanted to keep the prize trophy more than they wanted their kids. Divorce court is a really sad place.

[thyme4change]

Also - depending on the situation, uneven custody doesn't necessarily mean that access for one parent is "limited." It just might be in the child's best interest to live with one parent more than 50% of the time. Frankly, I see these kids that are 2 days here, 3 days there, and every other Tuesday it switches - it can be confusing to them. Going home from school every day to the same house can bring a great deal of comfort to some. Rather than standing there asking the bus monitor "Is it Tuesday or Wednesday? I don't know if I'm suppose to get on Bus 12 or Bus 4." I'm not convinced that is 100% best 100% of the time.

[Deleted]

Yes. Those are good points. But, regardless, there is a price to pay either way. And, i also think that parents should live in the same town as their children even if they have to take a lower paying job to stay in the area. Just my opinion.

[hoops902]

Jul 13, 2012 21:47:55 GMT -5 swamp said:

I was in the a family Court attorneys waiting room today, and there was a discussion about how often dads win custody when they actually have a trial over it.

Someone actually analyzed the results for our county formthe past 10 years, and it was determined that when a custody case actually went to trial, dad is awarded custody on 62% of the cases.

By the way, the two judges who handle the vast majority of custody cases are female.

So much for the argument that the courts don't award dad custody.

On cases that go to trial...I think that's an important distinction. Often child cases don't go to trial because a judge has already weighed in, basically told them how it's going to go during a hearing (hearing, not trial), and they don't bother taking it to an actual trial. All the 62% number might mean is that men are far less likely to take it through the trial process when they already have a judge telling them they're going to lose, while women might be more likely to fight just for the sake of fighting even when they know they're going to lose.

I realize this goes the opposite, but this is essentially what happened with my brother and his baby-mama. My brother was awarded primary custody at the hearing, but she was given lots of visitation (I think 6 out of every 14 days), little in the way of child support, and for most purposes they end up splitting it 50/50. The judge basically told her what rights she had, taking it to a trial, and that my brother also had those rights. The judge also told her that this was probably the best result she was going to get and that a trial was probably going to be at best what she was getting here and at worse a much worse deal. She didn't "win" custody, but she got a good deal. Taking it to trial probably would have been foolish at that point. I suspect this happens to men plenty also, they get a decent custody arrangement and don't want to risk it. That doesn't mean judges are awarding them custody even a handful of the time. It just means when it actually goes to a trial, they tend to win. Which may mean they won their hearings 90% of the time for all we know. Who wins the initial hearing is much more telling than who wins a full blown trial. (assuming the word trial is being used to actually mean trial here)

[hoops902]

Jul 13, 2012 22:16:26 GMT -5 @shooby said:

No, people can be jerks. But, unless there is some compelling reason, i think there should be an assumption of Joint custody.

Not all states have "joint custody", namely because it causes more problems than it solves.

[Deleted]

How so? My state generally has joint custody or so i understand. But, you dont solve all the problems either way. The problem is that kids love and need and have a right to both of their parents. So, yes, there are jerks and idiots and stupid people. You don't cure that regardless. And, joint custody can and does work. Nobody is saying it is easy either way.

[hoops902]

Jul 13, 2012 22:42:48 GMT -5 @shooby said:

How so? My state generally has joint custody or so i understand. But, you dont solve all the problems either way. The problem is that kids love and need and have a right to both of their parents. So, yes, there are jerks and idiots and stupid people. You don't cure that regardless. And, joint custody can and does work. Nobody is saying it is easy either way.

In "Joint custody" arrangements you don't have primary and secondary. Assuming you actually mean "joint custody" and not just "see both parents a lot". It puts parents who are often not people who get along well in situations where they are forced to make joint decisions more often. You can have a right to both parents by simply splitting visitation 50/50 or close. That doesn't necessarily have an impact on whether you dole out joint custody or make one person the primary custodian.

Custody isn't exactly the same as visitation. Obviously they usually go hand in hand, but I know several people with "primary custody" who basically have the kid an extra day a month, but who are the primary decision-makers when it comes to some major categories.

Mostly though, if I had 2 parents who couldn't work things out on their own, and thereby needed to get the court to step in, I'm not sure I'd want the court to say "it's up to both of you to figure it out as joint custodians". Seems like a big recipe for disaster to have 2 people who have proven they can't make a joint decision to make those joint decisions over a child.

[Phoenix84]

I don't understand, I thought in divorce court custody was determine separately from division of marrital assets. I can't imagine trying to give up seeing your kids to get the house or SUV or whatever.

I think joint custody should be the standard unless one parent is totally irresponsible or abusive.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Jul 13, 2012 22:42:48 GMT -5 @shooby said:

How so? My state generally has joint custody or so i understand. But, you dont solve all the problems either way. The problem is that kids love and need and have a right to both of their parents. So, yes, there are jerks and idiots and stupid people. You don't cure that regardless. And, joint custody can and does work. Nobody is saying it is easy either way.

Not in all cases - what if one parent has an alcohol or other substance abuse problem? The child should not be subjected to that environment, and situations like that call for sole-custody to one parent, with visitation (often under supervision) for the other parent. It's not as easy as handing out joint custody to both parties in all cases of divorce where children are involved.

[Deleted]

I said nothing about abuse or alcoholism or drug addiction. I SAID that joint custody would be appropriate UNLESS there is a compelling reason not to have joint custody and of course alcholism, drug abuse, etc would be one of those "compelling reasons". I am not sure how many ways i can say the same thing.

[suesinfl]

Jul 13, 2012 22:28:56 GMT -5 @shooby said:

Yes. Those are good points. But, regardless, there is a price to pay either way. And, i also think that parents should live in the same town as their children even if they have to take a lower paying job to stay in the area. Just my opinion.

I realize that that is your opinion, but really??? I have "joint" custody, but their primary residence is with me and I make decisions of their welfare. I do tell him what I am doing and he may make suggestions, but the decision is up to me.

So, according to your opinion, if he decides to move, I need to give up my job that I've had for 17 years to follow him and take a lower paying job so that the kids will live in the same town?

Or if I get an opportunity to be able to support my children by moving and obtaining a better job, I should just give that up?

By the way, I receive no CS due to his job loss 2 yrs. ago.

[Happy prose]

I think people are confusing custody with visitation rights. Custodial parent makes the decisions.

[zibazinski]

Hey, EX tried that with me and I told him to take them and I'd pay a pittance and see them whenever it was convenient for me! Just like he would! He backed down and mumbled how it's better for kids to be with their mother. HAH! Love that one.

[8 Bit WWBG]

My DW has already said if we have kids and things don't work out, she wants to be a Disney mom. Will that stand up in court?

[zibazinski]

I would have liked to be the Disney parent. . Instead I was the one who made sure homework and projects were done, teeth were brushed, vaccinations were up to date, food was on the table. You know, the boring parent.

[hoops902]

Jul 14, 2012 5:48:37 GMT -5 Happy prose said:

I think people are confusing custody with visitation rights. Custodial parent makes the decisions.

They are, people keep saying "joint custody" which means decision making is done together, and then claiming joint custody is necessary so that children have access to both parents. When in reality one does not hinge on the other. You can have sole primary custody of your child and only see them 50% of the time. It just means you get some decision making authority the other parent does not (like where they attend school, which activities they might participate in, etc).

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Jul 13, 2012 22:28:56 GMT -5 @shooby said:

Yes. Those are good points. But, regardless, there is a price to pay either way. And, i also think that parents should live in the same town as their children even if they have to take a lower paying job to stay in the area. Just my opinion.

This doesn't work in military families at all.

Why would you want to hamper benefits for the child, or throw the cost of caring for them back on the tax payer via the need for welfare?

[KaraBoo]

My DH is proof that if the father pushes for custody of his kids, he can win.

We requested from the courts 6 years ago primary custody and were awarded primary custody 5 years ago. We did not ask for 50/50 custody because that would not have worked in DH's and his ex's situation. We received custody because she moved so often with the kids that often, we'd pick them up from one location on his visitation weekend and find out less than 14 days later that they lived in a new location.

At the point we asked for primary custody, we had lived in the same home for 5 years straight and had no intention of moving. The Thursday we were in court, the (woman) judge told the ex that if she could have a stable home and job for one year, the judge would consider giving primary custody back to the ex. The ex had the nerve to ask the judge, "I'm moving this weekend, will that count against me?" I've lost count of the number of times she has moved in the last 10 years (since I've known DH) - but the number is somewhere between 16 and 20 times - that's an average around every 6 months.

We keep asking the ex to move closer to us and the kids - there are more job opportunities and more housing choices for her. Instead, she keeps moving further and further away from us. She currently lives 45 miles away and the kids are commenting about how she's considering moving again.

While I would love for the situation to be more 50/50 for the sake of the kids - it's just not going to happen in our situation if they are to have any stability in their lives.

[Deleted]

Jul 14, 2012 5:30:51 GMT -5 suesinfl said:

Jul 13, 2012 22:28:56 GMT -5 @shooby said:

Yes. Those are good points. But, regardless, there is a price to pay either way. And, i also think that parents should live in the same town as their children even if they have to take a lower paying job to stay in the area. Just my opinion.

I realize that that is your opinion, but really??? I have "joint" custody, but their primary residence is with me and I make decisions of their welfare. I do tell him what I am doing and he may make suggestions, but the decision is up to me.

So, according to your opinion, if he decides to move, I need to give up my job that I've had for 17 years to follow him and take a lower paying job so that the kids will live in the same town?

Or if I get an opportunity to be able to support my children by moving and obtaining a better job, I should just give that up?

By the way, I receive no CS due to his job loss 2 yrs. ago.

You can do whatever you want. But, i would do whatever i had to do to remain in the same town where my children live.

[zibazinski]

Bad lawyer, I would think. DFs first attorney was not competent. I told him get a woman. He finally did and she was awesome.