Did you know that if you want to change the family/custody court laws, it starts at home, and not in front of?

[parnell]

a Judge?

I caught all kinds of static because I felt it was a "turn on" to have my man help me around the house and with the children, even though I work full time...and he works full time.

We both take care of the lawn, send our vehicles to mechanics for car repair...have no construction projects open, or in the future.

If men want to start changing the family court laws, they also need to start taking care of their children and the household, because a judge isn't going to award custody to the one that is able to do a brake job, he's going to award custody to the one[s] that takes care of the children.

[dubh35]

Changing of the laws happens in state/federal congress as well as county councils.

[treasigh]

What parents forget is this is about the children, and they often become greedy, with many wanting full custody just for their own benefit.

[tim]

You seem to be unaware that most women are less attracted to the type of men willing to stay at home, and absolutely repulsed at the idea of financially supporting a man. You also seem to be unaware that few women make more than token contributions to yard work, automotive repair, and other chores traditionally performed by men.

[cuartio52]

If you and your man were to get divorce, you'd be more likely to get custody that him, even if he does exactly the same as you to support them.

Men do look after their children, but when they work more than the mother, the court will label her the 'primary care giver' because she's there for them more (even if he does more to actually care for them whilst she just sends them to daycare and watches TV) and give her custody.

There are many terrible mothers who get custody because they nominally spend more time with the children and/or lie about the father, and many good fathers who can't see their children because the mothers deny visitation (often in defiance of the court) and/or lied about them.

[albanwr26]

Changing laws starts with lobbying.

MRAs have been lobbying for over a decade to make state family law gender neutral by placing into law "presumed joint custody".

Presumed joint custody is important because children need BOTH parental figures. Presumed joint custody is important because there is no thing and no one more important to (normal) parents than their children. Presumed joint custody is important because judges do not enforce child visitation rights with nearly the vigor that judges enforce child support. Presumed joint custody is important because judges have repeatedly shown a large bias toward women.

Mainstream feminists, on the other hand, have lobbied against that. With vicious commercials and campaigns that argue that it is men that want to abuse children who fight for presumed joint custody.

But, slowly, MRAs are winning. We are now at 20 or so states that have "presumed joint custody" laws. Up from zero two decades ago.

[therron57]

Nice try, look at divorces involving stay at home dads, they actually get custody LESS than full time workers do. The divorce courts are just broken. The best part about being a stay at home father? Learning you're still liable for alimony and child support!

[jasper]

There are plenty of men in the situation you've described that still lose custody of their kids because the mother feels entitled to have full custody.
What would you tell those men? "Sorry you picked a lousy wife, tough luck."?

No, change happens in the courts. We just have to make it passed all the angry feminists who are against equal parenting rights and hope for a judge that's not a white knight.

[darvell]

I've got to agree with you. My mother worked 7am-5pm Tuesday through Friday and my dad worked swing shift 3pm - 11pm Sunday through Thursday. My dad got me and my sister off to school and my mom was there in the evenings. My dad knows how to sew, cook, bake (to some extent), braid my hair and styled it when I was little. Both of my parents were able to take full care of us if needed.

When they got divorced, custody was split 51/49 mother/father (someone had to have more custody and my mother lived in my school district) and I spent half of the week with my mother and half with my father.

[osryd]

I get what you are saying but there are a couple things I can disagree with because judges often award custody to mothers with drug/financial/emotional problems when there is a father willing and able to create a better home environment for the child.

There is no federal /state law that states the mother is default is true but we all know everything doesn't always follow the letter of the law. Does everyone pulled over for speeding get a ticket? Laws are followed and not followed depending on how important is is to the group trying to be elected. Just ask all the criminals on Wall Street and in big business getting away with crimes but because they are important to people being elected they get away with it. And in politics it is not smart to mess with women's issues, just ask Komen, and they are women.

As a single father I know there are many men who could get custody if they wanted and tried, fact is that many of those men don't want to but want to keep the right to complain about the system. But to think the system is not biased towards the mother in my opinion is incorrect. After we split the judge awarded my daughter to her mother for nothing else than she was the mother. It took years and thousands of dollars to get custody for what common sense I would have had her years before from her mothers behavior.

Sorry for the rant.