From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:49:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.000901.27701@midway.uchicago.edu>, pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?)) writes:
> i am very curious to know how all of you think child custody
> cases should be decided.  you are constantly complaining 
> about how men don't get custody frequently enough, and 
> claiming that it is because of sexual discrimination.  
> 
> what should be the factors in making this decision?  what
> are judges/mediators/lawyers not doing/doing now that should
> be changed?  

My $.02, for what it is worth:

1.  I totally believe in joint custody.  Absent abuse or other cause,
    I see absolutely no reason why there should not be joint legal
    custody and joint physical custody.  (I do not define joint legal
    custody as an exactly equal division of parenting time, but 
    substantial time with each parent.)
I believe there is no logical reason to strip 90% of all males of the
legal parental rights they enjoyed when married.  I believe many of
the problems of support non-compliance AND teenage deliquency would
be sinificantly reduced if fathers maintained a significant presence
in the life of their children.

2.  I have been involved in research and direct contact with father`s
and children`s rights organizations for 4/5 years now and I have seen
first-hand, gross bias on the part of judges.  I never want to hear
an attorney say again, that father will be a non-custodial parent
because he cannot prove his wife to be incompetent as a mother.
    In fact, I do not believe the adversarial system, inherent in court
    proceedings is the best forum for resolution of custody issues.

3.  Even most of the sexist bias by judges and lawyers, while not
    right, would be tolerable if the child support guidelines were
    not so ridiculous in many states.
I can cite specific examples in Indiana, verified by income statements
and court documents, where the treatment is totally abusive of the
father.  e.g. Father vice-president of small computer firm, grossing
around $60k left with only $4k after taxes and child support/maintenance.

4.  In my personal situation as a member of the Indiana Child Support
    Advisory Committee I have seen incredible testimony, that the system
    is sexist and does not work.  How about the father, with cancer,
    with only social security income being stripped of half of that 
    income for child support unable to afford appropriate
    medical treatment, because still owning his house he didn`t 
    qualify for medicaid (or medicare?).

    How about the re-married father, with new children, taken back to
    court for child support increase seeing his support raised from
    $480 a month to $1100 a month for two children, when the father
    is only left with $700 a month after taxes for his new 4-person
    family?  (They would qualify for food stamps, except that the
    food stamp program does not recognize child support as a deductible.)

The winner gets all approach to child custody and child support does
not work.
I know it is difficult for parents who are going through a divorce
to communicate and coorperate for the best interest of the children,
but somehow the system should force them to.
100 years ago the father got sole custody 90% of the time. That did not
work.  Now the pendulum has swung the full way in the opposite direction
and the result is just as bad.  Some how we have to change the system
so that most of the children do not lose one of their parents as a
result of divorce.

David Garrod

Thought for the day:
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women
submit to burdens unnecessarily placed upon them by their governments."
William H. Borah


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,misc.legal,alt.child-support,soc.men