From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,misc.legal,alt.child-support,soc.women
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:09:53 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Sorry if you saw this on soc.men, but I thought it should be
cross-posted to other groups.
In article <1993Jan27.160404.25887@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
> In article <1993Jan27.074741.28201@actcnews.res.utc.com>, Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com (Bob Clarke) writes:
> > > >Deletions...
> > > >
> .....
> > 
> > One comment though, the disscusion seems to centering on gender basis,
> > however I have been told that the court considers itself to be the adovcate
> > for the child, and will do what is best for the child, or at least what it
> > believes to be the best.  Both parents maybe capable of raising the child,
> > but which one is best?  Being capable may not be enough.  We maybe faced
> > with a more subtle distinction here then simple gender basis.
> > 
> > It was my post that started this thread, "Child Custody to Father?" about a
> > week ago.  I must admit I am pleased with the quality of the thread, and I
> > will look for the book you referenced, I am going to need hard/published
> > facts.
> > 
> 
>      I agree that one may not be able to prove sexist bias just by
> looking at sole custody numbers.  But how do you explain the
> following:
> 
> i.   When men get sole custody, a support order is made against the
>      mother only 48% of the time.  (Compared with 99.4% when mothers
>      have sole custody.)  Given that the minimum order is $25, unless
>      a deviation from guidelines is made.
> 
> ii.  The incidence of joint legal custody is extremely low, when an
>      order of joint legal custody would in my opinion best preserve
>      parental rights "more precious than property rights".
>                        Thus sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> iii. Men are commonly sent to jail for support non-payment, regardless
>      of whether they have the ability to pay.  However, notwithstanding
>      the fact it is class B misdemeanor, there have only been two
>      prosecutions ever in Indiana for visitation denial and no
>      women has ever been sent to jail.  In fact, in the first
>      prosecution, the sexist  (expletive deleted) of a judge dismissed
>      the case on the grounds that the father had adequate civil remedies!
>      Further civil remedies, contempt of court, etc do not work,
>      because of the sexist bias.  The most egregious example I can
>      recall with multiple returns to court, about 12 if my memory is
>      correct, and even though eventually the judge sentenced the
>      woman (we are talking after 4 years of repeated violations
>      and hearings...$20K cost to the father) to 14 days in jail,
>      he then suspended the sentence.  AND then stuck the father
>      with the mother`s attorney fees!
> 
> 
> It seems to me, given the different treatment above, there is no
> other explanation than blatant sexism, but I would appreciate it
> if anyone could point out any flaws in my conclusions.
> 
> David Garrod
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3544 soc.men:23393 soc.women:23145 misc.legal:23445