Check out this piece from the NYT Motherlode blog on the growing number of dads getting primary custody, and the article it references, “Custody Lost”, in Working Mother magazine.
I (Deesha) am penning my reaction to these articles as one of the debut posts in my new capacity the co-parenting columnist for TheFasterTimes.com, coming soon…
In the meantime, here’s an excerpt from the Motherlode blog, which in turn excerpts from the Working Mother article:
The “tender-years doctrine,” a court presumption that mothers are the more suitable parents for children under 7, was abolished in most states in 1994. And, in large part because of the recession, women are poised to outnumber men in the work force for the first time in American history. Job layoffs affecting more men than women have yielded a burgeoning crop of Mr. Moms.
“Men are now able to argue that they spend more time with the kids than their working wives do,” says the veteran New York City divorce attorney Raoul Felder. “This is one of the dark sides of women’s accomplishments in the workplace — they’re getting a raw deal in custody cases, while men are being viewed more favorably.”
Or is it a raw deal? Is it not, in effect, the same presumption — the parent who works harder, parents less — that men have faced for years? You could make that argument, Abrahms says. You could also argue that working women are held to a higher parenting standard than working men, paying a price for not conforming to the cultural expectation that mothers be more hands-on than fathers.
Lisa Belkin, the Motherlode blogger, closes with two questions that I now pose to you: “If a mother works more, and a father less, is that a logical reason for the children to live with him? Have you felt the swing of this pendulum in your own life?”
While we believe that joint custody should be granted except in situations where such an arrangement is detrimental to the kids (e.g., high-conflict parents who can’t even agree on the weather; physical and/or emotional abuse or neglect; substance abuse), we’d like to hear your opinions on this issue.
You may also be interested in reading this HuffPo article on women paying alimony: “What’s Good for the Goose.”
Well, this is nothing new, it is just brought to light more now that more people are out of work. Courts have ALWAYS favored kid-centric parents that have more free time to be at HOME. Period. Until about 10 years ago this was usually always the moms. Now that more men or working at home, unemployed or utilizing a home office, the pendulum is swinging the other way. Nothing has changed–courts still feel stay at home parents are always better than working ones.
It was unfair then, and it is unfair today. The only difference now, is more working women are feeling the sting of long standing mindset.
Fred, I was just about to Tweet you. I totally agree with your take on this. I’ll send you a link when my Faster Times column is up and running.
Oh, and unless you have any objections, I’d like to quote you.
The basic tone of the article still demonstrates the anti-father bias that exists in society, even today. The mother is portrayed as the victim no matter which side of the equation that they land.
If fathers have primary custody, it’s the “dark side” of women’s success in the working world.
Says who? Why is that a “dark side?” It’s rolled out that way because despite all of the commentary about the “best interests of the children,” they’re not who is considered in these equations. Moms are, first and almost exclusively.
Raoul Felder says “…they’re getting a raw deal in custody cases.”
They are? If that is the case, what kind of deal have fathers been getting when you consider that mothers have primary or sole custody in better than 75% of all custody arrangements?
I would cherry-pick more specific items from the post above, but I need not as my perception is that you have the same general opinion on the topic.
There is no argument that can be made on behalf of mothers in the situations described that cannot be equally applied to fathers.
For the record, I am also a shared-parenting advocate for the very same reasons which close out your post. Children need both parents.
And Fred, who I respect as a parent and “Full Custody Dad” – I have to disagree that the courts always believe a stay-at-home-parent is better than the working one. I see it every day and the reality is that the courts still believe that the parent that makes the lesser income is the “better parent” because higher child support orders can be put in place – and that benefits the states rather significantly.
I still deal with far too many ready, willing, able, loving fathers who can’t make any headway beyond the customary every-other-weekend parenting period and an every other week “dinner visit” – no matter whether mom works or stays at home.
Michael
(Mr. Custody Coach)
Michael,
Thanks so much for your comment and for all you do on behalf of kids. I took issue with that “dark side” statement, as well as the writer’s use of “Mr. Mom”.
I see it every day and the reality is that the courts still believe that the parent that makes the lesser income is the “better parent” because higher child support orders can be put in place – and that benefits the states rather significantly.
Just to clarify for those who may not be familiar with the process, and to make sure I understand myself: Is this the case (that states benefit) only if the child support payments are made through the courts, because the courts charge a fee to transfer the payment from one parent to the other? I’m thinking of cases where support is mandated, but paid from one parent directly to the other. States don’t benefit in these cases, correct? The recipient parent has the option of coming back and getting an order to have support paid through the courts, however, if the other parent defaults.
I’d like to quote you as well, if I may, and I want to make sure I understand your point.
Best,
~Deesha
Oh, no, it’s much much bigger than that, Deesha. States get kickbacks from the Federal Government (matching dollars) for collections of child support through the state system as well as child support enforcement.
So the benefits of high child support orders are two-fold:
1 – Get them as high as possible to start with.
2 – If people (usually men) fall behind, there are added incentives for enforcement activities.
This is all detailed rather confusingly at the Social Security Administration via Title IV-d entitlements to the states.
Read more here:
http://www.mrcustodycoach.com/blog/shared-parenting-vs-child-support
Michael, thanks for being such a good resource. This is definitely an issue about which I need to further educate myself.
Best,
~Deesha
Doesnt matter…I have had legal custody of my 6 yr old boy for awhile now. It has nothing to do with the economy. I believe that women in america are losing custody or relinquishing their rights for the growing cultural norm that american women want to be more independent (the problem is that you cant be independent and held at the same time). I know three fathers who have legal custody; simply b/c of the mom handing over rights. BTW, I work and go to school…nothing to do with the economy..this is stemming from a american society/cultural problem….