Yes and without a problem with there ex
That child is the both of yours and that child deserves to grow up with the both of you just because you might not like each other doesn't mean that the child has to even be involved the child should not even know that and if you aren't adult enough to get along with each other and if you're holding the child hostage using it against somebody for your own game that's bullshit and you deserve to get penalized somehow for that I don't care what the divorce was about it's none of the kids business you do not talk bullshit you do not yell call each other names in front of that child at all ever you started out as friends you should be able to end it as friends the only reason why you can't is because somebody's butt hurt and they're afraid that somebody's going to get more than somebody else well grow up is what I say stop thinking about your petty self and think about your child a child needs to be brought up in a loving caring atmosphere at all times this world is not about you anymore or your divorce is about your child move on become friends for that child's sake because you're teaching the child who and how to be when he gets older and they go through a divorce or break up so remember that no matter what you're doing you're teaching that child something and if if that child is being taught how to argue how to hate how to call each other's names when breaking up with somebody you were both totally wrong yes you should share equal rights you should get along somebody should be child support and move on in life be happy make it work
Certainly. Depriving a man time away from his kids or limiting his time with his kids is an extremely evil thing to do.
In our modern society with current laws, I don't know what is right. Instead, I believe it should be whatever the parties decide and agree to and the courts should only enforce the agreement. The courts should not interpret the agreements. Contracts are not written in a foreign language; they don't need interpertation. Further, the courts shouldn't be allowed to toss out the agreement or limit what people can agree to using the fantasy, it is in the best interest of the children.
The parties made the children and therefore, they, not the government should own the children. Otherwise, it is slavery. Slave masters are and always have been the owners of the slaves and of their children.
Most, but not all, women would fair very well in such a system. That is because when women ask nicely and don't demand, men pretty much give them what they ask for.
No, the welfare of the child (ren) is the most important consideration.
There's many factors that play a role on who gets what. Time, location, stability, and relationship.
Opinion
37Opinion
u In my state, there is not a gender preference in custody battles. Women win more often because they are usually more willing to be a consistent parent to the children. If you don't want any of that drama, go get a vasectomy.
In most cases, the children want to live with the mother than the father. Mothers have stronger bonds with their children. Children tend to have stronger bonds with their mothers. Exceptions do exist but its not the general rule. Mothers have a nurturing personality , special connection with their kids that fathers simply do not have. Women are biologically designed to care for babies (mentally and physically) , by nature. Men are not. Men are inferior when it comes to this. This is why in so many families, its always the woman who drops her career to take care of the child. The father rarely ever drops his job to care for his child. Its because mothers have a deeper connection to their children.
Far too often to preferential treatment toward women (unconstitutional!) has been abused by communist infiltrator PsoS and by insane misandrists, perverted into a "men have no rights" MO. This has countless times led to men jailed for no reason, and children winding up with unfit mothers, and their lives ruined, just to spite their fathers.
Or, in even more sinister cases, to the courts pulling bait and switch, and not letting the mother have the children either. The children, based on inane lies and forged signatures that federal workers criminally craft due to the money involved, are wholesale kidnapped. They are then put in foster homes, where they're often turned into drug addicts or even sold on international sex ring black markets.
Restoring honor for men's rights is a way to combat this ring of corruption. And a way to weed out its enablers, who deserve not to be in positions of power, but to be rotting in fields, left for crows to eat!
Children's welfare should be the biggest priority and in my opinion, if both parents have similar lives then the children should still be with the mother. As an ex-child who loves both of her parents dearly and had an amazing father and even got on with him better than with my mum, I'd still definitely prefer to live with my mum.
That being said, men's rights should definitely be more respected as fathers. There should never be a situation where the mother can simply deny the father contact with his children, especially if she's taking any money from him. And if she does then she's toxic and shouldn't have the custody over them because she's harming them.
Men and women are biologically different and have biologically different bonds to their children. You just cannot legislate biology. Eastern civilizations have understood that long ago. The child needs it's mother more in its infant years and father more so when it's growing up. Mother and father serve the role of a nurturer and a disciplinarian respectively.
In the East what happens is that a woman has immense power over who gets to be born into this world but in order to exercise that power, sex, she demands that the man be well established in his life and they marry first with the sanction of entire society.
Yes, absolutely and wholeheartedly.
I've had two instances of divorced guys in my life with children - in both instances they share custody with the wife, in one instance it was a battle.
In both instances, the children would be 100% better with ONLY the father in their lives. The mothers are absolutely horrid, abusive shits.
Sadly, courts still favour unsuitable mothers.
That really needs to stop.
Men created this monster.
Making these claims men are breadwinners, and mothers are there to take care of the children.
Almost all the unfair biases and sterotypes about gender, race, religion even sexual orientation, has been coming back to bite ya in the ass.
Yes. Absolutely. I strongly agree that men should have a fair and equal opportunity to be the custodial parent. Support payments by the non-custodial parent should be based first on the payers ability to pay, and should not make it impossible for them to live after child support payment are made.
Simplest answer is to use birth control. Pill, condom, etc. No children or support.
In custody battles between MARRIED husband and wife should have equal rights. And in many ways they do. It's why men can take custody of their children. The courts have to, by law, decide what is best for the child.
And 90% of that comes down to the simplicity of nature & nurture.
In the animal kingdom about 5-10% of males, throughout all species, singularly take care of their offspring. Most of them don't know how. Take birds of prey for example. Male birds of prey are absolutely useless in raising young because they don't brood well & they don't understand that food has to be torn up smaller, etc. -- that's all the duties of a female.
.
So the courts look at it very simple. Which parent can actually look after the children properly? And statistically, men can not. There are successful single parents who are men but they're the abnormality not the normality.
It’s the welfare of the child or children that is paramount.
As soon as fuckwits start complaining about this type of thing, without referring to what is best for the kids and put it down to financial impact, then you can see why they should not have custody… ever.
Fucks me off when adults become selfish and forget they have kids.
The default custody in divorce cases should be 50/50. Not the only option- if one palent is unfit or unwilling, let it be argued, but the baseline should be half and half.
That'd never fly here in the States; the only country I know to have proposed it was Iscael. I remember the footage of the Feminists dancing in celebration when the bill failed; nothing like a taste of equality to show your true colors.
Yes since there are cases where its the mother who is doing something bad to the children too, this happened with one of my friends he was stuck with his mentally and eventually physically abusive mother untill he turned 18 he's now living elswhere thankfully
With how many of the outdated laws regarding relationships and/or parenthood work in the courts. Males tend to get the short end of the stick because most of those laws. We’re put in place decades ago when females had few options for employment as many ended up as full time wives/mothers.
So females are often favored in the courts by almost a 80/20 split.
Yes because of all the child beating cases , where the mother is harming the child
The idea that women are more nuturing is nonsense, the court has to stop believing that myth
Biology/nature is not fair, so men have some disadvantages when it comes to having/supporting children which should never be neglected completely. But there are some biases in the systems, making it favouring mothers to get more custody without it being better for the child, which still need to be balanced out.
should be what the court decides. I never did family law. And sorry to shit on my own gender but.. MAN THE FUCK UP - YOU HAVE A FUCKING KID - IT IS ALSO YOUR FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY YOU BRING A CHILD INTO THE DAMN WORLD. When my father was alive his saying was "the dick has no conscience".. Working in law. And seeing everything around you - you know - the dick does have a conscience because your brain tells you of the 18 years consequences
Yes! Neither the mother of the father should be granted custody for any reason other than what's best for the children, what the children want and whoever the better parent is. Some mothers are awful, some fathers are awful, custody shouldn't be automatically granted (or be easier for the mother to obtain) just because she's a woman 🤷♂️.
Most people here don't understand that the issue isn't the law, it's the bias most western court system have towards men when it comes to children.
A court will almost always favor a woman, no matter what she could have done, over a man when deciding who has custody of the kids. Men are seen as bad parents, if not abusers, and their role as parents is just to give money, not only to the kids, but to the mother too.
It shouldn't be a simple A or B, because every case is different. There is no simple 'one size fits all solution.'
There are some very good fathers out there as well as many bad ones.. same goes for mothers.
I’d say Make Abortions A mandate.
No More Humans coming into this world.
There’s enough of you running around causing trouble. Too much of you Savages running around pretending to be these innocent victims when (YOU)
Victims cause the problem you complain about.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions