Post: #1

I think I've seen this in a meme in the forum somewhere, but it's something I've been wondering about: Would forcing 50/50 custody in a case of divorce / separation help prevent girls from choosing to become single moms?

In today's society, in over 85% of cases, girls win the custody of the kids, and men are forced to become weekend daddies and pay child support. This creates a huge feeling of "I can do whatever I want, I'll get the kids and a weekly checks if he decides to leave me anyway". Girls don't feel accountable for their actions, because law and society will always be on their side.

On the other side, I believe that forcing every divorcing couple to share 50/50 custody would help solve the issue: no child support at all, and the child gets to live at both places. This would make the consequences of becoming a single mom even tougher and girls would think twice before dumping the dad, or making the dad dump them. There would be zero financial incentive for girls to become single moms.

Of course, if the dad is a deadbeat loser with a crack addiction, then this may be overturned, but you know my point. What's your opinion on that?

Post: #2

I think it has merit.

It ought to be the default unless one party can make a good case (beyond reasonable doubt type "good") that the other party should have especially limited access or no access at all.

This would push the parents to come up with a mutually agreeable arrangement including child support at reasonable levels, or the father (typically the earner) could just say "screw it, we'll split everything 50/50".

Post: #3

(02-05-2017 06:30 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I think it has merit.

It ought to be the default unless one party can make a good case (beyond reasonable doubt type "good") that the other party should have especially limited access or no access at all.

This would push the parents to come up with a mutually agreeable arrangement including child support at reasonable levels, or the father (typically the earner) could just say "screw it, we'll split everything 50/50".

50/50 time with the child and 50/50 split of the costs.

I think this road is possible as more career women get divorced they will get caught as the higher income earner in the divorce and have to pay support. They will also have money to spend on fighting those judgement and will then build precedent.

Precedent will be further build via lesbian divorces with adopted children where gender plays no role. If I were a family law practitioner, those would be the cases I'd be following.

Post: #4

Imagine how easy, fair, equitable and beneficial this would be for the children.

Everything split in half.

No courts, no lawyers, no legal bills, no injustice and misandry in the family court.

No alimony, no child support, no broken suicidal men.

It will never happen, there is too much money and power at stake.

Post: #5

(02-05-2017 08:52 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 06:30 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I think it has merit.

It ought to be the default unless one party can make a good case (beyond reasonable doubt type "good") that the other party should have especially limited access or no access at all.

This would push the parents to come up with a mutually agreeable arrangement including child support at reasonable levels, or the father (typically the earner) could just say "screw it, we'll split everything 50/50".

50/50 time with the child and 50/50 split of the costs.

I think this road is possible as more career women get divorced they will get caught as the higher income earner in the divorce and have to pay support. They will also have money to spend on fighting those judgement and will then build precedent.

Precedent will be further build via lesbian divorces with adopted children where gender plays no role. If I were a family law practitioner, those would be the cases I'd be following.

Career women rarely marry down financially speaking. So they will almost never pay the man after a divorce. Only way I see possible is if both were making a comparable income when they got married and the woman had a business that became much larger after marriage.

They also tend to manipulate the kids a lot more which leads to one sided outcomes. They get away with it because they begin doing this long before they actually file for divorce so to the kids it legitimizes her as a 'victim' while in reality she cashes out on her husband at the peak of his earning power.

Post: #6

The idea is interesting. The aspect I don't like is "forcing" a lifestyle on people, which would also mean forcing the father to keep his child in his custody 50% of his time. That's not compatible with most jobs. On the other hand, I see your point. You probably mean 50/50 should be the default solution. In this case, I agree. No child support payments unless there's any reason and a legal agreement to deviate from the 50/50 default solution. The default solution would mean no payments at all and a lot less legal fees because you don't have to argue about money.

However, the change which would help divorced men most, in my opinion, isn't abolishing "child support" (intended for the child) but abolishing payments to the ex-wife (intended for herself). Such payments should be entirely abolished, I regard them as absolutely unjustifiable. Why would you have to pay somebody just because you were once in a relationship with them? When it's over, it's over.

Post: #7

Several family members of mine brought up an interesting idea that I still recall. The idea is any children concieved will live in one house(preferably the house they were in prior) and the parents simply live in the residence during their weekly custody. The other option is both parents live in residencr. I worked with a special needs class in past and agree with the sentiment. Children are likely damaged by not knowing what house they are going to or who they will live with that day. I remember children crying because the couldn't remember what bus to take home. This idea provides a stronger sense of normalcy to children and moves stress from children to parents.

Maybe this is most beneficial to young children. Too many divorces anymore are avoidable and unacceptable. I think a costly plan like this would make many think twice. The plan would at least keep children first instead of some hamster.

Post: #8

How about we first start with banning no fault divorces. Fixing how custody is giving is only addressing the symptoms, not the underlying disease: women having no real responsibility for their actions.

Can't get divorced for frivolous reasons: you'll see the divorce rate plummet rapidly.

Post: #9

We could try this idea in some jurisdiction on an experimental basis and see how it works. But I say, go even further and completely deny custody (and, therefore, child support) to the spouse who was at fault for breaking up the marriage. E.g., if she dumped her husband for another man, she walks away with nothing (and if, as feminists would advocate, we're going to apply child support laws equally to both men and women, she should also pay child support).

When there's a car accident that's one person's fault, the two drivers don't split the repair and medical costs 50-50. Rather, the driver who was in the wrong is responsible for paying 100% of both drivers' costs. This accountability serves as a deterrent to bad driving. It not only hits bad drivers in the pocketbook, but also puts on record that they caused an accident, so that if keep up this bad behavior, insurers will know to steer clear of them. Eventually, this will force them off the roads, so that they can't continue harming others.

Similarly, when court adjudicate a woman as having been at fault for her divorce, that will mark her as a woman of bad character, whom men should get involved with at their own peril. It will also serve as a basis for taking daughters away from women who are unsuitable role models, and putting their sons in the care of a father who was the innocent spouse and therefore should still be allowed to be with his son full-time, so he can teach him how to be a man.

A contract is meaningless if you can breach it without consequences. Marriage has very little reason for existence, unless the agreement of the two parties to raise the kids together is enforceable by some sort of penalty for failing to live up to the terms of the deal.

Some fathers go to work at an office, but others are self-employers or work in the trades. Especially after youth liberation allows men in their early teens to begin working, it will be possible in many situations for sons and fathers to work side-by-side, like they did during more agricultural eras. This seems much healthier to me than having sons sit in their divorced mom's basement playing video games.