I was ranting on and on below about the 50/50 split not being what is truly best for our school age children. (see post below for clarification if you like)
Then it dawned on me what would honestly be fair.
Children need a home and a stable environment. They are not cards to be shuffled back and forth. The problem is judges are more often then not concerned about the needs of the mother because they automatically assume she is the parent of the family. Those of us here know that is total BS.
But if we're not fighting for a 50/50 split then what would we fight for? How about a Pre-Judge.
A pre-judge hears all the arguments. "She is awful for this reason. I am great for these reasons. Jobs. Location. PTA involvement..."
After the pre-judge hears the arguments he posts them all stating
"Party B has these things going for them, and these things going against them."
"Party A has this going for them and this going against them."
A giant comparison sheet for lack of a better term. But the gender is never disclosed to the next judge. He only sees the facts. Based on the facts, without being swayed by who is the mother and who is the father, the judge makes his decision.
A few other changes would need to occur as well, but that would take care of the biggest one!
We've talked about "Parent A and Parent B" on this forum before. I think that is a great idea.
Problem is. Judge's won't do anything about it unless you Advocate for it. Advocacy works. Start a group and bang on doors with them until they change it. Seriously, it works. Been there done that with courts. And laws have changed. Maybe I will introduce that to the non profit organization I am a member of. We are all about equality. Our main concern is fixing the child support system, (fixing things that need fixed within the county as far as sending out payments on time, getting MEN AND WOMEN to pay etc.) but we also advocate for equal parental time.
I just sit back and laugh at my husbands ex. We had the kid all the time until she moved out of state. (She worked 2nd shift, partied after work and slept until it was time to work again). Now she is losing her mind because she is the only one there and she has no pawn off's. So now she tries this "he has a four day weekend on such a date so you can have him if you pay for the whole plane ticket". But of course..... only if it doesn't affect her pocket book.
Some might argue that certain races/cultures are more prone to have an overwhelming vast majority of men that are not as inclined (statistically speaking) to be the better parent.
I don't remember the statistics of crime per racial population ratio, but it seemed to indicate either a cultural difference in priorities or a racial bias in the judicial system.
So if one group clearly indicates that the men of that group are not the best parents, then it would stand to reason that the judge would rule on the side of statistics for the highest probability of keeping the best interest of the children.
The group I am part of and have made changes in laws, courts, etc. are all types of people. Men, women, black, white, etc.
That is what needs to be done to get the job done in this case to label parents as "Parent A and Parent B". All different types of people, cultures, etc. need to see this as the way to go and the way to fix the courts and their "pro women" sexist ways.
What does culture and or crime rates have to do with this? Its the point of labeling parents as "A" or "B" rather than "He or She" or "Father or Mother". That way, the Judge has no clue which parent is which and all he or she see's is who is the better person to parent the child with evidence. They can find out which parent is which once a decision of custody has been made.
Here is a point.
My sister. Yes, my own sister. If she and her husband ever went for a divorce, sure my brother in law would fight tooth and nail for custody. And I'm sure she'd (my sister) would get it. However, my brother in law has been my nephews primary care taker. He has been the one that has taken care of him, sets him off to school, does homework, takes him to his soccer games, baseball games, BMX races, finds babysitters when he needs to do something, etc. So why should my sister get full custody? She shouldn't, and its a shame for me to say it but its the truth in the matter. His primary care giver is his father. So, label the parents "Parent A and Parent B" and the decision for custody goes from there. Who do you think would get custody if this happens? Surely my brother in law. Witnesses in the court should not be determined as "the mother of the child's sister" per say, but should be "HP", relative of parent A or B whichever it may be.
I think doing that would eliminate any sexist suggestions against men or women the court may have a reputation from.
Postby Pete-last hurrah! » Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:54 pm
There already is a legally binding arrangement which guarantees parents an equal role in their child's lives, financial equality, and emotional freedom from divorce.
It is called marriage.
Unfortunately, we are here because that one didn't work.
It is hard to come up with solutions that are truly equitable AND in the child's best interest.
Someone has to lose a stake...either mom or dad has to make the hardest sacrifice ever. Usually the one's who make the biggest sacrifices ends up being the kids. There is no legal way to both absolutely ensure the child's best interests and ensure parental equality.
The bias in the system currently supports the mother's, but that is changing...far too slowly.
"What does culture and or crime rates have to do with this?"
Everything. Statistical analysis and empathy will bring this to light.
You are the judge.
Parent A: Claims they are the better parent and does xyz. Claims the other parent is a lowlife and does not do xyz.
Parent B: Claims they are the better parent and does xyz. Claims the other parent is a lowlife and does not do xyz.
Statistics indicate that the males of the race/culture (at low income/education) of "Parent A" is far FAR more likely to abuse/neglect/or otherwise not excercise < parenting time >.
Would you change your opinion? Would you want to err on the side of caution? Or would in this instance you decide that idealistic equality is more important than the probability of the childs best interests?
"An estimated 12 percent of all black males in their twenties were in jails or prisons last June 30" "There were 238 jail inmates for every 100,000 U.S. residents on June 30, 2003. Overall, one out of every 140 U.S. residents was incarcerated in prison or jail."
THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT. CORDELL & CORDELL, ST. LOUIS, MO. Attorney services are provided by licensed attorneys in every state where Cordell & Cordell offices are located. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.
Joseph Cordell, Principal Partner, licensed in MO and IL only. Michelle Ferreri licensed in PA and NJ only. Offices in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, PA. Kimberly Lewellen licensed in CA only. John Bundy licensed in KY and IN only. Jerrad Ahrens licensed in NE and IA only. Chris LaFrance, Florida Resident Partner. Tampa, FL.