Japanese Divorce Laws Leave Fathers Fighting to See Kids

[WriteDown]

Source: AP

TOKYO — On Christmas Eve two years ago, Masahiro Yoshida returned to his home to find it empty. His wife had fled with their 2-year-old daughter, seeking a divorce.

Since then, he's rarely seen his child because Japanese law grants custody to only one parent — almost always the mother. His wife has refused to allow him regular visits, accusing him of emotional swings and past verbal and sometimes physical abuse.

Yoshida, a 58-year-old musician, is among a small but growing number of divorced or separated fathers who have turned to the courts to get custody, or at least gain a right to see their children. More broadly, many are demanding a change in Japanese law to allow joint custody, as is the case in most developed countries.

"I think about my daughter all the time. I can't believe the courts allow this," said Yoshida, who admits hitting his wife twice but otherwise denies her claims. "This is a country that allows kidnapping."

The law was thrown into the international spotlight last week when an American was arrested for allegedly snatching his children from his Japanese ex-wife as they walked to school in southern Japan. Christopher Savoie, a 38-year-old Tennessee man, remains in custody in the city of Fukuoka while prosecutors decide whether to press charges....

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562400,00.html?test=latestnews

---

Not unlike the US.

[Recursion]

1. The thing is, I can't count the number of controlling, manipulative, divorced men I know...

...who keep harping on the fact that "their" kids are kept away from them. In most of those cases I say (to myself) that it looks like it's just as well.

Now, yes, in the US there are some evidentiary problems, and the first person to make an accusation is usually the one to make it stick. But, at the risk of sounding callous, guys who want contact with their kids shouldn't engage in emotionally and physically abusive behavior.

[WriteDown]

2. As a friend of mine once said....

a woman can show up at the courthouse with a syringe hanging out of her arm and she's still going to get the kids.

[Demeter]

3. If the Men could mangage to stay married this wouldn't be a problem

But treating a woman like one's beloved for any length of time seems to be beyond them. And then the disillusioned mother is supposed to trust the child to this kind of heartless monster?

[AngryAmish]

4. words fail

[keroro gunsou]

5. devil's advocate here:

what if the love of your life turns into a shrieking harpy, hell bent on sucking the life out of you? it's not unprecidented... sometimes you just don't know who you are marrying and if they have their own agenda or not... or are just plain nuts.

[Recursion]

7. It's about the kids, not the adults

As sad as it is, a lot of kids are better off not having to deal with their parents' issues, even if it means they only get to see one of them, and even if that one is at fault from the point of view of the adults' issues.

[WriteDown]

10. So why does "only one of them"....

automatically mean the mother?

[Recursion]

13. It doesn't

But like I said, too many men that I know won't stop complaining about this, and just don't see that they are in fact bad for their kids.

[WriteDown]

14. But the women are good?

:shrug:

[Recursion]

16. Part of this imbalance is that I don't know any women who have lost custody fights

I never said I agree with the deference courts give to mothers (note: I'm also not saying I necessarily disagree with it), but every case I've come in contact with, it's always been a father shut out of the kids' lives, and in my judgment it's always been the right decision.

[closeupready]

26. Is your experience authoritative?

Or is it just merely your opinion as just someone posting here?

[Recursion]

28. Why do you keep asking that?

What part of "anonymous poster on an internet forum" makes you think "speaking authoritatively"?

[closeupready]

34. You have implied several times that you "can't count" the number of men

who have been involved in custody cases, and almost none of them deserved custody.

Unless you live in a divorce-prone area or else you serve in some capacity in a family law environment, I'm not sure why the number of men you've known in this situation is relevant here.

Obviously, you should feel welcome to offer your own opinions and anecdotes - the more the merrier, I say.

But I don't feel your experience is based upon a more representative sample of men in custody cases than me or anyone else here.

[Recursion]

45. OK, I could literally count them, but it would take more than all my fingers

[WriteDown]

29. Its almost impossible for a woman to lose a custody battle...

and that is the problem. There are plenty of women out there that are the worse half of the relationship, but most courts do not take that into account. I'll give you an example. I had a buddy of mine who had a one night stand and the woman became pregnant. He did not hear about this until 6 months later and barely knew the girl. She was being obstinate about visitation so he decided to fight for custody. He was a young professional making well over 6 figures a year who owned his own home and was now with a fiancee. She was an unemployed 20 something who was living with her parents in their garage and had zero prospects or ambition. Courts ruled in her favor and he gets to see his son for 2 weekends a month, but at least he gets to keep paying that hefty child support bill.

[Recursion]

44. Read what I'm saying

There are plenty of women out there that are the worse half of the relationship

Agreed 100%. But children are still better off with the worse partner than bouncing between two fighting partners.

[WriteDown]

46. I disagree....

Having an abusive parent or neglectful parent is not better than a custody battle.

[Kalyke]

56. So being poor makes her a bad mother?

Maybe she was just a better caregiver than he was.

Geesch.

[WriteDown]

57. Having no job and nothing on the horizon makes her worse...

How would you judge custody for a newborn if all other things be equal? Wouldn't stability and the ability to earn a living come into play?

[WriteDown]

58. delete, dupe

How would you judge custody for a newborn if all other things be equal? Wouldn't stability and the ability to earn a living come into play?

[closeupready]

12. And this claim is substantiated by research, personal experience, what?

n/t

[Demeter]

17. If a Man's Life Doesn't Include His Wife and Marriage

he doesn't deserve to be married, has no skills at it, and won't be for very long.

If a man don't know who he married, he is not equipped to be in a relationship. If he lied and misrepresented himself to the woman to get her consent, then he is despicable.

Children are the acid test. It's unfortunate for the children, but there it is. If the couple cannot keep it together under the stress of parenthood, they have no future together. And it's the one who has the option of walking away who does. Who is left holding the diaper bag? Which one makes the better parent?

[WriteDown]

21. Let's rephrase that.....

If a Woman's Life Doesn't Include Her Husband and Marriage she doesn't deserve to be married, has no skills at it, and won't be for very long.

If a woman doesn't know who she married, she is not equipped to be in a relationship. If hse lied and misrepresented herself to the man to get his consent, then she is despicable.

Children are the acid test. It's unfortunate for the children, but there it is. If the couple cannot keep it together under the stress of parenthood, they have no future together. And it's the one who has the option of walking away who does. Who is left holding the diaper bag? Which one makes the better parent?

[Demeter]

23. Absolutely True, Either Way

No, who walked--or to look at it the other way--who ran for safety or self and child?

[booley]

40. ok but...

Why would such a man care about seeing his kids at all then?

And if women can be fooled, why can't men?

Don't woman also have some responsibility? Aren't women just as capable of doing bad things as men?

How is this relevant here?

Your post seems loaded with simplistic stereotypes.

[Demeter]

42. Actions Speak Louder Than Words

When a man is willing to risk prison to kidnap his kids or go into hiding to avoid paying child support, AFTER abandoning the family and moving clear across the country, then it's NOT any concern about the children, but about the $Benjamin$.

And that's what it's all about, boys and girls. Who pays the bills for food and rent and childcare, hospitals, lost jobs due to excessive absence, etc., etc.? Who goes down to the courts and the bureaus, pleading for financial aid for the children? Who is making do, so the children have what they need?

A clearer case could be made for a father's concern if he were contributing to the success of the family, not tearing it apart with lawsuits and family crimes, abandonment and neglect. And I have known of no fathers battling against an unfit mother--I have known too many just walking away, thinking that's their right, because their needs aren't met.


You want to prove a mother is unfit? Don't walk away. You want to prove you are a fit father? Put in 100% BEFORE there's a divorce, and there won't be one. Your wife is an addict? Get her into treatment. Don't give that as an excuse, because it isn't. You'd expect your wife to do the same for you.

Marriage isn't a spectator sport. Neither is parenting. End of sermon.

[WriteDown]

43. Yeah, like this guy?

http://bringseanhome.org/index.html

[Demeter]

The Actions Speak to the Crime of Kidnapping

the rest of it cannot be determined from the website.

The Elian case is another good example of a really bad situation being made worse for political points.

[WriteDown]

50. This case has been hashed over 1000 times...

She left for a rich lawyer and now he's lost his son, probably forever. Maybe we should boycott the olympics citing this case. Feel free to watch the extensive MSNBC clips from the site.

[booley]

55. But again

You imply that is the always the case.

But women have been known to kidnap their children too. Women sometimes have to pay child support and don't. Woman are no less capable or unwilling to file law suits or be neglectful.

And sometimes women get money to support their kids and DON"T.

Again, I dont' see why men bear some special onus. Plus your argument seems simplistic.

[Thickasabrick]

79. +1

[WriteDown]

6. This one has me scratching my head.... nt

[closeupready]

9. Yes, because a marriage's success or failure is entirely within the man's control.

And the woman is merely chattel/babymaker. :sarcasm:

[Demeter]

48. A Man's Behavior is in His Control

[closeupready]

51. So what? The woman's behavior in his control, too?

I don't think so. She controls whether to buy diapers with child support or rather, cigarettes and booze.

And you harbor a ton of very sexist ideas.

[JonQ]

73. You're making the assumption that it's always that man who is at fault

much like our legal system, and very much unlike reality.

[dnricci]

19. Wow that's stereotypical

I happen to be a father in the middle of a custody battle. Sometimes things don' work out, but a child needs both his parents. Fathers have had to fight tooth and nail to gain our rights as parents. Truth be told, it is also the mother who can be bitter therefore unreasonable. The importance of fathers is evident by the statistics about children, especially boys who grow up without them. Here are some stats from a website that lists various sources such as the census bureau

http://www.children-ourinvestment.org/T&TStats-ChildrenWithoutFathers.html

The most shocking statistic to me, is that 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes. That statistic is from the department of corrections.

I will fight with every fiber of my being to make sure I get to be with my son. And any system that would be ok with allowing children to grow up without fathers is barbaric. My opinion of the Japanese has just been shattered.

Fathers Rights Now!!

[closeupready]

20. I wish you all the luck in the world.

:hi: Welcome to DU!

[dnricci]

25. Thank you very much

I have been reading DU for a long time, but this is the first time I have posted. I felt compelled to speak up, glad someone is listening. Thank you for your support.

[Recursion]

27. No, they really don't need both parents

And even if the wife is at fault, the kids are better off just being with her than living through a custody battle.

[WriteDown]

30. Uh, no...

They are better off with the better parent in the long run.

[Mimosa]

68. Kids are better off with the better parent !

I'm a woman and I'm for children. Children need loving, responsible parents. My own father was effectively 'locked out' from my childhood and I got a stepfather who molested my sister and myself. Don't try to tell me that women are by nature the better parent. That isn't always true.

[closeupready]

36. Wrong. Children are resilient.

A custody battle is painful, but if the wife is negligent or even abusive, the kids are not better off with her - they are better off going through the custody battle and ending up with the father.

[Demeter]

32. With All Due Respect--Parents Have Responsibiliities, Not Rights

There are no parental rights. Parents have the right to be accused of all kinds of parental abuse, interrogated by police, deprived of their children, and that's the way this society works. Been there, done that, cost me $11,000 and two years the last time--but the ex cost more than that in court for a decade. He just stopped when it didn't cost him any child support any more. Not a letter, phone call or visit to the kids since, and only court hearings and custody interviews before that. Nice parent.

If the parent is fulfilling all the responsibilities, the State may be encouraged to refrain from interfering, maybe, depending on the year and the state. And the surest way to protect against state interference is to have a united parenting couple who fight together for the kids.

It's a nice dream.

[Recursion]

47. Bingo NT

[Demeter]

33. Got Another News Flash For You

Half of America's children have no father in the home. So the prison statistic is totally unimpressive.

[SharonAnn]

35. 85% of youths in prison have fathers who abandoned them. Right?

[closeupready]

37. Yes because 'fatherless children' = abandoned children.

:eyes:

[WriteDown]

38. Good luck to you man. nt.

[BolivarianHero]

8. If he's been abusive...

She should be willing to prove it in a court of law.

[closeupready]

11. Not just willing, but obligated. Otherwise, it's merely a claim.

n/t

[Recursion]

15. Well, no, this isn't a criminal question

Custody cases aren't criminal trials and a lower standard of evidence is required. If it's more likely that one parent is abusive than that he or she is not, that's enough.

[Demeter]

18. Abandonment Is Just As Bad--and Far More Common

I've known far too many families abandoned so Daddy can get his space.

[closeupready]

22. That's not fair.

n/t

[Recursion]

24. To the parents? No. But it's better for the kids

It's the same way almost all civil cases work: since nobody is going to jail, we don't use a reasonable doubt standard.

[closeupready]

31. Actually, no, it's not better for the kids.

When all that is necessary for a woman to gain custody in a heated dispute is to make a claim that the father abused the children (whether emotionally, sexually, physically, whatever), without the need for evidence, she knows she is likely to gain custody due to overwhelming prejudice against men in family courts. Even if she is the abusive one to the children.

That's better for the kids?

[Romulox]

39. There are really some horrible people posting in this thread.

:puke:

[booley]

41. It's almost sexist

A lot of the posts here seem to hinge the belief that women are helpless creatures at the total mercy of powerful men, with no power or ability of their own.

It reminds me of the Victorian era attitude that woman couldn't be criminals unless a man was involved because woman simply didn't have the mental faculties to be devious.

Seriously, if the genders are equal, then both men and women are capable of doing evil stuff.

Goodness knows I have seen plenty of bad mothers in my day. (and bad fathers)

That's why these things have to be determined on a case by case basis.

[closeupready]

52. I Completely Agree With You. Very Sexist People Here. You Know Who You Are.

n/t

[Demeter]

49. There Are Some People Who Have Lived Really Horrible Lives

due to the gratuitous and intentional cruelty of others. If you can't stand to hear it, find a different thread.

[Zodiak]

53. I know a person who is very close to me that lost her kid in a custody battle

A LOT depends on the judge, and in her case, the judge was notoriously corrupt and under investigation for bribes. The judge actually has a record of rarely ruling for the mother. Small Texas town....well, not so small, but certainly a small town attitude. The father (who had mental problems, was abusive, etc., etc.) had all of his friends come in and lie on the stand, and her daughter was taken away from her to live in a very right-wing home where she is mentally and physically abused.

Nice huh? The only thing I can say was the mother's fault was marrying such a manipulative asshole and trusting him for far too long. She is actually a sweet girl who was very good to her daughter.

So yeah, the only REAL custody case I know of (other than my own when I was a kid) was the child being taken away from the mother based on lies and a corrupt local judge.

Just an anecdote to throw out there....don't ever end up in family court in Wichita Falls, TX.

[WriteDown]

54. What is the name of the judge?

?

I've been to Wichita Falls. Beautiful place with a lot of horses, but I know nothing about the court system there.

[Zodiak]

75. The judge's name is Brotherton n/t

[WriteDown]

76. I googled him..

I can find nothing about his corruption.

[Zodiak]

77. Good for you.

The world does exist beyond "the Google", you know. This is a small town where most of the real juicy stuff never makes it to the papers (surprise, surprise), and the local records are not computerized and added to "Google". He is a well-known figure amongst the bankers, etc., and my mother happened to deal with him a lot (she was a banker). He has a horrible reputation.

But I understand, you can cast doubt all you want. It's an anecdote, as I said.

[WriteDown]

78. You said he was notoriously corrupt and under investigation?

Apparently, it's a double secret investigation.

Also, you keep referring to Wichita Falls as a small town. It's no NYC, but its got more that a 100K people there. Hardly a small town. Have you ever even been there?

I am glad you admitted that your mother was a bankster though.

[Kalyke]

59. If he really is abusive, his child doesn't need him anyway.

I'm about to start the process of terminating my ex-husband's rights.

We divorced because he cheated on me the night his son was born (my mother caught him). When I confronted him and kicked him out, he beat up the car with me and the baby in it. He rarely pays child support (just enough to keep out of jail) and he rarely visits my son (supervised visitation - he hasn't seen him in three months and didn't see him for 18 months after we first separated).

Sometimes people are just bad parents.

[Demeter]

60. My Dear, that Is a Bad Man

It goes way beyond his lack of interest in being a parent. I'm glad you got out with the child in one piece, and I hope you find something better--it's probably futile but I hope you find love.

[WriteDown]

61. Probably futile?

What the heck? :eyes:

[WriteDown]

62. delete, dupe

What the heck? :eyes:

[happyslug]

63. Some comments on AMERICAN Law and Custody

The mistakes as to what is AMERICAN law in this board is terrible, lets me explain what the law is in the USA (It varies from state to state but these are the general trends throughout the USA for exact details see a lawyer in your home state).

When Men challenge Women for custody, men win those cases 60% of the time. Now in most states the rule is simple when it comes to custody, the parent who does NOT have custody has the burden of proof that the child is better off with them then the parent who has custody. In most cases the Mothers end up with the children before any court proceeding as to custody, and most Fathers do NOT challenge this. When Fathers do, the burden in on them to show the child is better off with father then with mother. If both parents are viewed as equal, custody stays the way it is (And this is as true when the father has the children and the mother wants to get custody, she has the burden of proof and in most cases both parents are again viewed as equal and the Father retains custody).

Now, money is NOT suppose to be an issue, child support is suppose to resolved any issue involving money, but who someone is living with, how that person is living, the condition of the home AND use of alcohol and drugs are issues. Surprising Drug, alcohol and abuse are rarely issues, for if they do exist Children and Youth is generally involved and overrules any custody decision.

In most cases the Judges will uphold the existing custody arrangements UNLESS you have evidence that it is NOT good for the child (i.e. NOT an issue that can be resolved by payment of Child Support but an issue that brings into question a parents ability to protect a child).

Now, I have been involved in some "Joint Custody" cases, most fail for the simple reason Children need one place to come home to and do their school work. If that is in two different households it just does NOT work out. Now, I have had cases where it did, but those are almost always cases where the parents are on talking terms with each other, and they BOTH make sure the school work is done. In cases where the parties do NOT talk to each other such plans almost always fail. This is generally see in a fall of grades in school, which the courts look upon with disfavor.

Now, as to visitation the American Rule is that the non-custodial parent (Generally the Father but can be the Mother) has an absolute right to see the child unless it causes great harm to the Child (i.e you can not send a 10 year old to someone who has molested 10 year olds). The big issue when it comes to Visitation is how to do it around school? Remember Children go to school starting at age 3 (If in Head Start) age 4 (If in Pre-School) age 5 (if in Kindergarten and Age 6 (First Grade). This ties up the child 5 days a week. I once had a father in my office who wanted 50-50 joint custody then I mentioned school and you could see his mind go into gear, he NEVER even thought of it and once he thought of it, it was important to him. I then mentioned that School was the number one reason we do every other weekend for most visitation, for it is the best way to work around school (and I mentioned this to parents of pre-School age children, for sooner or later the child will go to school).

Summer we try to split, but little league (Grade school) and football (Late Summer for High School Males) and other activities tend to prevent a true 50-50 split. If the parents are talking, they can work around these problems, if not a constant headache.

That leaves the three major holidays, Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving (The other holidays are NOT as important, birthdays are NOT as important for Children will gladly celebrate two birthdays, one with each parents, but the three big holidays all their friends are talking about and they want to talk about to, so they MUST be celebrated with their families, as they are with their Friends families). We try to give each parent six hours on each of the holidays. Alternating them is a poor second choice (Mostly done when the parents live more then a day's travel from each other).

Now the above assume both parents stay within one day travel of each other, if the distance is greater every other weekend does not work. In such situation some sort of Visitation is arranged to give the non-custodial parent visitations. For example we often give such parents every summer (subject to the Custodian parent having two weeks vacation with the child), Thanksgiving day to either the Sunday or Monday afterward (Depends on when School starts, the Monday after Thanksgiving is the first day of deer season in Pennsylvania and most schools are closed, thus the non-custodial parent often gets that Monday in addition to Thanksgiving to Sunday), Christmas at 6:00 pm (Custodian parent gets most of Christmas Day) till New Years Day (yes a whole week) and, if the child has a Spring break, Spring Break.

We have to remember in Custody cases they are a third party (Beside the Children themselves) and that is SCHOOL. We have to work around it. The Custodial parent time with the children on such days is limited (Do to the fact the Children are in School, getting ready for School, doing homework or sleeping). Thus why we do every other weekend NOT because we like it, but because it works.

Notice the different tests for Custody and Visitation, the Test for Custody is always the best interest of the Child (With the burden of proof on the parent who wants to change custody). The test for Visitation is the right of the non-custodial parent UNLESS it causes great harm to the children (and the burden is on the person trying to deny the visitation NOT on the non-custodian parent).

In my experience, most fathers agree that the children are better off with their mothers AND mother agree that the children are better off spending time with their fathers. Thus in 90% of the cases we quickly come to an agreement on the above terms (Through the exact terms can vary based on the work schedule of the parents, for example a person who works in a prison has a rotating schedule, no days off for holidays, the best way is for that person to give the other parent the work schedule and the days that parent is off work is the day that parent has visitation). Remember the above terms are guidelines NOT deadlines and are guidelines on how to divide up the time with the children. Each cases is different, but we can generally work things out IF both sides are willing to work it out AND help the other side in care of the children.

Now, as you can see from the above, Custody is more often then not simple, unless one parent is heads and shoulders the better parent (Or one parent is just a bad parent), Custody will stay with the parent who has the child when the litigation begins. The issue is almost always visitation NOT custody. What grounds can be used to deny visitation? It has to be something severe. For example the child getting lice is NOT a severe (In fact lice do NOT like dirty unwashed hair it is to greasy for them, thus lice always hit clean kids from clean homes but it comes up all the time and everyone in the local Domestic Relations Office laughs about it, i.e. lice means nothing as to the issue of "Great harm". Scrapes and bruises (Unless severe and constant and then only if unexplained) are also NOT severe harms, kids will get bruises, kids will get cuts, kids will get broken legs and arms, Kids will end up in the Hospital. While these are severe injuries and if unexplained (i.e. indication of abuse) can be grounds for denying visitation, individually are NOT severe as that term is used in cases denying visitation. A pattern on such injuries can be grounds, but if the injuries can be explained (i.e. the Children like to play soccer and gets injured by being kicked, that is part of the game) NOT grounds to deny visitation. Criminal record of a parent is NOT grounds unless the criminal record shows a tendency to subject the child to severe harm i.e. history of using the child to break into peoples homes (Burglary, independent of the child is NOT grounds, it is the use of the child that is the great harm NOT the crime of Burglary).

Furthermore if the child can be protected from an potential harm, then visitation will be ordered. Two examples, first a child whose father was know to molested 12 year old boys, the child was 8, even the psychologists at the trial said the 8 year old boy was NOT endangered for the father liked 12 year olds, 8 year olds were to young. The father won visitation (Through subject to review when the child turned 10). Other case was when a Father was permitted to have visitation with his daughter in jail, when he was in jail for molesting her. Again the testimony at trial clearly said that given the Prison environment no harm could come to the daughter AND she would NOT be psychotically damaged by seeing her father in Jail.

I bring up these two cases to show that the test to deny non-custodian parents visitation is severe. It is hard to deny Visitation. It is almost as hard to Change custody, for the simple reason that often implies a change in Schools (and at a minimum change of where the Children do school work). At the present time there is NO prejudice against or for one parent over anther EXCEPT when it came to who took care of the Children at the time of the breakup. The courts will tend to favor whoever took charge of the children at that time, in 90% of the cases that is the Mother and thus the appearance that the Mother always win such cases. That is NOT the case, the Mother generally wins for she is generally the person who took care of the children at the time of the breakup (When the Father takes care of the Children at that time he tends to win custody for the same reason).

Please note the above assumes both parents want to have input into the life of their Children, when one does not, Visitation is generally denied (More to that parent NOT even coming to the hearing then any other reason).

[Demeter]

64. Thank You. That Is Very Concise.

and correlates with my own experiences, too.

[WriteDown]

65. So basically, since it is the mother's who take kids home from

the hospital. They start with custody and its an uphill battle?

This study also seems to refute your #'s.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/03/11/dont_leave_fathers_out_of_custody_cases/


edited to add link.

[happyslug]

67. As I said, something like 90% of the cases the father do NOT object

Before I talk about the Statitisic you cite let me make a comment about Women giving birth. When women give birth a bond develops between the Baby and the Mother. One Nurse who wrote about this called it the baby dance, she saw mothers, time after time pick up their new born baby and the mother and the baby goes through a little "Dance" with each other (with the mother during ALL of the work except the baby keeps her eyes on her mother). Psychologist who have studied babies do not believe most children under age two think of themselves as being independent of their mother, the infant views themselves as one with the infant's mother. All other people, including all other women AND even the child's father are other people, but the Mother and Child is viewed by the child as one and the same. This last to about age Two, then the Child slowly adopts an understanding that their are independent of their mother. This new view, that the Child views him or herself independent of her or his mother is accomplished by age three (The transition from one view to the other is the main reason for the "terrible twos" as the child goes from one view to the other and back again but always forward for that year of growth).

Now this the above is a huge plus factor for Mother in any custody battle. In most break ups, the children almost always go to their mother and support their mother against their father (Even when the Mother is wrong and the Father is right, it is part of the above bonding). For this reason, prior to the 1970s, most courts had the "Tender Year" doctrine, that such children, as a matter of law, were better off with their mother then their fathers below age two. With the passage of various states Equal Rights Amendments, almost every state abolished the Tender Year Doctrine, but all that did was transfer the argument from one of law to one of fact (i.e NO longer a Legal Doctrine, but if shown in court can be accepted as a fact in that case).

The problem with the courts is that in the vast majority of cases the children tend to cling to their mother (and this is true even when it is NOT in the Children's best interests, I have seen it done when I handled Children and Youth Services, CYS, Cases). Thus in the vast Majority of cases the children are with the mother at the time of any break up, especially if the children are NOT of School age yet. The Courts just accept this fact of life and most fathers accept it as a fact of life, but some fathers just come to hate it when the children end up with their mother do to this fact of life. Such fathers want the courts to undo nature, and to a degree the courts have tried, but you still end up with the mother having the Children in the vast majority of time, the younger the children the more likely that will happen. Thus 83.2% of the time the Mother gets the children because that is who the children go to when the family breaks up. Most children's "Rock" of Support is their mother not their father and this is fully accepted by the Courts even when fathers do not want to accept it.

As to the report you cite which states that 83.2% the time the Mother gets the child, that sounds similar to my experience. In the vast majority of cases the father accepts and agrees that the children are better off with the mother so it rarely is an issue (and thus over 80% of the time the children end up with their mother, more do to agreement by the father then anything else). The 60% study I cited relied on cases where the Father CONTESTED custody, in that study father prevailed only 60% of the time. These statistics are NOT in conflict, each is measuring something different. In the report you cite, they are INCLUDING the time when the father AGREES that the mother should have the child, in the study I cite, such cases are EXCLUDED. In my experience that is about 90% of the time, but it looks like on a National Level it may be only 70-75% of the time.

Side note, in the majority of cases where Father contest custody in my practice and mother has the children, the system is two fold. First a complaint is filed (does not matter which parent but one of them have to file) then about six weeks later a conference is held, in the vast majority of cases the dispute is settled in the conference, but in a minority of cases they are not. These contested cases are then scheduled for a hearing and an interim Custody Order is entered. If I am representing the Mother I try to convince her to give Father every other weekend and much of what I wrote above. The Father generally agrees to those terms, for it is all my client is willing to give (remember we are talking the conference level here NOT the hearing) AND he is told it is an interim order only and is NOT binding on him when we go to a hearing. The Hearing is held about 3-4 months later. Unlike a Conference (which normally last less then an hour), the hearing is set for either a half day or full day hearing. Both sides get a chance to make their case. If additional time is needed another day is set for that additional time. Yes, hearings take time to schedule and to be heard. Now in the majority of cases (Just a majority not the vast majority as in the Conference) the non-custodian parent, by the time of the Conference, has found out that the most he can deal with the children is every other weekend and the interim order becomes the final order upon his agreement. The minority of cases go to trial, where both sides make their case and most time the hearing offices determines both parents are good parents but had to pick one just to make sure the children get to school (Which tends to be the biggest factor in most judges opinion). Thus the Children generally stay with the parent they are with.

Now, the Children get a say in the custody battle. Under age 7, their testimony as to whom they want to be with in given little weight, but sometime you get good information on BOTH parents from them i.e. how often each parents is with child when their have custody, a parent to drops the children off with anther relative or baby sitter when they have visitation is NOT a good candidate for custody. A parent, when they need a baby sitter, calls someone other then the other parent first (i.e. both parents looks to each other as their first baby sitter) is NOT considered a good candidate for Custody.

Now, Children over 14 also can testify, but their testimony is given "Great Weight" i.e. the Judge will accommodate their desire provided it is still in their best interests (If a child say he wants to go with a parent because the child can have all the booze, sex and drugs the children wants, the Judge will NOT say that is in the best interest of the child, but anything less then that the Judge will give it great weight). For children between 7 and 14 it is on a case by case basis. Please note these are GUIDELINES not DEADLINES. I have seen cases where the testimony of a teenager was given little weight and a three year old great weight (It depends on what was said and a call on how mature the child is, some teenagers and some adults never grow up, some pre-school age children are very world wise).

Yes, I have seen some bitter custody battles, and they are NEVER good for either parent or the children. The Judges try to get the parties to work together for that is the key to making the custody order work, but some parties are never able to work with the other. As I tell my female clients the Number one reason women lose custody of their children is when their interfere with the visitation of the father without good cause (and I define good cause as something you are willing to go in front of the Judge on a contempt charge and believe the Judge will back you up for the reason is that good, anything short of that I tell my client to continue the visitation, almost all of the clients permit visitation to take place unless some sort of neglect or abuse is clear and more often then not it is a CYS recommendation because CYS found something to look into as oppose to finding nothing).

Just some comments on HOW a decision as to Custody is made. Judges want BOTH parents to have input in how the child is raised and will re-arrange custody to make sure that happens. In my experience the biggest problem is NOT women denying fathers visitation but fathers NOT exercising it properly (i.e does it when it is convenient for him, then complains when the Mother asks the court to modify the order to reflect the visitation he is actually doing as oppose to what is in the existing order). The vast majority of women want the fathers involved in their Children's lives and once a schedule is in place most problems solve themselves over time. There are exceptions but sooner or later the children turn 18 and the problems ends for then it is up to the child to decide and hopefully both parents had had enough input that the child wants to maintain contact with both.

[WriteDown]

70. Thank you for your detailed post...

I do feel it illustrates the great deal of bias in the courts which I have seen first hand. I would have to wonder what the outcome would be if the child was handed to the father right after birth instead of the mother. For the record, I have also seen highly abused dogs cuddle with and defend their abusive masters.

[closeupready]

66. Thanks for taking the time to post that information.

:hi:

[Nikki Stone1]

69. The guy in the article physically abused his wife--not the best example

Normally, I think joint custody should be the rule, unless there is abuse by either parent or unless there are severe problems like drug abuse or extreme emotional abuse & manipulation.

[WriteDown]

71. How do you know he abused his wife?

He admits to hitting his wife twice, but there is little additional information. I would love to know more about their relationship.

[Nikki Stone1]

72. You don't hit. Period.

That's enough to make me doubt him.

[WriteDown]

74. What if she slapped him first?

I wouldn't, but I grew up in a time when men would get slapped from time to time.