Provocative question

[jamessick]

You call it "get her before she gets you", we call it being aggressive. The reason is simple if you read a little further. We do this because of the kids. They need a strong stable parent. Most of us on this board WERE and ARE the stable parent. We advocate a no-holds barred aggressive approach because being the strong, honorable dads that we are, we recognize that the children need their moms as well as us dads. We are able to realize this by fostering a good relationship between the mom and the child. We dads here do this because we KNOW, that simple idea would not be presented to us by our exes. Most of the ex-wives of the dads here will keep the kids away from us just to be cruel. It doesn't matter to them what's best for the kids, they just want to hurt us. You got lucky to live in a place where there appear to be no biased judges. That's great, don't ever move.

[Fatheroffour]

"Unbiased judge"

Where do these aliens come from? Is it legal for them to be judges?

[BartSimpson]

Only if they have Gold Fringe on the American Flag.

It's a Martian law thing.

[Fatheroffour]

What's so strange is that you can get a group of these presumably unbiased judges, all given the same set of facts and ruling under the same set of laws, yet they don't agree.

How can that be?








Hint: anyone claiming they or anyone else is unbiased is FOS.

[defaultuser]

I see this issue in a different way. The OP is basically saying that if you play the game, you get results. If you don't play the game, you lose.

Yes, his perspective is different. He thinks that guys who don't play the game are either tools, or have bad representation, but the message is essentially the same as this forum.

In order to win, you must present evidence, be involved, focus on the kids, etc. He just has a different lens. One from the other side of the courtroom.

In my opinion, in my jurisdiction, I don't think the judges have a big mommy bias. Yes, the mommies win custody because they don't make as much money and spend more time with the kids, and all things being equal the law favors them. If you go to court and present evidence and fight for your kids you will eventually win.

It might be harder for a man, but I think that has a lot to do with the law, and the way the courts have been handing down decisions for a long time. If you present a case where you're the primary caregiver of the kids and back it up with evidence you've got an excellent chance of a favorable outcome.

The DV thing is another issue, but again, the law favors someone who accuses another of DV. Its not necessarily the judge that is biased, its the way the law is written.

[Fatheroffour]

The DV thing is another issue, but again, the law favors someone who accuses another of DV. Its not necessarily the judge that is biased, its the way the law is written.

We have seen here time and again men being denied PO's and exclusive possession of the home after documented DV by the woman.

Judges are biased and they rule consistently certain ways because of the biases they hold. They are biased in the weight they give to certain evidence and since we live in a white knight society they tends to generally rule accordingly unless faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. When neither side has supporting evidence, the judge typically takes the womans side.

Hell, we have a member who's kids mom is CCing the CIA and is a documented loon. Dangerous loon.
DMK took years and 2 custody evals in his favor. The poor guy will be gunshy for years because of it so he's stuck struggling with his ex's bs because of it. Who can blame him?
A woman shows up, sniffles and says "I'm scared" and the PO is signed. A man has to show up with a police report and in bandages to maybe not get laughed at before he's dismissed.


Over and over, daily.

When women get convicted of DV they typically are sentenced to anger management classes. With men, it's batter prevention programs.


Judges are biased and they rule accordingly. It's undeniable.

[Trevor]

If you present a case where you're the primary caregiver of the kids and back it up with evidence you've got an excellent chance of a favorable outcome.

Which excludes men who have been working FT+ in order to be the breadwinner and provide opportunities for the kids to get better educated, go to college, have a decent home, while their spouses either don't work or only PT. No matter how much time he hangs out with the kids. And even when the mother works FT, he often won't be able to show necessarily that he spends more time with the kids...and if he cannot, then he gets stuck with EOW.

[defaultuser]

I agree that there is a societal bias in regards to DV. Statistics are pretty clear that more that 50% of DV is woman on man. I still suspect that the problem goes back to the law.

In my own situation, I spent time in jail for a DV where I did nothing to my X while she threatened to stab me with a knife. I stupidly didn't bring up charges against her. I was not afraid of her which was one of the legal burdens in order to get a PO.

Look, I'm not arguing that the system is fair by any means. All I'm saying is that DMK got custody. It was a long hard road and if he was a woman it would have been much easier, but in the end, he played the game and he won.

The message is clear. Play the game by the rules set forth in the law and the courts. If not, you will lose.

[defaultuser]

Which excludes men who have been working FT+ in order to be the breadwinner and provide opportunities for the kids to get better educated, go to college, have a decent home, while their spouses either don't work or only PT. No matter how much time he hangs out with the kids. And even when the mother works FT, he often won't be able to show necessarily that he spends more time with the kids...and if he cannot, then he gets stuck with EOW.

I agree. And again, this is a problem with the law, not the judge. The law should allow for men (like me) who choose to give up the primary breadwinner life of a career man and become a work at home take care of the kids while juggling a career man, but you don't get the opportunity to choose because the law gives preference to the person who has spent the most time with the kids.

[Fatheroffour]

Time spent with the kids isn't a factor for determining custody in my state, though involvement is. The bias of judges assume a SAH facebooking mom (While the kids are in school) has more involvement in the kids lives by default.

Again, it's not the law as much as it is the judges. Judges have almost total discretion in family law. 50/50 wouldn't be necessary to legislate if it were not for the bias of judges on what they think is best for the kid.