Judges: Are They Guilty of Male Sex Discrimination?
So a man and woman walk into a court room and wait for the judge to come out of his chamber. "All arise, the honorable Joe Schmoe is presiding, please be seated." After the baliff has spoken these traditional words the business of the court begins.
At issue is a divorcing father and mother. The cause of divorce may be one, the other, or both. At issue are the division of property, assets, and of course custody issues. Now lets set up a hypothetical scenario.
Father: Gainfully employed, stable, has a good environment for his children to come home to. He has been a good husband and provider for his family. He tries to get his support payments in on time, though the amount may vary as an order has not yet been rendered. He has his flaws, but what person doesn't?
Mother: Employed, but has a sporadic work history. She has since the split of her and her estranged husband, had various men over at the home with the children present, and these men have spent the night. Mom struggles to keep her emotions together, Dad tries to take the kids as often as he can, but mom always puts up a struggle saying she had got it "handled."
Now both of these parent's situations could be reversed, but would the outcome of the court's decision be any different? Courts tend to give custody to the mother even when a father is more stable and a better overall primary custodian for the children. Why is this? Why is it that mom can be a crack junkie and still get custody of the children? Dad has to proove beyond a reasonable doubt that mom is unfit, let alone that he is more stable than his spouse.
I have seen time and again in my professional life fathers getting treated like crap, even when no children are at issue because they are grown or the couple don't have any between them. The fact is that many judges, especially in my state, Utah, and across the nation cannot break precedent. Mom is best for custody, Dad for support. Even in light of social changes, men still get the shaft by the judicial system.
Why is this? I believe it to be an overall reflection of the judicial system as a whole. For decades judges have just defaulted to the wife without considering all the evidence. Somtimes the best dad can hope to get is joint physical custody of his children.
The reality is there are good moms and good dads, both with their children's best interests at heart. There are also on the other end deadbeat dads and moms in more than just money, but overall parenting skills.
Courts are supposed to consider the evidence at hand. Divorce breaks up a family unit. This is an undisputed fact, even if truly justified. Kids are always caught in the middle, and sometimes intentionally or unintentionally used as pawns. Minor children have little to no say, even as teens their clear wishes can be overridden by a court decree.
When two parents can no longer save a marriage and the issue goes before the court, judges must quit being matriarchal and consider all the evidence presented as to who gets sole, joint, physical and legal custody.
But judges continue to find in favor of mom over and over whether mom is best for the children to be with the majority of the time.
No one can expect judges to make perfect decisions, but they should be held to account and society demand they make the best decisions. Not just arbitrarily and capriciously giving the kids to one parent over the other.
In earlier times women had no rights, including custody. Dad would get all things in his favor. But as patriarchal society changed to egalitarian, judicial decisions were stagnant and slow to change. Things change, but male or female roles remain the same in the eyes of the law.
It's time to influence judges to make fair calls on the best situation for the children. It is men that must shoulder this burden to affect change. What doesn't fly is the current situation? Biased judges who don't make decisions based on facts are a threat to us all in any situation. It is time to reign int the judges who are rogue and refuse to change with the times.
At issue is a divorcing father and mother. The cause of divorce may be one, the other, or both. At issue are the division of property, assets, and of course custody issues. Now lets set up a hypothetical scenario.
Father: Gainfully employed, stable, has a good environment for his children to come home to. He has been a good husband and provider for his family. He tries to get his support payments in on time, though the amount may vary as an order has not yet been rendered. He has his flaws, but what person doesn't?
Mother: Employed, but has a sporadic work history. She has since the split of her and her estranged husband, had various men over at the home with the children present, and these men have spent the night. Mom struggles to keep her emotions together, Dad tries to take the kids as often as he can, but mom always puts up a struggle saying she had got it "handled."
Now both of these parent's situations could be reversed, but would the outcome of the court's decision be any different? Courts tend to give custody to the mother even when a father is more stable and a better overall primary custodian for the children. Why is this? Why is it that mom can be a crack junkie and still get custody of the children? Dad has to proove beyond a reasonable doubt that mom is unfit, let alone that he is more stable than his spouse.
I have seen time and again in my professional life fathers getting treated like crap, even when no children are at issue because they are grown or the couple don't have any between them. The fact is that many judges, especially in my state, Utah, and across the nation cannot break precedent. Mom is best for custody, Dad for support. Even in light of social changes, men still get the shaft by the judicial system.
Why is this? I believe it to be an overall reflection of the judicial system as a whole. For decades judges have just defaulted to the wife without considering all the evidence. Somtimes the best dad can hope to get is joint physical custody of his children.
The reality is there are good moms and good dads, both with their children's best interests at heart. There are also on the other end deadbeat dads and moms in more than just money, but overall parenting skills.
Courts are supposed to consider the evidence at hand. Divorce breaks up a family unit. This is an undisputed fact, even if truly justified. Kids are always caught in the middle, and sometimes intentionally or unintentionally used as pawns. Minor children have little to no say, even as teens their clear wishes can be overridden by a court decree.
When two parents can no longer save a marriage and the issue goes before the court, judges must quit being matriarchal and consider all the evidence presented as to who gets sole, joint, physical and legal custody.
But judges continue to find in favor of mom over and over whether mom is best for the children to be with the majority of the time.
No one can expect judges to make perfect decisions, but they should be held to account and society demand they make the best decisions. Not just arbitrarily and capriciously giving the kids to one parent over the other.
In earlier times women had no rights, including custody. Dad would get all things in his favor. But as patriarchal society changed to egalitarian, judicial decisions were stagnant and slow to change. Things change, but male or female roles remain the same in the eyes of the law.
It's time to influence judges to make fair calls on the best situation for the children. It is men that must shoulder this burden to affect change. What doesn't fly is the current situation? Biased judges who don't make decisions based on facts are a threat to us all in any situation. It is time to reign int the judges who are rogue and refuse to change with the times.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete