Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
katralla wrote: »
What do you mean by 'suitability' then?
katralla wrote: »
You can ignore reasoning as to why mothers are likely to be most appropriate primary carers and put it down to 'old fashioned' thinking if you like, but doing so means that you haven't considered the facts beyond your prejudices.
ShyBoy wrote: »
I've said they're most likely to be the most appropriate primary carers. I acknowledge the reasoning, citing it as important.
Why is it so hard for anyone to grasp what I'm trying to say, it's incredibly simple.
Here's a scenario:
in 90/100 cases, custody based on the welfare of the child alone should be given to mothers. In the current legal system, 99/100 cases result in the mother resulting in custody. The other 1 is this exceptional circumstances you talk about, but I argue that if the mother is not fit to be a mother, she wouldn't be looking after the kids anyway the social services would.
I don't think you know what prejudice you think I have, you just can't or won't understand my reasoning (which is nearly the same as yours) so just say everything I'm saying is down to prejudice and thus invalid.
Seriously what's the point of even discussing it then?
Unless the mother is proven to be unfit to be a mother she will be awarded custody. Why must a mother be completely negligent for the father to assume the role of primary carer? This does not exclude the mother from the child's life, either. Fathers get restricted access in some cases for as little as being unemployed... yet mothers can do anything short of beating her kids and still remain the primary carer. There are umpteen anecdotes I have from friends who would have preferred to stay with their dad but the law says - practically - children must stay with their mothers.
I don't know whether it's because you're completely misunderstanding me, or because you're just generally ignorant, or because you have your own prejudices, but can you not see the glaring inequalities in rights when it comes to custody battles etc. Of course it's not going to get changed anytime soon because it's not in the political sphere at the moment, but I believe it's as of much consequence as the inequalities women face in the workplace. And worse, the consequences for the individuals are arguably worse.
Would you rather be prejudiced against because of your gender when trying to get a job, or when trying to see your kids?
Lets puts this in perspective - the best situation is an amicable agreement that benefits the child. And in the majority of cases that will mean residence with the mother. In some cases it will not. However if it goes to court, even securing access can sometimes be costly and difficult for the father, whilst at the same time the mother need do little other than turn up to get custody. In order for the father to gain custody he must pretty much prove the child is at risk.
But, take it or leave it, you seem to have made your mind up. Do some reading around the subject, there are plenty of news articles.