Do young children need their mother over their father? (tradition, divorce)

[Ozzie]

I am currently before the court negotiating a care settlement for two young children aged 4 and 2. I currently provide about one third direct care of these kids. I am plagued by a dilemma however. I find there is an implicit presumption amongst people whether they are familiar with the legal system or not that children of this age are better off with their mother than with their father. Is this true, or is the system and popular perception just wrong in favouring the mother over the father as a desirable primary carer for young children? What do you think?

[mostly harmless]

That kind of attitude is still found in many courts. Depending on where you live of course.
Most courts now will tend to have the children stay with whomever has been their primary caretaker up until the divorce.

[Simon Gnosis]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

I am currently before the court negotiating a care settlement for two young children aged 4 and 2. I currently provide about one third direct care of these kids. I am plagued by a dilemma however. I find there is an implicit presumption amongst people whether they are familiar with the legal system or not that children of this age are better off with their mother than with their father. Is this true, or is the system and popular perception just wrong in favouring the mother over the father as a desirable primary carer for young children? What do you think?

If I was a judge I would be more likely to find in favour of the mother, if she was suitable.
Not all women make good parents far from it, and some men make ideal parents.
But at the end of the day children are born from women, there is a link there that no man can have with his kids, no matter how much he loves them.
Women are generally less likely to become aggressive or abusive towards children then men (as crime figures show) so it is automatically in the interests of a society to ensure that children are exposed to as little statistical risk as possible.
Even if you are a marvellous father.
As a judge I could not take custody from the mother unless there was a very valid reason, ie she was abusive, neglectful or suffering from some kind of personality disorder like alcoholism.
I hope you don't think I don't sympathise because I do, yet my concern is primarily with your children and not you, which is how the courts will see things.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Simon Gnosis

If I was a judge I would be more likely to find in favour of the mother, if she was suitable.
Not all women make good parents far from it, and some men make ideal parents.
But at the end of the day children are born from women, there is a link there that no man can have with his kids, no matter how much he loves them.
Women are generally less likely to become aggressive or abusive towards children then men (as crime figures show) so it is automatically in the interests of a society to ensure that children are exposed to as little statistical risk as possible.
Even if you are a marvellous father.
As a judge I could not take custody from the mother unless there was a very valid reason, ie she was abusive, neglectful or suffering from some kind of personality disorder like alcoholism.
I hope you don't think I don't sympathise because I do, yet my concern is primarily with your children and not you, which is how the courts will see things.

I appreciate you take the childrens' point of view on this question, rather than mine as the father. After all that is what is important: what is their best interest. However, I question assumptions you make about what is in their best interest (from their perspective). How is a child of 2 or 4 to know or understand the significance of who bore them, either their mother or father, much less for a period of 9 months? Doesn't a general presumption in law and society that young children are better off with the mother mitigate against their best interests because it does not allow for consideration of the facts of each case on its merits? I find such a presumption a very narrow interpretation of what is in the childrens' best interest. And "statistical risk" as you put it seems a very poor criterion for assessing what is in a particular child's best interest. What do you think?

[JMoum04]

The spirit behind the idea is that children usually go with the mother because she is the most suitable parent. Traditionally speaking of course. However, if we are to go with the spirit behind the idea, then we should stop worrying about mother vs. father and just worry about who is the most suitable parent.

Now, there are a lot of things that could factor into that. For example, who has the larger income? Who has a better credit history? Who is home more often? Who has a schedule that best coincides with the children's school schedule? Who lives in a better neighborhood/school district? Who lives under better/safer housing conditions? Who has more social support to back them up in times of need? Who is healthier both mentally and physically? Etc. Etc.

While it's natural to assume that women automatically make better parents than men we should never automatically believe that is the case. Instead, we need to look at these cases on a case by case basis and be fair and impartial in our judgement. Only then, can we garuntee that the kids will get the best care possible.[/opinionated rant]

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by jmoum

The spirit behind the idea is that children usually go with the mother because she is the most suitable parent. Traditionally speaking of course. However, if we are to go with the spirit behind the idea, then we should stop worrying about mother vs. father and just worry about who is the most suitable parent.

Now, there are a lot of things that could factor into that. For example, who has the larger income? Who has a better credit history? Who is home more often? Who has a schedule that best coincides with the children's school schedule? Who lives in a better neighborhood/school district? Who lives under better/safer housing conditions? Who has more social support to back them up in times of need? Who is healthier both mentally and physically? Etc. Etc.

While it's natural to assume that women automatically make better parents than men we should never automatically believe that is the case. Instead, we need to look at these cases on a case by case basis and be fair and impartial in our judgement. Only then, can we garuntee that the kids will get the best care possible.[/opinionated rant]

I think this presumption that "children usually go with the mother because she is the most suitable parent" is traditional rather than natural. And as you say it is not in young childrens' best interest because the circumstances need to be accounted for in deciding who should care for children directly, rather than fall back on the presumption. I do not think this presumption does women any favours either. All it does is reinforce traditional notions of the correct place for women being in the home looking after the kids and hubby (if she is lucky enough to have one).

[Simon Gnosis]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

I appreciate you take the childrens' point of view on this question, rather than mine as the father. After all that is what is important: what is their best interest. However, I question assumptions you make about what is in their best interest (from their perspective). How is a child of 2 or 4 to know or understand the significance of who bore them, either their mother or father, much less for a period of 9 months? Doesn't a general presumption in law and society that young children are better off with the mother mitigate against their best interests because it does not allow for consideration of the facts of each case on its merits? I find such a presumption a very narrow interpretation of what is in the childrens' best interest. And "statistical risk" as you put it seems a very poor criterion for assessing what is in a particular child's best interest. What do you think?

Well the significance of who bore them will run deep, subconciously perhaps.
I loved both my parents, but if I had to run to one or the other, I would have ran to my mum.
Secondly men are more likely to abuse children then women, this is a proven fact.
I am not saying you ARE more dangerous, I am saying statistically you are.
As harsh as that sounds.
If you could prove to me (if I where a judge) that you were more suitable then I would give you custody, if you and your estranged partner are equally good, then I would automatically find in favour of your ex, simply because she is female.
I know that sounds unfair sexist and old fashioned, but again its only because of risk asessment and the 'sanctity' of the maternal bond.
I am a father incidently, but if me and the missus were to split, I would automatically concede custody of my kids to her, as much as it would pain me, I know they love her very much and she them and I could not take them away from her, however if she were an evil cow to them though I would fight her every step of the way.
But good luck anyway, I hope it works out ok in the end for your family.
It is so sad when this happens, and every case is different, there is no black and white, despite what I have said.

[Terrywoodenpic]

You certainly have a problem.
People make many assumptions, but with out the facts of each case, they are just that, assumptions.
The courts in the UK investigate these matters very thoroughly and still often get it wrong... but they do care, and the interest of the child is the only thing considered.

The problem only arises because parents have a failed relationship. This is a problem for them, and they make it a problem for the child.

I do not know of any country that has tried to address the basic problem before it arises. Every one knows a high proportion of marriages fail Yet they go into marriage and start families with out any thought or provision for what would happen to the children should it fail.

This should be agreed before they are married... to lay out exactly what should be done and by whom for any resulting children in the event of a breakdown.
this should legally binding and include the support for them in both monetary and physical terms.

As divorce is the most usual outcome these days, for a majority of marriages, Perhaps this should be part of the marriage contract.

[mostly harmless]

Originally Posted by jmoum

Now, there are a lot of things that could factor into that. For example, who has the larger income? This generally will not matter because if the non-custodial parent has a larger income there will be more child support to pay.

Who has a better credit history? This also tends to be irrelevant.
Who is home more often? This factors in with who has been the PRIMARY caretaker until divorce.
Who has a schedule that best coincides with the children's school schedule? In this day and age, this also tends to be irrelevant because of before and after school care.
Who lives in a better neighborhood/school district? The court doesn't investigate where you live. It would be time consuming to do that for every divorce on the docket.
Who lives under better/safer housing conditions? Again, time consuming to investiget.
Who has more social support to back them up in times of need? While this is important, it is irrelevant in divorce.
Who is healthier both mentally and physically? Unless there is some danger to the children, the court will not pass judgement on someone for being ill.

While it's natural to assume that women automatically make better parents than men we should never automatically believe that is the case. Instead, we need to look at these cases on a case by case basis and be fair and impartial in our judgement. Only then, can we garuntee that the kids will get the best care possible.[/opinionated rant]

The court will want to know who has been the primary caretaker of the children. When I got divorced I went around to lawyers and got all the free advice I could, since I couldn't afford a lawyer. I represented myself. My ex was suing for custody on the grounds that I am disabled and at the time in between homes. My daughter and I were living in a crappy motel that housed a lot of users and was always being raided. It was all I could afford on my VA disability.

The mediator told him flat out that the court would not even look at his claim because I have been Em's primary caretaker. I was providing a roof over her head, clothes and feeding her. He didn't have to like where I lived, and as her mother it was my right to live wherever I liked.
He also tried taking her away from me by accusing a friend of mine that I had been living with (hence the in between homes) of molesting my child. The investigators new right off that he was just being a jerk. And his claims there were investigated, found unsubstantiated, and he was given a warning.
My point is, is that as long as the children are cared for and happy with whoever has been the primary caretaker, even if their situation is not all that ideal, they will MOST LIKELY stay with whoever has been the PRIMARY CARETAKER.
I was my daughter's primary caretaker, low-income and living in a crappy drug infested motel, while she was in kindegarten.
He comes up from Virginia most weekends to see her, he pays child support at a reduced rate once a month. (well, I do have to call the enforcement people on him 'cause he didn't pay July or August and I just now got Sept...that is a whole other story though)


ANyway, my whole point of this rambling post is that most courts are concerned with who has been the primary caretaker, and 'most' of the time this has been the mother. For a court to declare a mother unfit, she would have to be really messed up (like on drugs or something) and it would have to be investigated and all that before such a declaration is made.