Interesting take on custody post divorce

[Board Game Geek]

Hang on a moment...the court ruled that it was in the children's best interests to place them with a parent who is living off the dole (and who also was responsible for the break up of the family unit) ?

That can't be right surely ?

[NickFitz]

Hang on a moment...the court ruled that it was in the children's best interests to place them with a parent who is living off the dole (and who also was responsible for the break up of the family unit) ?

That can't be right surely ?

No, the court ruled that it was in the best interests of the children to place them with the parent who has devoted their life to caring for them, and then ensured that the parent who chose to devote their time to building their career should still face up to their responsibilities and support their children. In this case, it seems that the career-obsessional one was even allowed to keep the family home, even though the family don't live there any more.

It's exactly the same thing as happens every day, just with the male and female roles reversed. What do you think women who leave their husbands while still caring for the children live on until the man is forced to accept his financial responsibilities?

[BrilloPad]

Hang on a moment...the court ruled that it was in the children's best interests to place them with a parent who is living off the dole (and who also was responsible for the break up of the family unit) ?

That can't be right surely ?

What Nick Said

Plus who is responsible is supposed NEVER to be a factor in deciding what happens for children or finances. Quite rightly.

There was a high value divorce where responsinility was cited - quite wrongly.

[SueEllen]

A similar story was posted in The Times last year.

The conclusion the article writer (a woman) reached was that if you are a woman and want to have your children with you whatever happens, then don't allow your spouse to be their main carer.

[NickFitz]

A similar story was posted in The Times last year.

The conclusion the article writer (a woman) reached was that if you are a woman and want to have your children with you whatever happens, then don't allow your spouse to be their main carer.

Did she also state the corollary: that if you are a man and want to have your children with you whatever happens, then don't allow your spouse to be their main carer?

(I have no children and no spouse and no axe to grind, I'm just wondering if she was even-handed in her judgement.)

[SueEllen]

Did she also state the corollary: that if you are a man and want to have your children with you whatever happens, then don't allow your spouse to be their main carer?

(I have no children and no spouse and no axe to grind, I'm just wondering if she was even-handed in her judgement.)

She wasn't.

Her entire article was about how you are perceived to be a bad mother by other women if your child(ren) live with their father.

There was nothing really in the article about what was best for the children concerned. For example I've met and know a few women who prefer their teenage sons to live with their father.

[BrilloPad]

Her entire article was about how you are perceived to be a bad mother by other women if your child(ren) live with their father.

Women apart from their children have double trouble - the living bereavment of not seeing their kids and the stigma attached. I feel for them.

If men had the power that women have now things would be alot worse than at present.

[Board Game Geek]

Plus who is responsible is supposed NEVER to be a factor in deciding what happens for children or finances. Quite rightly.

Quite wrongly.

If person X conducts one or more extra-marital affairs, then that SHOULD be taken in to account when the court decides on who should get the children.

Why ?

Because we are all a measure of our character, and abdication of our responsibilties should carry commensurate punishment.

If Person X was responsible for the break up of the family unit, due to their dalliances, can they really be trusted ever again ?

If that is their temprament, then are they a worthy role model for their children ?

So, the courts are wrong in this instance. Previous form SHOULD be a factor.

It might make people think twice and behave themselves.

[SueEllen]

Quite wrongly.

If person X conducts one or more extra-marital affairs, then that SHOULD be taken in to account when the court decides on who should get the children.

Why ?

Because we are all a measure of our character, and abdication of our responsibilties should carry commensurate punishment.

If Person X was responsible for the break up of the family unit, due to their dalliances, can they really be trusted ever again ?

If that is their temprament, then are they a worthy role model for their children ?

So, the courts are wrong in this instance. Previous form SHOULD be a factor.

It might make people think twice and behave themselves.

The children are not interested in that.

All they want is things to be as normal as possible and the adults in the house to stop arguing or having massive strops at each other. And if one adult (who you don't see much of anyway) leaves to make it better then so be it, particularly when you are reminded of how much they dislike each other every time they are together.

(I'm not taking it personally I just pointing out that the issue isn't black and white particularly from child's eyes.)

[BrilloPad]

Quite wrongly.

If person X conducts one or more extra-marital affairs, then that SHOULD be taken in to account when the court decides on who should get the children.

Why ?

Because we are all a measure of our character, and abdication of our responsibilties should carry commensurate punishment.

If Person X was responsible for the break up of the family unit, due to their dalliances, can they really be trusted ever again ?

If that is their temprament, then are they a worthy role model for their children ?

So, the courts are wrong in this instance. Previous form SHOULD be a factor.

It might make people think twice and behave themselves.

This is the sort of stuff I would expect from Chico.

Unless deeds affect the children then it should not affect access. And Nothing should ever expect finance split.

Though if you had been my judge I would have got all the money and full custody.