As a society, we find profiling -- painting a group of people with such a broad brush -- to be wholly unacceptable.
Except when it applies to men in family courts.
Quite frankly, men's rights has become a civil rights issue. When you think of the progress we've made in civil rights, men's rights as it pertains to the family have been neglected.
Profiling of different groups based on skin color, age, disabilities, etc., is not permissible. We regard these generalizations as being deplorable in virtually every sphere of civil rights, but for some reason these generalizations and assumptions are permissible as they pertain to men in domestic scenarios.
There is an institutional family court bias, but we can't simply blame judges. Sure, they are human beings and have preconceptions like everyone else, but it goes much further than that.
The family law industry as a whole -- from attorneys to social workers -- makes presumptions about men and fathers.
Historically, women have usually been the primary nurturers. Judges and opposing counsel can quite persuasively argue that statistically moms more often than not are the ones that are the primary caregivers.
Yet the problem with stereotyping, as civil rights leaders pointed out, is that stereotypes are built on probabilities that do not give fair opportunity to others, to the innocent in that group.
Ironically, the feminist movement, which was largely in response to men's cultural and economic dominance, cast aside men whose roles in family courts were already tenuous. Dads were victims of being male at a time when the movement was not sympathetic to their position.
Men generally were less the subject of the civil rights movement than the obstacle, and for that reason there weren't many sympathetic ears turned toward men, particularly in family court.
As a result, a group think has emerged that has unfortunately elevated the interest of women above the interest of men.
A case we are handling at Cordell & Cordell is a classic example of the lopsided fight dads must face: Our client has three kids in elementary school. He and his wife are equal on all common factors.
How equal? They work for the same company in similar positions. They earn the same amount of money and even have essentially the same retirement benefits. They are both involved with their children's extracurricular activities; he coaches soccer, she helps with choir. Prior to the divorce, they often drove together to drop off the kids at school, went to work, picked up the kids together after work and went home for dinner.
If ever there is a textbook example of granting 50-50 shared parenting time, this is it. Yet the case has waged on for almost a year with no resolution because we have had to fight at every turn to overcome the presumption that Mom should have more time with the kids than Dad because, well, she's Mom.
This systematic discrimination happens every day but goes largely unnoticed. The impact of the obscurity of this issue is that there is not the attention, inclination or support necessary in order for men's rights to receive the political, social and economic momentum that is required to correct this prejudice.
The millions of men and fathers who find themselves in family law courtrooms across America feel as though they are in the dark corner of the room.
It's time a light is shone on the injustice and there be the same sort of concern of fair play that is given other individuals.
Joseph Cordell is the Principal Partner of Cordell & Cordell, a nationwide domestic litigation firm focused on men's family law matters. Cordell & Cordell also provides a website dedicated to informing men on the divorce process and the challenges they face. Visit http://www.dadsdivorce.com for more information.
Are men treated as 3rd class citizens in Family Court...ABSOLUTELY!!
Alive and well in America...
Sexual Discrimination...Indentured Servitude...Debtors Prison
Brought to YOU by US Family Courts.
Take a stand and support Family Law Reform!
Glad you are here away from those poor communicators from before. I am pro-life and I agree with you. Often people say it takes two to make a child, but they do not mind receiving the entitlements mostly based on gender. Good post!
The one's benefiting are the child support system, the courts, the attorneys, the section 8 program, the child care industry, the stripper club industry, the gay industry, the criminal justice industry, the church industry, the illegal drug industry and many more related industries. They all benefit from the broken family.
There is legislation pending called Shared Parenting which would presume equal custody of children. That would improve the chances of fathers being in the lives of women and children. Read more at www.acfc.org. Other methods to correct the problems are in the book The Ten Relationship Rules For Family Power by Eric Harriel.
What is the "gay industry?" How exactly to gay people profit from child support?
I have nothing against gays, but the lifestyle is counter the hetero life style of which I am a proponent. The gay industry is any business that regularly profits from the gay lifestyle. For example, gay bars and clothing are part of the gay industry.
Once men start fighting for their rights of parenting and not agreeing to divorce, then things will change but not untill then. Marriage is a right, parenting and family are rights, divorce is not. There is nothing within the laws of any state that says that a spouse has the right to a divorce.
Clearly this country is NOT going by the rule of law.
If the husband died, and left an insurance policy for the child, with the wife as trustee, she would have to account for the money she spends. Not so if he is alive.
If the ex-wife is clever, this can work out tremendously to her advantage.
a) Have more than one stream of child support. Each father pays the maximum that way.
b) Marry well, so the child support can go to those "little luxuries" that the first ex-never provided.
c) Any increase in the ex-wife's earnings almost always yields an increase in the ex-husband support payment. This sounds counter-intutitive, but its not.
d) Of course the best pay off for the wife is if the child is declared "disabled" before the child reaches 18. Then she has lucked into a life time pension.
Quite believable. What makes it sadder is that the Judge will have no way of adjusting child support for any of the four ex's.
The only way to beat that is for a 18 year old woman to have a child by a 20 year old professional athlete.
If things work out for the athlete, the girlfriend has a very high pension until she is 36 years old. This happens on a regular basis.
Of course she will be held in the highest exteem, even if she is totally unproductive, because she has achieved the coveted status of Victim First Class, by being a single mother.
Marrying a new man, will in no way cut off her pension, sometimes in the neigborhood of $10,000 a month.
Biology dictates that the one who cares the baby, gives birth to the baby is one (barring extreme circumstance) who raises the baby.
Most humans on this planet are raised in this manner.
Equality would be fathers carrying the child and mothers birthing the child with both parents raising the child. This would be equality, but this is impossible.
So where is equality in parenthood? What does it look like? How is it implemented? Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
Don't think "thoughtful responses" were the order of the day for this article.
I do believe in 50/50 . THis poor man you refer to should have his custody and just move on with raising his kids. ANY woman who thwarts a mans role as FAther because she is angry proves a disservice to EVERYONE . I am fighting the reverse prejudice , up holding Fathers rights even when exercising those rights creates emotional and financial harm ,EVERY time. FAmily court is so flawed and "vindictive" ( they were going to have me thrown in jail , several times??? ) that we all suffer , mostly the children.
BEcause they point out the abuse of the Father ?? You have to prove this, abuse.
You can't just make up some story and not support it independently . I have to go back and support my claims with testimony to overcome this ruling. I wouldn't put my kids on the stand , they are too little .
In the bad old days of Jim Crow, Blacks testimony against Whites was heavily, heavily discounted. It kept "order" in society, even if it was not just.
The same thing applies as between Males and Females.
As with most of law it is not written down.
This is going to be BIG!!!!! Thank you Lord God.
The problem is that his appeal is about losing his law license. He is claiming that he lost his license for two reasons:
1. Delinquency on child support.
2. As retaliation for speaking his mind about New York Family law. Interesting enough, until about a decade ago, New York Family Law was in the 19th century.
On the first one he loses. The United States Supreme Court will not look into his child support obligations, and whether or not he met them. As far as I can see, he failed to raise a "federal issue" about his arrears.
As to the second issue. He decided he would take on the entire legal establishment of the State of New York. That, I am afraid is an impossible task.
He will be up against lawyers experienced in Supreme Court practice, meaning the elite of the elite.
He will also be facing a Court that is not known for its sympathy to "civil rights" lawyers as he inartfully calls himself.