Is The Playing Field Level For Men In The Family Court System?

The father's rights movement isn't an anti-mom or anti-woman movement; it's an anti-unfairness movement. It just so happens that moms have most of the power in the family court system in America.

It's true there has been progress in the family law system overcoming its gender bias, though rarely is the playing field even. In order to be truly fair to both parties, courts need to be completely gender blind, which is simply not the case.

In family law, more than any other area of the law, judges have a huge amount of discretion allowing ample opportunity for biases that we all as human beings have.

Since those presumptions are frequently held against fathers, men must spend more time, money, and effort just to try to get to a level playing field in a family law courtroom.

One purpose of the law is to protect us from those leanings of individual judges, but once you give a judge such a wide range of discretion and decision-making then it invites that sort of bias. Historically, it has not worked in the favor of guys.

For example, many states' child custody laws specifically say the child is entitled to maintaining a relationship with both parents, but those same laws do not outline the quantity of time each parent has to establish and foster that relationship.

At odds with it is the required presumption that a child should spend a majority of his or her time in the established custodial environment. This may be with both parents, but is usually with the primary caregiver--often either in reality or as perceived by an older, traditional judge--Mom.

With the growing number of stay-at-home dads and two-working-parent households, one would think that the presumption that a child should spend equal time with each parent is a given--but not so.

I've seen several cases where you have a highly successfully, financial well-off wife married to an unemployed or underemployed husband who cares for the children.

For the most part, judges and opposing counsel see the situation and say, "Why doesn't this guy go out and get a job?"

Now flip the roles. The husband is a high-paid executive and the wife is unemployed or underemployed. There is no presumption here that she should be working. In fact, many believe the woman is performing a perfectly legitimate role as a stay-at-home mom.

So a dad has to struggle to prove he is not guilty of being a deadbeat, but the same is not true when the situation is reversed.

Even when the father is employed, his job schedule works to his detriment. I've had countless cases where the man worked more than the wife, and now it is held against him because he was never deemed to be the primary caregiver, though his job financially benefited the family.

Yet it is not an option for him to decrease his work hours or income because he will face penalties and sanctions on the support side. The wife would argue that he is shirking his responsibilities and simply decreasing his income so he doesn't have to pay as much child support and alimony. But how else can he maximize his time with his children?

After 20 years of experience spent with Cordell & Cordell representing men in domestic relations matters, I can't help but notice the challenges consistently facing one side of the table--the guy's side.

Presently, many states are recognizing the importance of leveling the playing field in family courts. Some have had success (Tennessee recently passed a law that now requires judges to consider how to maximize both parents' involvement in their child's life when making custody decisions), while others consistently have bills stall in the legislature.

Yet every year we have more and more people at least talking about the concept of Dad having more parenting time.

Sure, the playing field might be leveling, but it is not level, and the players on the field are not equally equipped to play the game.

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.

 

Comments

[Robert Ferrer]

09:41 AM on 08/22/2011

One thing that is said about the court system that is undeniable..... it is a playing field. No one seems to get it. Courts don't need to be reformed..... they just need to be removed from the picture. When it comes to children, issues surrounding custody and access are not legal issues. They are issues that inform a family crisis. As such, they need to be resolved not in a legal environment but in a therapeutic one.

[rosey7]

07:34 PM on 08/01/2011

flacon,

Farrow accused Allen of inappropriately touching her adopted daughter who was then a small girl. He was never accused of doing anything sexual to his bio son. The Court appointed a guardian to be with Allen during his supervised visitation with his bio son. The court guardian reported back that Allen was verbally and physically abusive to the boy in front of her and Allen lost his supervised visits. The guy couldn't keep his temper together for the couple of hours he had with his son. if he had, the court would have given him some custody of their child. But, he effectively abandoned his son when the court ruled he go through therapy etc to gain back visitation. Instead, Allen married his 'step daughter" and was ALLOWED to adopt two female children. That's what being rich and powerful in this country allows. His own son was replaced by an asian girl and a blonde blue eyed girl. Allen has never sought out visitation with his bio son, though the son is a genius and a grown man now.

[rosey7]

11:54 AM on 07/31/2011

flacon,

Mia Farrow did not accuse Allen of molesting THEIR son. She and the baby sitter swore they found him with his hands under the dress of her adopted daughter who was very young at the time. The child was interviewed repeatedly by court appointed psychiatrists who testified the child talked about Daddy's touching her under her panties. You see, all the kids, had been treated as Allen's kids for years. they traveled all over the world together as a family unit. Of course, Mia trusted him as he had provided much loving support as well as financial perks for the kids- though he did not live with them. He is a neat freak and didn't want to have to live and write in the chaos of a huge family. However, Allen was with them as a family every day until Mia found the naked photographs of her high school attending daughter taken by Allen on top of his fireplace. Just what most step father's do, right?

[715W]

07:47 AM on 07/31/2011

If a divorcing wife/mother is taking the divorcing husband/father to court, it is almost certainly NOT in an effort to be "fair" or to get a fair result.

It is instead in an effort to exploit bad divorce law and gender biases to get an unfair result that is favorable to her.

A divorcing wife/mother can say to a divorcing husband/father:

"I don't care if you love the children and they love you. I want to control the children and I want more child support money from you. Even though you are a great dad, I will win in court."

"I don't care if you educated yourself before the marriage and went to work every day during the marriage while I stayed at home and refused to get a job. After the divorce, I want you to have to work and support me; I don't want to get a job. I want to free myself of any obligation to help you in your income-earning but I want your income to continue to come to me. I am going to court because that is what I expect as an outcome."

"I don't care if you will suffer personally and financially and professionally. I actually want that to happen."

"I don't care about legal expenses. Legal expenses come out of income you earned. It doesn't even feel like a cost to me if I take you to court. I have nothing to lose."

[LeftRight]

08:11 PM on 07/31/2011

Nobody is claiming that the woman asking for child support or alimony is trying to be fair. Nor are we laboring under the delusion that the MAN is trying to be fair in divorce and family court. We're simply asking the JUDGE to be fair!

[715W]

10:06 PM on 07/31/2011

No. I don't think so.

The last thing that a divorcing wife who takes a case to trial wants from a judge is fairness. The sole motivation to go to trial is to seek a gender-biased outcome from a gender-biased system.

In a fair and gender-equal society as we SHOULD have today, in a divorce there would be equal placement of any children with each parent unless there was an evidence-based concern as to parental fitness, there would be reporting/accountability for the use of child support payments, there would be a requirement that divorcing spouses establish themselves as financially independent of each other without alimony or maintenance, and there would be fines/punishment for false allegations/testimony.

There would be no incentives for either divorcing spouse to play a victim.

There would be no windfalls for either divorcing spouse.

There would be no "you mean I can ask for that much? ... let's roll the dice and go to trial and see how much this judge will give me" mentality.

[vx2454]

03:55 AM on 07/31/2011

Yes men get the shaft many want to have enough money to have a life but the courts make sure the man is punished by requiring huge child support payments and in some states ripping off the next wife too. The custodial should be required to work and there needs to be a cap on child support too. The best reform would be a pool of money, child support is taken from that pool and certain old ways of measuring like the style you have been accustomed to are deleted, After all many women now are finding out how nasty it is to pay child support no matter what the state takes and takes. The state treats non custodial parents like lepers.

[andrebhub]

07:17 PM on 07/30/2011

It's a good cause, but I doubt it's a fight that will be won until men can somehow carry children. I wonder how it goes when there are two fathers in the equation

[jack Winn]

01:57 PM on 07/30/2011

People almost always miss the point. There is no "equality", and can be no "equality" when people have (necessarily) different roles. Mom cannot be Dad, and vice versa.

It's a matter of defining relationships. Who gets what, and who does what.

People who go into court aren't happy, and the judge isn't going to make them any happier. A lot of expectations are WILDLY unrealistic, eg that separated parents can have the same sort of involvement with the kids as when they were together.

And that's just a start. The cultural assumption is that an unhappy woman has been wronged somehow, and most women exploit that on a daily basis. Ultimately, the only way a man can manage that is to detach himself, like go deep into the High Sierras.

What people have to learn is realistic expectations.

[A Dads Love Is]

12:57 PM on 07/30/2011

Of course this is not a level playing field, but I think the question is whose back is the field balanced upon? Simple the children. If LOVE were traded on the exchange, I'd say short it! This is a compnay which showed great promise, had great demand and was almost like water. Everyone wanted it! But some where along the line people began to hord it, throw it out, turn away..??? But rather than skyrocketing in price value it has gone out of favor and is in decline.

So when you wake up tommorrow, look around and ask "What's the price of LOVE today?"

http://www.change.org/petitions/protect-all-citizens-rights-give-our-children-both-parents

There are laws in place at the state and federal level already which address maximized parental involvement, why are they not applied?

[Maverickpower]

11:49 AM on 07/30/2011

We need more child advocates ( even family members ) to speak to what is best for the kids , not the parents. AND we need not a pre-nup but a parenting plan in the statistically probable event you will both be single parents .

[Wmhasd]

01:19 PM on 07/30/2011

I absolutely agree. Some sort of mechanism calling for equally shared custody of any children resulting from a marriage needs to be the standard. Whether it's made reality by a pre-nup, parenting plan, enforcement of the already existing (but nearly always ignored) requirements for gender neutrality in custody cases, or something else, it's got to happen for the good of the children.

Children do better when both parents are actively involved in their lives. (They do even better when their parents stay married, but let's skip over that for now.) When fathers are transformed into the equivalent of grandfathers or uncles through grossly lopsided custody arrangements, children suffer. (So do fathers, of course. But nobody cares about them so just ignore that comment.)

[vx2454]

03:58 AM on 07/31/2011

I disagree. Too many times that is the excuse to rob the noncustodial parent. Yes we do need very strong pre-nups the divorce in the marriage contract so some behind the times judge does not shat the none custodial parent *also to be sure the they are the real parent.

[Maverickpower]

11:43 AM on 07/31/2011

I think you miss the point , BEFORE you have children , write a plan for the 50/50 chance you will be a single parent. Maybe this will highlight the inherent risks involved .

And if you already are in a "fight" have people close to the children advocate for their well being. Maybe this advocate ( once maybe a "Godparent" ) can be chosen prior to the birth.
Or neutral third parties ( that are not paid) like Grandparents , Uncles , Aunts etc . bring the same group together that came to the baby shower ???

[laaambchop]

09:25 AM on 07/30/2011

Every time an article such as this is posted, it turns into a gender war. It's sad.

[h0tr0d]

04:29 PM on 08/02/2011

This is actually good.....it use to be there was no voice for men.

[Wmhasd]

10:27 PM on 07/29/2011

I just finished watching yet another Hollywood movie with the cliched character of the dad who, at the end, realized that he'd spent too much energy on his career and he should have been spending it on his family. At fade out he was watching his daughter's recital while his beaming wife clutched his arm.

Has anyone ever seen a move where a mother who divorced the father of her children because he was working more than she wanted him to, or didn't do exactly 50 percent of the housework she felt needed to be done, or just didn't make her feel like she did on their honeymoon -- has anybody ever seen a movie where at the end she realizes she made a mistake? In the non-Hollywood version, the husband is dead by his own hand, the kids are an assortment of drug addicts, alcoholics, dropouts, teen mothers and gang members. In short, it's too late. In the Hollywood version, she realizes she has screwed up the lives of every other person in her family so she can pursue her own personal happiness, or what she thinks is her personal happiness. And she realizes it in time to keep all the irreversible negative consequences from happening. And everybody lives happily ever after. (continued)

[Wmhasd]

10:44 PM on 07/29/2011

Anybody ever seen that movie? I've seen the one about the repentant dad a thousand times if I've seen it once. But the moms never repent, on screen or elsewhere. I guess they don't have anything to repent. Or so they seem to think. What is the saying? "Denial is not a river in Egypt." Maybe someday all the suicided husbands and overdosed kids will rise up from their graves and demand an accounting. That would make another kind of movie. Think they'll ever make that movie? Or will we keep giving women a free pass?

[onrecess]

01:02 AM on 07/30/2011

I want to see the sequel where she divorces him because this new time with his kids lowers her lifestyle by a dollar.

[Wmhasd]

08:50 AM on 07/30/2011

That would be "American Mom II: The Tightening Belt".

[rosey7]

07:02 PM on 07/29/2011

ockase,

A pox on any parent who goes out for tattoos or drinking and short changes their kids by doing so. Personally, I don't know those type of women in my personal life or business but I know they are out there. The ones with five kids by five different fathers. That is not the norm but slime parents of both genders exist in large numbers. Unfortunately, it is more common for dads to abandon children than mothers.

I was raised by my father, not my mother. My choice. He was fantastic in all the important ways. He couldn't cook a meal or pick out my clothes or even choose a haircut for me but he hired a nanny for that. He helped with my homework, drove me to lessons when he wasn't working and never missed any special moment in school or out of school. He has passed now but he is my measure of a great father. He was also a fantastic grandfather.

[Wmhasd]

12:04 PM on 07/30/2011

By far the most common cause of fatherlessness is divorce, which is overwhelmingly initiated by mothers. Whether or not you know any parents at all is irrelevant. The way we address these problems is by looking at the overall picture, what usually happens. It's just like proving discriminatory lending practices, hiring practices, etc. Just because there happen to be three or four women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, does that mean workplace gender discrimination is a fantasy? Of course, it doesn't. In the same way, the extremely lopsided divorce and child custody situation proves beyond any kind of doubt that profound gender discrimination exists in the family law system. Saying 90 percent his and 80 percent may not tug on the heart strings like a story, but that's how policy decisions should be made.

[Guest211]

07:38 AM on 07/29/2011

Joseph,

Thanks for your article (its always a challenge to get down all your thoughts in 750 words, isnt it).

Its interesting to note, there's a growing number of writers / activists in this field who share two commonalit­ies. No matter if its Vicki Larson on this page, or:

Kris Titus
http://www­.thestar.c­om/article­/705130

Barbara Kay
http://www­.barbaraka­y.ca/index­.php?optio­n=com_cont­ent&view=a­rticle&id=­526&Itemid­=10

Kathleen Parker
http://www­.washingto­npost.com/­opinions/w­hy-fathers­-will-alwa­ys-matter/­2011/06/17­/AGXvyUZH_­story.html

Molly Olson
http://www­.articlesa­boutmen.co­m/2010/06/­shared-par­enting-is-­one-gift-t­hats-long-­overdue-91­1/

Joy Moses
http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­joy-moses/­fathering-­and-enforc­ement_b_87­9101.html

Rachel Alexander
http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2011/07/19/the_new_battleground_of_child_custody_reform_shared_parenting

The first thing they share is their courage. The second should be obvious.

Kudos again on your article.

[Guest211]

07:52 AM on 07/29/2011

Lets try this again....

Kris Titus
http://www­­.thestar.­c­om/artic­le­/705130

Barbara Kay
http://www­­.barbarak­a­y.ca/ind­ex­.php?op­tio­n=com_­cont­ent&v­iew=a­rtic­le&id=­526­&Itemid­=1­0

Kathleen Parker
http://www­­.washingt­o­npost.co­m/­opinion­s/w­hy-fat­hers­-will­-alwa­ys-m­atter/­201­1/06/17­/A­GXvyUZH_­s­tory.html

Molly Olson
http://www­­.articles­a­boutmen.­co­m/2010/­06/­shared­-par­entin­g-is-­one-­gift-t­hat­s-long-­ov­erdue-91­1­/

Joy Moses
http://www­­.huffingt­o­npost.co­m/­joy-mos­es/­father­ing-­and-e­nforc­emen­t_b_87­910­1.html

Rachel Alexander
http://tow­nhall.com/­columnists­/rachelale­xander/201­1/07/19/th­e_new_batt­leground_o­f_child_cu­stody_refo­rm_shared_­parenting

(fingers crossed.....)

[Guest211]

07:57 AM on 07/29/2011

Uncle

[AcaciaJules]

12:26 AM on 07/29/2011

Of course, they ignore the fact that until 50-80 years ago, women had no rights to their children what so ever.

[Celdazero]

01:30 AM on 07/29/2011

Sorry, this comment is useless.

Even if it were true that until 80 years ago, women had no rights to their kids, that would be irrelevant regarding the current situation.

However, that is false: the "tender years doct
rine" which started in the NINETEENTH CENTURY (1800s) automatically gave custody to women:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_Years_Doctrine

[Steve Blondino]

06:09 PM on 07/29/2011

Injustice is injustice no matter the incident. That does not make it OK for discriminatory behavior to continue.

[Maverickpower]

10:05 PM on 07/28/2011

Wow , I see the point. Tell them to go to Idaho , men have more power than you can believe. They defend the males right to 50 / 50 . A friend had a one night stand , had the baby , got called on the 50/50 and couldn't leave the state of Idaho ( Blaine county to be exact) with her daughter , for 18 years. It is as upside down as what your pointing out. I was never married to my daughters Father , have paid for everything ANd been a full time Mom the whole time , PLUS domestic violence. I can live in either Latah County or Blaine County Idaho , and it cots 1,000.00's to address a hostile Judge who was going to throw me in jail for living 3.6 miles over the Washington /Idaho border?? THis Judge cannot act in the kids best interest , at all. He has it in for the Women , I feel for these men you represent.

[h0tr0d]

04:54 PM on 07/29/2011

So what is your objection to a father getting 50/50 ? Isnt that what equality looks like ?

[Maverickpower]

10:41 PM on 07/29/2011

I only object when the Father is abusive , and those rights ( essentially to do damage) come before the kids rights to a safe stable home . And essentially what is in the kids best interest . A full time parent gender not withstanding.

[onrecess]

12:49 AM on 07/30/2011

So you are saying a man with money and custody could move to Hawaii and take the kids and that would be hunky dory?
Yeah. And you living where the father cannot take you to court is only fair, right?
Yeck.

[Maverickpower]

11:40 AM on 07/30/2011

Boning up on jurisdiction might be helpful before you spout off . Ever heard of the Uniform CHild Custody Act ??? Do your homework .

Yeck ?? Hair ball coming up again ???