In custody decisions, mothers are more likely to receive primary residential custody than fathers. Although in the past decade there has been an increase in equal residential custody, mothers are still much more likely to be awarded primary residential care. Across a wide range of jurisdictions the estimates are that mothers receive primary custody 68-88% of the time, fathers receive primary custody 8-14%, and equal residential custody is awarded in only 2-6% of the cases.
Sanford Braver and his colleagues at Arizona State University recently conducted a study to see how the public would judge custody decisions and their perceptions of the legal system regarding custody (Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2011). To examine these questions, the researchers developed three hypothetical cases in which the only variation in the cases was the amount of time that the mothers and fathers had participated in caregiving prior to the divorce. In one case, the mother provided 75% of the caregiving prior to the divorce, in the second case, the father provided 75% of the caregiving and in the third case the caregiving was 50% by both parents. These cases were presented to citizens who had been summoned to serve on a jury panel in an Arizona community. About 100 people participated in this study. The participants were given the three hypothetical cases, and then asked to imagine themselves as the judge deciding these cases based on the merits of the cases and what was best for the child. In each case they were asked how much time the child should spend with each parent.
In the case in which the parents spent equal time (50-50) with the child prior to divorce, an overwhelming majority (69%) of the participants thought living time should be divided equally between the two parents. The remaining participants selected "live with mother, but spend a lot of time with dad."
So what did the participants choose when the parenting time was described as more by either by the father or the mother (75% -25%)? In these cases about 50% of the participants still selected "equal time" with both parents as the preferred custody arrangement. In the case in which the mother was described as spending more time, another 41% selected "live with mother, but spend a lot of time with dad." Likewise, when dads were described as spending more time, 37% of the participants selected "live with dad, but spend a lot of time with mother." In all these cases in which both parents were described as competent parents from average families, the participants in this study favored "equal parenting time" even in cases in which the pre-divorce parenting routines were described as either equal or in which one parent was more actively involved in caregiving.
The next question that the participants were asked was what they thought would happen in "today's legal system?" Here participants thought the legal system would come to dramatically different conclusions. In the case in which both parents had 50-50 caregiving time, the study participants estimated that the legal system would award equal time in only 28% of the cases, although another 47% estimated that the child would live with mom and get lots of time with dad. In the case in which the mother was described as spending more time with the child, the most common expectation (about 33%) was that the court would rule that the child should live with mom and dad would get "some" time. In the reverse case in which the dad was described as spending more time in caregiving prior to the divorce, again only 27% expected the courts to award equal time to both parents. The study participants did not expect fathers who were caregivers to get the same results as the mothers. Twenty-seven percent expected the judge to rule that the child should live with the mom, but the father would get a lot of time. Likewise, only 24% expected that the judge would rule that the child would live with the father and the mother would get to spend a lot of time with the child.
Overall, these results suggest that there is strong view among the general public that equal custody is the preferred option. Importantly, these results did not differ between men and women participants. Both genders favored equal custody.
Perhaps most surprising was that even in the cases of different patterns of pre-divorce involvement, the study participants leaned toward a pattern of equal time post-divorce. The other notable finding was that although these members of the public were not gender-biased in their views of custody, Sanford and colleagues write, "it seems they believed that the legal system was."
In writing about the implications of these findings, the researchers note that the perception of the legal system is important because both lawyers and parents may base their choices on what they believe the court will decide. They write, "the mere perception that there is a bias may influence the settlements on which most the judgments are based, [resulting in ] a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Past generations?
Hmm, my mother's biological father? Gone on his merry way when she was 10.
My biological father? Gone when I was 2.
My husband's biological father? Gone when he was 6.
Father of Best friend #1? Gone when she was 8.
Father of Best friend #2? Gone when she was 11.
Father of Best friend #3? Gone when she was 7.
None of these mothers tried to limit contact. Most didn't receive a dime of child support.
Anecdotal, I know, but still my experience.
Sorry to hear about your experiences with fathers. Sounds horrible...
I'm sixty, male, and live in the Seattle area. My experience and that of around thirty divorces that I know of, would be the exact opposite of yours. None of the men abandoned their children, all pay child support (except for one who is in jail). Lots of mom's doing gate-keeping and two engaging in outright parental alienation.
Granted, these are all white, middle class people, most are educated, the men range in occupations from carpenters to the vice-president of a Fortune 500 company. Wives initiated divorces in 4 out of five cases. All but one wife got the children and houses, and that one ran off and abandoned her children.
I guess mileage varies depending on circumstances and living areas.
Of the examples I gave, we're all white and middle class too. I have two friends right now going through a divorce. I know personally that the wife is encouraging the husband to take their five year old son as much as he wants. He takes his son roughly twice a month, for one day and one night.
In my little section of experience, as I noted above, it was always the mothers who did the "work" of caring for the kids and the dads who always walked. But, like I also wrote, it could be generational (although your experience is certainly different).
Yes, the legal language might be written gender neutral, but women get custody of the children 84% of the time and men only 8%. A case of major court bias.
I was the main parent for my daughter, fed her at night, changed far more diapers than her mom ever did, walked her through the night when she had ear infections. Because I have a flexible work schedule I was the one who took her to the doctor, dentists, school functions. I was the one who read to her, taught her, played with her.
How did that work out for me in court? (Washington state) The judge looked me right in the eye and pronounced "I would never grant custody of a child in her tender years to the father."
A recent study of Washington family court showed that men who argued in family court for more time with their children, on average, received LESS time!
It is a rotten-to-the-core system that favors women at the expense of the children and then dares to proclaim "IT IS FOR GOOD OF THE CHILDREN". It just makes tons of money for the legal system and fills the general funds of state treasuries with matching federal funds as they collect child suport.
It's possible that we're both right. I went through two court battles over kids I had raised alone for 10 years and lost custody of one, though there was no evidence of wrongdoing on my part. I did a lot of research and interviewing between that dispute and the next one. I hadn't been expecting another dispute--but when my ex sued me again, I was ready, and kept custody of our second child and also worked out a far better agreement covering both of them.
What is wrong with the system is exactly what you ran into. The law itself makes the actual care-taking of the child THE LEAST IMPORTANT FACTOR in every state except one. The object of this was, in the 70s, to make a more level playing field for fathers who, at that time, took much less of the responsibility for the kids. The irony is that, now, despite the fact that it is the prevailing opinion of child psychologists that consistent care is the most important factor in a child's well-being, the lack of emphasis on actual care-taking now works AGAINST the fathers who are care-takers.
I'm truly sorry this happened to you--In my opinion and that of many authorities at this point it is the person who has done the homework, made the breakfast, had them throw up in their hair--who should have primary custody, whether mom or dad.
To each divorce case, assign an administraÂtor trained in mediation/Âconflict resolutionÂ.
Encourage parties to appear pro se. Divorce lawyers don't add anything except expense and acrimony; lawyers don't have knowledge of what is best for the children. Their fees reduce the marital estate, to the detriment of the divorcing household. (You put their children through college rather than your own.)
Require the parties to exchange disclosures: (a) asset statements from date of marriage and at date of divorce; (b) proposal for division of assets; (c) proposal for custody/placement of dependent children with proposed parenting plan.
Run the administraÂtive divorce process like an ongoing mediation. Parties meet monthly and work for as long as necessary until resolutionÂ. Both parties pay a monthly fee for as long as the case remains open. Where gaps exist and if negotiatioÂns fall short of closing the gap, at some point (1.5 years) the administraÂtor will make a decision.
Start the process with certain presumptioÂns: (a) custody/plÂacement of dependent children will be shared equally; (b) all property obtained during the marriage is to be divided equally. To overcome the presumptioÂn, there must be evidence.
Use standard forms that lay-personÂs can understand and complete. Allow do-overs in the initial months of the process as the parties figure it out.
Allow limited judicial review at the end of the process.
I'm a huge fan of mediation rather than lawyers and your ideas are sound.
Of course, the divorce attorneys would fight this tooth and nail, should it ever come before state legislators for a vote. Maybe someday,,,,
Studies show that parenting is still a gendered activity, and this is especially true in early childhood. Although both parents' education, work hours, and incomes influence fathers' time with children, mothers usually provide structure and order to children's schooling: supervising homework, talking with teachers, and attending school functions. In fact, it can be said that mothers "drive the rhythm of daily life'' for most children. And children turn to their mothers for guidance and support. So why should this be denied them when their parents divorce and they need that emotional foundation the most?
The outcomes for the children in sole custody compared to court-imposed joint custody (as opposed to joint custody which is worked out by the parents and thus reflective of their pre divorce relationship) has been shown to be better in high conflict divorces, perhaps because mandating exactly 50/50 split is more about the parents' ego than the child's needs. This is why courts should avoid making general assumptionÂs about the appropriatÂeness of joint custody in favor of arrangemenÂts that are responsive to the circumstanÂces of individual cases tailored to individual situationsÂ.
Using high conflict divorces as an argument against 50/50 custody is a strawman. These cases represent a small fraction (5% in one California study) of cases. Since studies also show fathers and mothers are equally capable of parenting children, a new dynamic will be established post-divorce.
A presumption of 50/50 custody can reduce the number of divorces in the first place. States with a preference for shared custody have lower divorce rates than those that do not. It can also reduce conflict inherent in the nebulous "best interest of the child" standard which forces each parent to show that they are the superior parent.
Citing high conflict cases as a reason for sole custody is a strawman. These cases represent a small fraction
Has anyone heard of the concept of restrictive maternal gatekeeping -- see generally http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1560&context=lawrev
?
Has anyone seen or experienced a family dynamic/dysfunction where in preparation for a divorce the mother restricted the involvement of the father in parenting so as to be able to argue "uninvolved dad" during the divorce?
Despite this pre-occupation with allocations of parenting time by many parents and legal professionals, the research literature suggests that it is the quality of relationships between parents, and between parents and children, that exerts a critical influence on children’s wellbeing.
A joint custody arrangement can be a good solution or a bad solution. Whether or not such an arrangement is right for any one family, depends on the relationship that exist, and these relationships should be carefully considered: The child's age, temperament and coping style are key. A workable joint custody arrangement requires a great deal of maturity, cooperation and a commitment to making the child's needs a priority. It might be better for overburdened moms and for men who miss the day to day involvement in their kids lives, but in many cases--certainly most disputed cases--it's not best for children.
http://www.proactivechange.com/divorce/statistics/research-rates.htm
Why presume that men and women should be equal partners in both parenting and finance? Studies have shown that fathers are just as capable of parenting as mothers. The fact that mothers have a preference for working part time should not be viewed as an entitlement post divorce.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/536/working-women
The court's ability to determine the best interest of the child is limited. See Robert Emery's review of custody evaluators. He is particularly daming:
"There is essentially no psychological science to support the measures and constructs designed specifically for the assessment of child custody arrangements for individual children"
http://psi.sagepub.com/content/6/1/1.full
Believe it or not, the divorce lawyers oppose this bill.
Are there any studies that you know of that show that children favor equal placement -- in real time and retrospectively?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00385.x/abstract
Fabricius surveyed university students who were children of divorce. In living arrangements, children lived mostly with their mothers but in general the children's desired time with dad mirrored that of the fathers. On the average they thought their fathers wanted to see them a lot of the time and more than they thought their mothers wanted. Some 51-70% wanted to see their fathers more. Students themselves believed that the best living arrangement for children is equal amounts of time with each parent. Fully 93% of those actually in equal time arrangements thought it best.
Also "The negative consequences of a parent change, especially a mother change and especially for young children, are greater than the deficits incurred by living without both parents in adolescence, if in a stable family....parenting is still a gendered activity, and this is especially true in early childhood. Although both parents' education, work hours, and incomes influence fathers' time with children, mothers usually provide structure and order to children's schooling: supervising homework, talking with teachers, and attending school functions. In fact, it can be said that mothers "drive the rhythm of daily life'' for most children." Holly E. Heard (2007) Fathers, Mothers, and Family Structure: Family Trajectories, Parent Gender, and Adolescent Schooling Journal of Marriage and Family
In high conflict divorces, joint custody is usually worse for the child--and these are the cases that the court system is generally dealing with.
Well, here's someone who's never had her father ripped out of her life. Good for you!
Every few weeks, I'd be subpoenaed to appear in court. The experience was absolutely surreal: She would appear in her finest orange jail garb, and explain to the judge why she thought she should have custody. I would then have to explain why I thought custody shouldn't be awarded to an inmate.
This went on for months. It was absurd, and the court would never have countenanced this sort of lunacy had the genders been reversed.
Look also at the statistics of children whose parents desert them entirely: it's very disproportionately fathers who abandon their children.
Maybe you have a valid gripe and are one of the dads who have taken on the primary care of your children. But it's disturbing that your focus is on men and dads and not on the how children respond to their lives being torn apart when their parents divorce. The best thing all parents can do is to set aside their own needs (anger and a need for vindication, victimhood and a desire for retribution, distress and the need for validation) and try to help their children through the fall out from the divorce even if they believe they were shafted by a biased system. Because if you were shafted, your children were even more so.
"Even when parents spend 50/50 time with their children, mother's are much more likely to take greater responsibi lity emotionall y and in terms of focusing on the child's experience ."
Also, where did you come up with that?
In divorce cases where there is a divorcing mother trying to take the children away from an involved father, the solution is to have the law/court say "no way."
http://wwwÂ.courts.waÂ.gov/wsccrÂ/docs/ResiÂdentialTimÂeSummaryReÂport2010.pÂdf
Established Risk Factor–––––––––––Mother––––––––––Father
Abused or neglected a child––––––––––.7––––––––––––––2.1
Chemical dependency issues––––––––1.7––––––––––––––3.9
Committed Domestic Violence––––––––.5 ––––––––––––––4.3
Mental health issues––––––––––––––––.6–––––––––––––––.9
Other Risk Factor–––––––––––––––––1.1––––––––––––––3.6
Assuming the presence of a risk factor (no matter how slight) of 1 in 10 fathers, and that no mothers had risk factors, and that absent risk factors joint custody was ordered, would result in a 10% rate of primary custody awarded to mothers, 0% rate of primary custody awarded to fathers, and a 90% rate of joint custody orders.
I think there are other factors at work here than the existence of risk factors. I am guessing that you have never seen a male relative destroyed by the anti-male bias in family court, or perhaps you are a lawyer that routinely argues that fathers be separated from their children.