When men actually contest, they get at least partial custody an overwhelming amount of the time.
Problem is, a lot of men hear that men never get custody and don’t bother contesting
There was something called the “Tender Years Doctrine” in law that mandated that a child in their “tender years” should be given to the mother. It was basically a patriarchal concept that “women are natural caregivers” and “men are tough dudes who should work for the family” type of shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine:
The tender years doctrine is a legal principle in family law since the late 19th century. In common law, it presumes that during a child’s “tender” years (generally regarded as the age of four and under), the mother should have custody of the child. The doctrine often arises in divorce proceedings.
The doctrine has been increasingly going out of favor but it still exists in many states (in the US I mean). Even if it’s not official, many family court judges still kinda believe it and it affects their decisions:
Critics of the family court system, and in particular fathers’ rights groups, contend that although the tender years doctrine has formally been replaced by the best interests of the child rule, the older doctrine is still, in practice, how child custody is primarily determined in family courts nationwide. Despite this, in 1989, the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s Gender Bias Study reported that “Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time.”[citation needed] However, others argue the 70% figure is highly misleading because its definition of joint custody was so broad as to include visitation rights, among other issues.[6]
Critics maintain that the father must prove the mother to be an unfit parent before he is awarded primary custody, while the mother need not prove the father unfit to win custody herself, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause.[7]
Yeah I know it’s wikipedia but it tracks this particular issue pretty well. Feel free to find other sources to confirm yourself.
Anecdotal, but I know a couple where the father had to get a restraining order against the mother after she assaulted him repeatedly (culminating in attempted murder with a knife), and the judge insisted they split custody 50/50.
Yeah I’d speculate that most judges in US family courts are:
-
conservatives that believe in “traditional” gender roles (cuz of some kind of 1950s nostalgia, reactionary stuff, etc.) or
-
liberals that also believe in “traditional” gender roles (likely due to holdovers from 2nd wave feminism and/or TERF stuff).
Disincentivizing abortion by… cutting off financial support for the child you’re forced to have?
Edit: in case it’s not incredibly clear, “you’re” here refers to the forced mother.
:jesus-christ: I realized the MRAs have a huge issue with child support but there are other solutions.
Abortion would need to be federally protected first, but I think having a legal framework for the inseminator to relinquish parental rights as well might be good. It would have to be done early enough for the carrier to be able to terminate the pregnancy if the inseminator does go this route, and would relieve them of the responsibility of paying for child support as well as all visitation rights. It could be as easy as filling out a form with a notary public, getting both parties’ signatures.
This would be rough without a bit more financial assistance for carriers who then still decide to raise the child alone, but at least they’ll have a heads-up if their partner never intended to pay child support, and never have to worry about a custody battle.
I should say I’ve never had to deal with child support personally, as a parent or child, but I have had friends whose dads never paid and their moms had long given up fighting for it. I also have a friend who became pregnant, decided to keep it under the impression that her partner was sticking around to raise it, and he left her mid-pregnancy, and afaik is not paying child support.
From my perspective, skewed as it may be, I’d like to know as early as possible if the person who gets me pregnant has no intention of providing for it, and I think giving a way to terminate parenthood early on in the pregnancy would encourage those who are going to leave to make that decision quickly enough for the carrier to take that into account when making the decision to keep it, as having a reliable partner would heavily weigh on my decision. This is just an idea to try to both give inseminators an out, and put a timer on that decision, like abortion.
child support should be mandatory if you want to be a negelectful parent you can change your name and leave the country the traditional way.
I don’t think people should be able to abandon their responsibilities if they aren’t willing to put in the work
I agree that parents have a responsibility to their child but abortion gives me an option to not become a parent even if I become pregnant and I think there should be an equivalent just on a shorter clock.
Obviously they’d need to pay if they don’t take the parental termination route early enough, but there are situations where someone can have sex and not intend to get pregnant, and so I think it logically follows that someone can have sex while not intending to get someone pregnant. It might be contraceptives failing, a hookup, or any other number of reasons. If the carrier lets the other person know quickly why should there not be a way for them to say “I don’t want to be a parent even if you decide to keep it”?
You said “I don’t think people should be able to abandon their responsibilities if they aren’t willing to put in the work.” Should a pregnant person be allowed to have a medical abortion if they aren’t willing to put in the work or should they have to just tough it out and become a parent anyway? Personally I don’t think anyone should have to give a reason to have an abortion, so even if their reason is they don’t want the work or financial burden of a child that’s more than enough.
I’m not suggesting at all that this be attainable any time other than in the early weeks of pregnancy, but I’m hesitant to suggest an exact week because I’m not trying to write a law as much as rethink what a legal abortion could mean.
There are foreseeable problems I don’t have answers to though, like what if the carrier does not inform their partner of the pregnancy until it is too late to seek parental termination, but then we’re really just in the situation we are now.
If I need to put it in cisheteronormative terms to make it more understandable, I think men should be able to get abortions too, just via paperwork instead of a pill or surgery.
I disagree I think abortion should be legal as the criminalisation just results in a higher death rate for the women getting them and also that no one should be forced to give birth.
Abandonning responsibility to a child is shitty though as it will negatively impact the remaining parent and child.
I personally think that everyone should pay child support, for all children. Yes, everyone, even people who never met the child and never will.
totally. it’s the only way to resolve the situation. universal childcare and social support, housing, medical, etc for all. then it doesn’t matter if two people who fucked but can’t get along suck at working out a deal.
the way it’s done currently, where the courts arrest and jail some idiot for not paying his piece is just ludicrous. i don’t blame single parents for using the courts to get what’s theirs at all, but it clearly doesn’t work to benefit anyone in the equation.
It’s been talked about for a while: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fathers-financial-abortion_b_1015286 (Huffpost: Should Men Have the Right to ‘Financial Abortions’?) but it hasn’t caught on; I’d speculate its due to people still clinging to traditional norms.
“Logical” next step
If this is the case women should be able to blap men on sight. Sexual advances? Your honor it was self defense
