A child is better off with the person who will be the better parent for that child. This doesn't mean that one parent is bad and the other good - it means taking into account ALL of the personalities involved, including the child's.

When my parents split, my brother and I ended up with our mother. For reasons I won't go into, it was not a good decision. She was not a bad mother, but everyone now agrees that custody should have either been shared, or my father should have gotten custody.

Reply

This story is interesting...I'd like to hear others' comments as well.

Someone close to me is going through a similar situation, as a father. And, after thousands of dollars in legal fees and multiple court dates, I've come to realize that the legal system--even going into 2008--still sides with the mother. The father in this case wants sole physical custody of his son--but even after documentation of the unemployed mother interfering several times with visitation and many times at being uncooperative--and even having the son psychologically evaluated--the court and the attorneys don't know if his case is solid enough.

Solid enough! Can't a father just WANT to be with his son and provide him with a more fulfilling life? Not to mention the father has more financial means (i.e. is the only parent in this situation with a job) and a great family support system to provide for the son.

As a woman, it sickens me greatly that--at least in my state--the laws are so outdated. And, unfortunately, these same laws facilitate laziness and reward bad parenting for mothers. I know not all mothers are bad, just like not all fathers should be assumed to be deadbeats. But we are not in 1950. Mother's today can and sometimes do have decent paying jobs and can contribute toward child-related expenses and should NOT be rewarded for popping out children and expecting the father to foot the bill.

Reply

i would like to ask what constitutes laziness...if she were a stay at home mom and that was the agreement between the 2 of them maybe she isnt equipped to financially be as secure as he is...i know i wasnt...i gave up my career to be a stay at home mom because it was important to both me and my husband....he worked and returned to college to finish his degree and as soon as he graduated told me he wanted a divorce...i was devestated both emotionally and finacially...i couldnt provide nearly what he could so i got child support and worked part time while they were in school so i could still be mom...but i could provide them with more love and attention than he could....so again i ask what constitutes laziness?

Reply

Boy, with Trish's posts about divorce and now this one, my old nasty memories are sure rushing to the surface. I honestly believe that no matter what, children really need both their parents. Sure, there are people who might be a “playmate” to their children but that child still needs that relationship. It’s what they know and divorce is already so traumatic. They need the stability to stay in their lives.

My father won custody of my brother and I in 1972 when it was almost unheard of that a father would win. We needed the type of person he was to stay with us. My mother was a good mother but she just didn’t have the “emotions” to help us with certain things. It’s to hard and complicated to get into. I loved her and needed her in my life but my dad was WAY more stable. Given that said, we still needed her. After she lost custody, she went on a little bit of a “bar stool” phase which was understandable but she rebounded soon and our lives were much better after the split. They should never have married in the first place.

I would beg everyone to please, stay adults and let your children love the other parent no matter what you think. They need it so much.

Reply

I would agree with the comments for those moms who were able to be stay-at-home moms. Being a good parent is a full-time undertaking.

Because I don't feel like writing a novel--I would say in relation to my earlier comments about the particular situation that the mother of the son has not been employed for the majority of time since she has kids (she has a previous child from another man). The arrangement was not for her to stay unemployed to raise the child--but she has for over 5 years now. The parents have been divorced for about 4 years. The mother (who is around 30) lives with her parents, older brother, sister-in-law, and her two kids, oh and her new husband.

I guess my issue with her is this: she doesn't work or attempt to. The mom claims that she can't with the children--but none of her live-in family members work (I'm serious), so she realistically can have employment (even the court mediator suggested this). The child mentioned here has been shown to be grossly deficient in his motor skills, has extreme behavioral issues and, at almost 6, is and will not be ready for kindergarten. The mom claims he is bipolar or has a disability--the evaluation he went through proves that the child has none of these. Results show poor discipline and lack of activities contribute to the child's current issues.

Now, given that the mother has the child 90% of the time--it's very hard to try to fix these problems during the 10% of the time the father has him. The mom claims she can't do the things he does like take the child to museums or out for activties b/c she doesn't have money. Well, there are free days everywhere and, if you wanted to do something for the child, bring in some extra income to provide better for your child. What gets me is that the mother told the father and mediator that she would never get a job b/c she would have to start paying for things. So her motivation isn't the best interest of the child, but her best interest. And why I say the courts reward laziness, is that even though she could provide for her child in better ways--even uncostly/free ways--she chooses not to. And, the courts will allow her to seek increases in child support each and every year that the state will represent her. Meanwhile, her son is suffering in social settings and, most importantly, in school. In over 5 years of being a so-called "stay-at-home" mother--I would think she would have more to show for herself than she does.

If an arrangement for a mom to stay at home with children has been agreed upon--I do not think it is lazy. What is lazy is when a parent does not put their child first, does not try to provide a better life for that child, and refuses to be a good role-model for the child AND STILL the courts grant leniency to that parent--in particular the mother.

And I don't think just because a father may have financial means to support a child that he is a better father. IN my earlier coment I said he had the only financial means of support AND had a better quality family support system. I don not think that whatever parent brings in the most money should have custody. But I do think that if a father can provide for his child in many ways--not just financially-that he should be given the chance. In this case, none of the ways that he can provide better for the child seem to matter. AT this point I firmly believe unless that child is in imminent danger that the father will never get custody of the son, no matter how much better a quality of life he can provide. There IS a difference between being a stay-at-home mom and being a mom who just stays at home and doesn't "parent".

Reply

I have a friend who is fighting to see his son. As of right now he gets to see him from 12-5 on 1 Sat/Sun a month. The kicker is that he lives in California and she lives in Texas. (They met in CA & she moved to TX after getting pregnant.) He flies in once a month, every month, to see his 2 year old. He is the first to admit that she is an amazing mom. All he wants is to see his son more often and to have his son meet his brother & sisters and his grandparent (at this point the court will not allow it- only his parents are allowed to spend time with him & his son.) From the beginning he has been supportive (both financially & emotionally) and has jumped through many hoops just to see his son for those 10 hours one weekend a month. His ex is in a position where she could easily make it a better situation but she has fought it very step of the way.

Who is the one who gets hurt in the end? The child. I believe that above all else the the best interests of the child should prevail. And if the parents are unable to come to an agreement then the child should have a court ordered IMPARTIAL advocate whose advice is not merely taken into consideration but rather used as a guideline.

Reply

KK in the situation that you are referencing I think that not only should the mother not have the child, but that CPS should have been involved in the childs life. The father, if he is a better parent than this mom obviously is should have full custody of the boy. the mom is lazy and needs to get off her ass. But it sounds like it is a family affair and way things are done in the moms family. sadly it happens way too often.

I have been home with our daughter for over 5 years now. Our plan is for me to stay home until she enters KG in Fall 08. Our daily activities include play, reading, numbers, singing. letters and learning about respect and responsibility for one self and others. We rarely sit and do nothing. But the amount of those that do just hat is staggering. Atleast in my area.

Many times the father is the better parent. some times the mom is. Often times it is best that the child has both parents. In a perfect world that would be the case 100% of the time. But then again. No couple should stay together "for the child" My parents did that until I was in HS and it affected the way I handled relationships when I was younger. Same with my younger sister.
My parents were better friends than they were spouses. Same as my first husband and Iare. Luckily we didnt have children.. I was lucky enough to meet my second husband and know that he was hte one I was meant to be with and have a child with.

Reply

Ok, I've been reading some of these comments and w/ some of you I just dont agree. Not all Fathers should be w/there child.Take my situation I've had to deal w/....Iam 23, my husband 31... I work, drive, cook, clean, take care of the kid- and my husband" just says he does and takes the credit...He might take out the trash Sometimes w/dirty diapers already inside and Play w/ our son and call that father of the year 9no exageration)...In his head he's an OUTstanding father...not to mention he leaves stuff lying around that a kid might hurt himself with, etc....I wouldnt leave him alone w/ our kid....Not all Fathers are good Fathers. Plus now-a-days these Younger Fathers are 1/2 crazy or extremely controlling/jealous/violent.....So w/ some of u Gals and Guys I dont agree w/the whole "need to be w/the Father" thing...Whoever is the sole or better caretaker for the Child (the best interest, sometimes it may be both, depends).

Reply

I apologize ahead of time for a long book!!!

I have sole physical and legal custody of my two children. I believe the children are better off being guided through life by me. Don't get me wrong, I also believe every child needs a both parents...

My ex-husband and I have been in and out of court for many years now. He has been both physically and mentally abusive to me (which the children witnessed at a young age). He obviously has anger management issues... arrested for two DUI's and one of them the children were in the vehilce. He attempted to rape me and has threatened my life many times. In '2006 he pled guilty for threatening my life. The judge mandated a custody evaluation in 2005. The evalutaor stated he should only have monitored visits with the children limited to once or twice a month. Needless to say, the judge still allowed the children to see their father for overnight visits every other week.

Just recently, my ex-husband was picked up by the police for felony possession of meth. Monitored visitation was finally just granted by the court for a time period to allow him to clean up his life.

I am very concerned for my children... even after he gets the help he needs. It's a pattern he has showed for many years and I do not ever see him getting better. I believe the court system has failed many citizens in all areas and am afraid for the future of our children.

Reply