MVCPattern
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,962
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi Guys,
I'm wondering if any parents here managed to get shared care and control for their kids?
In USA, there is a Father's Rights Movement Group that is fighting for 50/50. Legally it meant Rebuttable presumption of 50/50
https://www.facebook.com/Fathers4kids/
Can you explain to me what rebuttable 50-50 custody is?
The principle of ''innocent until proven guilty" is a rebuttable presumption. For this example, let's say a person is guilty and there's evidence, such as a video of the crime. However, initially, walking into a courtroom before evidence is presented, they are presumed innocent. Their innocence is something taken to be true until it is '''rebutted", or argued against. The ''burden of proof" is on the prosecution--the accuser--to prove the guilt of the accused. They must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is in fact guilty. So, the prosecution shows the video and perhaps additional credible eyewitness testimony proves that person guilty. Jury deliberates and comes back with a guilty verdict.
In the vast majority of family courts of the US and western democracies, the burden of proof is on the father to prove why he should have custody equal to or greater than the mother. He must prove why he should NOT be a 4 day per month visitor. He has to prove that he is a great father and has everything in place to parent his child even for the most minimal time with the child. In many cases, he has to prove he's NOT an abuser, whether it was alleged or not.
By contrast, a mother is presumed to be the primary or sole custodian, before the court knows the first thing about her. Her having majority or full time with the children is a presumed fact unless it is contested (rebutted) and evidence is presented to the contrary. That time is already hers and hers to lose. She doesn't have to gain that time because she already has that presumption in the court's eyes.
On a larger scale, this is problematic when the family law system claims to put the children's best interest as central above all else. When the burden of proof is so lopsided, it begs the question: How can a court claim it is acting in a child's best interest if it is not willing to scrutinize parents by the same standards? How do we know that the mother is the best choice? A judge cannot honestly answer that question when the father is required to overcome a high burden of proof and the mother doesn't have that requirement.
This has resulted in the majority of child abuse in the U.S. occurring in single mother households. That's not to say that mothers are more inclined to abuse their children than fathers. It's simple math. Mothers get custody at a rate 7 to 1 over fathers, so it's not a surprise. The question then becomes this: How much of this could have been prevented if fathers and mothers were examined equally? This is where children's human rights are violated on a daily basis as a result of the inequality. Ultimately, the gender bias against fathers is an infringement on the children's rights to have a court look thoroughly into their interests, rather than presuming one side is the best choice based on sex.
Aside from that aspect --and presuming that parents are fit parents until proven otherwise--the relevant research shows that children in shared parenting arrangements fare far better than those in single parent households. The consensus and body of peer-reviewed research is very clear on this, and recommends public policy that reflects that reality. In short, shared parenting should be the first go-to standard, and primary/sole custody rulings should be a last resort. There should be more equal custody rulings than primary/sole custody rulings. Currently, that is the opposite of the family law culture in most of the western world.
The majority of parents are fit parents, and parents are supposed to be presumed fit parents unless proven otherwise. Obviously, this is not the case for fathers in family courts in the majority of separations. Paraphrased, federal law states that parenthood is a fundamental liberty interest that cannot be infringed absent due process of law, and that fit parents act in their children's best interest. How, then, can fathers not be considered anything other than an equal parent to a mother without evidence to the contrary?
The legislative goal of this movement is therefore a "Rebuttable Presumption of 50/50 shared parenting."
Walking into a courtroom, both parents are to be considered equally as important in a child's care and upbringing. Fathers are just as important as mothers, mothers are just as important as fathers, and 50/50 shared parenting is to be presumed in a child's best interest until there is a rebuttal and evidence presented that it would not be in that child's best interest. Judges are then required to use a list of best interest factors to deviate from that starting point of 50/50 and justify, in writing, why shared parenting is not in their best interest. For example, in the cases of proven abuse, neglect, or drug use. The burden of proof would then be where it should be, on the "accuser"--the parent claiming that the other parent is less fit or unfit to be an equal parent in the child's life.
A rebuttable presumption of 50/50 child custody needs to be enshrined in law everywhere so that shared parenting is the norm, rather than the exception to the rule. Our children deserve to have shared parenting considered first in courts, not last, as children in shared parenting arrangements are statistically more advantaged than those in single parent households.
Opponents to these legislative changes love to say, "The best interests and rights of the child shouldn't be secondary to the rights of the parents." This is a fallacious argument, to put it mildly. You can't say you're protecting children if you're not willing to put parents on equal footing in courtrooms. You can't claim to have children's best interests at heart when you're ruling with gender bias, unwilling to even consider that fathers are equal (or in some cases, better) parents unless they can prove so--while not requiring mothers to do the same.
--Derek Gunby
I'm wondering if any parents here managed to get shared care and control for their kids?
In USA, there is a Father's Rights Movement Group that is fighting for 50/50. Legally it meant Rebuttable presumption of 50/50
https://www.facebook.com/Fathers4kids/
Can you explain to me what rebuttable 50-50 custody is?
The principle of ''innocent until proven guilty" is a rebuttable presumption. For this example, let's say a person is guilty and there's evidence, such as a video of the crime. However, initially, walking into a courtroom before evidence is presented, they are presumed innocent. Their innocence is something taken to be true until it is '''rebutted", or argued against. The ''burden of proof" is on the prosecution--the accuser--to prove the guilt of the accused. They must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is in fact guilty. So, the prosecution shows the video and perhaps additional credible eyewitness testimony proves that person guilty. Jury deliberates and comes back with a guilty verdict.
In the vast majority of family courts of the US and western democracies, the burden of proof is on the father to prove why he should have custody equal to or greater than the mother. He must prove why he should NOT be a 4 day per month visitor. He has to prove that he is a great father and has everything in place to parent his child even for the most minimal time with the child. In many cases, he has to prove he's NOT an abuser, whether it was alleged or not.
By contrast, a mother is presumed to be the primary or sole custodian, before the court knows the first thing about her. Her having majority or full time with the children is a presumed fact unless it is contested (rebutted) and evidence is presented to the contrary. That time is already hers and hers to lose. She doesn't have to gain that time because she already has that presumption in the court's eyes.
On a larger scale, this is problematic when the family law system claims to put the children's best interest as central above all else. When the burden of proof is so lopsided, it begs the question: How can a court claim it is acting in a child's best interest if it is not willing to scrutinize parents by the same standards? How do we know that the mother is the best choice? A judge cannot honestly answer that question when the father is required to overcome a high burden of proof and the mother doesn't have that requirement.
This has resulted in the majority of child abuse in the U.S. occurring in single mother households. That's not to say that mothers are more inclined to abuse their children than fathers. It's simple math. Mothers get custody at a rate 7 to 1 over fathers, so it's not a surprise. The question then becomes this: How much of this could have been prevented if fathers and mothers were examined equally? This is where children's human rights are violated on a daily basis as a result of the inequality. Ultimately, the gender bias against fathers is an infringement on the children's rights to have a court look thoroughly into their interests, rather than presuming one side is the best choice based on sex.
Aside from that aspect --and presuming that parents are fit parents until proven otherwise--the relevant research shows that children in shared parenting arrangements fare far better than those in single parent households. The consensus and body of peer-reviewed research is very clear on this, and recommends public policy that reflects that reality. In short, shared parenting should be the first go-to standard, and primary/sole custody rulings should be a last resort. There should be more equal custody rulings than primary/sole custody rulings. Currently, that is the opposite of the family law culture in most of the western world.
The majority of parents are fit parents, and parents are supposed to be presumed fit parents unless proven otherwise. Obviously, this is not the case for fathers in family courts in the majority of separations. Paraphrased, federal law states that parenthood is a fundamental liberty interest that cannot be infringed absent due process of law, and that fit parents act in their children's best interest. How, then, can fathers not be considered anything other than an equal parent to a mother without evidence to the contrary?
The legislative goal of this movement is therefore a "Rebuttable Presumption of 50/50 shared parenting."
Walking into a courtroom, both parents are to be considered equally as important in a child's care and upbringing. Fathers are just as important as mothers, mothers are just as important as fathers, and 50/50 shared parenting is to be presumed in a child's best interest until there is a rebuttal and evidence presented that it would not be in that child's best interest. Judges are then required to use a list of best interest factors to deviate from that starting point of 50/50 and justify, in writing, why shared parenting is not in their best interest. For example, in the cases of proven abuse, neglect, or drug use. The burden of proof would then be where it should be, on the "accuser"--the parent claiming that the other parent is less fit or unfit to be an equal parent in the child's life.
A rebuttable presumption of 50/50 child custody needs to be enshrined in law everywhere so that shared parenting is the norm, rather than the exception to the rule. Our children deserve to have shared parenting considered first in courts, not last, as children in shared parenting arrangements are statistically more advantaged than those in single parent households.
Opponents to these legislative changes love to say, "The best interests and rights of the child shouldn't be secondary to the rights of the parents." This is a fallacious argument, to put it mildly. You can't say you're protecting children if you're not willing to put parents on equal footing in courtrooms. You can't claim to have children's best interests at heart when you're ruling with gender bias, unwilling to even consider that fathers are equal (or in some cases, better) parents unless they can prove so--while not requiring mothers to do the same.
--Derek Gunby
Last edited: