If Daniel was breadwinner: Daniel gets apartment, Miranda keeps the house, granted custody, granted child support from Daniel.
Miranda is breadwinner: Daniel gets apartment, Miranda keeps house, granted primary custody, Daniel ordered to get job and please a caseworker in order to see kids.
Whoever has the kids gets the bulk of money and assets.
shareYoure fooling yourself if you dont think Miranda is getting the kids in either case. If she was jobless, she would then be considered "the main caretaker" by the court.
So why cant Daniel be?
Indeed.
Daniel didn't deserve to be treated like he was.
So why cant Daniel be? [caretaker]
I don't think he's shown himself to not be a good parent. Yes, his style is different from Miranda. But what did he do wrong? The divorce was based on the parents growing apart, not on whether or not either was not a good parent.
Let me put it this way.... exact situation, only Daniel is the one with the career and decided he wants the divorce: do you really think the ruling is Daniel stays, Miranda goes, and Miranda answers to a caseworker?
I agree with you that the problem isn't that Daniel is a bad father, which I don't think that he is.
It is that Miranda would rather hire a nanny han letting the kids be with their father.
But that's not the issue. The court gave custody to Miranda, and ruled that Daniel must do XYZ. The nanny part is sperate from that and after the fact.
What I'm saying is that if the situation is EXACTLY the same, just swap mother and father, Daniel still would've gotten screwed and also ordered to pay child support
Yes, his style is different from Miranda. But what did he do wrong?
Let me put it this way.... exact situation, only Daniel is the one with the career and decided he wants the divorce: do you really think the ruling is Daniel stays, Miranda goes, and Miranda answers to a caseworker?
But you missing my point that an unemployed mom would not be held to that same standard of being assigned a caseworker because of employment history. She would be granted custody, in that house, with the father still providing. The court would not order her to move out, provide a suitable home, and prove employment. Now, she may find employment on her own out of necessity rather than legally.
Its still a double standard.
Everything you've listed is essentially proving my point.
I didn't miss your point. I said several times now that the courts prefer to keep the kids both in the home and to place them with the mother. Unless the mother is unfit, the children will be placed with her first and in the same home so as not to displace them from the place they're most comfortable in. If she's got some issues that would make her unfit, the children *will* be placed with the father, and it's not an uncommon occurrence.
I think where we disagree is that you don't think the courts should skew towards the mother (all things being equal) which is a different discussion.
No, that's this discussion. Simply being the female parent shouldn't mean the courts should favor them, all things being equal. Because that's the exact opposite of the word equal.
I agree in this scenerio that Daniel should prove home and that he's providing. But also so should the unemployed mothers in divorces who have relied on Dads income to provide. That's not how society or reality is stacked.
Double standard.
That's where we disagree.
I think that all things being equal, children are better off with their mothers. While some people might disagree with me, I believe that men and women are wired differently, and women are uniquely gifted with the instincts of motherhood by nature, again, all things being equal.
I can't overemphasize the "all things being equal". If either the mother or father have issues like chronic unemployment/underemployment, mental disorders, drug or alcohol abuse, or just lousy parents, etc., then EITHER should be disqualified as primary custody parent.
What we don't want is kids in a tug of war. Kids are growing emotionally even through their teens, and I think kids do better living with one parent most of the time, not a 50/50 arrangement which is what the only equitable distribution would be if we take gender off the table. Kids are more comfortable and happy with one primary home, and visiting or staying with the other parent a day or two during the week.
While that separation could be hard on the vacated parent (as it was for Daniel), the children's interest *must* come first. Kids get only one chance for a good child stable drama free childhood. Those that do become better adults and parents when their time comes.
I believe the "mothers have innate abilites" or some sort of "special powers" as parents is largely a myth stemming from traditional cultural upbringing. Woman provides and upkeeps home, men provide financially, or is the hunter gatherer. I have nothing agaisnt that setup, as I was raised in such and are also participating in such a setup.
HOWEVER
I also believe this mystical power that we give mothers is largely invented. I believe a man can provide all of the same things to children and home as mothers. I believe men have the same ability to provide the exact care love and support to children that a woman can, if a woman were off with some lucrative career.
In the many many cases of divorced women with no income, and receiving child support, what specifically are they providing their children with that a man in that exact scenario cannot?
Specifically, what is Daniel unable to do for his children than an umemployed divorced homemaker couterpart could?
Children raised by a single mother encounter myriad problems, while children raised by a single father tend to do fine. Perhaps you should rethink your position.
shareChildren raised by a single mother encounter myriad problems, while children raised by a single father tend to do fine. Perhaps you should rethink your position.
He could be, if there were circumstances that would prove he was the better parent (and not just a *little* better) or if the mother was unfit. If so, the court would grant him custody. It's not an uncommon occurrence.>
Maybe you should have finished reading my answer...