Equality Isn't Always Equal.

Women fought a long and arduous battle for something they never should have had to fight for in the first place - Equal Rights. And with few exceptions, it's a fight they seemed to have won. Women can now do just about anything a man can do. They're police officers, doctors, lawyers, judges, astronauts, CEO's. Heck, a woman can now run to be President of the United States! Yep, as a society, it would seem we've come a long way since "the good old days".


And as a father of two girls, I'm very thankful and excited to know that the opportunities in store for my daughters are limitless!


But when it comes to equality, the one area that is grossly inequitable and still has a long way to go, is Family Law. But not for women, for men. That's right, when it comes to Family Law, it's a woman's world - men just happen to live in it.




The disparity begins immediately after conception. Once a women gets pregnant, she has all the control. If she wants to have the baby and the father doesn't - too bad. Whether he wants to have a baby or is ready to have a baby, it's her decision. Oh, and even if you - Papa - aren't interested in being a baby Daddy, sorry, you're on the hook for support.

But, if the woman doesn't want to have the baby and Dad does - too friggin' bad. Sorry about your luck bucko, there's a snowball's chance in hell that she's going to have the baby and pay YOU support. You'll have to go find some other sucker to knock up. Does this seem fair to you??


And then there is custody. Custody in our society is horribly unfair. 90% of single Fathers have less than full custody of their children. Why? Are we not interested in being Dad's?? Nope, that's not it. It's because a judge (who I'm sure has a degree in child psychology and perhaps even ECE) decides what's in the "best interest" of the children. And due to archaic thinking, it's pretty much a God given right that Mom gets custody. But how can a judge decide what's in a child's best interest without ever meeting or spending time with Mom or Dad or the children who's lives he or she is about to rule on??


*sigh*

Sadly, as it is with Criminal Defence, the "best interest" of the children really boils down to how good your lawyer is.


And once your ex-wife has custody, you become nothing more than a glorified babysitter. When I was married, I never had to ask permission to take my kids to the park. But, if I were to just take my kids to the park now (without permission from her Royal WOPness) I could be charged with kidnapping!

My ex acts as if she's doing me a favour by allowing me to see OUR kids. Like they belong to her but I'm permitted to borrow them from time to time. Oh right, according to the judge, they do belong to her. It was in their best interest. Even though he's never met me. Or her. Or our kids.

Of course then there's the most contentious issue of all - Support.


In my humble opinion (and please remember, on MY blog, MY opinion is GOSPEL), support is a joke.


How much does a loaf of bread cost? Around $2.49? Sure. Does the price of a loaf of bread go up based on your income?? Nope. So why does the cost of raising a child go up based on your income?? For those of you not bright enough to follow my train of thought - why the hell does support go up when your income goes up??


The popular answer is, if Mom and Dad had stayed together then the children would have benefited from the raise in income. Well, a) I didn't stay with my wife, b) who says they don't benefit now, and c) this is really the dumbest argument I have ever heard! Seriously, why don't I benefit when my ex-wife's income goes up??


Sadly, much to the dismay of my avaricious ex-bride, my income has stayed relatively the same over the last 4 years. Sorry honey.


You want further examples of the unfair system men are subjected to?? Support is enforced while access isn't.


A man can have his wages garnished, or worse, have his drivers license suspended for not paying support. Now, I firmly believe that a Father should support his offspring, but seriously, who was the genius that decided that taking a man's drivers license away was a good way to enforce support??


And what recourse does Dad have if Mom doesn't want to honour the access agreement?? It happens all the time. And Mom can make up any excuse she wants not to send them - little Tommy has a sniffle, little Jane has a dance recital, little Stevie has dirt under his fingernail. The explanation for denied visitation can be legit or bogus, it doesn't matter, SHE has control and there is no way to enforce access.


And just to rub salt into the wounds, if Dad misses a payment or two, it doesn't matter - pay now or pay later, even if the court needs to garnishee your wages, YOU WILL PAY. However, if Mom denies access once, twice, or continually, well, sorry buddy - even if you go back to court, there's no such thing as arrears for visitation. A visit missed is a visit lost - forever!


The whole Family Law system is so biased against men it's disgusting. It's based on a stereotype that women make better parents than men. Am I bitter?? You bet I'm bitter. If the shoe were on the other foot, you would be too. Imagine if the custody of your drivers license was decided based on the stereotype that men drive better than women. Based on the ruling of a judge who has never ridden in a car with you, your ex-spouse now controls when you can drive, and when you can't.

Equality?? Pfft! We've got such a long way to go and it seems as if no one is interested in doing anything about it.

*sigh*


Feel free to leave a comment as I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject.


Meantime, here are some stats for you to chew on.


90% of fathers have less than full custody of their children.


37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)


"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)


"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)


Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated 16%.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)


"The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)



"A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)


"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)


"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93.)


"Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)


In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992


Information from multiple sources shows that only 10% of all noncustodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).


Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so because they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report: GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).


The Poverty Studies Institute at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, discovered in 1993 that 52% of fathers who owe child support earn less than $6,155 per year.


66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial mothers default on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991).