Having a system as described where parents with evidence of abuse can't protect their kids from abusers seems absolutely unacceptable. Patching over that with the current unfair assumptions about men vs. women as suitable parents isn't better!
For most men, marriage is one of the most unwise actions they can legally take in their life. This is due to it being co-opted by the state for its own purposes. Society needs a new word and a new social status for the element of marriage, but without its legal standing, e.g. "maritage" (signifying the heritage of marriage).
in germany, living together already forces you into most of the obligations you'd have when married. especially when you have children. but worse, you have less rights. unlike a divorce, shared custody is not automatically assumed, and you are less likely to get it. (it used to be that the mother could simply deny it but that changed 15 years ago)
I know it's a thing in Canada, Australia, and Washington state (if you cohabitate for some number of years, they can claim that it's a "de-facto relationship" and get property division). Apparently the current UK government is trying to push it
I agree with the sentiment of this but I don't think the root issue is state involvement
The root issue is that the state is involved in the wrong way. It refuses to fund childcare, so marriage is economically incentivized.
But then it makes divorce super financially one-sided and easy to get, so now high earners will try to avoid marriage. But high earners are the ones who make marriage worthwhile, per the above point
Then it has LGBT acceptance in urban centers now, so there's an easy, convenient, and legally protected way for people to avoid the whole marriage pipeline
The only real fix we have for this is to just import more people, who knows whether that will pan out
In general though, I agree with the sentiment that for high earning men it's the shittiest deal imaginable and even the extreme option of dying alone is better
I went through this process of being granted shared custody as a father in MN. My son's mom called me a rapist, abuser and had child protective services twice to my house with zero evidence. I was guilty until proven innocent. I was informally psychoanalyzed by two different parenting consultants assigned (voluntarily) by the court. I have zero criminal record. I wouldnt wish what happened to me to anyone. She was always seen as a "protective mom" and while I was emotionally tormented throughout the 3 year ordeal. I was granted shared custody after 13 months and the remainder of the 3 years were spent defending myself from lies. She only stopped after the parenting consultants would continue to compel her alone to meetings to "discuss" coparenting. The cost of those private meetings were $600/hr. I never understood why a father could just quit and walk away from their children. I now understand why. I was never going to quit but I had the advantage of money and time. I couldnt imagine going through that process if I made $50K/year. I am still processing what happened to me and I am definitely a different person now. I carry a weight with me that only I can feel. I hope they change the law and give fathers rights by default.
I would go as far as to say divorce by itself should always result in split custody.
Other proceedings can take custody away. For example, if both parents are abusive, they should both run the risk of losing custody, regardless of if they are married or divorced.
Divorce by itself is irrelevant.
I’m not saying we should leave kids with abusers, I’m saying the process of determine whether one or both of the parents are abusive needs to seperate from divorce.
This is already happening.
Many district attorneys have begun refusing to prosecute abuse claims - or any marital crime - until divorce cases are over.
In some cases the abuse adjudication might happen first. But it shouldn’t happen at the divorce hearing.
The idea being to separate the civil divorce from a criminal prosecution.
Divorce should always seek to maximize parent rights for both parents.
15 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 29.4 ms ] threadFrance has the legal status of living in concubinage, so man and concubine. Pretty much the same as live-in girlfriend.
Some terms that could work: Man and bride Concubine Wedded/conjugal/nuptial state/union This is my wedded bride. This is my wedded man. etc.
I know it's a thing in Canada, Australia, and Washington state (if you cohabitate for some number of years, they can claim that it's a "de-facto relationship" and get property division). Apparently the current UK government is trying to push it
I looked up for Germany and found nothing
The root issue is that the state is involved in the wrong way. It refuses to fund childcare, so marriage is economically incentivized.
But then it makes divorce super financially one-sided and easy to get, so now high earners will try to avoid marriage. But high earners are the ones who make marriage worthwhile, per the above point
Then it has LGBT acceptance in urban centers now, so there's an easy, convenient, and legally protected way for people to avoid the whole marriage pipeline
The only real fix we have for this is to just import more people, who knows whether that will pan out
In general though, I agree with the sentiment that for high earning men it's the shittiest deal imaginable and even the extreme option of dying alone is better
God I hate these people
Other proceedings can take custody away. For example, if both parents are abusive, they should both run the risk of losing custody, regardless of if they are married or divorced.
Divorce by itself is irrelevant.
I’m not saying we should leave kids with abusers, I’m saying the process of determine whether one or both of the parents are abusive needs to seperate from divorce.
This is already happening.
Many district attorneys have begun refusing to prosecute abuse claims - or any marital crime - until divorce cases are over.
In some cases the abuse adjudication might happen first. But it shouldn’t happen at the divorce hearing.
The idea being to separate the civil divorce from a criminal prosecution.
Divorce should always seek to maximize parent rights for both parents.
Other proceedings can deal with abuse.