Tax Single Mothers

[cybercoma]

So, in short, if you are a man who works to earn a good living for your family while you wife stays home, you're screwed.

Not even close. If you're a man who works to earn a good living for your family while your wife stays home, then you need to apply for custody. It should be pretty obvious that the courts consider what would be the least disruptive to the children. If they spend the majority of their time home with the mother, then the courts are not going to turn their lives upside down and give full custody to the father, who then would have to hire a nanny because he spends all of his time away from the home. The least disruptive thing would be to continue having the children with their mother who is raising them and grant the father joint custody, which is exactly what happens in the vast majority of cases. Further still, most fathers who have no custody whatsoever with their children were either abusive, had substance abuse problems, or quite simply did not want custody nor challenge for custody. None of this is even remotely controversial, unless you're one of those men who like to make up BS conspiracy theories about courts unreasonably taking their children from them. No one is completely denied custody without good reason and the number of fathers who are completely denied custody are the exception. It's almost always some sort of joint custody arrangement that is the least disruptive to the children.

[drummindiver]

Not even close. If you're a man who works to earn a good living for your family while your wife stays home, then you need to apply for custody. It should be pretty obvious that the courts consider what would be the least disruptive to the children. If they spend the majority of their time home with the mother, then the courts are not going to turn their lives upside down and give full custody to the father, who then would have to hire a nanny because he spends all of his time away from the home. The least disruptive thing would be to continue having the children with their mother who is raising them and grant the father joint custody, which is exactly what happens in the vast majority of cases. Further still, most fathers who have no custody whatsoever with their children were either abusive, had substance abuse problems, or quite simply did not want custody nor challenge for custody. None of this is even remotely controversial, unless you're one of those men who like to make up BS conspiracy theories about courts unreasonably taking their children from them. No one is completely denied custody without good reason and the number of fathers who are completely denied custody are the exception. It's almost always some sort of joint custody arrangement that is the least disruptive to the children.

Wrong.

You obviously did not read any of the links, especially Stats Can which states joint custody a paltry 12.8%, hardly a "vast majority of cases".

Also, you oppose any comment of the behaviour of women, yet are very quick to state if a man doesn't have custody it must be because they are a loser drunk conspiracy theorist how abuses substances as well as family members and who did not want custody. The only thing you left out is that they may be "Muricans" in disguise.

How about some of those poorer men who may not be able to afford a lawyer against a "gasp" vindictive ex.

[-1=e^ipi]

So, in short, if you are a man who works to earn a good living for your family while you wife stays home, you're screwed.

Or you have to make decisions to satisfy your wife even if it is to the detriment of your children.

[cybercoma]

Wrong.

You obviously did not read any of the links, especially Stats Can which states joint custody a paltry 12.8%, hardly a "vast majority of cases".

Also, you oppose any comment of the behaviour of women, yet are very quick to state if a man doesn't have custody it must be because they are a loser drunk conspiracy theorist how abuses substances as well as family members and who did not want custody. The only thing you left out is that they may be "Muricans" in disguise.

How about some of those poorer men who may not be able to afford a lawyer against a "gasp" vindictive ex.

The stats canada link talks about physical custody and says nothing about visitation. Like I said in my post, why on earth would the court uproot the children and force them to live with the parent that is not the primary caregiver? In 90% of the cases the mother is the one who spends the most time caring for the children. You're then arguing that the fathers ought to be given physical custody of the child over the mothers? In what reality is that a reasonable suggestion? You do as much as possible to keep the child's life as stable as possible. When the mother is the one doing the primary care for the child, then she's the one who gets physical custody and the father gets visitation rights if he asks for them. What that study does not say is that 90% of fathers don't see their children at all and that's the way you and others are trying to spin this.

[-1=e^ipi]

Like I said in my post, why on earth would the court uproot the children and force them to live with the parent that is not the primary caregiver?

Perhaps it makes more sense for the children to live with the parent that will give them the best care, regardless of if they were the 'primary caregiver' or not.

In 90% of the cases the mother is the one who spends the most time caring for the children.

Apparently working to provide income to support your children is not caring, at least it isn't in cybercoma's world.

You do as much as possible to keep the child's life as stable as possible.

Maximizing stability is not necessarily the same thing as maximizing well-being, and the child would have a stable environment if they lived primarily with either parent (regardless of if the parent was the 'primary caregiver' earlier in the child's life).

Edited July 7, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[drummindiver]

Perhaps it makes more sense for the children to live with the parent that will give them the best care, regardless of if they were the 'primary caregiver' or not.

Apparently working to provide income to support your children is not caring, at least it isn't in cybercoma's world.

Maximizing stability is not necessarily the same thing as maximizing well-being, and if the child would have a stable environment if they lived primarily with either parent (regardless of if the parent was the 'primary caregiver' earlier in the child's life).

edit..ooops, sorry, I meant to quote CC's comment about physical custody

What other kind of custody could there possibly be?

This from England.

9 out of 10 dads stay in touch with their children

87% of fathers who don't live with their children say they still have contact with them although only 49% say that contact is regular (i.e. on weekends and during school holidays). And the 13% of dads who never see the children that they don't live with are important too.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/nov/20/non-resident-dads-relationship-children

Something else that was discussed...don't know why everything is coming up England, but close enough, yeah?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2678528/The-vengeful-mothers-tear-fathers-childrens-lives-Britains-parenting-guru-one-unspoken-scandals-age.html

Edited July 7, 2015 by drummindiver

[cybercoma]

Perhaps it makes more sense for the children to live with the parent that will give them the best care, regardless of if they were the 'primary caregiver' or not.

What makes you think a father who works all the time and wasn't primarily responsible for their care is the one to provide the best care? Mothers roughly 90% of the time are the primary caregivers due to myriad reasons not the least of which are cultural expectations that mothers take care of the children. Mothers are also the ones who most often take parental leave, even though fathers could take them. So then you wonder why mothers are the ones who end up with the children? Because they're usually the ones doing the work of raising them.

Apparently working to provide income to support your children is not caring, at least it isn't in cybercoma's world.

You want to read what I'm saying again and not constantly mischaracterize my arguments because it's easier for you to knock over strawmen? If the child spends the majority of their time with the mother and the father is working all the time, then the fact of the matter is that the child is used to being around the mother. That's not even controversial. I said nothing about the father "not caring." From what part of your ass you pulled that from is beyond me. Of course most fathers care about their kids. Most fathers aren't complete deadbeats. That still doesn't change the fact that mothers are the primary caregivers 90% of the time and the children spend the vast majority of their time in those cases with the mother.

Maximizing stability is not necessarily the same thing as maximizing well-being,

Sure it is. Stability is what's linked to successful child outcomes. Quick divorces for example are less problematic than ones that drag on with a lot of conflict. Children of single mothers who stay single are more successful than those whose mothers are in serial relationships. And children who remain in the same home do better than those who are constantly moving around. Stability is the common denominator in child outcome metrics that allows them to thrive and that's what the courts look at.

and the child would have a stable environment if they lived primarily with either parent (regardless of if the parent was the 'primary caregiver' earlier in the child's life).

What are you talking about? A child who is primarily being raised by their mother being then forced to change and primarily be raised by their father is disruption. Keeping the child with the primary caregiver is of the utmost importance to the courts. In the rare cases where the primary caregiver is a stay-at-home father, the father would be given physical custody and the mother visitations. Changing the primary caregiver is instability; it's a disruption to who is primarily responsible for raising the child and how the child is raised.

You want more men to get custody of children? Then fight for more men to be primary caregivers to their children. Advocate for more men to take parental leave instead of women. Advocate for more stay-at-home fathers, while mothers become the primary breadwinners in the families. You create that shift in social consciousness and you'll have your "balance" that you're looking for.

The problem with your analysis of this situation is that you think it should be equal for some strange reason. I call it strange because childcare is not an equal responsibility in our society, not even close. You know damn well that it's women who are primarily responsible for it (in the NLSCY 1994-2008 this is true for about 92% of the child population). Why then would fathers be getting physical custody away from the mothers at any sort of rate that exceeds the population proportion of mothers who are primary caregivers?

[cybercoma]

edit..ooops, sorry, I meant to quote CC's comment about physical custody

What other kind of custody could there possibly be?

This from England.

9 out of 10 dads stay in touch with their children

87% of fathers who don't live with their children say they still have contact with them although only 49% say that contact is regular (i.e. on weekends and during school holidays). And the 13% of dads who never see the children that they don't live with are important too.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/nov/20/non-resident-dads-relationship-children

Something else that was discussed...don't know why everything is coming up England, but close enough, yeah?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2678528/The-vengeful-mothers-tear-fathers-childrens-lives-Britains-parenting-guru-one-unspoken-scandals-age.html

Look. Fathers should have contact with their children. Even the ones who are scum (unless they pose a direct threat or danger to the child, e.g., abusive). Every effort should be made to allow the children to retain their relationships with their dads. Courts should do more to ensure this. If it goes unchallenged by the fathers when it doesn't happen, the courts don't have the authority or human resources to go out and make sure it happens. When fathers are the primary caregivers for the children, then they should be given physical custody as well. However, mothers are culturally the ones who raise children, even in our "progressive" society. So that's why more often than not the courts keep the children with the mothers. The issue here, as far as I'm concerned, is that more fathers should stay at home to raise the children while mothers stay in the workforce. More fathers should be the primary caregiver for their children. Until that happens, children will continue to be left in the custody of more mothers than fathers. Edited July 7, 2015 by cybercoma

[Freddy]

Do you realize not everyone gets married? Nor should they have to in order to appease your puritanical notions of what a "proper" life is.

And i have to financially support them for choosing to feel oppressed by a situation that has been absolutely normal for thousands of years??

[-1=e^ipi]

What makes you think a father who works all the time and wasn't primarily responsible for their care is the one to provide the best care?

I never said that either the mother or father would give the best care. I just think that it should depend on which parent would provide the best life for the kids in the future. To suggest that a parent isn't providing 'care' if they are working to bring in income for their children is ridiculous.

not the least of which are cultural expectations that mothers take care of the children.

And this is also one of the reasons you have sexist bias in the courts. 'It's natural for mothers to look after children', 'Men that want to be around kids are creepy pedophiles', etc.

If the child spends the majority of their time with the mother and the father is working all the time, then the fact of the matter is that the child is used to being around the mother. That's not even controversial.

Just because a child is more used to a certain thing, doesn't mean that continuing that thing is in the child's best interest. Maybe the child would benefit from having a greater diversity of caretakers/role models to look up to. Maybe having more joint custody would result in a greater on average quality of time with parents since when a parent isn't with their child, they can prepare more for when they see the child (so there might be decreasing returns of a parent being with a child in terms of the outcome of the child).

Let's say a child is used to eating potatoes every day. Does that mean the child should continue to eat potatoes every day, or would they benefit from eating a greater diversity of food?

Stability is what's linked to successful child outcomes. Quick divorces for example are less problematic than ones that drag on with a lot of conflict. Children of single mothers who stay single are more successful than those whose mothers are in serial relationships. And children who remain in the same home do better than those who are constantly moving around.

I agree stability is important. But again, a child being with the mother 100% of the time is just as stable as the child being with the father 100% of the time. And you can also make relatively stable joint custody arrangements if the child knows when they will be with which parent well in advance.

What are you talking about? A child who is primarily being raised by their mother being then forced to change and primarily be raised by their father is disruption.

A divorce is also disruption. Stability matters but other things matter as well. Stability isn't an outright veto to other things. Being in the best possible living arrangement for the next several years is generally more important than the additional disruption due to changing 'primary caregivers' during a divorce. For example, if parent A was the primary caregiver and parent A is a crackhead, where as parent B isn't, most likely the disruption over time due to living with a crackhead parent will exceed the disruption due to changing primary caregivers once.

Keeping the child with the primary caregiver is of the utmost importance to the courts.

This is the excuse to enact sexist discrimination in the courts for child custody. Stability does result in higher child outcomes, but living with a parent with higher income also results in higher child outcomes. It used to be that the parent with the higher income trumped everything, which meant that men took custody the vast majority of the time. A few decade ago it was completely swapped. It was sexist then and it is sexist now.

You want more men to get custody of children? Then fight for more men to be primary caregivers to their children. Advocate for more men to take parental leave instead of women. Advocate for more stay-at-home fathers, while mothers become the primary breadwinners in the families. You create that shift in social consciousness and you'll have your "balance" that you're looking for.

Funny how our society has such a double standard with respect to outcomes that appear to disadvantage women compared to outcomes that appear to disadvantage men. What if someone defending the gender wage gap said:

"You want more women to earn more money? Then fight for women to work ridiculously long hours into an early grave. Advocate that women take riskier jobs which increase their rate of workplace death."

Yet we have major politicians like Obama and Trudeau propagating the myth that women earn 77% of what men earn for similar work and that this is due to sexism. Is your position on this consistent with the gender wage gap? Or the life expectancy gap? Or the CEO gap? I doubt you have consistency. If an outcome appears to disadvantage women, it's because men discriminate so it's the fault of men. If there is an outcome gap that appears to disadvantage men, it's because men are lazy or flawed or something so it's the fault of men. Either way it's the fault of men because apparently men have 100% of agency in everything.

The problem with your analysis of this situation is that you think it should be equal for some strange reason.

I never said equal. I just think a lot of the current difference is due to sexism, you seem to dismiss this as a possibility. Tell me, if a feminist told you that the gender wage gap was due to sexism, would you agree with him/her or would you dismiss the possibility of sexism and tell him/her that 'you think it should be equal for some strange reason'?

Why then would fathers be getting physical custody away from the mothers at any sort of rate that exceeds the population proportion of mothers who are primary caregivers?

Because being a primary caregiver is not the only factor that should matter when determining which parent would be best for the child to live with. That is why. Other factors exist.

Edited July 7, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

If it goes unchallenged by the fathers when it doesn't happen, the courts don't have the authority or human resources to go out and make sure it happens.

Yes, it's always the fault of men. It's not like you could have cases where after a divorce parents strongly dislike each other and the parent with custody might use visitation rights as a tool to 'get back' at their former spouse by preventing their former spouse from seeing their child. *sarcasm*

However, mothers are culturally the ones who raise children, even in our "progressive" society.

Men are culturally the ones who earn more money. Does that mean we should just dismiss the gender wage gap? Men are culturally the ones who get in leadership positions. Does that mean all these campaigns to get more females CEO's or politicians should stop?

So that's why more often than not the courts keep the children with the mothers.

Well I'm glad you admit it is cultural sexism.

[cybercoma]

I agree stability is important. But again, a child being with the mother 100% of the time is just as stable as the child being with the father 100% of the time. And you can also make relatively stable joint custody arrangements if the child knows when they will be with which parent well in advance.

I want to address this point because this is where the critical misunderstanding between us lies.

I'm not saying that a father can't provide as much stability as a mother. It's true that he could.

What I'm saying is that the change in arrangements is instability. All else being equal (where the father and mother can both provide 100% stability), then why would you disrupt the child's life by removing them from the person who has been the primary caregiver for their entire life up until this point? It doesn't make sense. Also note that I'm not necessarily saying mother, even though it should be understood at this point that this is who it is 90% of the time. If the father is the primary caregiver, I make the same argument that the child should remain with the father. The courts should (and I believe they do) look for the least disruptive way to the child for settling the custody dispute. In about 90% of the cases, that means the child staying with the mother and ensuring the father has access to the children.

I would like to see this change. I would like to see a society where men take a more active role in child rearing, where they're the ones to take parental leave after the first couple months, where they're the ones to quit their jobs and stay at home with the kids if that's what they choose to do. But we're not there and that's why women are almost always given custody. Not because the courts are biased but because men are so rarely the primary caregiver to the children. The idea that women are almost always the ones who spend the most time raising the kids isn't even a contentious one. Some folks would even argue that this is a woman's place and whether she likes it or not that's what she should be doing and a man should never do that job. Those people are idiots, but the fact remains that this is the culture we grow up in and this tends to be the gender-biased personal ambitions of people. Point being, it shouldn't then surprise you that courts more often than not offer physical custody to mothers.

Edited July 8, 2015 by cybercoma

[Hal 9000]

So Cybercoma, you agree with statement then!

Custody goes to the woman by default. The man must prove (and they never can) that the woman is unfit (which never happens).

I'm glad we agree, because WCR and OGFT had a big hairy shit fit when I posted it the first time.

[cybercoma]

Also, stop poisoning the well by jumping around to other contentious issues that are not part of my argument. Absolutely courts need to recognize parents who use custody as a weapon against their ex. The other point you raise is about other factors that should be considered other than the primary caregiver. Of course the courts shouldn't allow the primary caregiver to retain physical custody if they're also abusive or on drugs or otherwise not fit to parent. However, the courts need to also be aware that a woman who put in time with domestic labour for the functioning the family, that is to say didn't work and raised the children and took care of the home, needs to be protected against men using their financially privileged position by being in the workforce to claim to be more suitable for the child. Otherwise, a parent who spent most of their time raising the child would never get custody of the kid because their financial foundation is reliant upon the husband. Interjecting his privileged financial position, namely in cases where the mother stays home to raise the kids, would always undermine the work a woman does by staying home with those kids. You set up a catch-22 with that argument that fundamentally ignores the economic value of the domestic relationships. Should the father suddenly have sole physical custody of the child, what then? Does he forgo wages by staying home or then paying for a nanny to care for the child? That all has value against his earnings. Do you see what I'm getting at here?

This is all minutiae for what essentially boils down to this: the courts choose the least disruptive path for the children, unless there's some compelling reason against that.

[cybercoma]

So Cybercoma, you agree with statement then!

Custody goes to the woman by default. The man must prove (and they never can) that the woman is unfit (which never happens).

I'm glad we agree, because WCR and OGFT had a big hairy shit fit when I posted it the first time.

No I don't agree with that statement. I agree with the statement, "custody by default goes to the primary caregiver." Edited July 8, 2015 by cybercoma

[Hal 9000]

No I don't agree with that statement. I agree with the statement, "custody by default goes to the primary caregiver."

So, who is the primary caregiver when both parents work?

[-1=e^ipi]

What I'm saying is that the change in arrangements is instability.

Yes, I agree.

All else being equal, then why would you disrupt the child's life by removing them from the person who has been the primary caregiver for their entire life up until this point?

You wouldn't, but how often is all else equal? Very rarely.

The courts should (and I believe they do) look for the least disruptive way to the child for settling the custody dispute.

So you are saying that other factors shouldn't matter? Or that joint custody is really that difficult to arrange in the majority of cases?

But we're not there and that's why women are almost always given custody.

Again, if someone claimed that culturally women are less willing to work hard and that is why there is a gender wage gap, would you agree with them or not? If not, why the inconsistency?

Point being, it shouldn't then surprise you that courts more often than not offer physical custody to mothers.

It doesn't surprise me that the courts have a sexist gender bias.

[-1=e^ipi]

So, who is the primary caregiver when both parents work?

The mother apparently because she gave birth and had maternity leave.

[-1=e^ipi]

Also, stop poisoning the well by jumping around to other contentious issues that are not part of my argument.

You mean asking for consistency and pointing out a double standard?

However, the courts need to also be aware that a woman who put in time with domestic labour for the functioning the family, that is to say didn't work and raised the children and took care of the home, needs to be protected against men using their financially privileged position by being in the workforce to claim to be more suitable for the child.

Look I agree that income shouldn't trump everything or be a major factor. But at the same time, it shouldn't be the case for 'caregiving' either. If two parents agreed to a situation where 1 parent primarily stayed home to look after the children and the other parent worked to provide income, I don't think that situation should favour either parent. To decide which parent should get custody, look at other factors, such as where the child would live if they were with a parent (maybe I location has a better school, daycare services, has a lower crime rate, less pollution, etc.), what is the availability of each parent (maybe I parent has a more flexible work schedule so can more easily pick up their child from school, take them to events, etc.), how nearby other family members are (maybe 1 parent has nearby grandparents that can help), does 1 parent have mental health issues (maybe have both parents psychologically evaluated or make them take some sort of test).

Better yet, have each parent submit a written proposal for why they would provide the best living arrangement for the child in the future, and take off their names so that the judge doesn't know the gender of each applicant. Also, joint custody should generally be favored if it is feasible (such as if both parents live in the same city).

[-1=e^ipi]

I agree with the statement, "custody by default goes to the primary caregiver."

Makes about as much sense as 'custody by default goes to the primary breadwinner'.

[cybercoma]

So, who is the primary caregiver when both parents work?

Depends on the family and the situation.

[cybercoma]

The mother apparently because she gave birth and had maternity leave.

Look, I can explain things to you, but I can't understand them for you. I've spent enough time explaining why custody going to mothers in the majority of cases is not sufficient to demonstrate legal gender bias. I've boiled down into overly simplistic terms that are easily understood if you were at all open to having an honest discussion. If you're just going to make snide remarks and be dismissive without even a modicum of intelligent counterpoints, then we're done here.

[Freddy]

What a mess our family "clan" system is in. The who thing is all messed up. No wonder kids are all screwed up.

[-1=e^ipi]

No wonder kids are all screwed up.

I'm certainty screwed up.

I've spent enough time explaining why custody going to mothers in the majority of cases is not sufficient to demonstrate legal gender bias.

I never claimed it was sufficient. You on the other hand are basically ignoring the possibility that any gender bias exists. Btw, please go to some feminists or SJWs and tell them that the existence of a gender wage gap is not sufficient to demonstrate gender bias.

I've boiled down into overly simplistic terms that are easily understood if you were at all open to having an honest discussion.

I've explained why I disagree with you and gave counter points, which you refuse to respond to. Consistency and no double standards are important to me, but I guess they aren't important for you.

[Freddy]

I'm certainty screwed up.

I never claimed it was sufficient. You on the other hand are basically ignoring the possibility that any gender bias exists. Btw, please go to some feminists or SJWs and tell them that the existence of a gender wage gap is not sufficient to demonstrate gender bias

Gender bias is perfectly normal. You can't decide to stop gender bias all of a sudden after it's existed for millions of years, It's deeply rooted in us, and them. Genetically and culturally. And if this gender bias has helped us to where we are today, were humans dominates all forms of life on earth easily, then obviously it's a very good bias that helped us achieve a very high lever of survivability.

The feminist idea that gender bias should be abolished, May appear like a equal and fair idea, and on paper looks good, But when one looks at the bigger picture, we must all realize it's not realistic.