Disputed Custody Cases

by Marvin Pirila

One of our self-evident truths is that all men are created equal.  This does not mean that any two human beings are exactly alike.  They are born different with different traits and desires.  The task of society is to accept each person with their vast array of individual differences and treat them as equals.

The assumption of joint legal and sole physical custody to the mother is clearly not acknowledging the equality of men and women.  The law is essentially saying that based on their sex at birth, parental rights are already decided in the case of a custody dispute later in life.  The protection of the mother’s right trumps dad’s rights to custody.  The claims of “primary caretaker” and the “tender years” doctrine are interpreted as assumptive roles of the mother.  Notably, the “tender years” doctrine was rewritten as “primary caretaker”, yet holds the same assumptions.  The duties assumed by mothers and fathers are not deemed equal in importance.  “The best interests of the children” is the official terminology of the courts to disguise their bias against fathers.  The best interests standard is skewed to favor the mother, giving her the benefit of all custodial interests, because of her “physical birthing” of the child.

God does not distinguish the rights of women from that of men when it comes to the custody of their children.  The diminished role of the father to four days a month is devastating to the well being of the child and to society as a whole.  Countless studies show that fatherless homes, as well as diminished father time, leads to higher incarceration rates, higher teenage pregnancy, higher drug use, higher suicide rates, and several other social ills.  Many fathers commit suicide because of the emotional, mental, and financial destruction they receive in contested divorce case judgments.

The states increase societal costs by destroying countless lives while benefitting itself through higher federal funds (based on child support cases), higher employment rolls, and more influence in the personal lives of Americans.  They “create” social ills so they can “govern” the fallout.

Mothers do not benefit from abusing the system to garnish as much child support, property, and alimony as possible.  The kids are just the pawns used to get what they want.  The mothers become dependent upon their check each month, often doing little or nothing to improve their positions.  The Creator has imposed on every human being of normal mental capacity:  the duty of parents [both] and elders to protect, teach, feed, clothe, and provide shelter for children and; the duty to become economically self-sufficient.

Around 15% of women take everything they can from the dad when divorcing.  There is not a stronger guarantee of increased financial gain than to contest custody.  The assumption is that the children are better off in one home, rather than splitting time between two, even when they live in the same school district.  This assumption lacks statistical support, whereas nearly all studies show the social problems that result from removing the father from the children’s lives.  Hypocritically, the courts allow joint physical and joint legal custody when the parents both agree to it.  However, the court itself will not recognize the same agreement in its rulings when custody is contested.  It is all or nothing, where the mother always wins.

If every person is entitled to protection of his life and property, the decision of custody is not one for the state to determine.  The power of the government to strip one parent of their parental rights based on sex violates the principle of “guaranteed equal rights.”

A father is relegated to subordinate of the mother in custody disputes, and in the process becomes a wage slave.  Divorce is not a forfeiture of rights and an individual cannot forfeit his rights simply because he is born a male.  The right to parenting is an inalienable right endowed to us by the Creator.

Among these unalienable rights endowed to individuals are "the right to a fair trial" and the "right to beget [father] one's kind."  There can be no fair trial if the presumption is in favor of the mother in a winner take all custody battle.  Secondly, if there is an unalienable right to father a child, there is presumptively a right to also raise that child equal to that of the mother.

The U.S. was founded upon the law of Nature as provided us by our Creator, yet states continue to interfere with the unalienable rights of fathers.  The results are devastating, costly, and deadly.  The judicial and legislative branches have failed their responsibility of serving the public interest, the constitution, and above all, the Creator.  Ultimately, this precedence hurts everyone in the process, even those not in it.  Equality is only achieved through the presumption of joint physical and joint legal custody.