Class Action Lawsuit for Equal Custody!

[LdiJ]

Agreed. Dad needs to also have the primary caregiving duties that are part of the bonding process. And the earlier the better.

Status quo, if it is not GOOD status quo does not automatically make it desirable. My daughter's "primary caregiver" the first 25 months of her life was her orphanage. That does NOT make it true that continuing this arrangemnt would have been better for her. And, FYI, she was handed to us with no transition at 2 and was never traumatized and is a happy well adjusted child.

And not having dad and his child involved together in the processes that foster bonding is NOT good status quo.

I agree that if the status quo is not good status quo then it isn't automatically desireable. I was speaking more generally. I really don't think you can compare adopted children (whose lives were previously disrupted in some way or they wouldn't be available for adoption) with children whose lives have never previously been disrupted. I don't think an infant's life should ever be seriously disrupted unless its truly necessary for the sake of the infant. The infant is incapable of understanding WHY.

Does anyone here really think that if mom is an adequate parent, that its "best" for an infant to suddenly go from full time living with mom, to primarily living with dad (with whom the child may not be bonded) or even 50/50, abruptly? Sure, there may be kids that would end up adjusting just fine...but I don't see how anyone could say its the "best" thing for the child.
I also don't see how anyone could say that it wouldn't traumatize at least some infants. In my opinion if it has to happen, then it should happen gradually. This applies however primarily to unwed situations or situations where dad and mom were separated before the birth and mom isn't unfit in some serious way.

That isn't what normally happens in the majority of divorces. Most married couples don't separate and divorce at that juncture (of course some do)....therefore dad is usually equally bonded to the infant.

Then of course there is the breastfeeding issue. I know that there may be mother's out there who do it just to keep dad away...however, the bottom line is that it is irrefutable that breastfeeding is the best form of nutrition for infants. It is also irrefutable that mothers have seriously varying degrees of success with pumping breastmilk. Realistically, an infant can't be breastfed unless the child primarily lives with mom...so again, if mom is an adequate parent, what is "best" for the infant?

Basically, what I am trying to say here is that when it comes to children the focus should be on what is best for them, and not what is fair for the parents.
What's best for them is to have as much time with each parent as possible, in the least disruptive way possible....in the way that makes their lives the most serene and the least complicated. That is going to be different for every child and every family. Presumption in favor of the mother may be what's best for breastfeeding infants (therefore technically best for all infants since breastfeeding IS best for all infants). For older kids, what may be best is no presumption, PERIOD. Not for the mother, not for the father, not for joint, but for a careful deliberation of what is best for that particular child, at that stage in the child's life, based on also the logistics of the situation.

 

[lparty]

My ex gets the kids for 1 overnight vist every other weekend. When I get the kids back, the 2 smallest boys, ages 1 and 2 1/2, are stuck to me like glue for days. I can't even put my youngest down, I have to carry him everywhere. I can only imagine what it would do to them if my ex had them for a full week every other week.

 

[ajfai]

lparty maybe it's because your kids do not spend alot of time with dad and that's why they are "stuck to you like glue" when they get home. One overnight visit EOW is not a lot of time to spend with your kids. They really don't know their father.

 

[nextwife]

Exactly what I was thinking. The more time together, the more relaxed and comfortable together. EOW to a young child is an eternity. That is way too long a gap bewteen visits.

 

[lparty]

My ex has ADHD and an alcohol/cocaine problem and an extremely violent temper. He has also been in an out of jail because of alcohol/drug related incidences. Sometimes he doesn't see them for months at a time when he is in jail. There is no way I would let him have them for a week at a time. He gets them for only one night because thats he can handle. He can't deal with the crying for anymore than one day. If he wasn't so hung over, and would get his but up and go outside and play with the kids they wouldn't be crying all the time. The visitation is supervised but he actually spends more time with them now than he did when we were together.

 

[nextwife]

Then likely it is his personality and issues that are the cause of their discomfort.

A mom with those same issues should also have limited time with her kids.

 

[haiku]

I agree that if the status quo is not good status quo then it isn't automatically desireable. I was speaking more generally. I really don't think you can compare adopted children (whose lives were previously disrupted in some way or they wouldn't be available for adoption) with children whose lives have never previously been disrupted. I don't think an infant's life should ever be seriously disrupted unless its truly necessary for the sake of the infant. The infant is incapable of understanding WHY.

Does anyone here really think that if mom is an adequate parent, that its "best" for an infant to suddenly go from full time living with mom, to primarily living with dad (with whom the child may not be bonded) or even 50/50, abruptly? Sure, there may be kids that would end up adjusting just fine...but I don't see how anyone could say its the "best" thing for the child.
I also don't see how anyone could say that it wouldn't traumatize at least some infants. In my opinion if it has to happen, then it should happen gradually. This applies however primarily to unwed situations or situations where dad and mom were separated before the birth and mom isn't unfit in some serious way.

That isn't what normally happens in the majority of divorces. Most married couples don't separate and divorce at that juncture (of course some do)....therefore dad is usually equally bonded to the infant.

Then of course there is the breastfeeding issue. I know that there may be mother's out there who do it just to keep dad away...however, the bottom line is that it is irrefutable that breastfeeding is the best form of nutrition for infants. It is also irrefutable that mothers have seriously varying degrees of success with pumping breastmilk. Realistically, an infant can't be breastfed unless the child primarily lives with mom...so again, if mom is an adequate parent, what is "best" for the infant?

Basically, what I am trying to say here is that when it comes to children the focus should be on what is best for them, and not what is fair for the parents.
What's best for them is to have as much time with each parent as possible, in the least disruptive way possible....in the way that makes their lives the most serene and the least complicated. That is going to be different for every child and every family. Presumption in favor of the mother may be what's best for breastfeeding infants (therefore technically best for all infants since breastfeeding IS best for all infants). For older kids, what may be best is no presumption, PERIOD. Not for the mother, not for the father, not for joint, but for a careful deliberation of what is best for that particular child, at that stage in the child's life, based on also the logistics of the situation.

divorce IS a disruption. It will be a disruption for the REST of thier lives. it does not ever magically go away. The sooner a child deals with it the better, and that includes in my opinion in infancy. there is NO reason a father should be awarded any less than any other caregiver a mom with custody chooses for herself.

what is best for the child IS fair for the parents, and that is both parents sharing equal footing in custody.

 

[haiku]

My ex has ADHD and an alcohol/cocaine problem and an extremely violent temper. He has also been in an out of jail because of alcohol/drug related incidences. Sometimes he doesn't see them for months at a time when he is in jail. There is no way I would let him have them for a week at a time. He gets them for only one night because thats he can handle. He can't deal with the crying for anymore than one day. If he wasn't so hung over, and would get his but up and go outside and play with the kids they wouldn't be crying all the time. The visitation is supervised but he actually spends more time with them now than he did when we were together.

i don't think we are talking about parents with serious 'issues" here, but parents who should be on equal footing, but are barred from that based solely on thier traditional gender role.

 

[nextwife]

Then of course there is the breastfeeding issue. I know that there may be mother's out there who do it just to keep dad away...however, the bottom line is that it is irrefutable that breastfeeding is the best form of nutrition for infants. It is also irrefutable that mothers have seriously varying degrees of success with pumping breastmilk. Realistically, an infant can't be breastfed unless the child primarily lives with mom...so again, if mom is an adequate parent, what is "best" for the infant?
.

Additionoinally, parent sharing infants CAN still be breastfed.

I have a dear friend whose child is about my daughter's age. She is owner and manager of a family furniture store. Her store was not about to run itself, just because she was breatfeeding. When she was working (and she did work full time) her husband OR parents fed their son using pumped breastmilk.

Same with an attorney friend of mine. She used a breastpump for when she could not be there..

 

[LdiJ]

MY point was indeed that dad's should be able to begin having their own time with their child as soon as the legal right is established.

It better for a child to begin the bonding process with their dad being the other caregiver as early as possible. Children are very adapdable. Being with dad is no different than parents who leave their kids with Grandma or sis for the day on a regular basis. Baby is quickly familiar with them and grows up fine. Why should dad be entitled to any less?

That is very valid. However in my experience grandma or sis usually spend some time with the baby in mom's home, or with mom present for a period of time, before grandma or sis actually babysit.

 

[LdiJ]

Additionoinally, parent sharing infants CAN still be breastfed.

I have a dear friend whose child is about my daughter's age. She is owner and manager of a family furniture store. Her store was not about to run itself, just because she was breatfeeding. When she was working (and she did work full time) her husband OR parents fed their son using pumped breastmilk.

Same with an attorney friend of mine. She used a breastpump for when she could not be there..

And that's great when the mother has enough success with pumping to provide enough milk for that. Unfortunately, there are alot of mother's who don't. I wasn't able to pump at all when I was breastfeeding. I barely could produce enough milk to keep her satisfied and ended up not being able to breastfeed as long as I wanted to. There are also some mother's who can pump enough to supply for daycare, but not enough to ALSO supply weekends for dad etc.

 

[haiku]

That is very valid. However in my experience grandma or sis usually spend some time with the baby in mom's home, or with mom present for a period of time, before grandma or sis actually babysit.

you are still giving primary "veto" power of the caregiver to the mother with this example. Dad should be on equal footing with mom to be the one to decide if mom or sis get to spend time alone with baby too. dads should not be lumped in with Grandparents, as to how they spend time with thier children.

(and for what its worth I don't remember a "breaking in period" for my mom or sis LOL)

 

[haiku]

And that's great when the mother has enough success with pumping to provide enough milk for that. Unfortunately, there are alot of mother's who don't. I wasn't able to pump at all when I was breastfeeding. I barely could produce enough milk to keep her satisfied and ended up not being able to breastfeed as long as I wanted to. There are also some mother's who can pump enough to supply for daycare, but not enough to ALSO supply weekends for dad etc.

And thats is the point, it divorced or not, because there is always going to be some concern with breastfeeding. So mom should also be supplementing for the week in daycare, so that dads time is not affected. If the family was intact, and she had trouble pumping, the outcome would still be the same.

 

[LdiJ]

divorce IS a disruption. It will be a disruption for the REST of thier lives. it does not ever magically go away. The sooner a child deals with it the better, and that includes in my opinion in infancy. there is NO reason a father should be awarded any less than any other caregiver a mom with custody chooses for herself.

what is best for the child IS fair for the parents, and that is both parents sharing equal footing in custody.

yes, you are absolutely correct. I was focusing more on unwed parent situations. rather than divorce was I was talking about infants.

 

[LdiJ]

I actually just got to read the case itself. Here a link to it if anyone else is interested.

http://www.indianacrc.org/TheMainComplaint.pdf

I noticed something about it that seemed to be a GLARING problem. I am curious if anyone else, particularly the attorneys, sees the same problem.