Abusive Fathers Win Custody Battles More Often Than Mothers

[xZaebos]

Meroko_Love

xZaebos

Meroko_Love

x_Silver_Starlight_x

My friend and his siblings went to his mother. She alienated her children from the father, and that is abuse in and of itself. I haven't seen him much since, and I really don't understand what's going on in his life.
His father actually wanted therapy with him so that they could work things out and become close again, but the court refused that order as well.
It happens on both sides, and frankly, the court systems need to get better at it. I only agree with full custody if one of the parents is clearly abusing the child. Otherwise, they should get over it and share. A kid needs both it's parents.

That's not abuse to a parent at all. Maybe next time actually read the OP because kids don't need an abusive parent to be better suited. http://www.nafcj.net/DOJreport-PDF copy.pdf
http://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/toc/DVAC TOC.pdf

Well, I was told that "with-holding affection" was a form of emotional abuse. If that's true, then I'd say purposefully alienating children from one of their parents would be a form of abuse as well. That is unless there is a reasonable motive fore doing so, such as a spouse who has become a violent drinker.

With-holding affection from a child at all is abusive to the child. Alienating children from one of their parents can be a form of abuse to the parent, if that parent is non-abusive. I'm only talking about abusive parents though... Forcing a child to be with an abusive parent is certainly abusive to said child though.

The affection thing was supposed to be abuse towards your partner, not children.

[Cendrillon LeFleur]

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

I am quite aware. And the sleepiness was bad. My brother and I ended up in the hospital a lot because no one was watching us. Sleeping 18/24 hours does not a good parent make. And yes.

I'm not a jury, nor am I on one.

If someone can't afford to pay to take care of themselves, and food stamps, WIC, or other means of income aren't enough, they should not have custody of kids, regardless of mental state. I could bring up the fact that psychological disorders in parents have been linked with higher diathesis towards psychological disorders in children, but I won't because there're no guarantees.

That's almost unheard of. Sleeping for that long is not a common symptom of antidepressants. They usually just make you feel a bit drowsier throughout the day... That sounds more like antipsychotic meds...

But if that's the case, then poor parents should have their kids taken away from them? That's so classist and unfair when it's our capitalist society's fault their in those positions in the first place.

Well, there are clear links between children witnessing spousal abuse, and then becoming abusive themselves...

She's not on antipsychotics. I may need to be, so we'll see.

If they can't take care of the kids, sure. It's not classist, but yes, it is an unfortunate symptom of a capitalistic society. Though, in your example, it's not the fault of capitalism that an abusive spouse essentially handicapped the partner and made them perpetually poor. Might I remind you that Marxist thought has trouble being applicable in modern American economics. Has to do with Marx being European and 200 years old.

And links between parents having depression/anxiety disorders and their kids getting them, too. If I felt like cracking out my abnormal psych texts, I could cite you stuff, but not doing that right now.

You might? Well, I certainly hope that works out for you. Make sure it's a prescription from a psychiatrist, not a medical doctor. And follow up with therapy because medication alone is not usually enough.

That's not the result of a capitalist society, no, but the fact that millions of Americans are poor parents certainly is. I do know that already, but I feel a reformed type of Marxism, one that can work for our present society could do better. Marx's critiques of capitalism is pretty applicable still except for certain parts.

I know that, I've had abnormal. But like I said, depression, anxiety, or other common mental disorders do not make a parent unfit.

Hard to say. And of course.

I won't argue it.

Not inherently, but they can. To say that they absolutely do not, which you have, is preposterous.

Well, until I see research showing that their parenting skills can be affected, or even learn about it in my Infancy and Childhood Dev. Psych class, I'm skeptical about it and it's a caustic stereotype many people hold.

My mom has anxiety and depression issues. She wasn't a good parent. Case study complete. If you think it's people "acting on a caustic stereotype" when they analyze anyone with a history of mental disorder, you're seriously deluded. The court is doing its job when it looks into both parents in a custody battle, and considering what I know about people with psychological disorders, it's not an unwarranted decision.

[Meroko_Love]

xZaebos

Meroko_Love

xZaebos

Meroko_Love

x_Silver_Starlight_x

My friend and his siblings went to his mother. She alienated her children from the father, and that is abuse in and of itself. I haven't seen him much since, and I really don't understand what's going on in his life.
His father actually wanted therapy with him so that they could work things out and become close again, but the court refused that order as well.
It happens on both sides, and frankly, the court systems need to get better at it. I only agree with full custody if one of the parents is clearly abusing the child. Otherwise, they should get over it and share. A kid needs both it's parents.

That's not abuse to a parent at all. Maybe next time actually read the OP because kids don't need an abusive parent to be better suited. http://www.nafcj.net/DOJreport-PDF copy.pdf
http://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/toc/DVAC TOC.pdf

Well, I was told that "with-holding affection" was a form of emotional abuse. If that's true, then I'd say purposefully alienating children from one of their parents would be a form of abuse as well. That is unless there is a reasonable motive fore doing so, such as a spouse who has become a violent drinker.

With-holding affection from a child at all is abusive to the child. Alienating children from one of their parents can be a form of abuse to the parent, if that parent is non-abusive. I'm only talking about abusive parents though... Forcing a child to be with an abusive parent is certainly abusive to said child though.

The affection thing was supposed to be abuse towards your partner, not children.

... How is with-holding affection from your partner abusive? That's false. A lot of people are just not very affectionate in general, it certainly does not mean they are automatically abusive.

[Meroko_Love]

Rainier Chevalier

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

She's not on antipsychotics. I may need to be, so we'll see.

If they can't take care of the kids, sure. It's not classist, but yes, it is an unfortunate symptom of a capitalistic society. Though, in your example, it's not the fault of capitalism that an abusive spouse essentially handicapped the partner and made them perpetually poor. Might I remind you that Marxist thought has trouble being applicable in modern American economics. Has to do with Marx being European and 200 years old.

And links between parents having depression/anxiety disorders and their kids getting them, too. If I felt like cracking out my abnormal psych texts, I could cite you stuff, but not doing that right now.

You might? Well, I certainly hope that works out for you. Make sure it's a prescription from a psychiatrist, not a medical doctor. And follow up with therapy because medication alone is not usually enough.

That's not the result of a capitalist society, no, but the fact that millions of Americans are poor parents certainly is. I do know that already, but I feel a reformed type of Marxism, one that can work for our present society could do better. Marx's critiques of capitalism is pretty applicable still except for certain parts.

I know that, I've had abnormal. But like I said, depression, anxiety, or other common mental disorders do not make a parent unfit.

Hard to say. And of course.

I won't argue it.

Not inherently, but they can. To say that they absolutely do not, which you have, is preposterous.

Well, until I see research showing that their parenting skills can be affected, or even learn about it in my Infancy and Childhood Dev. Psych class, I'm skeptical about it and it's a caustic stereotype many people hold.

My mom has anxiety and depression issues. She wasn't a good parent. Case study complete. If you think it's people "acting on a caustic stereotype" when they analyze anyone with a history of mental disorder, you're seriously deluded. The court is doing its job when it looks into both parents in a custody battle, and considering what I know about people with psychological disorders, it's not an unwarranted decision.

Why do you think she wasn't a good parent in the first place?

Yeah, except many courts tend to over-analyze mothers and under-analyze fathers.

[xZaebos]

Meroko_Love

xZaebos

Meroko_Love

xZaebos

Meroko_Love

x_Silver_Starlight_x

My friend and his siblings went to his mother. She alienated her children from the father, and that is abuse in and of itself. I haven't seen him much since, and I really don't understand what's going on in his life.
His father actually wanted therapy with him so that they could work things out and become close again, but the court refused that order as well.
It happens on both sides, and frankly, the court systems need to get better at it. I only agree with full custody if one of the parents is clearly abusing the child. Otherwise, they should get over it and share. A kid needs both it's parents.

That's not abuse to a parent at all. Maybe next time actually read the OP because kids don't need an abusive parent to be better suited. http://www.nafcj.net/DOJreport-PDF copy.pdf
http://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/toc/DVAC TOC.pdf

Well, I was told that "with-holding affection" was a form of emotional abuse. If that's true, then I'd say purposefully alienating children from one of their parents would be a form of abuse as well. That is unless there is a reasonable motive fore doing so, such as a spouse who has become a violent drinker.

With-holding affection from a child at all is abusive to the child. Alienating children from one of their parents can be a form of abuse to the parent, if that parent is non-abusive. I'm only talking about abusive parents though... Forcing a child to be with an abusive parent is certainly abusive to said child though.

The affection thing was supposed to be abuse towards your partner, not children.

... How is with-holding affection from your partner abusive? That's false. A lot of people are just not very affectionate in general, it certainly does not mean they are automatically abusive.

Yeah, that's what I said.

[Dreaded Jai]

Meroko_Love

Do you even ******** read my responses?

Yes.

Quote:

I care about children going with ABUSIVE PARENTS and the fact that the court system is biased against BATTERED WOMEN. Read my OP sources, I updated them.

But you literally had no proof of a bias and most of your updated sources are just as empty.

Quote:

I'm not ******** doing this again with you, here is a study that dissects the mainstream fathers' rights movement pretty well and how it really is doing poor things for children: http://www.nafcj.net/DOJreport-PDF copy.pdf

And what is that suppose to prove exactly?

Quote:

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF; It doesn't matter whether it's the father or mother, people have this stigma against a parent on antidepressants or who has a mental illness.

Then complain about that, and not about fathers getting to see their kids. Plus how do you know there wasn't other factors at ******** dude, do you just ignore all the times I stick up for men? No, but you do discriminate against Father's rights for no good reason, if 70% of abusive fathers get some kind of custody how does that disprove that mothers as a whole get custody most of the time? How is that a myth?

Quote:

It's infuriating. And do you know how rare it is that a woman is lying about being abused?

Do you know how rare it is for someone with a criminal record to be awarded custody? Do you know it does happen? Do you know without any record of abuse it's idiotic to bring it up in court?

[Cendrillon LeFleur]

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

She's not on antipsychotics. I may need to be, so we'll see.

If they can't take care of the kids, sure. It's not classist, but yes, it is an unfortunate symptom of a capitalistic society. Though, in your example, it's not the fault of capitalism that an abusive spouse essentially handicapped the partner and made them perpetually poor. Might I remind you that Marxist thought has trouble being applicable in modern American economics. Has to do with Marx being European and 200 years old.

And links between parents having depression/anxiety disorders and their kids getting them, too. If I felt like cracking out my abnormal psych texts, I could cite you stuff, but not doing that right now.

You might? Well, I certainly hope that works out for you. Make sure it's a prescription from a psychiatrist, not a medical doctor. And follow up with therapy because medication alone is not usually enough.

That's not the result of a capitalist society, no, but the fact that millions of Americans are poor parents certainly is. I do know that already, but I feel a reformed type of Marxism, one that can work for our present society could do better. Marx's critiques of capitalism is pretty applicable still except for certain parts.

I know that, I've had abnormal. But like I said, depression, anxiety, or other common mental disorders do not make a parent unfit.

Hard to say. And of course.

I won't argue it.

Not inherently, but they can. To say that they absolutely do not, which you have, is preposterous.

Well, until I see research showing that their parenting skills can be affected, or even learn about it in my Infancy and Childhood Dev. Psych class, I'm skeptical about it and it's a caustic stereotype many people hold.

My mom has anxiety and depression issues. She wasn't a good parent. Case study complete. If you think it's people "acting on a caustic stereotype" when they analyze anyone with a history of mental disorder, you're seriously deluded. The court is doing its job when it looks into both parents in a custody battle, and considering what I know about people with psychological disorders, it's not an unwarranted decision.

Why do you think she wasn't a good parent in the first place?

Yeah, except many courts tend to over-analyze mothers and under-analyze fathers.

Because she wasn't conscious the majority of the time, and my brother and I ended up in the hospital a lot in the meantime.

Which has nothing to do with my point, since I'm not a court. neutral

[Meroko_Love]

xZaebos

Meroko_Love

xZaebos

Meroko_Love

xZaebos

Well, I was told that "with-holding affection" was a form of emotional abuse. If that's true, then I'd say purposefully alienating children from one of their parents would be a form of abuse as well. That is unless there is a reasonable motive fore doing so, such as a spouse who has become a violent drinker.

With-holding affection from a child at all is abusive to the child. Alienating children from one of their parents can be a form of abuse to the parent, if that parent is non-abusive. I'm only talking about abusive parents though... Forcing a child to be with an abusive parent is certainly abusive to said child though.

The affection thing was supposed to be abuse towards your partner, not children.

... How is with-holding affection from your partner abusive? That's false. A lot of people are just not very affectionate in general, it certainly does not mean they are automatically abusive.

Yeah, that's what I said.

Especially since I can see that being used against a lot of men, since culturally, they are taught to be generally without too much emotion (except for anger).

[Meroko_Love]

Rainier Chevalier

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

Hard to say. And of course.

I won't argue it.

Not inherently, but they can. To say that they absolutely do not, which you have, is preposterous.

Well, until I see research showing that their parenting skills can be affected, or even learn about it in my Infancy and Childhood Dev. Psych class, I'm skeptical about it and it's a caustic stereotype many people hold.

My mom has anxiety and depression issues. She wasn't a good parent. Case study complete. If you think it's people "acting on a caustic stereotype" when they analyze anyone with a history of mental disorder, you're seriously deluded. The court is doing its job when it looks into both parents in a custody battle, and considering what I know about people with psychological disorders, it's not an unwarranted decision.

Why do you think she wasn't a good parent in the first place?

Yeah, except many courts tend to over-analyze mothers and under-analyze fathers.

Because she wasn't conscious the majority of the time, and my brother and I ended up in the hospital a lot in the meantime.

Which has nothing to do with my point, since I'm not a court. neutral

I see. But then correlation =/= causation. You said she was on a mix of antidepressants wasn't she?

[Cendrillon LeFleur]

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

Hard to say. And of course.

I won't argue it.

Not inherently, but they can. To say that they absolutely do not, which you have, is preposterous.

Well, until I see research showing that their parenting skills can be affected, or even learn about it in my Infancy and Childhood Dev. Psych class, I'm skeptical about it and it's a caustic stereotype many people hold.

My mom has anxiety and depression issues. She wasn't a good parent. Case study complete. If you think it's people "acting on a caustic stereotype" when they analyze anyone with a history of mental disorder, you're seriously deluded. The court is doing its job when it looks into both parents in a custody battle, and considering what I know about people with psychological disorders, it's not an unwarranted decision.

Why do you think she wasn't a good parent in the first place?

Yeah, except many courts tend to over-analyze mothers and under-analyze fathers.

Because she wasn't conscious the majority of the time, and my brother and I ended up in the hospital a lot in the meantime.

Which has nothing to do with my point, since I'm not a court. neutral

I see. But then correlation =/= causation. You said she was on a mix of antidepressants wasn't she?

Yes.

So, assuming that a person being on anti-depressants or anti-anxiety meds might influence their parenting isn't farfetched. Conversely, ruling out the possibility of a mentally unsound parent being a poor parent, as you have done, is farfetched.

[Dreaded Jai]

Meroko_Love

xZaebos

Meroko_Love

xZaebos

Meroko_Love

xZaebos

Well, I was told that "with-holding affection" was a form of emotional abuse. If that's true, then I'd say purposefully alienating children from one of their parents would be a form of abuse as well. That is unless there is a reasonable motive fore doing so, such as a spouse who has become a violent drinker.

With-holding affection from a child at all is abusive to the child. Alienating children from one of their parents can be a form of abuse to the parent, if that parent is non-abusive. I'm only talking about abusive parents though... Forcing a child to be with an abusive parent is certainly abusive to said child though.

The affection thing was supposed to be abuse towards your partner, not children.

... How is with-holding affection from your partner abusive? That's false. A lot of people are just not very affectionate in general, it certainly does not mean they are automatically abusive.

Yeah, that's what I said.

Especially since I can see that being used against a lot of men, since culturally, they are taught to be generally without too much emotion (except for anger).

X. This list is probably more accurate than your circle chart. Also, prove the second statement.

[deadguy]

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

Meroko_Love

Rainier Chevalier

I am quite aware. And the sleepiness was bad. My brother and I ended up in the hospital a lot because no one was watching us. Sleeping 18/24 hours does not a good parent make. And yes.

I'm not a jury, nor am I on one.

If someone can't afford to pay to take care of themselves, and food stamps, WIC, or other means of income aren't enough, they should not have custody of kids, regardless of mental state. I could bring up the fact that psychological disorders in parents have been linked with higher diathesis towards psychological disorders in children, but I won't because there're no guarantees.

That's almost unheard of. Sleeping for that long is not a common symptom of antidepressants. They usually just make you feel a bit drowsier throughout the day... That sounds more like antipsychotic meds...

But if that's the case, then poor parents should have their kids taken away from them? That's so classist and unfair when it's our capitalist society's fault their in those positions in the first place.

Well, there are clear links between children witnessing spousal abuse, and then becoming abusive themselves...

She's not on antipsychotics. I may need to be, so we'll see.

If they can't take care of the kids, sure. It's not classist, but yes, it is an unfortunate symptom of a capitalistic society. Though, in your example, it's not the fault of capitalism that an abusive spouse essentially handicapped the partner and made them perpetually poor. Might I remind you that Marxist thought has trouble being applicable in modern American economics. Has to do with Marx being European and 200 years old.

And links between parents having depression/anxiety disorders and their kids getting them, too. If I felt like cracking out my abnormal psych texts, I could cite you stuff, but not doing that right now.

You might? Well, I certainly hope that works out for you. Make sure it's a prescription from a psychiatrist, not a medical doctor. And follow up with therapy because medication alone is not usually enough.

That's not the result of a capitalist society, no, but the fact that millions of Americans are poor parents certainly is. I do know that already, but I feel a reformed type of Marxism, one that can work for our present society could do better. Marx's critiques of capitalism is pretty applicable still except for certain parts.

I know that, I've had abnormal. But like I said, depression, anxiety, or other common mental disorders do not make a parent unfit.

Hard to say. And of course.

I won't argue it.

Not inherently, but they can. To say that they absolutely do not, which you have, is preposterous.

Well, until I see research showing that their parenting skills can be affected, or even learn about it in my Infancy and Childhood Dev. Psych class, I'm skeptical about it and it's a caustic stereotype many people hold.

Try basic neuropsychology, that's what I took. I can't talk about anxiety, but depression will certainly affect your parenting skills. That much should just be common sense if you know its symptoms. The loss of interest in everything alone would make it pretty hard to be a good parent, not to mention the deep, unshakable sadness,feelings of despair, hopelessness, worthlessness, and difficulty thinking or concentrating. They're sluggish and fatigued, in part because of the insomnia, and can even start hearing voices if it's bad enough. Does any of that sound like a good parent to you?

[Meroko_Love]

64 bits

Meroko_Love

Do you even ******** read my responses?

Yes.

Quote:

I care about children going with ABUSIVE PARENTS and the fact that the court system is biased against BATTERED WOMEN. Read my OP sources, I updated them.

But you literally had no proof of a bias and most of your updated sources are just as empty.

Quote:

I'm not ******** doing this again with you, here is a study that dissects the mainstream fathers' rights movement pretty well and how it really is doing poor things for children: http://www.nafcj.net/DOJreport-PDF copy.pdf

And what is that suppose to prove exactly?

Quote:

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF; It doesn't matter whether it's the father or mother, people have this stigma against a parent on antidepressants or who has a mental illness.

Then complain about that, and not about fathers getting to see their kids. Plus how do you know there wasn't other factors at ******** dude, do you just ignore all the times I stick up for men?

No, but you do discriminate against Father's rights for no good reason, if 70% of abusive fathers get some kind of custody how does that disprove that mothers as a whole get custody most of the time? How is that a myth?

Quote:

It's infuriating. And do you know how rare it is that a woman is lying about being abused?

Do you know how rare it is for someone with a criminal record to be awarded custody? Do you know it does happen? Do you know without any record of abuse it's idiotic to bring it up in court?

"My sources are empty"? I need more than that. Specific methodological complaints, validity complaints, or what? Because that means nothing to me as an undergrad researcher.

That's what I was complaining about the majority of the time... I specifically said it's unfair to mothers and fathers. neutral But my thread is about bias against battererd mothers so that's what I'm sort of focusing on.

When did I complain about fathers getting to see their kids? OH WAIT. It was ABUSIVE fathers getting to see their kids. Stop strawmanning every damn thing I'm saying.

I'm not even talking about mothers getting custody the majority of the time. The myth I addressed is that mothers get custody all the time. Which I've shown to be false.

[CARIBBEAN COMMUNIST]

Which is why I will never get with someone abusive.

[Dreaded Jai]

Meroko_Love

64 bits

Meroko_Love

Do you even ******** read my responses?

Yes.

Quote:

I care about children going with ABUSIVE PARENTS and the fact that the court system is biased against BATTERED WOMEN. Read my OP sources, I updated them.

But you literally had no proof of a bias and most of your updated sources are just as empty.

Quote:

I'm not ******** doing this again with you, here is a study that dissects the mainstream fathers' rights movement pretty well and how it really is doing poor things for children: http://www.nafcj.net/DOJreport-PDF copy.pdf

And what is that suppose to prove exactly?

Quote:

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF; It doesn't matter whether it's the father or mother, people have this stigma against a parent on antidepressants or who has a mental illness.

Then complain about that, and not about fathers getting to see their kids. Plus how do you know there wasn't other factors at ******** dude, do you just ignore all the times I stick up for men?

No, but you do discriminate against Father's rights for no good reason, if 70% of abusive fathers get some kind of custody how does that disprove that mothers as a whole get custody most of the time? How is that a myth?

Quote:

It's infuriating. And do you know how rare it is that a woman is lying about being abused?

Do you know how rare it is for someone with a criminal record to be awarded custody? Do you know it does happen? Do you know without any record of abuse it's idiotic to bring it up in court?

"My sources are empty"? I need more than that. Specific methodological complaints, validity complaints, or what? Because that means nothing to me as an undergrad researcher.

That's what I was complaining about the majority of the time... I specifically said it's unfair to mothers and fathers. neutral But my thread is about bias against battererd mothers so that's what I'm sort of focusing on.

When did I complain about fathers getting to see their kids? OH WAIT. It was ABUSIVE fathers getting to see their kids. Stop strawmanning every damn thing I'm saying.

I'm not even talking about mothers getting custody the majority of the time. The myth I addressed is that mothers get custody all the time. Which I've shown to be false. You either give me too much, or too little with both having little backing to them. "16 mothers in one state" is not a decent sample size.
Why not focus on the stigma of Antidepressants in regards to both sexes not just one. That would seem pretty gender neutral.
Why shouldn't non-convicted/accused abusive fathers get supervised custody? Especially if there is no record of abuse. That is denying them their right to a fair trial if the courts just had to take the accuser at her word.
Most father's rights websites I seen said most often not always.