As the law goes, or should go, the parent most suitable to provide for the kids should have custody. There are still biased judges out there who won't see a man raisng kids.

What's up with men who decide not to fight for custody? Are ya'll trained that kids naturally go with mamma?

What's the deal here?

I see a lot of threads where, po daddy misses the kids the woman took away. Sob story BS.

Possession holds lots of weight.

Even if, they were never married but his name is on the BC, he has as much right to them as the Mom.

All he'd have to do is, hire a lawyer, petition for custody, take them for a week and while they are in his custody, have her served.

It would piss me right the hell off if a Dad did that to spite or hurt the woman. He would need to do that because he is convinced the kids would be better off with him.

In these threads you've mentioned where the mom took the kids away from the dad, what were the specific situations? Knowing that information would provide a lot more to go on to see why the women had custody and the men didn't.

In these threads, I mentioned I was one of the first men in US history to win a custody battle.

Each situation is different.

My main query is,Why don't more men fight for and have custody.

a mother can not teach a boy to be a man. a father can not teach a girl to be a woman....case closed......a great example is how many screwed up men there are that were raised by mothers only from the 60's lib area on . !!!!!!!!!!!

True enough.

One can usually provide better for the kids than the other.

Gone are the days to win custody, you had to prove the parent unfit. Unless, there is a prison record, abuse history or severe mental illness, the best able to provide would get custody.

Mostly, they would have to take the incentive to fight.

Because the court system is messed up. Maybe if the judge actually listened half the time, instead of just being on the female's side, throughout, the men would stand a better chance. Not all men are out to actually sabotage their ex. They just want to see their child as regularly as the mother does. And, what with a child being a child, I can't blame them. It would be very difficult knowing you'd not see your child as regularly as you used to. Whoever ends up looking after the child, should get custody based on whether they're mentally stable enough. For a start.

Don't even get me started on this my ex partner took my little girl cause I couldn't cope had pnd and now I have to fight to get her home he's being a complete ******** and using my daughter

The men who don't fight for custody will be able to tell you why they didn't. Anyone else will just be guessing.

what if they have a boy and a girl ? would it be any better to split up the siblings also ?..
mother takes girl/father takes boy..

the parent most capable of providing a stable home should have custody regardless of gender...jmo.

money... women need the money to raise them right... i have no problem with my ex raising my boys, she's doing a great job, better than i could have done, and i still can see them whenever i want.. to me, it's a win win win, for all all of us...

ummm... that only applies when the father is not in the picture... you can't teach anyone anything if your not around, so be around the boys to help teach them what you want...

I completely disagree with this. A girl can learn alot about appropriate femininity from here father and boys can learn a good deal about how to become a good man from their mothers. In fact, if the father is a poor model, abusive toward women for example, that's not what the boys need to learn. They'd be better off to form a good relationship with the opposite gender parent to learn to appreciate the opposite gender. There are plenty of male role models in life....I don;t know any boys/men who suffered by being raised predominantly by their mother

a mother has no real perspective of what a boy goes through with erections and puberty,, which is why, all things equal, the father is a better model for a BOY

same with a mother being a better model for a GIRL, a father will not be able to truly understand and relate to her puberty , menstruation, developing breasts, etc,, like a mother can

children are not simple equations, and they rarely can truly be split up 50/50 even in a married couple family,, one will tend to be doing MORE of the person to person nurturing and tending, while the other does more of the impersonal financing,

when two parents are in different homes, its much more complex, there is more than the financial need or the emotional need to consider, so they have to put their own ego aside and work for what is BEST for the child (not just financially, not just emotionally)

learning is the main point, as they learn things from everyone around them..male, female, in between... they all have something to teach kids, and then it is up to the kids to assimilate it...

of course

but just like I can never LEARN what it feels like to lose a child just by HEARING how others feel

there are some things a woman cant LEARN about a males experiences, and some things a man cant LEARN about a woman's experience

there is a host of other things we can all teach the children though regardless of gender,,,I just think those very PERSONAL things are better related to by the same sex parent,,,

Court always favors the mother 90% of the time because of gender. They have always stereotype fathers as money / bread winners while mothers stays home, nurturing the kids. The 10% comes in when mothers can't provide that nurturing home for their kids; either their unfit parent / fighting an addiction.

MM has a point.
Men are seen as the bread winner and the woman as the nurturer.

Poor little women can't make enough to pay child maintenance.

Most times, the woman still has to go out and do full time work.

Who's doing the nurturing while both are working?

(I can still see them whenever I want.) That is one big reason many men don't fight to get custody of their kids. If they had full time parenting responsibilities, there'd be limited free time to do as we want. Instead, we'd be tied to kids and having to tend to them, when we're not working.

The Mom would have the free time to hang with the gals, go have a beer or sit and watch soap operas when she's not working.

I respectfully disagree

alcoholics anonymous has a support group that isn't filled with people who have just rEAD about alcoholism, but with others who have GONE through it

NA also is filled with those who have GONE through it

most coaches have PLAYED The sport and not just read about it

survivors groups also filled with people who have similarly gone through the loss of a loved one, not just READ about it

( I don't advise talking to someone who has lost a child and claiming to understand or relate because you 'read about it')

in talking about something, it is always gives better perspective to have experienced it than to have just READ about it,,,,words in a book can do little to transfer the EMOTIONAL Experience,,,,