Should men automatically get default custody of children in a divorce? No.

19 Oct

That was the traditional way, before modern times (the last century or so), and many traditionalists take the view we should return to that, in terms of the law.

It makes a lot of sense, in that it recognizes the importance of the father, as a father; not merely reducing him to a child-support cheque and occasional babysitter. It also disincentivizes a woman from cheating, if she thinks she’ll lose her children.

Or does it? It may for some, certainly, but other, more irresponsible women, caught up in the moment of an adulterous affair, may be fairly gleeful at the prospect of running away from it all, and leaving the husband to carry the bag.

And what if it is the husband who cheats on his wife? Is it fair to the children or the faithful mother for the unfaithful father to have complete custody of the children? I do think that generally speaking, an unfaithful parent is less good of a parent than the one who doesn’t cheat, regardless of sex. That’s just my gut feeling, but at the very least, the cheating parent is the worse example, surely, all other things being ostensibly equal.

No, rather than default custody on the part of either the father or mother in the event of a divorce, I modestly propose (though unlike Swift I AM serious) this: allowing the party that was either cheated upon, or, if not cheated upon AND also not physically abusive towards the other spouse, and was not the party initiating the divorce (in other words, the victim of a frivolous, non-reasons-of-adultery-or-abuse divorce initiation process), to decide EXACTLY what kind of custodial arrangement he or she wants – whether full custody of the children, with no visitation rights even but 100% child support payment required, shared custody of the children, or zero custody of the children whatsoever. Conversely, though, if one spouse initiated divorce proceedings because of proven unfaithfulness or true abusiveness towards said spouse or children (in the latter case, beyond normal reasonable corporal punishment (though that isn’t the only option for parents)), I would likewise give that spouse the same full options, as to what type and degree of custody arrangement – and the other spouse none.

I realize this may make the children seem like pawns in the process – and I suppose that might possibly be a fair charge – but shoot, are they not already that under the status quo, and isn’t this at least superior, in that it gives the wronged party, one either cheated upon or the victim of physical violence, or the potential victim of a frivolous divorcer, all the cards, thus fully disincentivizing infidelity, frivolous-reasons divorce (“I’m not haaaaaapy!”), or physical abuse? Not that I’m as wise as Solomon, but his proposal to cut the baby in half caused the real mother to reveal herself; I humbly submit that the draconian measures I here propose, while potentially harmful to the children in some cases, will result in better behaviour on the part of a would-be nasty spouse, and actually prevent the scenario from happening in the first place, in at least many if not most cases.

Under my proposed scenario, both parties have everything to lose if they are unfaithful, physically abusive, or wishing to divorce for purely frivolous reasons – because they can’t guarantee that whatever outcome might happen, as regards the children, would be the one they desire, as it would be entirely in the hands of the other party – the one they wronged. And thus, they are both disincentivized from infidelity, abusiveness, or frivolous reasons for divorce.

Is that not a win-win situation for all (other than divorce lawyers; too bad!)?

I certainly think it’s superior to, and far more intelligent than, a scenario which rigidly dictates which spouse will obtain custody, period, because that might be exactly what the unfaithful, abusive, or frivolously-divorcing spouse might want, to be freed from responsibility. Screw that; let the other, wronged spouse decide!

And watch rates of divorce drop off dramatically, were any polity to implement my wise, just, noble solution. 😉

P.S. And scrap alimony!


Posted by on October 19, 2013 in culture, divorce, feral females, The Kulturkampf


20 responses to “Should men automatically get default custody of children in a divorce? No.

  1. ProTip

    October 19, 2013 at 11:02 am

    1 problem with that. Leftists expand,modify,and otherwise revise the meanings of words. in 20, or 5, or 100 years, “true abuse” would be not letting your wife have your car on request, even though she is drunk, or defending yourself when you are being attacked.

    Cheating would be much the same.

    The system should be divorced from moral considerations and instead set up as a contractual obligation. It’s not perfect, but it’s better. As in, there would be legal monetary compensations for acts of indiscretion or violence.More of a tit for tat thing than a financial windfall all at once. With the interplay of multiple charges whirling about, women could lose more than they gain. The incentive would be towards amicable divorce,so as not to risking losing what you already have.

  2. Will S.

    October 19, 2013 at 11:11 am

    True enough, they do always move the goalposts…

    I’d be happy enough to leave out the violence aspect, if only to deal with the cheating and frivolous divorce aspects alone… Though my preference would be to include it, as described.

    What do you mean by contractual obligations; a set-in-stone pre-nup, unalterable afterwards? That’s always the rub, innit? Damned lawyers can always get pre-nups altered; they’re hardly worth the paper they’re written on…

    The only concern I have with your monetary compensation for acts of indiscretion is, does the wronged spouse get to keep said money in a separate bank account, inaccessible by the cheating spouse? One would hope so. Again, I distrust modern legal systems, though… Love the idea in principle, though! 🙂

  3. Will S.

    October 19, 2013 at 11:35 am

    Anyway, I don’t believe the system should be divorced from moral considerations, but instead, should be fully in line with proper, correct moral considerations; what is more fair, just, and right. But my system would make practical considerations play a greater role, too, requiring any spouse considering infidelity, violence, or frivolously divorcing, to seriously think about how much they stand to lose.

    Thus, an ideal balance between both moral and practical considerations, IMO.

  4. Red

    October 19, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    Baa! Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

  5. ukfred

    October 19, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    You can quote the bible all you want but actual documented christens during the strongest years of the church didn’t view it as a big deal. It was the Protestants who decided to make a moral crusade out it as a means to help break up the family.

    All that the quotation proves is the need of people in all ages for forgiveness for all sorts of sins including hypocrisy.

    I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I know of one male friend who was denied sex by his wifew for over a year, who stayed because, had he left her she would have prevented him seeing the children. In his case, the children were the greatest asset of the marriage.

    All that aside, change divorce back to a “fault” system rather than the “no-fault” system that we have now and yes, definitely make the default custody of children with the not-at-fault spouse, complete with child maintenance payments. If she has no children, she has no reason not to work.

  6. cecil

    October 19, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    Both parents are important.

    Both have equal rights and responsibility and therefore automatic equal custody at 50% should be standard.

    Whoever has the children must pay for them, just like in the real world.

    Parents can work out whatever adjustments to this they want, but if they can;t agree, then that;s what should apply.

    Equality in action.

  7. Will S.

    October 19, 2013 at 9:07 pm

    @ Red: You’ve been Baahammered.

    Stop trolling, endorsing adultery, smearing Protestants as wanting to break up the family, and for Pete’s sake, learn how to spell ‘Christians’, not ‘christens’, as you always do.

    Stop being an ass, and maybe you’ll be allowed to comment here in the future.

  8. Will S.

    October 19, 2013 at 9:14 pm

    @ ukfred: I agree; changing back to a ‘fault’ system is the first step, of course, ending this bullshit ‘no fault’ divorce.

    @ cecil: We are not egalitarians, here; we’re old-fashioned, reactionary, traditionalist Christians. We think that ideally, a child should have both parents. But failing that, IMO, the child is better off with the parent who isn’t an adulterer, abusive, or so damned selfish as to frivolously end a marriage for any reason other than infidelity or abuse. However since both parents brought the child into the world, both should bear financial responsibility, and so even if a parent loses custody, he or she should still pay to support his or her child/ren.

    We don’t believe in ‘equality’, that nebulous, largely meaningless term and concept.

    We believe in complementarity.

  9. Carnivore

    October 20, 2013 at 4:58 am

    Clearly, the problem is divorce, but I’m biased. 😉

    I have not read it myself – yet – but you may want to check out “The Case for Father Custody”. Direct link to the PDF here:

    Click to access Case_for_Father_Custody.pdf

  10. Will S.

    October 20, 2013 at 7:39 am

    @ Carnivore: 🙂

    The problem truly IS divorce, so how best to we disincentivize married people from considering it?

    I’ll take a look; sounds interesting. I certainly am already more sympathetic to default father custody than to the status quo. I’d rather give him some say in the matter, too – OR, if he’s been the ass, the other way around.

  11. Will S.

    October 20, 2013 at 7:43 am

    Whoa; 438 pages! Not exactly some light reading. I’ve saved it, for another day.

  12. Carnivore

    October 20, 2013 at 7:59 am

    Yeah, same thing here. Saved it over a year ago and still haven’t gotten to it.

  13. Sanne

    October 20, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    Will, it took me some time but finally I got to your comment and answered it on my blog. You may want to check it.

  14. Will S.

    October 20, 2013 at 5:34 pm


  15. Anonymous age 71

    October 21, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    I do understand what you are saying. But, it has been proven for a very long time that kids do better under male custody. OJ was a better parent than his ex- was, which at first glance seems sick.

    And, women who break up most marriages don’t do it when they aren’t going to walk away with everything.

    Anyway, if they did go to male custody, it would be “rebuttable presumption” of male custody, which means if a case could be made against it, it would not be male cusotdy in that case. In law, there are very few things which do not incude a rebuttabe presumption, including our current nearlly automatic female custody.

  16. Will S.

    October 22, 2013 at 1:31 am

    I do think default male custody is preferential, as that is what we used to have, and it’s a far superior system to default female custody.

    But I’d still prefer what I propose, giving all the cards to the wronged party, in whichever direction that may be, depending on the situation. I think it would generally be in the man’s favour, since today, we know it is women more likely to cheat, and to file for divorce.

  17. Devon

    November 17, 2013 at 10:54 am

    I think so. Here is the legislation that I think should be passed.

    1. When a divorce is instigated by one or both parties, and that divorce is instigated as a “No-Fault Divorce” the custody arrangement shall automatically be defaulted to a shared/joint custody arrangement. The child shall spend equal amounts of time with both parents.
    2. For the benefit of the child, the parents shall be required to spend a minimum of two ‘Day Trips’ per calendar year together at an event that the parties agree to. If they can’t agree to an event, they must go to the library for at least two hours. The family may schedule more as the family sees fit.
    3. Both parents must advise the other parent of any and all situations, events or behaviors that occur on a weekly basis and must notify the other parent immediately in a medical emergency. The family may speak more frequently as the family sees fit.
    4. No child support will be shared between the parties, unless agreed to in advance of filing.

  18. Will S.

    November 17, 2013 at 11:00 am

    I like your way of thinking, but I don’t believe in ‘no-fault’ divorce. If someone wants to get divorced, it must be for a reason, good or bad, and so if it’s because of something truly bad the other party did, such as cheating or being physically abusive, it’s their fault; if not, then it’s the fault of the one wanting the divorce for being frivolous.

    My solution would lower the rate of frivolous divorces, because the one wanting the divorce, if the reasons are not because of infidelity or violence, would lose control of the potential outcome, vis-à-vis custody, to the other party. That alone, ought to be persuasive to many, against acting frivolously; they wouldn’t be able to know in advance what outcome would happen with custody of the kids, so it would be entirely beyond their control.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s