Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by MaxP779, 13 Oct 2012.
Good idea , cheers.
Yeah it works both ways but that won't quiet the misogynists on these forums.
Not sure if serious?
This man speaks the truth.
This is unfortunately true.
If the man's circumstances don't allow for him to look after the kids - easy, give them to the woman.
If the woman's circumstances don't allow for her to look after the kids - give her the man's stuff until she can, who cares if she's an abusive alcoholic?
Hahahaha, genius, but the joke thread is that way --->
I would happily get married... And give away half of my debt..
The irony here is that the same people that complain about the mother always getting custody (she doesn't) are often the same ones who want the woman to stay at home with the kids rather than going out to work. The courts side with the mother because, in general, she is the best person to bring up the children until they are at least 12-13. Unless, obviously, she is unfit to do so. Note that is "unfit" as designated by someone other than the ex-husband: I know of at least one case where the husband planted some of his own cocaine on the mother then shopped her to the feds, for example. Whenever I see fathers whinging about custody battles my first thought is always the same: let's hear the other side as well.
Finally the voice of reason. Professionals make the decision who is best to raise the child (and often this is the mother) not those emotionally involved.
Either way I'm screwed if I get divorced..... being married to a barrister and all :-(
Separate names with a comma.