NY Dad gets custody - feminists upset...

[gemini3]

This article covers a case in NY where the father was given custody because his mother (the child's grandmother) is available for childcare.  The mother attends school full time and was using a non-related child care provider.  The judge thought (rightly, in my opinion) that it was better for the child to be cared for by a relative than be in daycare. 
 
NOW member Jaquie Steingold had this to say about the ruling "It illustrates an attitude toward women about where they should be -- the bedroom, kitchen and those kind of places, not at college."
 
Huh.  Interesting.  I thought the issue was childcare, not whether or not women can or should go to college.  Typical of feminist attitude that women should have their cake and eat it too, and everyone else - men, and even their own children - should sacrifice in order for them to do so.
 
If the tables were turned they would be singing a different tune.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/27/us/day-care-costs-mother-custody-of-daughter-3.html
 
Thoughts?

[Kitty C.]

NOW member Jaquie Steingold had this to say about the ruling "It illustrates an attitude toward women about where they should be -- the bedroom, kitchen and those kind of places, not at college."

 
Huh??  I don't get it...are they talking about the mother or the grandmother?  Because the mother IS going to school, so what do they want??  Just goes to prove...there is no way you can ever please NOW........
 
Personally, I would prefer my child be with a family member than to hire a complete stranger and have to pay those exorbitant fees.  I would still want to pay the family member, but it's not like they are in daycare as a profession and have a business to maintain.

[mdegol]

Actually the case seems to be in Michigan.

I am sure that there is more to the story. But....

Not a good thing for a parent to lose custody because they are going to school (or to work for that matter) if this was the whole basis of custody change (which I am certain that it is not the whole reason, at least if it is going to hold up on appeal). This would discourage the parent from making decisions that would improve the life of the child. Having an educated parent is good for a child (beyond the money). Everything should be done to encourage this behavior.

Single, uneducated, unskilled women is a lot of the reason that child support exists.

Also, this implies that grandmother would watch child if father has custody, but not if mother has custody? Why doesn't she offer in either case? Like you said, it saves a lot of fees. I don't see a custody change being based on this factor alone.

[gemini3]

Men have been losing custody for years because they "chose" to work outside the home while the woman stayed home and raised the children. 

[mdegol]

<!--StartFragment-->This guy is working. He is not choosing to stay home, either. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>
Anyway, women have been working outside the home for more than 30 years, so that is an over-simplified argument.

Don't get me wrong, I think that if a woman chooses her career over family and father stays home, or greatly sacrifices his career to better be able raise children, he should get custody. Especially if that was a family choice that happened prior to a divorce and he is the primary care-taker. You just can't have it all. That is absolutely correct. This makes the argument equal because it only involves the mother and the father and compares them as primary caretakers.

That's why the laws are gender neutral and should be, even if judges aren't. But if he just getting another woman, even his mother, to raise the child (or vice versa) it is not a strong enough argument to change custody.

Heck, my friend is from asian, and that's how it works over there. Post-divorce, man's family (usually his mother or new wife) takes over raising children. One reason cited: Woman doesn't have the financial means to raise children on her own. Divorce is also very low. This is, perhaps, why modern western society had the overreaction in favor of women. For thousands of years children were owned by father. That's part of the tradition of children bearing father's last name. Mothers had no rights. Post-divorce any access she had was entirely decided by father.

So yeah, I understand your statement, but you also have a good point, that it is nearly impossible to both have a full-time intense career and be the best care-taker of your children. But single mom trying to get an education should not have custody taken away from her only for that reason. It is a catch-22. Because then she also doesn't have the financial means to support children. Another argument. Both ways she will always lose. And dad's mom (or wife, sister) is almost always there.
<!--EndFragment-->

[gemini3]

The financial means arguement doesn't fly because we have CS in this country for exactly that reason, as you mentioned in your original post.
 
The child's residence should be decided by what will be the best situation for the child - not what's good, or not, for the parents.  Whether or not a woman should get an education is not the issue.  NOW is twisting it around to make this an issue about women's empowerment when it's not.  The issue is which living arrangement would be in the child's best interest.  The judge felt that it would be better for the child to live with the parent who had a family member available to care for the child, as opposed to a daycare worker.  It's hard to argue against that reasoning.  Isn't grandma better than a stranger being paid $7.50 an hour?
 
No one said that women shouldn't go to college.  But, like everything, it comes with a sacrifice.  For example, my husband and I are considering having a child.  However, I am going to school full time and running my own business.  I would have to give up one of those things so I could take care of the baby.  But, if my mom lived nearby, she could take care of the baby while I'm in class.  It's not an unusual circumstance.  The difference here is that the parents aren't together.  If they were it wouldn't even be an issue.  But the fact that they're not doesn't mean that the child shouldn't have the best of the available options.
 
Again, it's frustrating when the situation is twisted to make it about women's empowerment when it has nothing to do with it.  No one has said that the mother shouldn't go to school.  The child has two parents, and should be able to live with the one that can provide the best living arrangement.  Isn't that the whole idea behind "best interest of the child"?  Note that it's not called "best interest of the parents".

[MomofTwo]

Totally disagree this is a factor in a custody determination. If we are considering best interest of the CHILD, then parents should have shared custody equally and grandmom can babysit no matter who has the child that week, but that isn't what happened.   This is not a matter of someone pursuing an education while the other parent is a stay at home parent and  custody went to the parent who can be with the child...neither parent is home to take care of the child.  Great grandmom can babysit, but that should not have been the sole factor to determine custody.
 
 
 
 

[gemini3]

Maybe the reason grandma isn't watching the baby for mom is becuse the school mom is attending is over an hour away from the county in which the case was heard.
 
Exactly neither parent is home to take care of the child.  So then you look at which care option is better for the child.  Not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  (No pun intended)

[mdegol]

You are interpreting best interests of child to mean "best possible living situation".  Don't take the word "best" casually as you would use it in everyday conversation.  Law language is much like science language (theory is often used to discredit solid scientific principle by confusing the scientific meaning with every day conversational use of the word ie, "I have a theory (meaning I am not sure)" and the Theory of Gravity.  Theory is a powerful word in science.).  It does not mean good, better, best.    It is a deliberately vague statement to give judge's discretion.  If it was interepreted the way in the good/better/best sense, there would be many many custody changes during the life of a child.  What if grandmother dies?  Custody goes back to mother?  What if mother makes more money than father after she graduates and can buy a bigger house in a better neiborhood?  Change again.  Then he gets a promotion, and married to stay at home wife, child moves again?  Then mom gets married to rich guy and can stay home.  Change again.
 
It would be damaging to the child (not to mention society) to have a virtual "arms" race based on the conversational interpretation of the word "best".
 
Also, U of M has satellite locations.  I wouldn't assume she is going to Ann Arbor (especially having a baby so young, more likely going to a satellite location.)  I can also tell you they have an award winning "daycare" program, although it is more like school than daycare, that is offered to students with need.  I would also argue that being in the "right" daycare could be substantially better than sitting in front of a TV at grandmothers house.

[gemini3]

Thanks for the grammer lesson in "legalese".  Something I have a very good understanding of already.  But I still appreciate the time you took - even though you're incorrect.  On the legal side and the scientific side.  But I think that's a digression from the original conversation.
 
My interpretation of "best interest of the child" is based on the factors that are considered in a custody determination.  The living situation is one of those factors.  Prior to those factors there is a test of "material change in circumstance" if one seeks to revise an order that has already been established.  If that is met, then the judge's decision is based on the factors laid out in "best interest".  This is why there isn't the revolving door situation.  The material change in circumstance test prohibits this from occuring.
 
I didn't assume that she was going to either the main campus or a satellite location.  I was simply stating that there could be several reasons that they don't have 50/50 with the grandma caring for the child - and that distance could be one of those factors.  I wouldn't automatically assume that grandma was unwilling to do so unless her son had custody.
 
It's also unfair to assume that the child would be sitting in front of the tv at grandma's all day OR that the child was enrolled at an "award winning" daycare program.  Neither of these are supported by anything except blatently biased assumptions.  Besides, regardless of how wonderful the school's daycare program is, I still don't think that it's preferrable to being raised by family. 
 
Just out of curiosity... what would you say if the rolls were reversed?  What if the father was asking for physical custody, and he would be placing the child in daycare for 35 hours a week so he could attend college.  The mother also wanted custody, but her mom would be watching the child while she was at work.  50/50 is not an option (let's assume it's for distance reasons, since we don't have all the facts of this case)  What would you say in that instance?  Who should get physical custody?