Why does the mum most likely get custody?

[drac]

I know it's looked at on a case to case basis and if being with the father is better for the child, it will happen. However, if they're both in the same boat, why does the mum tend to get it?

Because mum tends to do more of the hands-on caring before the split, and because fathers don't always contest the expectation that this will continue. In summary, it's endemic in our culture.

Drac why do you think the mums usually do?

Patriachy.

Also there's zero stigma for a man to not live with his children whereas there is huge condemnation for a woman not to. Social disaproval is a big factor I think.

It's true
Most people would at the very least wonder what happened that the kids didn't live with her ......but it wouldn't even cross their minds if Dad was the NRP.

In a lot of families the family brain is kept in the woman's head, the woman takes time off for sick children, the women does the majority of caring, the woman earns less and the woman sorts out school, dentists, doctors, friends, birthdays, homework and emotional upset.

What Jengnr said.

It's recognised that it's better for the children to continue to spend the majority of their time with their primary carer. In most cases, this is the mother. When the primary carer is the father, they will probably get the majority of the residency. Fathers often want 50/50 after a separation but rarely put in 50/40 before the separation.

Because the court system- and, indeed, all of society- is prejudiced against men. HTH

It could be the wish the children express to carcass.

Bertrand: I expect there is some bias in the family courts, but that's hardly surprising when mothers do the bulk of caring in general. A man who has always been a hands-on, engaged father is definitely at a disadvantage, but that won't change until there is more equality between the sexes overall.

For the same reasons that women are the only ones asked during interviews what they intend to do about childcare, and where only women are discriminated against for being of childbearing age....

Sorry, trifle- my sarcasm obviously didn,t come across.......

Oh it did BertrandRussell

Um, because children grow in women's wombs and can be nurtured at their breast thereby lend themselves to being more likely cared for by women.

This is why women are protected by equalities legislation - because their biology renders them vulnerable.

The patriarchy has figuratively and indeed in some cases literally, koshed society on the head and effectively wiped their awareness of this. This leading even women to question very basic fundamental realities - like the impact of biology on how society functions

I think in the majority of families the woman is the primary carer.

If the father is the children should live with him.

I read a book where the children lived in one house and the parents alternated who lived with them, so the children didn't have to live in 2 houses. Great idea, but probably wouldn't work IRL.

I always feel it should be a mans fundamental right to give birth just as it is for women to have penises.

A woman automatically has parental responsibility from birth
A man doesn't. He has to meet certain criteria

• being present with the mother at the registration
• being married at the time of birth to the mother

In the vast majority of families, the woman is the primary care-giver. This is pretty obvious, isn't it?

And you say yourself, OP, that it's looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Maybe more men taking parental leave, and doing at least 50% of the wifework (sorry, husbandwork) around the house will gradually mean a change.

It's sort of up to men to effect this change.

Because women are still more statistically more likely to be the main caregivers working flexible hours or at home mums.

Courts find in favour of children, not of mothers (or fathers).

In my case I work FT, dh is SAHM so he would likely get main residence and keep our house which would be the right decision for our kids.

As pp said, because in most cases it's the woman who is the primary carer during the relationship.

So when it's splits it's favoured to the mother. For the benefit of the children.

In my house there is no primary carer. We both work around the kids and both do equal 'childcare', so I would expect a 50:50 arrangement if possible.

Courts find in favour of children, not of mothers (or fathers).

This is a far better way of putting than I did.

Ah, Bertrand - must have been middle of the night 😂

I'm surprised you're even asking tbh.

I know 2 young (20-somethings) mums, where essentially the man just ran off. Too young, didn't want to have to grow up, didn't want to have to take responsibility - and didn't have to. Men have the option of abandoning children. Women don't. Neither of those men really have anything to do with the kids now, and have to be chased for maintenance.

In our culture kids are perceived as women's responsibility, always, and usually our 'fault' too. Many men would love women and children to just vanish, if only they could just still have consequence-free sex at will. Imo things are currently sliding backwards.

I think the "default parent" idea explains it well. Regardless of working hours and income, one parent tends to lead on background organisation and it tends to be the mother. Sharing that equally without one parent taking the lead and delegating to the other is very difficult no matter how hands on the other parent is. That precedent will start on maternity leave and is difficult to change.

What everyone else said.

The assumption is that the woman keeps the kids. Regardless of who was the main carer.

Huge social pressure- if a woman becomes nrp there is a lot of disapproval and questioning.

Both of these mean that when a couple split initially the children and mother stay in the family house. Down the line any legal proceedings will not disrupt the kids and send them to live with dad. Plus, mum has the family home.

It's generally assumed by courts and society that dad is the higher earner/able to get work more easily and therefore capable of "starting again" with regards to housing and finances.

If care is equal, or mainly dad if both work, care will still go to the mother. It's only really if dad is a sahp that care will be awarded.

Does anyone know a reason why, in 1978, my husbands dad would have been awarded custody of him rather than his mum? Their marriage broke down due to his dad's infidelity, but we've always been spun a yarn that his mum and stepdad (a nasty piece of work) had to 'fight' for custody but I just can't see that ever being the case. (Husbands dad died in 1983 and he has no contact with that side of the family now)