I?m sorry if you think it?s offensive to state simple facts, SA, but it is simply fact that women make financial and status sacrifices which men don't for their children. I?m sure your DH (and many other fathers) make sacrifices as well, but that doesn?t actually change the statistics - most women still do the bulk of childcare, still take pay cuts, still take career breaks, still take jobs below their skill level, still do all the crappy donkeywork of being a parent and courts feel that that does make them more suitable parents for children to live with. And of course an arrangement can change, but are you saying that on divorce, most fathers are suddenly prepared to do what many mothers already do? Because the statistics just don't back you up.
I don't know what point you are making with the "just because someone stays at home with the kids doesn't make them a better parent" comment. Courts don't work like that, they are not saying that someone who gets care and control is a better parent, they're not making a moral judgement, they're making a practical one - they're saying this parent is a more suitable person to have care and control, not a morally better person. They decide who is practically more likely to give the children a stable home, and in most cases, they come down on the side of the person who knows the children better and has looked after them more, which in most cases is the mother. And most fathers accept this because they're not mad control freaks; they actually put the needs of their children first, because they are good fathers. Most of the divorced good fathers I know acknowledge that their children?s mother was the best person to have care and control of their children, because they didn?t want it (or even 50 50 ? too much like hard work)! I don't know what the definition of a good parent is, but one who puts their children?s needs before their own is a start. I don't see F4J talking very much about that. Your DH?s situation is obviously one of the exceptions, but I think we all know the old thing of hard cases making bad law.
As for the 50 50 being a norm in the USA which you say works ?perfectly well?, I?d genuinely be interested to know more about it and how it does work well in reality (who says so and how long has it been going ? what do the children say about it?), but Trick or Treat on Halloween works well there too, doesn?t mean it transfers well. That?s not a flippant remark, just an observation that what works well for one culture and one society might not work well for another because the other cultural and social variables which enable it to work aren?t present.
And sure, Margaret Hodge is ghastly, which is why so many of us smirked when we heard this story, but smirking isn't actually the same as saying it's justifiable. Bearing in mind that so many of the men who dress up and cavort around in Superhero costumes have later been revealed to have a history of violence and abuse, one can feel just a small bit sorry for Mrs H, even while having an evil chuckle about it. (OK, just a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny smidgeon of sympathy... somewhere... if I try hard enough, I know I'll find it...)