Given that men invented laws, and the court system, does anyone believe it is gender neutral in its decisions?

[sakura]

I've been reading articles here and there about Family Courts (mainly in America, but also in Europe) and about how abusive fathers are given custody of their children becauseaccording to the judges- the very accusation of abuse "proves" that the mother is trying to alienate the father aka "Parental Alienation Syndrome". There are so many sad and moving stories of innocent mothers who don't see their children at all.

One interesting thing I've found is that the women are often given a "gag order" meaning they're not allowed to discuss what has taken place in the courts. It's all very hush hush.
The other interesting thing is that very often the father has a criminal record for violence and still receives custody.

Here are a few links:
Annual battered mothers custody conference video
angelfury.org/

Courageous kids network (the testimonies of adult children who were taken from their mothers when small and given to their abusers)
www.courageouskids.net/

As I've begun reading these articles, I got the feeling that this was being hushed up to the extent that women don't have a clue what they're letting themselves in for when they decide to have children. If it was more public and more of a "known" thing, then it's possible that women would reconsider having children, given the risks. (Women gain custody in cases where the father doesn't dispute it, which is the majority of the time. If he does dispute custody, he is basically guaranteed the children-- in other words, he gets what he wants in both cases.

Also, abusive fathers tend to aim for sole custody, whereas non-abusive fathers agree that the mother is important to her children)

Anyway, I guess my point is, at first I was shocked and surprised to hear of the way the family courts abuse women, but then I thought about it and realised that I was being naïve to think that a system designed by men (and presided over mainly by men-- judges, lawyers, evaluators etc) would give women a fair trial. It's obvious it's not going to, isn't it!

Do you have any stats, SPero? I would be interested in seeing them. NOt stats based on your own personal experiences, but general research. [Genuinely interested]

Yes. As a lawyer I would estimate that 90% of contested contact/residence cases ended in residence for the mother. This is no mystery - it reflects that in the vast majority of cases women are the primary carers of young children.

I have seen both men and women act badly in pursuit of 'winning' their case. I do not accept the court is routinely biased against either men or women.

I will see if I can find any CAFCASS statistics on google to confirm or deny if my experience is unusual - but I don't think it is.

NO, not your estimate. Please link to research. Thank you.

This is 2008 so might be too out of date. I will keep looking.
dera.ioe.ac.uk/9145/1/outcomes-applications-contact-orders.pdf

Report from 2008 accords with my experience

The vast majority of children (279; 91%) lived for most or all of the time with their mothers; with 23 (7%) living with their fathers. Four children had recently temporarily changed residence (three from their mother and one from their father) and two appeared to be in a de facto shared living arrangement.

I will see if anything has changed significantly in last 6 years.

This is quite interesting

Actually determining whether the courts more often award sole residence to mothers than to fathers is difficult to establish. On 3rd November 2011 the Daily Mail made the claim that 93% of ‘custody battles’ were won by mothers (Shipman, 2011). The truth-seeking website Fullfact.org challenged this figure, which is quoted by some fathers’ rights groups (citing figures from 1994), but found no evidence for it (O'Neill, 2011).

Prior to the Children Act the courts recorded how custody orders were distributed. Averaging the years 1985 to 1991 we get these figures:

Mothers 73.7%

Fathers 8.1%

Joint 18.2%

Thus of orders for sole custody, 90% were made in favour of mothers.

Since the implementation of the Act the figures have not been made available.

The Mail’s statistic probably comes from the Office for National Statistics which had reported that 93.1% of single parent households were headed by mothers (Office for National Statistics, 2012).

I got that extract from here
www.wikivorce.com/divorce/FAQs/Child-Contact-and-Residence-Custody/Are-mothers-always-awarded-residence-of-the-children.html

From that brief google, I can conclude that my experience is entirely representative.

Spero, If you'd read my initial post, you would see that I was not disputing that children usually go to their mothers. This we know. There is no need for you to link to research on this.

WHat I'm saying is that when the father aims for sole custody himself, he usually gets it. In other words men don't often dispute custody but when they do, they win. Meaning they get what they want in both instances.
What I want is stats showing the percentage of fathers who fight the mother for sole custody (as opposed to those who are not bothered because they've got a new girlfriend etc), and of those, the percentage who win that fight. I'm not looking at the general distribution of custody.

Also, the research you quoted is very old (1991). From what I can gather, things have been getting worse for women over time. We are worse off today, in terms of rights, than we were twenty years ago (hence the upsurge of the feminist movement in recent years)

Maybe fathers will only compete for sole custody if they no they have a good chance of getting it because they know that normally the mother will be awarded custody. Be that because of primary carer status, or there maybe a bias towards the mother.
In the cases the fathers win the mothers may not want sole custody, may not be reliable or fit to parent, etc.

OP I don't know why you assume all mothers want or are fit for sole custody. Or that if a father is advised not to contest or can't afford to contest for sole custody, that they don't want it.

I think you say the stats are getting 'worse', in favour of men, recently. Do you not think this maybe because there are more men becoming primary carers. A positive for women in my opinion.

I did read your op.

You said
If it was more public and more of a "known" thing, then it's possible that women would reconsider having children, given the risks. (Women gain custody in cases where the father doesn't dispute it, which is the majority of the time. If he does dispute custody, he is basically guaranteed the children-- in other words, he gets what he wants in both cases.

That is simply untrue. If you are going to make such alarming and sweeping statements, you need to provide us with the source of the statistics which enable you conclude this is the case - which I note you haven't done.

There is also the issue of the fact that women do give birth (risking their lives), and therefore in a sane world that connection to the children would be honoured and seen as different to a man's connection to his children.

I agree with this, and there is also the fact that women's bodily connection to their children (and the concomitant cultural structures around it) means that they are almost always the primary carers of them in their younger years (and let's face it, beyond). This means that a mother has usually invested thousands more hours in her children's care than the father. It doesn't mean that the father's relationship with his children is insignificant, but the much greater time and work invested by mothers in children should be a relevant factor in deciding custody (unless by extraordinary circumstance it is the father who has been the primary carer).

However, Lundy Bancroft points out that this actually works against mothers in custody cases. Whereas a father who can show, for instance, that he sometimes made lunches for his children and took them to school is regarded as an extraordinary parent, mothers get no credit at all for having performed such 'feats' - it is seen as part of their ordinary duties. Conversely, any lapse in the performance of these 'duties' ('several times, your Honour, she sent the children to school without lunch') becomes proof of what a terrible parent she is.

I think that is a dangerous road to go down. I am not just a 'mother'. I have a daughter but I do not want to be defined primarily as someone who has given birth.

I think her dad is a feckless piece of crap and I know I have done far more of the boring child rearing jobs than he ever did, but she still loves him and needs him in her life.

Of course not!

It's the pinnacle of patriarchy!