Men how do you view divorced women who didnt get custody of the kids?

[sandylee1]

I was with a group of friends having relationship discussions and this came up. A couple of the guys said they wouldn't seriously date a woman whose kids lived with the Ex. They said it meant something had gone wrong, because women always get custody. They would only be with this kind of woman in the short term because she was unlikely to be 'wife /mother material'.

 

I did think in this world we live in, it's one area where women don't have to fight as much, because the natural tendency would be for the kids to be primarily with the mother.

 

 

Most of the cases I personally hear of where the dad gets custody are where drugs, alcohol , substance misuse, poor parenting skills or mental health issues are prevalent. I know there are other reasons.

 

So .................. for single guys, would you be concerned if a potential GF didn't have custody of her kids?

 

Would you see it as a red flag and draw conclusions of any kind ?

[loveweary11]

I was with a group of friends having relationship discussions and this came up. A couple of the guys said they wouldn't seriously date a woman whose kids lived with the Ex. They said it meant something had gone wrong, because women always get custody. They would only be with this kind of woman in the short term because she was unlikely to be 'wife /mother material'.

 

I did think in this world we live in, it's one area where women don't have to fight as much, because the natural tendency would be for the kids to be primarily with the mother.

 

 

Most of the cases I personally hear of where the dad gets custody are where drugs, alcohol , substance misuse, poor parenting skills or mental health issues are prevalent. I know there are other reasons.

 

So .................. for single guys, would you be concerned if a potential GF didn't have custody of her kids?

 

Would you see it as a red flag and draw conclusions of any kind ?

 

No red flag. Maybe a yellow one.

 

Send them all over my way.

 

Wouldn't consider the ones *with* kids.

[d0nnivain]

I'm a woman, but I always wonder about women who lose custody. As you said, it's usually drugs, alcohol, criminal activity or something serious. I don't have a problem with a woman who gave up physical custody because the father was in a better position. That I see as somebody who cares about the best interest of the children but when I hear that the father was awarded custody, especially sole custody, it's a red flag

[123321]

I would simply assume there was a story there and hope to find out what it was before too long.

[salparadise]

It could be a red flag, or it could be a number of other circumstances. I think you have to look at each situation on a case by case basis and not assume too much.

 

Parental Alienation Syndrome - one parent turns the kids against the other parent by denigrating and destroying the image of the other parent in the children's eyes. It's an awful, awful thing that hurts the kids by depriving them of a healthy relationship with the parent who is often the healthier of the two.

 

Economics - sometimes it's the father who has the job/income that allows him to own a better house, live in a place with better schools, and related considerations.

 

Strict vs. Permissive Parenting - if the kids are old enough to have a say in the matter, they will often choose to live with the parent who is more permissive.

 

Out Lawyered, manipulation of the courts - Sometimes lawyers are able to take some little thing and turn it into a wedge that skews how the courts view the other parent. Anyone who believes that the process is fair, equal and that justice is always served is looking at it through rose colored glasses.

 

My ex tried to get primary custody of my child by pretending to be agreeable to shared custody, and then going behind my back and trying to convince the guardian ad litem that I was a bad person and a bad parent. My lawyer found out about it through back channels and I presented some extra documentation to the guardian ad litem... and then when the guardian told my ex that she thought shared custody was appropriate, she was treated to a nice little tantrum that demonstrated why we were getting divorced to begin with. At that point I probably could've gotten primary custody if I had tried, but all I was ever seeking was 50/50 (which also made me look like the more reasonable parent).

[minimariah]

At that point I probably could've gotten primary custody if I had tried, but all I was ever seeking was 50/50...

 

off-topic -- but this is really nice. so nice to read, this is a perfect example of a parent thinking of child's needs 1st. bravo!

[carhill]

Pretty much unheard of in my generation when young but I would have been more concerned about a woman who not only did not have custody but also either had no visitation or had supervised visitation. Primary custody with the father wouldn't have been a red flag unless and until it co-mingled with other 'getting to know' revelations. All the women I dated had primary custody or 50/50.

[GoldieLox]

Pretty much unheard of in my generation when young but I would have been more concerned about a woman who not only did not have custody but also either had no visitation or had supervised visitation.

 

This.

 

Also, I once knew a man who had primary custody of his son. I never asked why, but one day he volunteered the information that the mother took off, gave up custody, and was never to be heard from again. Not even visits or anything like that. I was absolutely baffled and wondered how a mother could do that, but then realized that a lot of fathers do it, too, and those are the cases we hear about a lot more often... then it left me to wonder how a parent, in general, could do it.

[sandylee1]

This.

 

Also, I once knew a man who had primary custody of his son. I never asked why, but one day he volunteered the information that the mother took off, gave up custody, and was never to be heard from again. Not even visits or anything like that. I was absolutely baffled and wondered how a mother could do that, but then realized that a lot of fathers do it, too, and those are the cases we hear about a lot more often... then it left me to wonder how a parent, in general, could do it.

 

It's definetly more unusual for the mother to abandon the kids.

 

There was one situation where I treaded carefully to ask someone why her H had custody and she said it was due to her shift work (law enforcement ) and all her son's friends and school were close to where they initially lived.

 

I have to say myself and others wondered if there was more to it, as there were lots of other single mothers in her position.

 

Through conversation with her, it did come across that her ex was quite rich and powerful. I think deep down she knew he'd have a better lifestyle with his dad. Better holidays, gadgets etc..

[GoldieLox]

It's definetly more unusual for the mother to abandon the kids.

 

There was one situation where I treaded carefully to ask someone why her H had custody and she said it was due to her shift work (law enforcement ) and all her son's friends and school were close to where they initially lived.

 

I have to say myself and others wondered if there was more to it, as there were lots of other single mothers in her position.

 

Through conversation with her, it did come across that her ex was quite rich and powerful. I think deep down she knew he'd have a better lifestyle with his dad. Better holidays, gadgets etc..

 

I applaud parents who are that selfless (no, money and material isn't everything) but if the other parent can give the child a better life, especially in terms of being near friends and the least amount of disruptions possible, then I think that's great.

[Noirek]

I never take people with those sort of rules seriously. Because most people are intelligent enough when it comes down to it to actually look at the individual situation. Some good examples were given of valid reasons outside of negative ones (unfit) and yes the shift work one comes into play. But are we talking primary custody or supervised visits only? Because a mom losing primary custody is not near like one recieving supervised visits only. As to examples given I know of a judge who went under review because he only ever awarded custody to the father's. That judge was on a personal agenda and as a result a few cases of unfit father's came up. In one case he had even awarded custody to a physical and sexual abuser saying the mother had made up evidence. In the end, she got the kids back but it was a long costly battle and not before a lot of damage had been done.

 

And for the friends that assume that mom's get primary custody always that is simply not true. It isn't always a default (sometimes it is of course) and there are other reasons. For younger children mom's are still more often the ones at home. That affects it. You have to take in to account that stats also include all those dad's who don't really want to be dads. Or at least don't want sole responsibility. After all the mom has a choice at the beginning. Daddy loses that choice when his sperm departs his body. And lastly, a lot of men simply do not fight it. This last one is the one I have seen the most often. (And despite the belly aching you hear, I often wonder if secretly some of them are glad not to be the custodial parent).

[elaine567]

This.

 

Also, I once knew a man who had primary custody of his son. I never asked why, but one day he volunteered the information that the mother took off, gave up custody, and was never to be heard from again. Not even visits or anything like that. I was absolutely baffled and wondered how a mother could do that, but then realized that a lot of fathers do it, too, and those are the cases we hear about a lot more often... then it left me to wonder how a parent, in general, could do it.

 

That would worry me. Never to be heard from again...

Did they look under the patio?

[sandylee1]

 

But are we talking primary custody or supervised visits only? Because a mom losing primary custody is not near like one recieving supervised visits only. of damage had been done.

 

I often wonder if secretly some of them are glad not to be the custodial parent).

 

 

I mean where the dad has primary custody. The mother has alternate weekends and they share school holidays. No supervised visits.

 

Yeah, I agree on your last point, I do think many of them are happy not to be the primary carer.

 

If I'd gotten divorced when my kids were younger, ,my H wouldn'thave been able to get primary custody. I did the help with homework, bought their clothes, cooked all the meals etc . I can't imagine any judge would grant him custody, plus he travels abroad for work too.

 

Apart from missing the kids, a divorced dad I know says it's great because they ( him and his SO) don't have to worry about a babysitter when planning nights out , knowing the kids are with their mother.

 

I would also add that in cases I know of kids seem to resent their mothers more for abandoning or being the parent that wasn't there (especially girls )

Edited May 30, 2015 by sandylee1
eta

[GoldieLox]

That would worry me. Never to be heard from again...

Did they look under the patio?

 

oh, she's around alright. She's on Facebook and the like... she just wants nothing to do with her child. Sad.

[sandylee1]

oh, she's around alright. She's on Facebook and the like... she just wants nothing to do with her child. Sad.

 

Mmmmm. That's what the original discussion I had with friends was about. Their view that a woman who wasn't the main custodian was lacking something and certainly wasn't marriage or mother material in their eyes.

 

I think it comes from women being the nurturing parent and society is used to dads not being there, but for a mother you hear ' What kind of a mother does xyz'

 

 

I think it's sad that a rich dad gets custody for that reason alone. It j

[preraph]

I've seen some transcripts of cases where the woman is framed by the man. He gets an attorney and just lies about her and is very convincing. But those are the exception. As others have said it's usually a substance abuse or neglect problem for a mother to lose custody. You might have noticed a lot of rich men get child custody. I have to figure they're just that powerful to manage that, friends in high places. I do think some women are too naive to stand up for themselves and i can't tell you how many I've encountered on boards such as this one who think they can't afford to get an attorney, in which case they'll get run over in court. I've met really naive ones in the past who think they don't need one because their husband is getting one for both of them! And the further back you go, the more that happened. The women don't always have money on hand, but there's ways of getting it paid for.

[Revolver]

She would have to be a complete loser. I'm talking drug addict

[kjohn]

If the woman gave up custody for the best interest of the child, but still maintains a close and healthy relationship with her kids...that is commendable.

 

If the woman fought for custody and lost...that is a red flag.

 

My BF and I were just having this conversation yesterday because he has a female acquaintance going through a divorce. She (unfortunately) is posting all the sordid details on Facebook and she keeps whining and complaining that the court keeps ruling in favor of her soon-to-be ex husband. Of course all of her friends are rallying around her saying how unfair it is, etc., etc.

 

YET when it comes to all the pics she is posting of herself out at various bars getting ****-faced every other night and already in a new relationship and posting pics of her with her new man...they are all saying "You go girl" and "good for you...you deserve to have fun."

 

Perhaps they could put two and two together and realize that perhaps her lifestyle is what is causing her to keep losing in court! I don't know. Just a guess.

 

So I guess the moral of the story is if you are looking for a party girl who lives it up and loves to have fun at the expense of the well-being of her children, then it's no big deal if she didn't get custody. But if that's not what you want, then I would walk away from any woman who fought for custody of her kids and lost.

[oldshirt]

I was with a group of friends having relationship discussions and this came up. A couple of the guys said they wouldn't seriously date a woman whose kids lived with the Ex. They said it meant something had gone wrong, because women always get custody. They would only be with this kind of woman in the short term because she was unlikely to be 'wife /mother material'.

 

I did think in this world we live in, it's one area where women don't have to fight as much, because the natural tendency would be for the kids to be primarily with the mother.

 

 

Most of the cases I personally hear of where the dad gets custody are where drugs, alcohol , substance misuse, poor parenting skills or mental health issues are prevalent. I know there are other reasons.

 

So .................. for single guys, would you be concerned if a potential GF didn't have custody of her kids?

 

Would you see it as a red flag and draw conclusions of any kind ?

 

 

 

I'll have to admit I do have a personal bias here and yes there have been a couple times I started to warm up to a woman and when I found out she did not have custody it was game over.

 

 

Realize though I grew up in a different time in a small town in the middle of Midwestern farm country.

 

 

In those days if a woman didn't have primary custody, it was because she was either a terrible alcoholic, a drug addict, had been convicted of multiple incidents of abuse or was so negligent that the child was in danger of starving to death.

 

 

Those were really the only reasons for denial of primary custody in those days and there was even quite a bit of leeway with all of that. If a judge order custody to the father, that meant that the woman's addiction and abuse/neglect was way over the top.

 

 

in todays world, joint custody is the norm with two fit parents who actually want to be involved.

 

 

IMHO it will still raise an eyebrow if the father gets primary or full custody because it still takes a pretty serious offence to deny a mother at least joint custody.

[PrettyEmily77]

I'm a woman and have had to look at it from the other side of the mirror. I'm involved with a man who has primary custody of his children. He didn't have to fight much, his ex wife left the marital home with a friend of his and his boys chose to stay with him, in the family home. They were both old enough to decide for themselves though, could have been different had they been younger. TBH it made me respect him a lot more as a man and as a father.

 

 

The boys' mother is still involved in their lives and did ask them if they wanted to go with her but didn't put up a fight when the boys said no. This obviously hasn't bothered the guy she's with but as an outsider (and a non-parent myself) just looks to me like she put her own happiness first.

Edited May 31, 2015 by PrettyEmily77

[minimariah]

This obviously hasn't bothered the guy she's with but as an outsider (and a non-parent myself) just looks to me like she put her own happiness first.

 

well, depends on how you look at it.

 

she could've fought and FIGHTING in this case means forcing the kids to be with her - she didn't do that, she respected their wishes and supported their decision. if she tried to force a different situation on them, that would've been putting her hapiness 1st -- in my eyes. if the kids don't want to live with one parent and change their family home, nothing you can "fight" about really.

 

"fighting for kids" usually means huge drama and i applaud every parent who manages to avoid that.

 

as long as she's involved in their lives & they're happy, that's all that matters.

 

OT - it's weird. when a woman gets primary custody, not a father -- nobody thinks about that father as a less THAN parent. when a father gets primary custody, not mother -- suddenly, folks have "huge respect" for that father and think that the mother must've been lacking as a parent, somehow.

 

just goes to show how roles still aren't equal when it comes to parenting because the mother is always viewed as the more important parent. that's probably why the mother not having primary custody comes as such a shock.

Edited May 31, 2015 by minimariah

[Methodical]

To pass judgment based solely on custody orders without discovering the reason is shallow. It could be that the mother is the sole bread winner and has to travel a lot due to her career. So no, she doesn't have to be a drug addict.

[123321]

Could be he was a teenage boy and wanted to be with dad. Who knows.

[PrettyEmily77]

well, depends on how you look at it.

 

she could've fought and FIGHTING in this case means forcing the kids to be with her - she didn't do that, she respected their wishes and supported their decision. if she tried to force a different situation on them, that would've been putting her hapiness 1st -- in my eyes. if the kids don't want to live with one parent and change their family home, nothing you can "fight" about really.

 

"fighting for kids" usually means huge drama and i applaud every parent who manages to avoid that.

 

as long as she's involved in their lives & they're happy, that's all that matters.

 

OT - it's weird. when a woman gets primary custody, not a father -- nobody thinks about that father as a less THAN parent. when a father gets primary custody, not mother -- suddenly, folks have "huge respect" for that father and think that the mother must've been lacking as a parent, somehow.

 

just goes to show how roles still aren't equal when it comes to parenting because the mother is always viewed as the more important parent. that's probably why the mother not having primary custody comes as such a shock.

 

I've not made a generalisation of the only case I know, and I don't even know all the details. In my case, I go on what my guy tells me, and I'm probably hugely biased so my opinion doesn't count for much .

 

 

You don't know the details either, yet you were still able to pass judgement on her and the type of parent she is. From what my guy tells me, she didn't fight for them because she didn't want custody, not because she wanted to respect her kids' wishes. She asked once, the boys said no, she left and that was that.

 

 

Like a lot of divorced fathers, she's involved in their lives whenever she feels like it and the first year was very difficult for the kids and their father, and it's very clear no one was happy. That is a pretty standard situation in divorces, only in this case it's the mother that isn't pulling her weight as a parent: that, I believe, is equality.

[minimariah]

You don't know the details either, yet you were still able to pass judgement on her and the type of parent she is.

 

errrmmmm... no, actually. i didn't pass any judgement on her OR her parenting - i simply said that the fact that she didn't "fight" for her kids and went against their wishes doesn't mean that she "chose to put her happiness 1st" -- it means that she respects her children's wishes. how do you even "fight" for a child who doesn't want to be with you? i was focusing ONLY on that example, if it wasn't clear enough.

 

From what my guy tells me, she didn't fight for them because she didn't want custody, not because she wanted to respect her kids' wishes. She asked once, the boys said no, she left and that was that.

 

errrm, again - you cannot "fight" for a child who has a say in where to live & DOESN'T choose you. which was the point of my post - you seem to see "fighting" as some kind of proof of a good parenting when in reality, it's anything BUT that. it's actually extremely selfish & doesn't help the kids - so my post was more about how "fighting" for children is seen than it was about you, your case & that mother.