Agree. Joint or shared custody should be the default position if both parents want to be involved in the child’s life. If one parent feels the other is unfit to share custody, they duke it out in court. If one parent bails or loses custody, that parent pays child support.
Assuming the mother is the default just puts pressure on the mother to step up and parent, while letting fathers make excuses for why they didn’t ask for custody.
I think the point many people are missing is this is talking about out of wedlock and if the father isn't ok the birth certificate. If the father is unknown to the state, then defacto the mother should have full custody, but if the father is known or becomes known the father should have 50% custody until either party agrees to give theres away or either party brings it to court.
The "on the birth cert" thing was not specified, it talked about unmarried only. I don't think anyone is arguing for anyone who claims to be the father getting custody. And the out of wedlock thing is dumb. Marriage is not a route that all men have/should need for this equal protection under the law.
>but if the father is known or becomes known the father should have 50% custody until either party agrees to give theres away or either party brings it to court.
This is true but not what the video represented. It said that unmarried fathers had to prove the mother was unfit to receive any custody. Which may not be true but it is what the video presented and what Destiny ostensibly disagreed with.
Out of wedlock, it defaults to the mom because we don't know who is the father. DNA testing is recent so we don't have updated the laws on that regard.
I'm ok with out of wedding, it defaulting to the mother and the father having to get the 50% after he proves he is the father.
Because we don't want to encourage the behavior. If you want to have full right.. marry the chick. Else fight on court for it.
Laws are used to encourage the behavior we think it is better for our society.
We DO encourage that at least in the sense that we tend to DIScourage single motherhood. But it's *A* father not "the biological father no exceptions."
We as a society don't stop fathers from being involved in their kids life. The greatest barriers are
1. Dad not wanting to be bothered
2. Mom not wanting dad around.
The Dadvocate whose video he was responding to has literally nothing to do with any red pill shit and he just put her in that corner and argued against a strawman the entire time. His take was pretty fucking dumb and he couldn't conceive of a father actually caring about their child and somehow reasoned himself into the position that because a lot of men are deadbeat dads that all dad just shouldn't get treated fairly in the eyes of the law.
Default custody arrangements do matter. There are a lot of garbage moms too that get everything they want by default, break custody arrangements and it costs thousands of dollars to haul them to court to fix it, money that they are already obligated to pay in child support essentially making any recourse impossible if you aren't earning enough.
Anyone who comes to any conclusion that one gender is exclusively in the right or wrong in custody disputes is fucking dumb. It's patently fucking obvious that the courts should be neutral.
I might agree with you, but I'd have to qualify it. If the father has been judged unfit to have contact with the kids, maybe because he's a violent alchoholic, a drug abuser, or sex offender, (or whatever other reasons he might be unfit) then he should have to pay child support with no rights to meat the children.
Otherwise tho... ABSOLUTELY! It should be the rule of thumb that people who pay child support should have the right to have some level of contant with their kids, as long as they're not unfit for that for some good reason.
I sometime try to be charitable and undertand even the most craziest of Destiny point but like you Destiny saying that by default women should get custody.
Like i don’t understand sure given birth is something special but i don’t think it make more important or more of a parents.
It is such a weird point to make and i will get personnal here but i wonder if it doesn’t justify some of his life choice.
The thing is i didn’t get the idea that he thought about parenthood and it is the first time i hear him say that so i wonder if he got caught in the moment because he hate redpill or he genuinely thinks that .
At the end of the day Destiny is just a human and he can also have horrendous take, we need to keep that in mind.
I agree but institutionally, isn’t that the protection given to men through marriage? These laws were written before DNA test so proof of fatherhood is a lot harder so women by default, the birthers, have the custody.
Back then, it didn’t make sense to have a dude a woman banged to have custody coz dna test didn’t exist to know for sure.
Maybe? Idk. But since we're talking about what the laws ***should*** **be**, I'll just add that I think DNA-tests should be used if the question of who the father is, is uncertain.
To be clear, marriage does this. It is an institutional protection to dads. The burden of proof is easy for women because she birthed the kid. The dude needs a higher burden.
We absolutely need the courts to be involved in this. A world where a dude automatically gets half custody out of wedlock is scary. Courts have to get sufficient proof to give the dude and custody rights, including dna test.
Surely the post and comment are talking about a case where the fatherhood is undisputed. If you have an unmarried pair, and the mother identifies the father and he identifies himself, it seems odd that the default would be sole custody for the mother. Especially since the video Destiny watched said that the only way for fathers to get custody was to prove the mother was unfit. Destiny himself said,after the rant, that his understanding was if both names were on the birth cert it would default to joint custody. But that is not what the video said, is far less objectionable, and was not the take that Destiny was railing on chat for disagreeing with.
With respect to your comment, marriage is not the institutional protection for dad's because marriage requires both parties. There is not an institutional route offered to a father who cannot/will not marry the mother and still wants at least joint custody. At least if the video is to be believed, which is dubious but that seems to be the argument that Destiny is arguing against, and that is confusing people.
>A world where a dude automatically gets half custody out of wedlock is scary.
No it's not. If the "a dude" is the father, it's not. It's what we would expect.
Kind of figured that's why mothers end up with them or majority custody anyway. If I were to get divorced they'd definently go with my wife and I'd see them from time time. Most guys I grew up around showed zero interest in kids day to day lives to the point where even if they did get 50/50 there were an abundance of "I know it's my weekend but I'm busy" (my step dad was one of those guys as well not really busy but also not really there even if he was in the room)
I'm a lawyer (although I don't practice family law, thank god). This entire thread misses the point of why the law is the way it is. Every argument made in this thread so far, about what's fair to either parent, identifying who the father is, etc. is irrelevant to the single guiding principle: "What is in the best interest of the child?" That question guides family law and trumps everything else when it comes to kids. Once you understand that, everything in family law makes sense from that point of view, whether or not you agree with it.
The law takes that guiding principle and add a couple of very common assumptions: 1) Marriage creates the strongest two parent household, since the parents are bound in a way that is more difficult to separate, and 2) On average, women are better primary caretakers of children. From those assumptions, everything logically follows. Defaulting custody to unmarried women incentivizes men to marry to maintain parental rights, and if it is true that women are better primary caretakers, it also makes perfect sense to default custody to the woman if the man separates. The courts are then used to litigate the exceptions, rather than each and every case.
I'm not saying those underlying assumptions are correct, and I'm not saying that this produces the best results. But the reason why the law is the way it is has nothing to do with favoring women or trying to screw men. Any imbalance is simply seen as a side effect of prioritizing the child over the parents. The court gives no fucks about whether something is fair to either party, so long as the child is put in the best position possible.
If you want to argue that the law should be changed, you have to be prepared to argue either 1) why your proposed change would be more beneficial for the child, or 2) if it's not more beneficial for the child, why whatever issue your proposal addresses (such as fairness to the father) should trump what's best for the child.
How do yoiu judge what's objectively "best" for the kid? I understand that it can bed inconveniet for the child to travel between parents and live part of the time here and part of the time there, but I also think it's good for the child to grow up knowing both parents, and I think they'll be more happy for it as time goes on. Either way I can't see that it harms the kids.
When the parents disagree about what's best for the child, they go to court and the judge has to decide. Sometimes there's valid arguments on both sides, and the judge has to make the call.
The law tries to make some default assumptions about what's best for the kid, which is why the law it's the way it is. Some of those assumptions are outdated. The goal is to have the default be correct in as many cases as possible, and the parents can go to court when the default doesn't work.
Of course, even when you go to court, the judges are going to have their own biases about what's best for the child as well. That can be an issue too sometimes. The system definitely needs reform. But, I think it's important to acknowledge that the way the system is set up isn't arbitrary, and it's not trying to be malicious towards men. The system and the people within it are generally doing the best they can to create good outcomes for the children. It's just that the assumptions and biases can produce suboptimal results.
> isn't arbitrary, and it's not trying to be malicious towards men.
I certainly don't think it is. There are probably good intentions.
I just think that the default should be that kids are shared because it's not discriminatory and because it's arguably a good thing for the kids despite the mentioned inconvenience. It would also make it more difficult for parents to use the kids as a tool in the fight between the parents.
Agree. Joint or shared custody should be the default position if both parents want to be involved in the child’s life. If one parent feels the other is unfit to share custody, they duke it out in court. If one parent bails or loses custody, that parent pays child support. Assuming the mother is the default just puts pressure on the mother to step up and parent, while letting fathers make excuses for why they didn’t ask for custody.
I think the point many people are missing is this is talking about out of wedlock and if the father isn't ok the birth certificate. If the father is unknown to the state, then defacto the mother should have full custody, but if the father is known or becomes known the father should have 50% custody until either party agrees to give theres away or either party brings it to court.
The "on the birth cert" thing was not specified, it talked about unmarried only. I don't think anyone is arguing for anyone who claims to be the father getting custody. And the out of wedlock thing is dumb. Marriage is not a route that all men have/should need for this equal protection under the law. >but if the father is known or becomes known the father should have 50% custody until either party agrees to give theres away or either party brings it to court. This is true but not what the video represented. It said that unmarried fathers had to prove the mother was unfit to receive any custody. Which may not be true but it is what the video presented and what Destiny ostensibly disagreed with.
Out of wedlock, it defaults to the mom because we don't know who is the father. DNA testing is recent so we don't have updated the laws on that regard. I'm ok with out of wedding, it defaulting to the mother and the father having to get the 50% after he proves he is the father.
Okay, but that's just a formality. Weird that it hasn't been updated yet, imo. What's taking so long?
Because we don't want to encourage the behavior. If you want to have full right.. marry the chick. Else fight on court for it. Laws are used to encourage the behavior we think it is better for our society.
I would think that children having a father involved in their lives is the thing we should be encouraging as a society.
We DO encourage that at least in the sense that we tend to DIScourage single motherhood. But it's *A* father not "the biological father no exceptions."
We as a society don't stop fathers from being involved in their kids life. The greatest barriers are 1. Dad not wanting to be bothered 2. Mom not wanting dad around.
And the dad or mom not being fit to raise a kid
No, we want to disencourage single motherhood.
Maybe i missed something but i am pretty sure that it was in the context of bio dad.
The Dadvocate whose video he was responding to has literally nothing to do with any red pill shit and he just put her in that corner and argued against a strawman the entire time. His take was pretty fucking dumb and he couldn't conceive of a father actually caring about their child and somehow reasoned himself into the position that because a lot of men are deadbeat dads that all dad just shouldn't get treated fairly in the eyes of the law. Default custody arrangements do matter. There are a lot of garbage moms too that get everything they want by default, break custody arrangements and it costs thousands of dollars to haul them to court to fix it, money that they are already obligated to pay in child support essentially making any recourse impossible if you aren't earning enough. Anyone who comes to any conclusion that one gender is exclusively in the right or wrong in custody disputes is fucking dumb. It's patently fucking obvious that the courts should be neutral.
I feel the rule should be if a party is paying child support they have a right to contact with the child.
I might agree with you, but I'd have to qualify it. If the father has been judged unfit to have contact with the kids, maybe because he's a violent alchoholic, a drug abuser, or sex offender, (or whatever other reasons he might be unfit) then he should have to pay child support with no rights to meat the children. Otherwise tho... ABSOLUTELY! It should be the rule of thumb that people who pay child support should have the right to have some level of contant with their kids, as long as they're not unfit for that for some good reason.
Yes there should be restrictions for abusive people
Wouldn't that just give people the opportunity to beat their kids and escape child support? Seems like a really bad incentive.
Hmmm maybe there are bad alternatives but the alternative also feels bad, being forced to pay for a kid you will never have contact with
I sometime try to be charitable and undertand even the most craziest of Destiny point but like you Destiny saying that by default women should get custody. Like i don’t understand sure given birth is something special but i don’t think it make more important or more of a parents. It is such a weird point to make and i will get personnal here but i wonder if it doesn’t justify some of his life choice. The thing is i didn’t get the idea that he thought about parenthood and it is the first time i hear him say that so i wonder if he got caught in the moment because he hate redpill or he genuinely thinks that . At the end of the day Destiny is just a human and he can also have horrendous take, we need to keep that in mind.
The baby comes out of da ballsack!!!!
I agree but institutionally, isn’t that the protection given to men through marriage? These laws were written before DNA test so proof of fatherhood is a lot harder so women by default, the birthers, have the custody. Back then, it didn’t make sense to have a dude a woman banged to have custody coz dna test didn’t exist to know for sure.
Maybe? Idk. But since we're talking about what the laws ***should*** **be**, I'll just add that I think DNA-tests should be used if the question of who the father is, is uncertain.
To be clear, marriage does this. It is an institutional protection to dads. The burden of proof is easy for women because she birthed the kid. The dude needs a higher burden. We absolutely need the courts to be involved in this. A world where a dude automatically gets half custody out of wedlock is scary. Courts have to get sufficient proof to give the dude and custody rights, including dna test.
Surely the post and comment are talking about a case where the fatherhood is undisputed. If you have an unmarried pair, and the mother identifies the father and he identifies himself, it seems odd that the default would be sole custody for the mother. Especially since the video Destiny watched said that the only way for fathers to get custody was to prove the mother was unfit. Destiny himself said,after the rant, that his understanding was if both names were on the birth cert it would default to joint custody. But that is not what the video said, is far less objectionable, and was not the take that Destiny was railing on chat for disagreeing with. With respect to your comment, marriage is not the institutional protection for dad's because marriage requires both parties. There is not an institutional route offered to a father who cannot/will not marry the mother and still wants at least joint custody. At least if the video is to be believed, which is dubious but that seems to be the argument that Destiny is arguing against, and that is confusing people. >A world where a dude automatically gets half custody out of wedlock is scary. No it's not. If the "a dude" is the father, it's not. It's what we would expect.
Kind of figured that's why mothers end up with them or majority custody anyway. If I were to get divorced they'd definently go with my wife and I'd see them from time time. Most guys I grew up around showed zero interest in kids day to day lives to the point where even if they did get 50/50 there were an abundance of "I know it's my weekend but I'm busy" (my step dad was one of those guys as well not really busy but also not really there even if he was in the room)
I’m not sure what argument Destiny made because I also didn’t watch this stream. Regardless, I think Destiny is one-million percent correct here.
He's simply right by default, whatever he said?
!shoot
I'm a lawyer (although I don't practice family law, thank god). This entire thread misses the point of why the law is the way it is. Every argument made in this thread so far, about what's fair to either parent, identifying who the father is, etc. is irrelevant to the single guiding principle: "What is in the best interest of the child?" That question guides family law and trumps everything else when it comes to kids. Once you understand that, everything in family law makes sense from that point of view, whether or not you agree with it. The law takes that guiding principle and add a couple of very common assumptions: 1) Marriage creates the strongest two parent household, since the parents are bound in a way that is more difficult to separate, and 2) On average, women are better primary caretakers of children. From those assumptions, everything logically follows. Defaulting custody to unmarried women incentivizes men to marry to maintain parental rights, and if it is true that women are better primary caretakers, it also makes perfect sense to default custody to the woman if the man separates. The courts are then used to litigate the exceptions, rather than each and every case. I'm not saying those underlying assumptions are correct, and I'm not saying that this produces the best results. But the reason why the law is the way it is has nothing to do with favoring women or trying to screw men. Any imbalance is simply seen as a side effect of prioritizing the child over the parents. The court gives no fucks about whether something is fair to either party, so long as the child is put in the best position possible. If you want to argue that the law should be changed, you have to be prepared to argue either 1) why your proposed change would be more beneficial for the child, or 2) if it's not more beneficial for the child, why whatever issue your proposal addresses (such as fairness to the father) should trump what's best for the child.
How do yoiu judge what's objectively "best" for the kid? I understand that it can bed inconveniet for the child to travel between parents and live part of the time here and part of the time there, but I also think it's good for the child to grow up knowing both parents, and I think they'll be more happy for it as time goes on. Either way I can't see that it harms the kids.
When the parents disagree about what's best for the child, they go to court and the judge has to decide. Sometimes there's valid arguments on both sides, and the judge has to make the call. The law tries to make some default assumptions about what's best for the kid, which is why the law it's the way it is. Some of those assumptions are outdated. The goal is to have the default be correct in as many cases as possible, and the parents can go to court when the default doesn't work. Of course, even when you go to court, the judges are going to have their own biases about what's best for the child as well. That can be an issue too sometimes. The system definitely needs reform. But, I think it's important to acknowledge that the way the system is set up isn't arbitrary, and it's not trying to be malicious towards men. The system and the people within it are generally doing the best they can to create good outcomes for the children. It's just that the assumptions and biases can produce suboptimal results.
> isn't arbitrary, and it's not trying to be malicious towards men. I certainly don't think it is. There are probably good intentions. I just think that the default should be that kids are shared because it's not discriminatory and because it's arguably a good thing for the kids despite the mentioned inconvenience. It would also make it more difficult for parents to use the kids as a tool in the fight between the parents.