Seems like you're saying basically the same thing I am, only you're saying it's bias against men and I'm saying it's driven by intention to financially protect the state and crratinf stability for the child.

Is that bias against men? Especially when both those things are driven by male choice and patterns of behavior the establish before and after the divorce?

Before you come at me for "hating men" umderstand that when my parents split my dad should have taken us. They ended up not getting divorced but based on that time frame, he absolutely should have fotten custody if they had.

Still. I see the court's point of view on this. I don't like it, but I do recognize where it stems from, I see where men do not and will not help themselves here (broad strokes), and truly believe if you overturn things because you want to insist on calling it bias then you're going to hurt a lot of kids to pacify men's feelings. Not all the kids, some will be better off. But large scale numbers, you're going to hurt a lot more than you help.

It doesn't have to be that way, and I hope in time it's not, but right now that's reality. Frankly, it would help a lot of women too, if fathers got more true joint custody. It would alleviate many of the financial struggles moms find themselves in when they get full custody. It also creates another whole set of problems that will have to be dealt with.

The bottom line is, regardless of how the court approaches it, there's going to be charges and claims of "bias" or "favoritism".

Honestly, how would you handle a divorce with children, without harming any of the 4 parties involved (mother, father, child, court/state) when so much of what transpires in family court is not based on legal standards of evidentiary proof, but he said/she said and statistical trends?